Archive: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pp. 22-

Robison has just let us know that it was not the Illuminati that got secret societies banned in Bavaria, but a specific Freemason lodge. He moved from that revelation to further expound on the infiltration of Masonry of various new ideas. Remember: his gripe seems to be that Masonry is no longer a men's social club but now something different. Also, let's remember that he was never really into all of the ceremonies and rituals in the first place. 

His lament is now focused on a work titled "The Archives Mystico-Hermetiques." Add to this a separate book titled "Des Erreurs et de le Verites" and we have the problem with French masonry. These books add ideas that are a mixture of "mysticism, theosophy, Cabalistic whim, real Science, Fanaticism, and Freethinking, both in religion and politics."

What we, in the present day, have to understand is that this is simple neophobia. In the 18th century, mysticism was a fad, like spiritualism was a fad in the 19th. It wasn't really based on anything specific. Mysticism itself is hard to pin down for a proper definition. The kind that Robison describes here is the kind that you would get today from someone that claimed that they were "spiritual but not religious." They believe in something "deeper" that the physical world does not possess but they reject the dogmatism of organized religion. 

Robison has some admiration for these works, the first especially because while it is not an indecent work it weaves the themes of atheism, materialism, and licentiousness throughout and provides some relief against the rigid structure of social mores and religion. I hate to sound so repetitive so early on in this book, but I think he's giving away more than he intends to. Robison's problem so far is that Masonry is not stuffed with what counts for a liberal in the 18th century. They have these ideas about religion that are different than Robison's generation. It's just that things are different than he likes. 

The problem is that Robison is supposed to be telling us about a vast conspiracy against governments and religion. The only thing we have thus far is an old man yelling at a cloud. In lieu of proof of this conspiracy, he has only supplied us with "in my day..." Next thing you know he's going to start talking about that Viennese upstart Mozart needs to get his wig powdered properly and start playing real music. 

What is interesting is that I agree with Robison's ranting against mysticism. I don't like it because people often confuse it with what I do--which is philosophy. I get quite tired of telling people that Kabbalah is fine, but it's about as real as any other niche religious practice. I went through my religious searching in my younger days, I read the mysticism books, and they're fine...I guess. I like that they aren't as rigid and exclusionary as proper religions are, but I prefer to base my ethics on things other than pantheism. 

What else is in vogue in the 18th century is the concept of Deism. Deism is the idea that there is a specific god-being, but that divinity would have no interest in human affairs. It's a clockmaker god, a being that windes the clock and then looks at it once in awhile. This kind of god is utterly indifferent to us because it transcends our squabbles, emotions, and concerns. This is a god that cares not whether we go to church, pray, offer sacrifice, or have sex with the right gender. Famous Deists include all of the American Founders that you can see on money, a good deal of which, were also members of the Freemasons. 

Did someone like Ben Franklin become a Deist because of the Masons? I don't know, I never read his autobiography. He, as a famous natural philosopher (scientist in our day) and writer, would have been influential in spreading the ideas of deism either way. So it's very possible that American Deism gets a kick start from people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams being Masons and Deists. 

Is this the conspiracy that Robison is claiming? I don't know. What I do know is that he continues on discussing the strange mystical books that have been spreading throughout the lodges. I have not read any of these books. The ones that I mentioned above, I've heard about through other readings. I'm also not going to read them. It's irrelevant to understanding Robison's point: that this new fad the kids are into are rotting Masonic society from within. The nerve of these people, one lecture given at a lodge was so satirical of superstition (religion in 18th century terms) and credulity that it could have been written by non other than Voltaire! Of course, Robison is saying this as though it were a bad thing.