Focus: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pp. 142-164

 "The fragments and Horus are books which aim directly, and without any concealment, to destroy the authority of our scriptures, either as historical narrations or the revelations of the intentions of providence and of the future prospects of man."

Here we are presented with a strong temptation to find the books that he is talking about and explain whether or not he's wrong. In front of that temptation are two things: A) the first is that the books themselves are not proofs of anything but in his own description are merely attacks on Christianity. I am going to assume that these attacks on Christianity are not attacks on the whole of Christianity but rather on Robison's preferred brand of Christianity. Perhaps they discount the authority of the Pope, or perhaps they augment the authority of the Pope. More importantly though is B) Neither result matters. 

Attacking the majority religion of the European continent has nothing to do with the point of the book itself. Yes, of course, part of the full title is about overthrowing the religion and the governments of Europe; but here Robison isn't trying to prove a vast conspiracy--in way he's already done that. He's pointed out, very briefly, that a union of Germans was setting up a vast library system throughout the German states for the dastardly goal of promoting literacy and ideas. 

For Robison to point out that this German Union is publishing a book which attacks religion/morality/his Christianity--is a non-issue. The Union is in the pre-planning stage so far, there's no conspiracy because there's no secret intent. They are working toward establishing themselves. What they publish is up to them, but when Robison talks about a conspiracy what his audience and we are to think is that this group has been infiltrating the various political and religious positions with the aim of overthrowing them. Not publishing books that Robison doesn't like. 

The next two pages are filled with Robison's dislike for a person named Karl Friedrich Bahrdt and his writing. His name is peppered throughout this week's selection so frequently I had to take a trip to his wikipedia. Bahrdt seems to be the 18th century German version of a religious troll. He wrote quite a lot, but his writing was never regarded very highly, nor was he taken very seriously as a religious critic. Most of this reputation, and to repeat I have only the knowledge provided by the Wikipedia page, is that Bahrdt was an unlikeable person. Frequently in debt he moved from place to place and took to writing to earn a meagre income. According to the wiki his issue was that while he had read Enlightenment philosophy he didn't quite understand it enough to create his own version of it. Bahrdt is a mockery of someone like Voltaire, Diderot, Franklin, or Jefferson; and Robison is attacking low hanging fruit. I must point out again that even when he attacks someone like Voltaire, he never attacks his writing he only attacks some aspect of the person's life. I don't know if Robison is capable of taking on that kind of writing. However, if he is going to claim that this work is evil, maybe say something about the work other than it seeks to overturn the monopoly Christianity has on morality, because that just sounds like a difference of opinion. 

After this, what follows is strange. Robison really wants this guy to be connnected to the Illuminati and he can't find the evidence aside from a visit that Weishaupt made to the tavern that Bahrdt owned for a period the connection needs support. However the Illuminati member Philo wrote, according to Robison, that Bahrdt was of an "abominable character" and would this be objectionable to the order. I've read some of Weishaupt's actual book and he has the highest moral ideals for his membership. If Philo is writing against Bahrdt it's unlikely that he was a member or, if he was, he was at the bottom of the ladder. Then Robison tells us that the "Many in Germany believed..." that the Union and Bahrdt were members of the Illuminati--and this report of a popular opinion is accepted as evidence. Our Scotch scientist should know better. 

Then, for six pages, Robison tells us of other people's versions of Barhdt's life and death, for which I have little patience for such padding. I don't care about this man, I may read his book on the freedom of the press, but that's it. It's weird because Robison keeps telling us how little concern he has for this man and is licentiousness but then he keeps talking about how depraved his moral character was. Just move on...as I do in skipping this section. 

I think Robison even has little patience for these claims. The entire chapter closes with his introduction of the next idea--and here is where we can get excited again. This isn't about libraries, or secret reading societies. Robison is going to claim that the Illuminati, well I'll just quote him, "That the Illuminati and other hidden Cosmo-political societies had some influence in bringing about the French Revolution, or at least accelerated it, can hardly be doubted."

Now we're getting to it.