Freemasons, the Illuminati and the French Revolution

We as Freemasons often get accused of being the “funny handshake brigade”, the “trouser leg lot”, the “secret society” or perhaps with more sinister connotations, part of the “Illuminati”. When I joined, like most of the people making the comments,  I had never even heard of the Illuminati, so I undertook  my own researches. . .

There are many conspiracy theories and myths surrounding the existence of the Illuminati and no scholar can doubt their existence, but I think we should strive to consider a few indisputable facts, rather than accept the nonsense that some sensationalist authors have been putting about:

• Fact 1: The Illuminati organisation had a very short life, probably less than 20 years at the most and no longer exists.
• Fact 2: Despite alarmist theories about the Illuminati having set out to destroy the Christian religion, it did not happen and would have had no chance of succeeding.
• Fact 3: There WAS a limited attempt to take over German Freemasonry by certain Illuminati members, but there is no evidence that there was any serious attempt to spread this to France, England or any other country where Freemasonry was practiced.

These three facts might well be denied by the more determined Conspiracy theorists, but when they are asked to produce evidence to the contrary, they are either unable to do so, or the evidence they produce is unfounded or deeply flawed.

Before we look at the Illuminati phenomenon, we need to explain the context in which it arose. It is useful in this respect to consider the situation in 18^th Century Germany in particular and later to consider what happened in France.

It may be an oversimplification, but the Protestant northern states of Germany and the Catholic southern states in the mid-to-late 18^th century rarely came into conflict concerning religion. One of the ways in which the extremes of either faction could be controlled by the State was to restrict, or in some cases to ban certain organizations. In this regard, it is of particular interest, in the light of what was to follow, that responding to pressure from Austria, the Jesuit Order was dissolved in July 1773 by Pope Clement the 14^th. Almost immediately after this decree, the Pope, who until that point had been in robust good health, became very ill and it is usually accepted that he had been poisoned. He died in September 1774 aged 68. 

The dissolution of the Jesuits is a pivotal point in the history of the Illuminati, because it brought about changes at the University of Ingolstadt which resulted in Adam Weishaupt, in 1773, becoming professor of Canon law. The Jesuits had held this important seat for many years and Weishaupt had the greatest difficulty in overcoming their continued influence. For the next two years he studied many of the philosophies of recent writers and this probably only intensified his dissatisfaction with the then, teachings of the church.

Freemasonry had been exported to Germany from England via France & the Low Countries and provided two interesting effects: Firstly, it allowed like-minded people to associate with each other in relatively private circumstances, and Secondly the element of secrecy ascribed to its rituals, struck a chord in the minds of people who were seeking answers that they could not get from religion.

Being a newly introduced concept, the obligation of unalterability was missing and the simple Three Degrees of Freemasonry were expanded and enlarged upon by enthusiasts, and just as often by charlatans, to create a mythical but exciting series of extra or higher degrees with absolutely no foundation.

This brought about chaos and confusion. New and increasingly bizarre degrees were being tacked onto Craft Masonry in large numbers. Many regular Lodges introduced these ‘higher’ degrees rather than lose their members to the more exciting Lodges that practiced them. Baron Karl von Hund who believed he was tasked with reviving the Knights Templar in Germany formed the ‘Strict Observance’ and there was a burgeoning of the so-called Scottish Rite, (which was in fact little or nothing to do with Scotland). There was a desire to draw these degrees into one Order, but the task was ‘huge’. 

The ‘Strict Observance’ was followed by the ‘Rectified Observance’ which in turn transmuted into something else and so it went on. Added to this dysfunctional environment arose other movements such as the Rosicrucians, the Mesmerists and the Martinists. Membership seemed to flow sporadically between these various societies and organisations dependant on which seemed more exciting at the time.

It was in this atmosphere that Weishaupt was initiated into the Lodge “Theodore zum guten Rath” at Munich in 1777. However, it is interesting to note that he had already founded the Illuminati a year before, on the first of May 1776. This, a fact that seriously disrupts the claims of the anti-mason brigade. He was a member of the Illuminati before he was even Initiated into the Craft!

His motive in founding the Illuminati is often ascribed to sinister reasons, more specifically for example to “bring about the overthrow of the Christian religion”.

The original tenets of the Illuminati as laid down by Weishaupt, naming himself brother Spartacus (which in reality is little more sinister than referring to someone as Brother Warden) were “To spread to equality and freedom throughout Society”. There is absolutely no mention of anti-church objectives, but it DOES perhaps give us a flavour of public opinion around that time?

It has to be acknowledged however that as the society developed, its membership began not to truly reflect these initially honourable principles. 

This was, to some extent, also true for Freemasonry. The fact was, that in France and Germany, most of the societies, including Masonic Lodges, recruited mainly from the nobility, the moneyed elite and the upper-middle classes. 

As time went on, the Illuminati leaders adopted some of the existing higher degrees and restricted their disclosure to carefully selected individuals. Weishaupt initially imposed complete and despotic control over the order and since he was a difficult and irascible man, this eventually led to him losing the confidence of enough of the members to allow unscrupulous and self-serving individuals to gain control and steer the Order towards their own ends. It is undeniable that at this time, the Illuminati began to develop a system of control and subversion for their own ends.

The records show that the actual existence of the Illuminati Order, was however remarkably short. It lasted from May 1776 until around 1786 when it was banned and Weishaupt fled from Bavaria. Increasingly, during its life the Order had become more and more restrictive and controlling of its members. The historian Dr Wolfgang Riedel comments:

“Independence of thought and judgment. . . was specifically prevented by the order of the Illuminati’s rules and regulations. Enlightenment takes place here, if it takes place at all, precisely under the direction of another, namely under that of the ”Superiors”. (of the Order.)

It was the arrival amongst its members of Baron Karl von Hund (remember von Hund’s ‘Strict Observance’ and Knights Templar fetish?), Johann August von Starck and Xavier von Zwack that directed the Illuminati into a coordinated effort to take control of the German Masonic Lodges. It is probably unwise to accept the traditional view that they were all charlatans. It seems that they actually believed a lot of the speculative material they spouted and ‘belief inspires enthusiasm’. Enthusiasm is infectious and that is possibly why they were so successful for a time. Fortunately, the effects of these damaging plans were not to last for very long. These comments apply similarly to other ‘pretenders’ such as Mesmer and Cagliostro.

Starck and Zwack in particular were self-serving, dodgy, characters. Starck and von Hund did not get on, and a serious power struggle developed between them that turned the Illuminati into the secretive and power hungry organization that many people nowadays believe it to have been.

Ironically this insidious take-over of Freemasonry was always bound to fail because the authorities, some of whom were themselves Freemasons, realised the real danger that the Illuminati then represented. This scheme could have been a very real threat to respectable Freemasonry had its succeeded. The principal architect was  Xavier von Zwack, who used the Illuminati name Cato. Somewhat ironically, ‘Cato’ was the staunch advocate for liberty and the preservation of the principles of the Roman Republic around 95BCE.

Suppression and disintegration were bound to follow and the organization collapsed shortly after the beginning of the French Revolution and despite the speculations of Dan Brown and the protestations of others, there is no tangible evidence that it survived for more than ten years, never mind if “it still exists”.

I need now to turn to the often-expressed aspect of the conspiracy theory that the Illuminati took over French Freemasonry and that Freemasonry was the guiding force behind the French Revolution.

Let us again look at the facts, rather than the innuendo and delusional theories;

It is a fact that a few Illuminati travelled to Paris before the Revolution and introduced their credo to French Freemasons but their influence was minimal: There is considerable body of academic research that shows that the Illuminati membership in Bavaria was never more than 600. It did spread with limited effect as far as Italy and Hungary but it gained very little momentum and died out within the actual lifetime of the founders.

One or two senior Illuminati travelled to Paris to spread the word and Mirabeau, a French Freemason, had actually visited Germany and seemed impressed with the Illuminati. That seems to be the limit of the influence or indeed the infiltration.

Considerable research has been undertaken in the late 1900’s into the subject and a great deal of information sourced, not only from respected mainstream historians, but from Marxists like Jacques Godechot and from the library in Freemasons Hall. Significant effort has been undertaken to research much anti-masonic literature. I can say that there is no doubt that the Illuminati had very little, if any, influence over French Freemasonry:

If we simply look at the size of Freemasonry in France immediately before the Revolution, there is an undisputable fact that there were more than a thousand Lodges working under the Grand Orient. Almost all of these Lodges ceased to meet by 1793, and after the end of the Revolution, following the coup of Brumaire in November 1799, only 75 lodges remained working. Membership of those thousand lodges would have been upward of 30,000. So it is stretching belief to suppose that a handful of Illuminati could have taken over all of French Freemasonry.

The vexing question as to; how much influence Freemasons had over the genesis of the French Revolution, has been argued back and forth probably since 1799.

So if we keep an open mind, what to do we find? With the help of many historical documents and support of historical opinion, a reasonably accurate picture of the number and quality of Freemasons that were definitely involved in the Revolution has been collated:

It would take too long this evening to reiterate the history back to the beginning of the Revolution, but these were the salient events that shaped it:

1. The failure of French government to deal effectively with the economy.
2. The weak and near-sighted attitude of the King Louis XVI (16^th).
3. The growing awareness and desire of the concept of democracy.
4. The emergence of a class of people, deeply dissatisfied with the status quo.

These four elements combined to form a virtual powder Keg. The lighted fuse was introduced when the King made the disastrous mistake of convening the Estates General in 1789, a meeting of representatives of the French clergy, nobility and commoners in Versailles to address the country’s financial crisis.

What happened next was unpredictable at the time, but looking back more than 200 years, seems perhaps inevitable. The King and those advising him, made ‘mistake after mistake’ in handling the situation and despite the divisions between the three classes of delegates, a new and powerful organization developed calling themselves the Constituent or National Convention.

Even then, it wouldn’t have been too late for the King to recover the situation, but he began to send letters to his brother-in-law; the Emperor of Austria, which the Convention discovered and decided were treasonable to the people of France. . . . The rest, as the saying goes “is history”.

Let us now look at the anti-masonic movement that developed out of this.

There was little or no published anti-masonic opinion before the revolution and the only significant voices began to be heard after 1799, when a French Jesuit priest; “Abbé Barruel” whilst being afforded Exile in London, penned a book declaring that Freemasons were the controlling force behind the Revolution.

I need not here dilate on Barruel and others and their theories but having created the idea that Freemasons were controlling the Revolution through very questionable facts, the anti-masonic movement has continued ever since based on hand-me-down theories, supposition and more recently, internet sensationalism.

So how powerful was Freemasonry as an influence, and indeed, did it actually control and bring about the Revolution?

The facts are indisputable as far as the National Convention is concerned. A significant percentage of the members were Freemasons. Having researched over 1400 names and personal details of members of the governing bodies of the Revolution in the collection of the National Archives of France (which is in fact online and searchable, be it in French of course) one can only agree with the majority view; that the membership of the Convention broken down by the different Estates shows a that significant minority were Freemasons:

The Convention was divided into three sections or orders, known somewhat unimaginatively as the First, Second and Third Estates: The First Estate was the clergy, of which, despite being Catholic, about 8% were Masons. The Second Estate was the Nobility with perhaps 17% Masons and the Third Estate was the People of which we find around 30% were (or may have been) Masons.

The fact that the Third Estate was so heavily Masonic, is not perhaps, as sinister as it sounds. It simply reflects several important factors:

Firstly, the Third Estate was not truly representative of the “People“ in the sense that all people were not necessarily eligible to be candidates for election. You had to be a Property Owner with a minimum amount of monetary worth and what transpired was in fact that at least 90% of the Third Estate were either Lawyers, Academics or Minor Clergy such as Parish Priests with a few Merchants and Gentlemen farmers.

In like manner, Freemasonry in France was supposed to be “for all men”, but in fact only a tiny number of its members were drawn from the lower classes. Most of the Brethren belonged to the middle classes, the so-called Bourgeoisie, and in a lot of cases from the gentry or ‘petite noblesse’. 

So, what we find here, is a correlation between the third estate being middle and upper class and Freemasonry being appealing to that same sector. It is true that many members of the Estates General and the Convention were Freemasons but that doesn’t mean that there was a Masonic agenda. In fact, the Royalists, who by 1790 became the so-called enemies of the people, similarly had a significant minority of Masons in their ranks. Those that did not have the good sense to leave France were guillotined in large numbers, Freemason or not.

Freemasonry had been seen by some people, as a society that protects and advances the interests of its own members, despite the fact that few Freemasons actually did go out of their way to protect and promote such anti-social traits. The question I would thus pose is this:

If Freemasons had an agenda to protect and promote their own members’ interests, how came it about, that so many Freemasons were in fact, put to Madame Guillotine?

Who were these Freemasons that were alleged to have taken control of the Revolution? Let us look at the leading lights of the Revolution just in one area; that of the formidable “Reign of Terror”.

Was Robespierre a Freemason? Almost certainly he was not and no record of his membership has ever been uncovered. His grandfather who had the same Christian name was certainly a Mason, but there are no records that prove if his father was or not and as we know not all sons follow in their father’s Masonic footprints. We do have a very complete biography of Robespierre right through his short life, but there is absolutely no single mention or even hint that he was a Mason.

What about the other leading lights? Let us just briefly categorize them as Masons and non-masons. You may not recognize all of these names, but I invite  you to concentrate on the numbers:

Definite Masons; Lepeletier and Jean-Paul Marut, who were both murdered, Desmoulins, Barbaroux, Fauchet, Hébert and the Duke of Orleans, Bailly, Danton and Nicholas de Bonneville who were all guillotined. Kerengal was possibly  the only one to live to old age.

Those who were almost certainly not Masons but extremely important in the government; Robespierre, Rochefoucauld, Alexandre and Charles Lameth, Sieyes, Clavière, Phillippe de Bas, Delmas, Breard, Cambron and the list goes on, but I don’t want to bore you.

The most significant and well-known controlling bodies in the Revolution were arguably the Committee of General Security and the Committee of Public Safety.

The Committee of Public Safety is probably the one most of you know about lead and directed by citizen Robespierre. There were originally 17 members and all but three of them eventually went to the Guillotine themselves. About half of them were Masons and all but one of these had their heads separated from their bodies.

If we look at what happened to those that came later to that Committee, the chances for Freemasons to survive the experience were very, very slim. In total 22 Masons have been identified that served on the Committee. 17 were eventually guillotined, one was assassinated, two died in prison, one of them was almost certainly poisoned and two ‘rode out’ the Revolution and the Empire, and died at a respectable age. But even for these last two there was a sting in the tail, as after the restoration in 1816, the ‘Law of the Regicides’ was invoked, exiling all those members of the Convention who had voted for the death of Louis XVI.

So, to sum up, I quote the words of Jacques Godechot a ‘Marxist ‘Left Wing’ professor of History who would have no reason to be a supporter of Freemasonry: 

“How would a secret organization have been able to rouse huge numbers of peasants, bourgeoisie and artisans everywhere? It would have to possess power and ramifications that Freemasonry never had.”

There is no tangible or credible evidence that Freemasonry and especially the Illuminati was, or could have been the driving force behind the French Revolution. The truth is that a significant proportion of the revolutionaries were Freemasons, in the same way that they were Frenchmen. It was a factor of life not a conspiracy.