by Jean-Jacques COURTEY, Docteur in Economic Geography, Ph.D
____________________________
Our character of the day can appear rather contradictory on occasion, nowadays. He always thought to be tough, demanding, and selective in his commitments. He had friends and admirers among some Crowned heads. He was considered as a model of the man who could see through things in an insuperable way, although very paradoxical sometimes. He is very famous worlwide still today for all his writings - including tragedies and historical works -, and he is remaining a great representative of the French spirit. He was so sure of himself as a convinced anticlerical, against the Catholic Religion, that he never thought at the end to be on the way of becoming a kind of "Jesuit". In 1764, fourteen years before he had become a free mason, he even rejoiced that the Jesuits had been expelled from France. It was a position opposed to that which he had taken in 1759, when the Marquis of Pombal (1699 - 1782) expelled the Company of Jesus from Portugal, under invented pretexts according to him. Nonetheless, it seems that he wasn't aware enough of the proud and great history of Scotland : we will then give some important precisions about it. Yet it's true nevertheless, that he was not an atheist, but a deist !
Promoter among others of the Enlightment century, he never fully understood yet the parallel roots of Free Masonry, and their straight connection with an aim : the Restoration of the Stuart dynasty on the throne of Great Britain and Ireland. He had been sponsored by Benjamin Franklin (1706 -1790), who was a personal friend of the Jesuit father John Carroll (1735 - 1815) - the latter became the first Catholic Bishop of the USA with his recommendation in 1789. It seems our character of the day had an accelerated initiation, owing to his celebrity, in the Nine Sisters' lodge of Paris two months before his death. Did he reach at once the 4th degree of "Scottish Master", by becoming ipso facto a "Profès of the 4th degree" (id est a "real Jesuit" according to the rules of the Company of Jesus) ? Nicolas de Bonneville (1760 - 1828), a high rank free mason and a bookseller-printer, thought so by wondering if he realized it. One can find this detail in his published work untitled "The Jesuits chased from the Masonry and their dagger broken by the Masons" (London, 1788). He even wondered himself facetiously if he had suspected something ?
The answer could be perhaps, as our character of the day compared the assembly of free masons of the "Nine Sisters's lodge" (1776 - 1792) to... the congregation of Jesuits. But it is true that he had studied for seven years in a Jesuit boarding school (the college Louis le Grand in Paris) from ten. So he was familiar with the Jesuit thinking. Anyway, he was at the end of his life, having a disease of languor (cancer it seems). And he knew the Jesuits consistently choose people among the best ones. Our character of the day has remained famous in history for his bite, his freedom of mind, and the importance that he attached to free will (like the Jesuits for that matter). This is undoubtedly appearing in his philosophical works, often very light and humorous. And the fact is that he was clearly chosen, in spite of himself. Besides, the Jesuit reasoning is having precise characteristics : the thought is plastic, fluid, subtle, and penetrating. It is rather progressive (so not dogmatic usually), and sometimes marked by a touch of audacity that gives it some panache. Even the founder of the Society of Jesus (in 1540 at Montmartre in Paris), Saint Ignatius Lopez of Loyola (1491 - 1556), had had some misfortunes with the Dominican Inquisition. He had for a while been almost considered as a heretic in Spain. But, he had managed to get away from that, thanks to the finesse of his answers on his "Spiritual exercises", and equally to luck, and some well-placed protections !
At this point, can you guess who is our famous character of the day ? You start to have an idea ! Well let's go on then our narration. About the beginnings of speculative Free masonry, the screen of the Templar origin had been reactivited skillfully by the Jesuits only to preserve themselves, in an increasingly hostile environment. Don't forget they had heavily suffered under Queen Elisabeth I (1533 - 1603) and her successors. Above that, the Templar reference for Free Masonry is not really wrong, to put it properly. It is explaining why still nowadays a part of Free Masons are keeping this reference, while others have abandoned it in 1782 in the Convent of Wilhelmsbad (Hesse, presently in Germany). As a matter of fact, the Knights Templar refuged in Scotland effectively helped Robert the Bruce (1274 - 1329) to maintain his title of King of Scotland - he became King in 1306 -, after their common victory against the English in the famous battle of Bannockburn (1314). And it seems that the Mother-Lodge of Kilwinning (Scotland) already existed as an operative one (so not yet as a speculative one). And among the Templars, there were not only knights but also masons simply constructors of buildings. It was just a different side of the truth !
The Stuart (initially Stewart) were just the following Scottish dynasty after The Bruce one. They were straightly linked by blood ties : Robert Stewart (1316- 1390) was the grandson of Robert the Bruce, and succeeded his uncle David II (1324 - 1371) to the Scottish throne in 1371, under the name of Robert II. First, the Jesuits through an imaged Free Masonry full of transpositions and skilful allegories, wanted to put back the Stuart dynasty on the British throne, with Charles II (1630 - 1685) : he was the son of the beheaded King Charles I (1600 - 1649), and great-grandson of Mary Stuart (1542 - 1587), Queen of Scotland, and unhappy cousin of Queen Elisabeth I of England. As a matter of fact, the Stuart - and their Jesuit supporters - were in a strong opposition to the Lord Protector of the British republican dictatorship, Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658). This aim was finally attained with the support of his cousin, King Louis XIV (1638 - 1715), two years after the death of Cromwell, in 1660. Charles II, "the child of the widow" (King Charles I' s wife, Henriette de France - 1609 - 1669) was nicknamed "Merry Charles", by contrast with Oliver Cromwell, "the rough Puritanist" !
Then, the Jesuits supported Charles Edward Stuart (1720 - 1788). And this leads us into the epic and romantic story of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" (1720 - 1788), who was facing George II (1683 - 1760), from the Hanovrian dynasty. As a matter of fact, after Queen Ann (1665 - 1714), the last Stuart sovereign of England, Scotland and Ireland, the throne passed to the Hanover dynasty, through George I (1660 - 1727), previously Duke of Brunswick-Lunebourg. In the case of this last Stuart pretender to the British throne, he was defeated in Culloden (1746), near Inverness - Scotland -, after brilliant beginnings. However, he could escape from the hunt for man of William-August, the victorious and implacable Duke of Cumberland (1721 - 1765), son of George II. He very narrowly saved his life with the ultimate and surprising help of the tender Flora Mac Donald (1772 - 1790), who boldy hid him under the folds of her large dress. And he could then luckily escape to the continent (France first, the homeland of Voltaire - 1694 - 1778), with the help of her father !
We have to admit that we have felt a certain emotion when we visited the sites of Bannockburn and Culloden, years ago, with our pretty and nice fiancée, after a cruise on the Loch Ness (as dark as ink) beside the charming and lively town of Inverness. The Kingdom of Scotland is very captivating and endearing, and it has got some magic with its magnificent landscapes sometimes out of time. It is so picturesque and full of history !
We think you have finally understood that our paradoxical character of the day is the famous Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet, 1694 - 1778). The demanding attitude of Voltaire towards the Nobility and the Clergy was due to a bad incident he had to suffer in January 1726 : he was beaten in Paris with clubs by lacqueys, on the order of the Knight Guy-Auguste de Rohan (1683- 1760), a relative of the famous Cardinal of Rohan (1734 -1803), to remind him of his place which he never accepted...even he had to spend a short stay in La Bastille jail !
But it is true that his stay of two weeks, was significantly far less than that of the Cardinal Louis-René de Rohan, during the never really clarified "Case of the Queen's necklace" (1785- 1786) : people still ignore nowadays, that if he was finally released from this "four stars" jail, he was nevertheless sentenced to pay back a huge amount of money to the jewellers Boehmer and Bassenge for this necklace, with interests. Thus, his complete innocence was not appearing so obvious. And the question of an obscure dynastic rivalry between Valois and Bourbons, has never been studied concerning the main instigator of the affair, Jeanne de Valois, Countess of La Motte (1756 - 1791 ?). As a matter of fact, the latter was a descendant of King Henri II (1519 - 1559)...with the fateful destiny predicted by Nostradamus (1503 - 1566) in the Centuria I - Quatrain 35 of his famous Prophecies !
Voltaire is very much criticized nowadays in France : he wouldn't have been "woke" enough, and he would have had many prejudices. If people want to critize the sometimes intolerant attitude of Voltaire, there is a simpler and less anachronistic way : one could, for example, point out his wicked and rather uncaring behaviour towards the peaceful Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778), who admired him initially. He, Ferney's "business man", didn't consider him at all as a pre-revolutionary, but as a sweet dreamer only. He thought that through his publication of 1762, "Of the social contract", Rousseau was implicitly criticizing his country of origin, the Republic of Geneva where he had made him persona non grata, and not the Kingdom of France where he was staying as a kind of political refugee !
Nobody knows if they reconciled themselves beyond the grave, in the place of their last rest, the Pantheon in Paris. But no one can take away from Voltaire, and Rousseau as well, that they were great spirits of the XVIIIth century, and that they left immense works - may be too much extrapolated sometimes. Yet, at the same time they were just men with the flaws and qualities of their time. It is always unfair to judge people from the past with our current and ephemeral vision. That is what the history of mentalities teaches us !
As a matter of fact, we must first restore the thought of the relevant era without prejudice, by driving back into the atmosphere of this era. And this requires a great effort on oneself and a great concern for objectivity. Above that, we don't know if by fifty years or even far less, our epoch will not be judged as too extreme, narrow minded, destructurated, and absurd or without tail nor head (in a word idotic)...to explain its possible sudden collapse !
It is remarkable that Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (1731 - 1793) and Nicolas de Bonneville had about the same analysis on the importance of the Jesuits in the development of Free-Masonry, especially through its high grades (from the 4th). Bode is this German musician and editor who had succeeded Johann Adam Weishaupt (1748 - 1830), as second Grand Master of the Illuminati of Bavaria, from 1785 : he substituted for him with his agreement. And Bonneville became one of his enthusiastic disciples !
The first merit of Voltaire is to have written in a French language accessible to all. He was never "boring", but on the opposite quite a fun, notably with his philosophical tales like Candide, Zadig, Micromegas, or others. Nowadays, it may even appear as rare. His greatness lyed in his simplicity and frankness. It was someone who was neither strait-laced nor pretentious. And when he defended different causes with all his heart, like the Calas, the Sirven, or the Chevalier de la Barre cases (1761 - 1765), he was really taking risks in front of the Established order. Today, people who call themselves "committed" are often more in posture, and don't take much risks. That's why we are so surprised, impressed, or even mesmerized when it's not the case !
