[317] Forestier, op. cit., p. 21. Cf. Engel, op. cit., p. 33.
[318] No clearer illustration of Weishaupt’s lack of nobility is needed than his treatment of his protector and patron, Ickstatt. Owing to a marriage which he had contracted in 1773, against the wishes of Ickstatt, a decided chill came over the relations between the two men. All considerations of gratitude were carelessly tossed aside by Weishaupt. Later, in utter disregard of the anticlericalism of his benefactor, Weishaupt entered into an intrigue with the Jesuit professor Stadler, to obtain a coveted ecclesiastical position for the latter. Ickstatt, hearing of this, renounced Weishaupt as an ingrate. Forestier, op. cit., pp. 22 et seq.
[319] Engel, op. cit., p. 31.
[320] Forestier, op. cit., p. 21.
[321] Ibid. Cf. Engel, op. cit., p. 32.
[322] Ibid., p. 22.
[323] Ibid., p. 25.
[324] Ibid.
[325] The motives which led Weishaupt to consider the formation of a secret organization of the general character indicated were not all of a kind. In part they were creditable, in part discreditable. That he had a genuine interest in the cause of liberalism and progress, born largely of the personal discomfort and injury he had experienced at the hands of intolerance and bigotry, there can be no honest doubt. But a thirst for power was also a fundamental element in his nature. The despotic character of the order which he attempted to build up is in itself a sufficient proof of this. Besides, the cast of his personal affairs at the time the organization was launched smacks loudly of the mans over-weening vanity and yearning for personal conquest. His break with Ickstatt had been followed by a breach between him and Lori on account of the constant recriminations in which Weishaupt engaged against his enemies in the university. The secret alliance he had formed with the Jesuit Stadler likewise soon dissolved. His complaints because of alleged infringements of his freedom of speech as a teacher were vehement. His interference in university affairs outside the proper sphere of his authority was frequent and involved him in numerous acrimonious verbal battles. (Engel seeks to relieve Weishaupt of part of the odium of these charges by shifting somewhat of the burden to other shoulders. (Cf. Geschichte des Illuminaten-Ordens, pp. 29–54.) His partiality is, however, sufficiently accounted for by the fact that at the time his work was published, he was the head of the revived Order of the Illuminati. Cf. op. cit., p. 467; cf. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. iii: article, “Illuminaten”). Yet none of these experiences brought home to the mind of Weishaupt that he was to blame. As to the matter of motive, Forestier’s comment is much to the point: “Ainsi le hardi confesseur de la vérité se trouvait seul à lutter visière levée contre la tourbe des bigots. Une volonté moins bien trempée aurait laissé sombrer dans une résignation inerte ou dans la manie de la persécution ce modeste professeur d’une Université sans prestige, perdu dans un coin de la Bavière, mal payé, mal vu de la majorité de ses collègues, mal noté par le Curateur, surveillé, soupçonné par tous ceux que scandalisait le radicalisme de ses opinions. Mais l’âme de Weishaupt disposait de deux puissants ressorts: la soif du prosélytisme et la volonté de puissance.” (Op. cit., pp. 25 et seq.) The view adopted by Kluckhohn is not essentially different: “Rachsucht, Ehrgeiz, Herrschbegier mischten sich in ihm mit dem Drange, grosses zu wirken und ein Woltäter der Menschheit zu werden.” (Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 2. Aufl., vol. vi, Leipzig, 1880: article, “Illuminaten,” p. 699.)
[326] Forestier, op. cit., p. 28. Weishaupt readily detected the disparate character of current Freemasonry, and for a brief time he was enthusiastic over the project of developing a rarified type of Masonry to which only men of superior talents should be admitted. For the reasons given, the idea was abandoned.