[563] Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 9, 10, 13 et seq., 21.
[564] Ibid., pp. 52 et seq., 66, 76. Barruel labors hard to save himself from the cruel necessity of including Montesquieu in the list of conspirators. He finds it “painful to apply such a reproach to this celebrated writer.” (Ibid., p. 76.) With some cleverness he remarks: “He [Montesquieu] did not conspire by setting up his systems, but his systems formed conspirators.” (Ibid., p. 98.)
[565] Ibid., p. 101.
[566] Barruel, op. cit., pp. 130, 131, 157 et seq.
[567] Ibid., pp. 159 et seq.
[568] Barruel contended that the popular uprisings of the period in Geneva, Bohemia, Transylvania, and even among the negroes of St. Domingo, were all directly due to the conspiracy. Cf. Barruel, pp. 205 et seq., 255 et seq., 260 et seq., 271.
[569] Barruel’s estimate of Freemasonry was appreciably lower than that of Robison. Its mysteries were to be traced to Manes, and to the introduction of Manichaeism into Europe in the period of Frederich II (1221–1250). Condorcet was appealed to for proof in this connection. Cf. Barruel, pp. 399 et seq. The general idea that the Freemasons were responsible for the campaign against monarchy and the Catholic religion which, many believed, characterized the greater part of the eighteenth century, had already been made familiar to the French by the ecclesiastics Larudan and Lefranc. Cf. Forestier, pp. 684 et seq.
[570] By the occult lodges Barruel meant those whose members had received the higher mysteries and degrees. Cf. Barruel, vol. ii, p. 293.
[571] Ibid., pp. 276, 277, 278, 279.
[572] Ibid., pp. 436 et seq.