I must admit that my view of the social functions of French Freemasonry is
over-simplified, in the opposite
direction to the view of Hugh Urban. Since no comprehensive study of the subject
exists, one is dependent on the
anecdotal evidence one finds most convincing.
On the very largest scale, looking at Freemasonry over its entire history and
expanse, it seems clear that its
overall function is to create a networking space for the ascendant bourgeoisie,
such previously marginalised
players as the jews, and those members of the previous (feudal) power elite who
considered that they would gain
more than they lost by collaborating with these rising classes.
However, especially when one is looking at the development and vicissitudes of
the higher degrees, such as those
created or organised by Willlermoz, Pasqually, or Saint-Martin, the interplay of
prejudice and speculation is
almost impenetrable. Urban has as much right to listen to those who claim that
such degrees allowed members of
the old nobility to infiltrate and gain control of significant parts of French
Freemasonry in the early
nineteenth century, as I have to maintain the opposite, viz., that these members
of the nobility were marginal
anyway or were exploited and harnessed by the ascendant bourgois elements.
Shortly after the Wilermoz period there was a spectacular split between the
haute bourgeoisie and the more
radical petit bourgeoisie in French Freemasonry, accompanied by a sort of coup
conducted on behalf of Napoleon
III. In such circumstances, both sides exaggerate the power of the other, for
polemical reasons.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com