instruction will not contribute to that more than nutrition and movement contributes to the growth of the animal body […]”.
Wieland criticizes secret societies for their habit of demanding that members take an oath that is unknown to the authorities of the country in question. In doing so, Wieland places his work in a very long tradition of anti-masonic literature. Beginning with the first revealing articles and texts published on freemasonry in the 1720s and 1730s, this argument against freemasonry was mentioned over and over again. How can government authorities be sure that members of secret societies will not conspire against them if their secret obligations remain unknown? On the other hand, to be a cosmopolite requires no oath. There is no need to hide secrets, or to make a secret out of cosmopolitan principles and ambitions. All humans and, in fact, all beings are regarded as parts of the same universal community. However, human beings neither play the most important role nor are subjected to an arbitrary fate. They are not a blind tool of foreign powers, but instead as intellectual beings they are enabled to use their will and mind in order to have an impact upon the surrounding world. From this general anti-deterministic position, Wieland derives a dual principle: to leave aside what human spirit cannot influence and to focus instead on what can be changed by reason and will. The former principle has close connections to Epicurean teaching, where one of the main principles is to remain unimpressed by what we in fact can neither perceive nor affect. I am convinced that a closer examination of Epicureanism and its immense importance for the Enlightenment will reveal significant dimensions for our comprehension of freemasonry and other fraternal organisations during the period.
The latter principle – to focus on what can be changed – reflects the duty of“ utmost perfection” explicitly mentioned by Wieland. Each human being has received a gift from nature and it is up to the surrounding conditions to promote the development and refinement of those unique qualities. There is no excuse for not trying to improve upon those gifts. These are the foundations of cosmopolitan virtues, and from here it is possible to make a distinction between“ world dwellers” and“ world citizens”. World dwellers are passive – on the same level as animals. The world citizen, on the other hand, is the one who tries to improve his usefulness in order to contribute to the best of the“ grand city of God”. Wieland, definitely belonging to the faction of radical Enlightenment, nevertheless uses this term that links him back to the previously mentioned tradition of utopian cities. Cosmopolitans acknowledge no other superiors than necessity and the law of nature. Wieland mentions here“ the highest governor of the universe”, a terminology closely connected with freemasonry, which often refers to a“ Great Architect of the Universe” as the Supreme Being who has created the world. But besides this subordination under the highest governor of the universe, among cosmopolitans only rules supplement equality. Authority and instructions are only taken from nature: there are no other degrees than the different steps of capability and inner moral righteousness. There is no agenda to revive a long-time defunct Order, to unite churches, or to reform the world according to their minds. Cosmopolitans do not
74