constitute a state within a state; they do not require a constitution, or superiors, or secret chancellery, or joint finances. Without the use of any secret signs, a close unity is nevertheless autonomously formed. The entire secret lies in an affiliation that is in force universally:“ A certain natural relationship and sympathy, that expresses itself in the whole universe among very similar beings, and in the spiritual bond, with which truth, benevolence and purity of the heart chains together noble human beings”. This idea is reminiscent of Goethe’ s thoughts on elective affinities between humans who attract each other( Wahlverwandschaften, 1809). As the goal of the Order of Cosmopolitans is selfevident, there is no need to call for any synods or convents where this achievement has to be negotiated. Only one formula is needed to summarise the main ambition of cosmopolitans:“ to diminish the totality of evil that suppresses mankind as much as possible( without creating any malevolence themselves) and to augment the total of good in the world in accordingly to their best capacity”.
Political Principles of Cosmopolitanism
After this formulation of a cosmopolitan code of conduct, Wieland in the second chapter of Das Geheimnis des Kosmopolitenordens discusses the political principles of the cosmopolitans and their relation to the civic society. Good cosmopolitans are quiet citizens. They never use violence to achieve their goals and never take part in any conspiracy, uprising, civil war, revolution or regicide. The only weapon of resistance allowed is reason, which also constitutes the only form of government. In the conflicts between different parties of the state, the cosmopolitan has to remain neutral and impartial. However, there are reasons to choose sides, for instance, when one party is threatened by suppression, or when the other party treats it inhumanely. A cosmopolitan thus never disturbs the public peace, and remains within the legal framework of the state he happens to inhabit.
However,“ republican enthusiasm” is also irreconcilable with cosmopolitanism. All types of patrimony are foreign to the cosmopolitan:
“ What among the ancient Greeks and the proud citizens of that town that thought to have been founded in order to rule the world [ Rome ], was called patrimony, is a passion incompatible with the basic concepts of cosmopolitans. No Roman could have been a cosmopolite, no cosmopolite could have been a Roman”.
Here again, the parallels with Ramsay’ s Oration are most intriguing. As we remember, in the very introduction to his speech he rejects the“ ill-understood love of one’ s homeland” which destroyed“ the general love of mankind”. Even more obvious is the similarity when it comes to the rejection of hegemony. In Wieland’ s words, it is wrong to“ build the prosperity, glory and grandeur of the fatherland upon intentional over-
75