Joseph Johann Nepomuk Michael Barth (1760-1819)
*1760, †1819, law student, Ingolstadt, member of the Illuminati under the code name “Osiris”
Illuminati: Dec. 1777 Illuminat; Oct/Nov. 1781 Illuminatus minor.
(1760 Eichstätt – 1819 Beilngries) Cath. – 1778-82 studied law in Ingolstadt and cameralism in Vienna, 1782 court chamber accessor in Eichstätt, 1784 court chamber councillor, 1785 commissioner for customs and roads, 1798 member of the Erfurt Academy of Useful Sciences, 1803 grand ducal Salzburg assistant clerk and director of the Eichstätt court chamber, 1805 Electoral Salzburg, 1806 royal Bavarian state director, 1808-1810 second financial councilor of the Altmühl and Danube district. Local historian and writer. Member of the Eichstätt Reading Society [Eichstätter Lesegesellschaft], 1793.
Eichstätt Illuminati Colony
Hermann Schüttler. Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens 1776-1787/93. Munich: Ars Una, 1991. p. 203:
Founding of the MK [Minerval Church] 1782. The seat of the Scottish Directorate for the prefecture of ‘Canaa’ was Eichstätt with Ansbach, and it served as the location for the Provincial Directorate of ‘Illyria’ = Franconia. Lodge ‘Pallas zu den drei Lichtern’ (founded in 1781 by the lodge ‘Zur Behutsamkeit’ in Munich).
From Perfectibilists (2009), p. 253.
Barth, Joseph (1760 – 1819)
A cameralist and a lawyer in Eichstätt, Barth was previously a law student at the University of Ingolstadt from 1778-80; there he was insinuated into the Illuminati in 1778, probably by Weishaupt himself.
His alias alludes to the Egyptian God of death and rebirth, father of Horus and husband of Isis.
“Joseph Barth’s career in the service of the prince-bishopric was essentially based on his reformist engagement,” writes Wolfgang Wüst, “which, despite all criticism of the estate system and despite his membership in the Illuminati order, never completely questioned the reason for princely structures of state.” (See Die ‘Mängel’ geistlicher Staaten im Spiegelbild der Aufklärung. Die Reformen des Kameralisten und Juristen Joseph Barth (1760-1819) im Hochstift Eichstätt, 1997, p. 90)
Wolfgang Wüst, elaborates (90-1):
Under the administration of the Electorate of Salzburg (Tuscan), Barth rose to the position of director of the court chamber and state directorate councilor. Under Bavarian rule in 1808, to the position of finance councilor in the Altmühl district and in 1810 in the Oberdonau district. On December 1, 1819, he passed away in Beilngries, a former administrative district of Eichstätt. The fact that Joseph Barth not only expressed himself on the narrower field of cameralistics and jurisprudence, but also acted as a journalist and an Enlightenment figure, speaks against the stereotypical climate of intolerance attributed to the ecclesiastical states. He displayed more “realpolitik” prudence than other representatives of his of his ideology, which may have been a result of the experiences he gained from the quick resignation of Friedrich Ebole, the founder of the Eichstätter Intelligenzblatts [Eichstätt Intelligence Gazette], a periodical critical of the establishment that was suppressed by the (former Jesuit) censorship authorities in May of 1791, just a month after its publication, despite the fact that learned periodicals had been published elsewhere since the first half of the 18th century. In early 1792, Barth established his Vatterländische Monatsschrift für einen kleinen Zirkel traulicher [Patriotic Monthly for a Small Circle of Intimate Friends] following the example of the Intelligenzblätter, the editing of which had been continued in an increasingly restorative manner by a cathedral chapter bailiff. The second part of the title was not only an understatement of an Enlightenment thinker who had openly expressed sympathies for the French Revolution in a bishopric, but was also a consequence of the fact that the essay, which only appeared in two volumes, was circulated only by manuscript. Although a printed edition was planned, the author had arranged his manuscript into printed sheets and had originally intended for it to span several volumes. However, it was probably not printed due to censorship regulations in the Eichstätt-controlled confessional state. Nevertheless, a visit to printing presses in Augsburg, Ingolstadt, or Nuremberg would not have been out of the question, had Barth fully realized his originally more extensive concept. Therefore, the work remained a piece of hand-selected Enlightenment and state literature that circumvented the principality’s pre-censorship of printing but remained moderate in anticipation of possible post-censorship. (emphasis mine)