You are in:
The Spiritist Review - JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES - 1861 > April
April
Another Word about Mr. DeschanelFrom the Journal des Débats
In the previous issue of The Spiritist Review the readers could see our
personal letter to Mr. Deschanel with our thoughts about his article.
The very short letter was aimed at the rectification of a serious error by
Mr. Deschanel and we sought his agreement to have our response inserted
in that periodical. He presented the Spiritist Doctrine as if based on the
grossest materialism that was a total distortion of its true nature since the
Doctrine tends, on the contrary, to destroy the foundations of materialism.
His article had many other mistakes that could be pointed out but
the latter was too important to let go without an answer; it was really serious
because it did a disservice to the so many followers of Spiritism. Mr.
Deschanel decided not to accept our request and below is his answer to us:
“Dear Sir,
I had the honor of receiving your letter dated February 25th.
Your editor, Mr. Didier, was kind enough to assign me with the
task of explaining to you that I had given in to his reiterated requests
to give a review about your The Spirits’ Book, allowing me
to criticize it as much as I wanted. That was the agreement. I thank you for your understanding that the use of your right of
replica would be strictly legal but certainly not as kind as the
abstention with which you agreed, according to what I was informed
this morning by Mr. Didier.
Yours…etc.
E. Deschanel”
The letter above is inaccurate in several points. It is true that Mr. Didier
sent a volume of The Spirits’ Book to Mr. Deschanel, as done from an editor
to a journalist but it is inaccurate to say that Mr. Didier agreed not to
let us know about his reiterated requests to have the work appreciated and
if Mr. Deschanel decided to dedicate 24 columns of the newspaper with
mockery he must allow us to suppose that he did so neither out of tolerance
nor respect towards Mr. Didier. In fact, as we said, that is not why
we are sorry for the fact. He is in his own right to criticize and since he
does not share our point of view he had the freedom of assessing our work
from his standpoint, as it usually happens all the time. Some have it in the
highest regard, others show total disbelief but none goes without an appeal.
The ultimate judge is the public, particularly the future public that
is away from the current passions and intrigues. The exaggerated praise
from little groups does not prevent us from burying from good what is
really bad and what is really good survives, despite the diatribes originated
from jealousy and envy.
• This striking proof two fables now shall prove;
• Matter enough is here your faith to move
La Fontaine would have said; we will not quote two fables but
two facts. When Racine’s Phèdre appeared it had the opposition
of the Court and the people of Paris and was ridiculed. The bashing
was such that at the age of only 38 years old, he completely
gave up writing for the theater. . Pradon’s Phèdre, on the contrary,
was praised to the extreme. What is today the situation of both works? A more modern book, Paul et Virginie, was declared
dead at birth by the renowned Buffon that found it boring and
insipid; however, it is a fact that no book has ever been so popular.
Our objective with these two examples is to demonstrate that
the opinion of a critic, whatever their merit, is always a personal
opinion, not always ratified by posterity. Let us move back from
Buffon to Mr. Deschanel, without comparison since Buffon was
totally mistaken while Mr. Deschanel believed, no doubt, that
the same will not happen to him. In his letter he acknowledges
the fact that our right to contest would be strictly legal but he
finds it more polite that we don’t exercise that right. He is also
bluntly wrong when he says that we agreed with the abstention,
leading to believe that we agreed with a request and even that
Mr. Didier was in charge of informing him about that. There is
nothing further from the truth. We don’t believe that we must demand
the publication of our counter argument. He has the freedom
of finding our Doctrine bad, disgusting, absurd, of shouting
it out loud from the roof tops, but we expected his loyalty with
the publication of our letter whose intent was the rectification of
a false allegation that could damage our reputation, when he accuses
us of professing and propagating the very doctrines that we
fight against, since we see them as subversive of the social order
and public moral. We did not ask for a disclaimer that would be
refused by his ego, but only the publication of our protest, convinced
that we were not abusing our own right of response, particularly
considering that we were offering 30 or 40 lines against
his 24 columns in the publication. Our readers will understand
the extent of his denial. If he wanted to see kindness in our procedure
we cannot say the same about his attitude.
When Father Chesnel published his article about Spiritism in
the Univers in 1858, he also gave a false idea about the Parisian
Society of Spiritist Studies, presenting it as a religious sect with
cults and priests. Such allegations completely denatured its objectives and its true foundations and could deceive public opinion.
It was completely mistaken given the fact that the Society’s
bylaws preclude it from dealing with religious matters. As a matter
of fact, a religious Society that could not deal with religious
matters is unthinkable. We then protest against such statement
and not by means of a few lines by through a whole article that
the periodical Univers acknowledged our right to publish as a
result of a simple request from our side. We are sorry that Mr.
Deschanel from the Journal des Débats believes to be less morally
obliged to reestablish the truth than those gentlemen from the
Univers. If it were not a question of legal right it will always be of
loyalty. Pretending to have the right of attacking without providing
an opportunity for defense is an easy way of convincing his
readers that he is right.
Mr. Louis Jourdan and The Spirits’ Book
Since we are talking about journalists with respect to Spiritism let us
not stop on the way. We are not generally spoiled by those gentlemen
and considering that we don’t hide their criticism they must allow
us to present our counterpoint and arguments against the opinion
of Mr. Deschanel and others like a writer whose celebrity and influence
are unquestionable, and without being accused of self-serving interest.
The praises in fact are not directed to us, personally; at least we don’t
take them personally and always address them to our spiritual guides that
kindly supervise our work. Therefore we could not benefit from any merit
that might be found in our work; we accept the praise not as a confirmation
of our personal worth but as a recognition to the endeavor that with
the help of God we hope to take on successfully for we have not finished
yet and the most difficult part is yet to come. From that point of view, Mr.
Louis Jourdan’s opinion has some weight because everyone knows that he
does not speak lightheartedly just to fill out the columns of a newspaper
with empty words. He can certainly be wrong, like anyone else, but his
opinion is always conscientious.
It would be premature to uphold that Mr. Jourdan is a confessed follower
of Spiritism. He himself declares that he has not seen any manifestation
and that he is not in touch with any medium. He analyzes from his own personal thoughts and since he does not base his opinion on
the denial of the soul or any other extra-human power, he sees in the
Spiritist Doctrine a new phase of moral life and a means of explaining
what was inexplicable up until now. Behold, by admitting the foundations
his reason does not absolutely refuse to admit their consequences
while Mr. Figuier cannot admit such consequences since he repels the
fundamental principle.
He did not study everything nor had he investigated everything of
this vast science, hence it is not surprising that his ideas are not well established
about all points and for that reason certain questions may seem
hypothetical. As a sensible man, however, he does not say: “I don’t understand,
hence it cannot be.” He, on the contrary, says: “I don’t know
because I did not learn that but I don’t deny it.” As a serious man he does
not ridicule an issue that addresses the most serious interests of humanity
and as a wise man he remains silent about things that he ignores, afraid
of having his denials belied by the facts, as it has happened to so many
others who then hear the irresistible argument: “You speak of something
that you don’t know.”
He then releases matters of detail, confessing his incompetence, limiting
himself to the appreciation of the principle, admitting its possibility
is only led by reason as commonly happens every day. Mr. Jourdan
first published an article about The Spirits’ Book in the #8 issue of the ‘Le
Causeur Magazine, in 1860. It is now over a year since that publication
and we had not yet mentioned the fact in our Review, a demonstration
that we don’t hastily prevail from the praises during a time when we textually
cited or indicated the bitterest criticisms, also a demonstration that
we are not afraid of their influence. That article was reproduced as a full
chapter in his new book ‘Un Philosophe au coin du feu *. We extracted the
following passages from that article:
“I formally promised to return to a subject about which I only mentioned
a few words and that deserves a very special attention. It is
about The Spirits’ Book that contains the principles of the spiritist
doctrine and philosophy. The word may sound barbarian to us but
what can one do? New things do need new names. The turning tables
led to Spiritism and today we have a complete doctrine, entirely revealed
by the spirits since The Spirits’ Book was not produced by any
man. Mr. Allan Kardec’s function was limited to the collection and
organization of the answers given by the spirits to the many questions
addressed to them, brief responses that do not always satisfy the curiosity
of the interrogator, but when considered as a whole they actually
form a doctrine, a moral and even perhaps a religion.”
“You must appreciate it yourself. The spirits provided clear explanations
about the primary causes, about God and the infinite,
about the attributes of God. They gave us the general elements of the
universe, knowledge about the principle of everything, the properties
of matter. They discussed the mysteries of creation, the formation of
the worlds and the living beings, and also the causes of diversities in
the human races. From there to the vital principle it is just a step, and
they also told us what the vital principle is, the meaning of life and
death, intelligence and instinct.”
“Then, they unveiled the spiritual world, that is, the world of
the spirits, and told us about its origin and nature; how the spirits
incarnate and the objective of such incarnation; the process of returning
from the corporeal to the spiritual life. Wandering (errant) spirits,
transient worlds, perceptions, sensations and sufferings of the spirits,
relationships beyond the grave, sympathetic and antipathetic relationships
among the spirits, return to the corporeal life, emancipation
of the soul, intervention of the spirits on the physical world, occupations
and missions of the spirits, hiding nothing from us.”
“I said that the spirits were not only founding a doctrine and a
philosophy, but also a religion. They have in fact established the code
of moral life in which there are laws that seem of great wisdom to me, not even missing the future penalties and rewards that could be
understood from words like heaven, purgatory and hell. As seen from
the above, it is a complete system and I have no problem in admitting
the fact that if it does not show the powerful cohesion of a philosophical
work, if there are contradictions here and there, it is at least of
remarkable originality given its elevated moral reach and for the unforeseen
solutions given to the complex issues that have concerned the
human spirit at all times.”
“I am a total stranger to the spiritist school; I don’t know its leader
or its followers; I have never seen any little table dancing or turning;
I don’t have any contact with any medium; I have not witnessed
any of those supernatural or miraculous events that are reported to
me by the spiritist publications. I don’t absolutely confirm or deny
the communications with the spirits; in principle I believe that such
communications are possible and it does not shock my reason at all.
In order to believe in them I don’t need the explanations given to me
by a scholar, friend of mine, Mr. Louis Figuier, about facts that he
attributes to the magnetic influence of the mediums.”
“I don’t think that it is impossible to establish communication between
the invisible world and us. Don’t ask me how and why; I know
nothing about it. That is more a question of feeling than mathematical
demonstration. Hence, I am expressing my feeling, but it is a far
from a vague feeling, a feeling that leaves a well-defined impression
in my heart and in my spirit.”
“If we can capture the vital fluids from the infinite space around us,
through the movement of our lungs, it is evident that we are constantly
interacting with the invisible world. Is such a world populated by wandering spirits, like lost souls, always ready to respond to our
calls? That is more difficult to admit but also premature to deny
absolutely.”
“Undoubtedly it is not difficult to believe that God’s creatures
are not all like us, the sad inhabitants of our planet. We are very imperfect,
submitted to unrefined material needs, thus it is not difficult
to imagine that there are superior beings who are not subjected to any
corporeal penalty; bright and luminous creatures, spirit and matter
like us but a more subtle, pure matter, less dense and not so heavy;
fluid messengers uniting the universes, sustaining the multiple races
and planets for the accomplishment of their missions.”
“Through breathing we are in contact with a myriad of creatures
whose existence we cannot understand and whose shapes we
cannot reproduce. Thus, it is not absolutely impossible that some
of those beings may accidentally get in touch with us but what does
seem trivial is the need for a material support of a table, a basket
or a medium so that those relationships may be established.”
“Those communications are either useful or pointless. If useful
then the spirits must not need to be mysteriously evoked and
questioned in order to teach people what people need to know. If
pointless, why resort to using them?”
“I have no problem with the idea of accepting these influences,
inspirations, revelations if you will. What I do absolutely deny is
when people say: God said so, so you must obey. And that under pretext
it is a revelation. God spoke through Moses, Christ, Mohamed
thus you will be Jewish, Christian or Muslim otherwise you shall
endure the eternal penalties and while we wait we will damn you
here on Earth.”
“No, no. I don’t accept similar revelations at any price. There is
a supreme law above all revelations, all inspirations and all prophets,
past and future: the law of freedom. I can accept anything that you
like as long as that law is in its foundation. Remove that law and it
is only violence and darkness. I want to have the freedom of believing or not believing and admitting that out loud. It is my own right and
I want to use it. It is my freedom and I want to preserve that. If you
tell me that I will lose my soul if I don’t believe what you teach me;
it is possible. I want to stretch my freedom to that limit; I want to
be able to lose my own soul if I desire to do so. Who will then be the
judge of my salvation or my loss? Who will be able to say: That one
was saved, this one here is lost for good? Shouldn’t the mercy of God
be infinite? Will anyone be able to assess the abyss of the conscience?”
“The same principle is found in the curious book by Mr. Allan Kardec
and that is why I am reconciled with the spirits that were questioned
by him. The briefness of the answers is a proof that the spirits have no
time to waste; what surprises me is the fact that they still waste some
in order to complacently address the call of so many people who waste
theirs in the evocations.”
“Everything more or less clearly stated by the spirits, and whose answers
Mr. Allan Kardec compiled, was developed and exposed with
remarkable clarity by Michel who is certainly to me the most complete
and most advanced of all contemporary mystics. His revelation
is at the same time a doctrine and a poem, a healthy and energizing
doctrine, bright poetry. The only advantage that I find in the questions
and answers published by Mr. Allan Kardec is the fact that
they are given in a much more accessible format to the general mass
of readers, and in particular to the female readers, the main ideas
about which is important to have their attention. Michel’s books
are not of an easy reading; they continually require a very attentive
reader. The book that we mentioned above, on the contrary, may
be considered a kind of vade mecum (handbook); if we take it and serendipitously open it in any page the questions will call our attention,
raising our curiosity. The questions addressed to the spirits
are typically those that concern all of us. The answers are sometimes
very weak; on other occasions they encompass the most complex issues
in a few words and always offer vivid interest and healthy indications.
I am not aware of a more attractive, more consoling, and
more fascinating course of moral. There one finds confirmation of
the greatest principles on which modern civilizations are founded,
particularly the principle of all principles: freedom! Heart and spirit
are smoothed and strengthened by that book. The chapters about
the plurality of the systems and the law of individual and collective
progress have a special appeal and exert a powerful attraction. As
for me, Mr. Allan Kardec’s spirits have not taught anything about
that. I believe since long ago that there is a progressive development
of life through the worlds; that death is the portal to a new life whose
trials are in proportion to the achievements of a previous existence.
This is in fact the old Gallic faith, the druidic doctrine and the
spirits invented nothing here but they did add a series of deductions
and excellent practical rules to guide one’s life. That book may have
great utility, regardless of the interest and curiosity generated by its
origin, particularly to the indecisive minds, to the insecure souls that
navigate the turbulent waters of doubt. Doubt is the worst evil! It is
the most horrific prison from which one needs to escape at any price.
This strange book will help men and women in the consolidation of
their lives, breaking the shackles of their prisons, precisely because it
is presented in a simple and elemental way, like a popular catechism
that everybody can understand.”
After the citation of a few questions about marriage and divorce that he
finds trivial and not handled according to his personal taste, Mr. Jourdan
finishes his article as below:
“I must say, however, that the spirits’ answers about this subject are
not superficial. The whole book is remarkable; the general subject
is marked by a certain magnificence and a lively originality. May
it stem out or not from a wonderful source, the work is exciting in
several aspects and just because it has made me largely interested I am
led to believe that many people may also be interested.”
_________________________________
* A philosopher by the fire – 1 vol., Dentu edition
Response
Mr. Jourdan asks a question, or even better, makes an objection motivated
by his limited knowledge about the subject as below:
“…Thus, it is not absolutely impossible that some of those beings may
accidentally get in touch with us but what does seem trivial is the
need for a material support of a table, a basket or a medium so that
those relationships may be established.”
“Those communications are either useful or pointless. If useful
then the spirits must not need to be mysteriously evoked and questioned
in order to teach people what people need to know. If useless,
why resort to using them?” In his book A Philosopher by the fire, he
adds: “That is a dilemma that the spiritist school will hardly solve.”
No. There is no difficulty for the spiritist school to solve it since it was
proposed and solved long ago and if according to Mr. Jourdan that is
not the case it is because his knowledge is limited with that respect. We
believe that had Mr. Jourdan read The Mediums’ Book that deals with the
practical and experimental part of Spiritism and he would have a different
idea about the subject.
Yes, there is no doubt that it would be trivial, and this word used by
Mr. Jourdan would be weak; we say that it would be ridiculous, absurd
and unacceptable, that in order to establish such serious relationships like those between the visible and the invisible worlds the spirits would need
to resource to such common utensils like a table, a basket or a planchette
to transmit their teachings to us, because the natural consequence of that,
would be that once those utensils were not available we would also be
deprived of their lessons. No. That is not the case. The spirits are just
the souls of people, without the dense covering, and the spirits exist since
there have been people in the universe (we don’t say on Earth). These
spirits form the invisible world that populates the space that surrounds
us; space in which we live unsuspectingly, as we do amidst the microscopic
world. The spirits have exerted influence upon the visible world
at all times; those who are good helped the people of genius with their
inspiration, while the others provide us with guidance in our day to day
lives. But those inspirations that occur by the transmission of thoughts are
invisible and leave no material trace.
If the spirit wants to communicate outwardly he needs to act upon
matter; if he wants to give his lessons with accuracy and stability rather
than with fuzziness and uncertainty then material signs are necessary
and for that – allow us the expression – the spirit uses everything at
hand as long as under the conditions that are appropriate to his nature.
When willing to write the spirit utilizes a pen or a pencil; willing to rap
the spirit will use any object like a table or a saucepan and he will not
feel humiliated for having used that. Is there anything more common
than a goose feather? Isn’t that what the greatest geniuses use to create
the masterpieces that remain for posterity? What can they do if they are
denied of any means of writing? They think but their thoughts are lost
if not collected. Suppose a handicapped writer, how would he write? An
assistant may capture the message. Well then, since the spirits cannot
hold the pen without an intermediary they do so through someone that
is called a medium, inspired and guided by the spirits. That type of
medium, sometimes acts as aware of what is going on; in that case it is a
medium in the true meaning of the term. Others act without knowledge
of what is happening behind the action; that is the case of the inspired
mediums that are unknowingly mediums. Thus, the subject of tables and planchettes is totally secondary and not of substance as people who
are not well informed may think. Those objects were the prelude of the
great and powerful means of communication like the alphabet was the
prelude of reading.
The second part of the dilemma is not less easy to resolve. Mr. Jourdan
says: “If the communications are useful then there is no need to evoke the spirits
mysteriously, etc.”
Let us say for starters that it is not up to us to regulate what happens
in the spiritual world. We cannot say: - things should be this or that way
since it would be the same as trying to conduct God’s business. It is true
that the spirits want to initiate us into their world because that will perhaps
be ours tomorrow. We must accept it as is and if it is not convenient
to us it will not change here or there because God will not accommodate
our caprices.
Having said that let us promptly state that there is never a mysterious
or Kabbalistic evocation. It is all done openly and with simplicity and
without any compulsory formula. Those who believe that these things are
necessary totally ignore the fundamentals of the Spiritist Science.
Next, if the spiritist communications only existed as a consequence
of evocations it would then follow that those communications would be
a privilege of those who can be evoked, and that the great majority of
those who have never even heard about it would be deprived. This is in
contradiction with what we have just mentioned above about the occult
and spontaneous communications. These communications happen to everyone,
from the little to the big one, from the rich to the poor, from the
ignorant to the scholar. The spirits that protect us, and our lost relatives,
they don’t need to be called. They are around us and although invisible
they surround us with their solicitude; we only need a thought to attract
them, demonstrating our affection, because if we don’t think of them it is
very natural that they don’t think of us. People may then ask: what is the
objective of the evocation? Let us see.
Suppose you are out in the street, surrounded by a dense crowd that
speaks and hums in your ears; far away in the crowd you see someone that you know and to whom you would like to speak to in private. What do
you do if you cannot reach that person? You call and the person comes to
you. That is what happens with the spirits. Besides those that we love and
they may not always be around, there is the swarm of indifferent ones. If
you want to speak to a given spirit and since you cannot go to him for you
are tied to the corporeal links, you call him, and that is the whole mystery
of the evocation whose only objective is to provide you with the ability
of addressing anyone that you like, instead of listening to the first one
that shows up. In the occult and spontaneous communications that we
mentioned earlier the spirits that assist us are unknown to us; they do so
in spite of us. They reveal their presence in an objective way through the
material manifestations, written or otherwise, and they may even provide
their identity if it is their wish to do so. It is a means of knowing those
around us with whom we are synchronized and if we have friends or foes
around us. There is no lack of adversaries in the spiritual world as in our
world. There as here, the most dangerous ones are the ones that we don’t
know. Practical Spiritism provides us with the means of getting to know
them. In short, anybody that only knows Spiritism through the phenomenon
of the turning tables has such a limited and trivial idea about it as
someone else that only knows Physics from children’s toys. Nevertheless,
the more one advances, the more the horizon broadens, and it is only then
that its true reach is understood because it reveals one of the most powerful
forces of nature, a force that acts simultaneously upon the physical as
well as the moral world. Nobody denies the influence exerted upon us by
the material world, be it visible or invisible. If we are part of a crowd we
suffer its moral and physical influence.
With death our souls go somewhere in space. Where to? Since there
is no restricted or limited space Spiritism says and demonstrates that such
a place is space as a whole, forming around us a countless population.
Now, how can we admit that the intelligent space has less action than the
unintelligent space? That is the key to a large number of misunderstood
facts, that people interpret according to their own prejudices and exploit
them to the taste of their passions. When these things are understood by everyone the prejudice will disappear and the progress will steadily follow
its march.
Spiritism is a light that illuminates the darkest recesses of society; it
is then natural that those who fear light try to extinguish it. However,
when that light has penetrated everywhere, it will be necessary that those
who seek darkness will have to decide to accept the light of day. We will
then see their masks fall. Every person that truly wishes progress cannot
remain indifferent to one of its most powerful contributors, a contributor
that prepares one of the greatest moral revolutions up until now experienced
by humanity. As it can be seen, we are far away from the turning
tables. The distance between that modest beginning and its consequences
is the same that one day had existed between Newton’s apple and the law
of universal gravitation.
Assessment of Mr. Louis Figuier’s Book History of the Marvelous - By Mr. Escande, editor of the La Mode Nouvell
In the articles that we published about this work we tried to identify,
before anything else, the standpoint of the author, a not so difficult
endeavor once we demonstrate that it is based on materialistic ideas quoting
his own words. Since the basis is false, at least from the point of view
of the large majority of humankind, he arrived at wrong consequences
from facts that he classifies as marvelous; hence his conclusions are full
of mistakes. That fact did not preclude some of his comrades of the press
from praising his merit, the depth and acumen of his work. Not everybody
shares that opinion though. We found an article in the La Mode
Nouvelle *, a newspaper that is more serious than its title, as remarkable
for its style as fair in its analysis. Its extension prevents us from reproducing
the whole text. Besides, the author also promises to publish more since
he only deals with the first volume here. The readers can appreciate the
fragments below.
I
“This book is unjustifiably pretentious. It was supposed to be considered
erudite, touching sciences, showing an apparent abundance
of research, but its erudition is superficial, its science incomplete, its
research premature and badly coordinated. Mr. Figuier’s specialty
was to collect, one by one, thousands of minor events that are daily
reported in the academy, like the long rows of mushrooms that sprout
overnight on cryptogrammic fernlike layers, followed by the writing
of books about them that compete with others like the Bourgeois
Kitchen or treatise of Poor Richard’s Almanac. He is very used to
these kind of easy compositions – inferior to the compilation carried
out by the good father Trublet, wittily mocked by Voltaire – that forcibly
gives him pleasure, he said to himself that it would not be more
difficult to exploit people’s passion for the marvelous, which excites
imaginations now more than never before, than utilizing the almost
idle second class conversations of the Institute. He is used to writing
scientific Reviews about someone else’s work, containing his summary
reports with theses and memories that he discusses; he then compiles
the summaries of the summaries and writes his own books. Loyal to
his past tradition, he hastily gathers every book about the subject that
he can find, break them into pieces and mixes them up as he wishes,
then composing a new book in his own style; we have no doubt that
he must have exclaimed, like Horace: Exegi monumentum – I also
erected a monument that will last longer than bronze.”
“He would be rightly proud of his creation if the quality of the
work was measured by quantity. In fact that History of the Marvelous
is made up of four volumes and it contains modern history only from
1630 to our present days; those two centuries only give an indication
that it would contain more than twice as much volumes of the
thickest encyclopedia had he decided to include in the history of the
marvelous at all times and from all populations!”
“Thus, when we think that such a vast publication has taken
him but a few months’ work we are led to believe that such a grand
and hastily delivery is more marvelous than the marvels it contains.
However, such amazing productiveness is no longer a prodigy when
his process of composition is better scrutinized and one realizes that
such process is so common to him that one could not expect anything
else from him. Instead of consolidating the facts, summarizing them,
leaving aside useless details and concentrating on the facts of the most
significant events, and then discussing them in the sequence, he just
wrote a feuilleton even more extensive than those which he weekly
writes in the La Presse.”
“Scissors in hand he cut from preceding works anything that
favored the prejudiced ideas that he wanted to promote, keeping
away others that could oppose the prior opinion he had formed about
this important subject, particularly anything that could counter the
natural explanation that he wanted to provide about the manifestations
qualified as wonderful and that the free-thinkers unanimously
call public credulity because that is one of the ambitious goals of his
book – although this one is not better justified than the others – to
provide a new physical or medical solution found by him, a triumphant
solution, unimpeachable, from now on immune to any objection
raised by anyone, sufficiently simple to believe that God is more
powerful than our scholars. He repeats that over again in hundreds of
passages of his book so that nobody may ignore it, with the hopes that
sooner or later people will believe, although he just repeats what was
said before by every physicists and medical doctors, philosophers and
chemists who are more horrified by the idea of the wonderful than
Pascal was by the vacuum.”
“The result is that this history of the marvelous lacks both authority
and proportion. From a dogmatic point of view it does not
go beyond the denial of previous denials; it does not add a single
new argument to the previous ones and we don’t understand
the utility of his echo regarding this point and all others. There is more: tormented by the desire to be better than Calmeil, Esquiros,
Montègre, Hecquet and so many others that preceded him and will
always be his masters, Mr. Louis Figuier sometimes gets lost in
the confusing maze of demonstrations that he borrows from them,
pretending to have their ownership and sometimes arguing with
Mr. Babinet and his logic. As for the facts he accumulated a large
number of them although somewhat by chance, truncating some,
discarding others, only interested in those that could offer some attraction
to the reading. This demonstrates that his major concern
was the easy success rather than fighting the contemporary romance
writers and we are even led to question how come he did not convince
his editor to include his work to be sold at the booksellers at
the train stations, to have direct access to the crowds that only read
for distraction rather than instruction.”
“We cannot deny the fact that his book is amusing, if all that
is required to deserve such an adjective is to resemble a collection
of little picturesque tales, without much compromise of the truth,
something that does not preclude him from uselessly and non-stop
boasting around others about his impartiality, his truthfulness –
one more pretention to be added to the so many others mentioned
above, one that he pretends as strongly as he dissimulates when he
does not have it. As it is the best comparison we can provide, is with
those popular restaurants that carry plenty of very seductive dishes,
as far as their appearance goes, but that serve their customers without
any real concern for the quality of what their provide. More
superficial than profound, anything important is sacrificed before
the futile, the principal before the accessory, and the dogma before
the eventful.”
“In fact, the blanks are so abundant as the useless things and
there is no lack of contradictions, sustaining here what is denied
further down, so much so that we are tempted to believe that Mr.
Louis Figuier assigned himself with the task of teaching others what he himself did not know, differently from the renowned Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola that was capable of writing the De Omni re
scibili **.”
II
“We could stop our analysis of the ‘History of the Marvelous’ here
if we were not supposed to justify these tough but fair assessments.
For starters, do we have to add that the writer does not believe in
the possibility of the supernatural? We doubt it. His supernumerary
academic position – a title that is likely to outlive him considering
the power that he is conferred as a scientific writer in that periodical
– would not allow him to sustain any other thesis without being
exposed to an army of skeptics in which he is supposedly enlisted. He is
also a non-believer and his denial is beyond suspicion. He belongs to
the group of ‘those wise minds, witnesses of the unforeseen boundless
growth of the contemporary marvelous, who cannot understand such
a mistake right now in the XIX century, enriched by an advanced
Philosophy and amidst a magnificent scientific movement that leads
everything to the positive and useful’ - We acknowledge that it must
be painful to those ‘wise minds’ that the public mind refuses to reject
its prejudices thus persisting on beliefs that differ from the philosophical
positivism and are nonetheless typically animal. As a matter of
fact such disgust dates from other times too. Mr. Louis Figuier spitefully
confesses so when he asks using confusing terms how can it be
that the marvelous had resisted the XVIII century, ‘the century of
Voltaire and the Encyclopedia, when all eyes were opening to enlightenment
and rational common sense’.”
“What can one do then? That lively belief in the marvelous has
been so much present in all religions, at all times and with all peoples,
at all latitudes and in all continents, that the free-thinkers should be glad to see it agitating on its own and they would do great from now
on by just abstaining from a proselytism whose success they know is
inevitable.”
“Mr. Louis Figuier, however, is not one of those feeble hearts
frightened by the uselessness of his own efforts. Full of himself and believing
in his strength he boasts about having achieved what Voltaire,
Diderot, Lamétrie, Dupuis, Volney, Dulaure, Pigault-Lebrun had
not done; or what Dulaurens with his Le Compere Mathieu, the
chemists with their alembics, the physicists with their electrical batteries,
the astronomers with their compasses, the pantheists with their
sophisms or the malevolent mockers with their bad taste were all incapable
of achieving.”
“He proposed to triumphantly demonstrate that ‘the marvelous
does not exist and had never existed’ and as a consequence that ‘the
prodigies of ancient times as well as those of modern times can all
be attributed to a natural cause’. A difficult task; so far the most
intrepid ones have succumbed before such a task. However, he continues,
the ‘conclusion that would necessarily deny any wonderful agent,
would be a victory of science over superstition, to the great benefit of
human reason and dignity.’ And his ambition was satisfied by such a
victory – an easier victory than we might think if Mr. Figuier is not
wrong when he says in his introduction that ‘our century is not much
interested in matters of theology and religious disputes.’”
“Why then to start a war against a belief that does not exist? Why
attacking the opinions of a theology that has no followers? Why giving
attention to superstitions that are no longer our concern? – ‘Victory
without danger is triumph without glory’ the poet says, and it is not
very convenient to sound the fighting trumpet if all that there is to
fight is windmills.”
“What else do you want? When writing this Mr. Figuier forgot
what he wrote above when he shamefully confessed that our century,
deaf to the lessons of the encyclopedia and those of the lay press, had
all of a sudden been taken over by the love for the marvelous, and even more than their predecessors, this century now believes in the
marvelous, an incomprehensible aberration that he intended to cure.
Such contradiction, however, is so small that it might not be worth
pointing out. We shall see many others and will be forced to neglect
several!”
“Mr. Figuier thus denies that supernatural manifestations do occur
in our days and that they might have occurred at any other time.
With respect to miracles, they can only be made by Science. God’s
power has nothing to do with that. Even when we say that God
does not have such power we experience some sort of scruples for the
incomplete translation of his thoughts. Does he acknowledge another
god besides the god of nature, a god that is as remarkable in his blind
intelligence and that unsuspectingly realizes wonders, a dear god to
the wise people, complacent enough to allow them to steal a slice of his
sovereignty? We prefer to stay away from this issue.”
“Marvelously mediocre, the ‘history of the marvelous’ begins by
an introduction that Mr. Louis Figuier calls a quick glance at the
supernatural in Ancient times and in the Middle Ages that we will
not discuss since there is too much to say. His work alters the most
important manifestations, under the pretext of summarizing them,
and it would understandably require a long time to restitute the true
meaning of thousands of events that he only mentioned in-passing.”
“The edifice is worthy of the open colonnade. That history of
the marvelous during the last two centuries begins with a report of
the subject matter related to Urbain Grandier and the religious ladies
of Loudun; then comes the magic divining rod the tremblers of
Cevennes, the convulsionary Jansenists, Cagliostro, magnetism and
the turning tables. However, not a single word about the possession
of Louviers, the Illuminati, the Martinists, the Swedenborgism, the
stigmatized of Tirol, the remarkable manifestation of children in
Sweden less than fifty years ago. He only says a word about the exorcism
of father Gassner and less than an insignificant page is dedicated
to the clairvoyant of Prevorst.”
“Mr. Figuier would have done better if he had given the following
title to his book: Episodes of the History of the Marvelous in
Modern Times. Even the episodes that he chose may give rise to serious
objections. Nobody has ever attributed any supernatural meaning to
the magic tricks of Cagliostro. He was a skillful sorcerer with curious
tricks that he used very well to fascinate those who were exploited by
him, and he had several accomplices. If anything, Cagliostro should
have a place among the revolutionary precursors rather than amidst
the witches.”
“Equally strange, is the placement of animal magnetism together
with marvelous events, particularly from the point of view used by
Mr. Figuier. Magnetism stands out from the Academy of Medicine
and Sciences by whom it was greatly stigmatized; however, it must
not be of any interest to the marvelous unless perhaps for certain manifestations
neglected by Mr. Figuier, using the opportunity to speak
about Mesmer’s life, the experiences of the Marquis de Puységur, and
the incident related to the famous report of Mr. Husson. We discussed
that important issue two years ago and will not repeat it here. We will
also let go of the turning tables that were examined on the same occasion.
However, there would be a lot to be said about Mr. Figuier’s
pretentious physical and natural explanations about those dancing
tables and the manifestations that follow. In any case it is necessary to
impose limits to our discussion.”
“We will then let him fight the Spiritualist Magazine and The
Spiritist Review, two periodicals published in Paris by followers of
spiritist manifestations who accuse him of having written his repository
without a previous consultation with witnesses nor key players
in the process. One and the other sustain that he had never attended
a single spiritualist session and that he clearly stated that his opinion
was already formed and that in no circumstance would he change it.”
“Is that so? We don’t know. All we can say is that, after having
correctly denied Mr. Babinet’s solution through the unconscious and
primitive movements, he ended up by adopting that theory himself given the dimension of the inconsistency of his thoughts and writings.
Here is the proof when he writes: ‘During those sessions where individuals
were permanently connected for twenty minutes to half an
hour, hands open and resting on the table, forming an uninterrupted
chain, without the freedom of any distraction during that concentrated
operation, the large majority of people do not experience any
particular effect. It is a rare case if even at least one person will not
fall into a hypnotic state – to Mr. Figuier, hypnotism gives the answer
to everything as we will see later – Not more than a second in such
a state is necessary so that the expected phenomenon may take place.
The link of that human chain, thus fallen into some sort of nervous
sleep and no longer aware of his own actions, produces the motion
of the object.’ – Why doesn’t Mr. Figuier mock himself here, since he
used to mock Mr. Balbinet? That would have been logical, particularly
after having announced that he would elucidate the mystery
and considering that all he did was to use that ridiculous little light
in his lantern, previously used by the wise scholar. But logic and Mr.
Louis Figuier are divorced in that history of the marvelous. Ah! The
echoes hopelessly pretend to speak but all they can do is to repeat what
they hear.”
“As for the long chapters dedicated to the magic divining rod and
in particular to Jacques Aymar, our first observation to him is that
he is mistaken if he thinks that the problem was sufficiently studied
by Mr. Chevreul. It is an illusion, that he can attribute it to that
wise man. However, outside the Academy of Sciences he will find nobody
who will admit that the theory of the exploring pendulum will
respond to every one of his objections. The statement attributed to
Galileo ‘…Nevertheless, it (Earth) turns!’ has also some application
to the magic divining rod. It turned and continues to turn, in spite of
the skeptics that deny the movement because they don’t want to see it.
The thousands of examples that we can refer to – mentioned by Mr.
Figuier himself – attest the reality of the phenomenon. Does it turn
following a diabolic or spiritual impulse, as people say today, or it does so under the influence of some unknown fluid? In good faith we
reject any marvelous influence, although it may be admitted in certain
cases. The inexistence of unknown fluids does not seem to have
been demonstrated to us. Among others, the magnetic fluid counts on
many followers whose declarations deserve as much authority as the
denials of the adversaries. At any rate, the magic divining rod has
made marvels that may prove not to be supernatural but that science
is still incapable of explaining, science that still explains so little of the
many wonders that we see around us, as for example the life of the
tiniest leaf. It would do him good to acquire some modesty, a virtue
that he lacks so much.”
“Among so many marvels, those carried out by Jacques Aymar
already mentioned so many times deserved a detailed report. One
day he was called to Lyon, following a horrific crime committed in
that town. With his divining rod he explored the basement where
the crime was staged, declaring that there were three murderers; he
then began to follow their trails, leading to a gardener whose house
was located at the Rhône river bank, stating that the three had returned
to that house and had a bottle of wine there. The gardener
denied this but his young sons confessed after being questioned that
three men had come to their place and in the absence of their father
they sold wine to the men. Aymar then continues to follow the trail,
always guided by the rod. He discovers where they boarded a boat at
the Rhône; he takes a canoe and navigates to every place where they
had been and goes to the fields of Sablon, between Vienne and Saint
Vallier, indicating that they had stopped there for a few days. He
continues his chase from point to point and arrives at Beaucaire, at
the time when there was a town fair; he walks around the busy streets
and stops at the town jail; he goes inside and points towards a little
hunchback man, saying that he was one of the murderers. His indications
were that the two other assassins had fled towards Nimes but
the law enforcement did not want to follow his leads. The hunchback
was taken to Lyon where he confessed the crime and was sentenced to death. That was Jacques Aymar’s prowess and there are many other
cases like that in his life. Mr. Figuier admits that in the details. As
a matter of fact, he could not say otherwise since these are attested
by hundreds of trustworthy witnesses – ‘from three reports and so
many agreeing letters, written by eyewitnesses and by equally honored
judges, impossible to expect in our days any foul play among them.’”
“Mr. Figuier transforms Jacques Aymar into a police detective,
of a much greater perspicacity than Mr. Sartines, regardless of his
celebrity. Compared to him our police authorities from Sûreté would
be like schoolchildren. He then supposes that the divining rod handler,
after spending three or four hours in Lyon had time enough to
learn more about the event than local law enforcement. So, he drove
the investigation to the gardener’s house because it was evident that
the murderer(s) had boarded a boat at the Rhône to get away more
swiftly; he guessed about the wine drinking at the gardener’s house
since they must had been thirsty; they stopped at the various places
along the river as confirmed later because those well-known ports had
to be familiar to them; they went to the fields of Sablon because they
evidently wanted to see the spectacle of the assembly of the troops; later
he went to Beaucaire due to the obvious and incontrollable desire
that the murderers would have there; he then stopped at the local jail
because one of the murders was unlucky enough to have been arrested
already. ‘That is why your daughter is deaf!’ Says Sganarelle; and
Mr. Louis Figuier does not do better, or different. He believes that he
is right particularly for the fact that when Jacques Aymar was called
to Paris, given the rumors of his celebrity, he saw his perspicacity facing
real failures there together with some real triumphs. However,
due to those mistakes that resulted in some bitterness against Jacques
Aymar, Mr. Figuier, of all others, couldn’t criticize him; he couldn’t
have used this to declare Jacques Aymar an imposter, and he knows
that better than everybody else; he knows, regarding magnetism,
that certain types of experiments are more unpredictable than others,
yielding good results one day, failing the other. He adds a less forgiving inconsequence to that one. Not satisfied by accusing Jacques
Aymar of charlatanism he generalizes the same accusation against
every divining rod handler, stating: ‘Among the practical followers
only a small number was formed by ill-faith people; but even those
did not always act in bad faith; the great majority of them acted in
good faith. The divining rod positively turned in their hands, independent
from any artifice and the phenomenon and the facts were
actually real.’ Well then, there we have the truth. But how and why
did it turn? It is impossible to avoid that question, responded by Mr.
Figuier: ‘The motion of the divining rod happened following their
unconscious mind control, completely oblivious to their own will.’ –
Always that unconsciousness that is more marvelous than the marvelous
that they deny. Believe it or not.”
Escande
_________________________________
* Office at Rue Sainte-Anne, 63 – February 22nd, 1861 Edition – price 1 franc
** About every knowable thing, by the Italian Renaissance Philosopher, Pico della
Mirandola, 1643 - 1495
The Sea By Mr. Michelet
Mr. Michelet must be on guard since all the maritime gods of
Antiquity are about to cause harm to him. That is what we learn
from Mr. Taxile Delord in his witty article published in the Siècle last
February 4th. His language is worthy of the Orpheus in the Underworlds
of the Parisian operettas and here is a sample: “Neptune suddenly appears at
the door of Amphitrite’s home and says: You sent for me, here I am Neptune.
You did not expect me now, dear Amphitrite. It is time for my nap but I cannot
close my eyes since the arrival of that devilish book entitled ‘The sea’. I
wanted to browse it but it is full of nonsense. I don’t know which seas he wants
to talk about. As for me, I cannot recognize myself. Everybody knows very well
that the sea ends at the Pillars of Hercules. What else can be beyond that…?”
It goes without saying, that Mr. Michelet is a winner from all points
of view. Well, after his adversaries disappeared Mr. Taxile Delord tells
him: “You would perhaps be glad to know what became of the maritime gods
after they were expelled by the sea from its empire. Neptune is a large scale fish
breeder; Glaucus is a swimming teacher at the Ouanier’s baths; Amphitrite
works as a receptionist in one of the Mediterranean baths in Marseille; Nereus
has accepted the position of cook on one of the transatlantic liners; several
Tritons died and others are exposed in fairs.”
We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided by
Mr. Delord about the current situation of former Olympian heroes, but in
principle and unwillingly he said something more serious than intended.
The word god in former times had a very elastic meaning. It was a generic
qualification applied to every being that seemed to rise above human
level. That is why their great individuals were deified. We would not
find them so ridiculous if we had not used the same word to designate
the unique being, the sovereign Lord of the universe. The spirits that
existed in those days as they do today also manifested and those mysterious
creatures must have belonged to the same class of gods, according to
the ideas of that time and with more reason than today. Ignorant people
worshiped them, looking at them as superior creatures. They were sung to
by the poets and their stories flooded with profound philosophical truths,
hidden by the veil of ingenious allegories, whose scope formed the pagan
mythology. The masses that generally only see the surface of things took
it as a rule, not investigating the bottom line of those thoughts, absolutely
as people in our time only see La Fontaine’s fables as nothing more than
animal talk.
That is in essence the principle of mythology. The gods were nothing
more than the spirits or souls of the mortals, as in our days. However, the
common passions of pagan religion do not provide a good impression of
their elevation in the spiritist hierarchy, starting with their leader, Jupiter,
something that did not preclude them from enjoying the incense that was
burnt at their altars.
Christianity swept their prestige away and Spiritism now reduces it
to their true value. Their own inferiority allowed them to endure several
incarnations on Earth. It is then possible to find some, among our contemporaries,
who have received the honors of deity, something that does
not make them any more advanced. Mr. Taxile Delord, who undoubtedly
does not believe in these things, just wanted to make a joke. In spite of
that he still said something that is perhaps more truthful than he thought
or at least it is not physically impossible, as a principle. That is how, imitating
Mr. Jourdain, many people practice Spiritism without knowing it.
Family Conversations from Beyond the Grave
The Suicide of Mr. Alfred Leroy (Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, March 8th, 1861)The Siècle from March 2nd, 1861 reports the following:
“In a vacant lot on the corner of a road called The Arcade which leads to Conflans and Charenton, yesterday in the morning the body of a man who had committed suicide was found by workers, hanging from a very tall pine tree. Once informed, the Charenton Police Chief went to the scene, followed by Dr. Josias, carrying out the full examination. The Droit says that the man was apparently around fifty years of age, of distinct looks, well dressed. A handwritten note was taken from one of his pockets and it read: ‘It is 11:45pm; I ascend to end my torture. May God forgive my errors.’ In the same pocket a letter was found without signature or addressee, containing the following: ‘Yes, I fought to the limit! Promises, guarantees, I lacked everything. I could get there; I had everything to believe in, everything to expect; lack of words kill me; I cannot go on. I now leave this so painful life. Full of strength and energy I am obliged to resort to suicide. God is my witness that I seriously wanted to pay back all those who helped me in my disgrace. Fatality crushes me. Everything is against me. Suddenly abandoned by those that I represented I now suffer my fate. I die without bitterness, I confess, and however much they say, the slanders will not preclude me from having a few moments of noble sympathy towards myself. Insulting the man that has been reduced to the last of all resolutions is an abuse. It is enough to be reduced to this. I am not all ashamed of myself. Selfishness would have killed me.’ According to other documents, the man was a so called Alfred Leroy, fifty years old, from Vimoutier, Orne. His profession and residence are unknown and after the customary formalities the unclaimed body was sent to the morgue.”
1. Evocation – A. I don’t come as a tortured man. I am saved! Alfred.
OBSERVATION: The words “I am saved” astonished the majority of the audience. The explanation was requested in the sequence of the conversation.
2. We learned from the papers about the desperate act in which you have succumbed to and although we don’t know you, we are very sorry because religion teaches us that we must have pity on all our unfortunate brothers and it is to testify our sympathy that we invoked you. – A. I need to shut out the real motives that led me to that desperate act. I thank you for what you are doing for me. It is a reason for joy, a message of hope. Thank you!
3. Can you first tell us if you are aware of your present situation? – A. Perfectly. I am relatively happy. I did not commit suicide for purely material causes and my last words demonstrate that. I was taken by an iron fist. When I incarnated on Earth I saw that suicide would be in my future. It was a trial that I had to fight. I wanted to be stronger than fatality but I succumbed.
OBSERVATION: It will be seen soon that this spirit does not escape the fate of all suicides, despite what he says. As for the word fatality, it is evident that there is a memory of Earthly things. People consider their destiny as every disgraceful event that cannot be avoided. For him suicide was the test that he had to pass. He yielded to the call instead of resisting, given his free-will, and he assumed that it was in his destiny.
4. You wanted to escape an unpleasant situation through suicide. Have you gained anything from that? – A. Here is my punishment: confusion of my pride, awareness of my weakness.
5. According to a letter that was found with you, it seems that people’s cruelty and lack of word have led you to your self-destruction. What is your feeling now towards those who were the cause of you fatal resolution? – A. Oh! Don’t you tempt me, don’t tempt me, I beg you.
OBSERVATION: This is a remarkable answer. It paints the situation of the spirit fighting the desire of hatred towards those who did him harm, and the feeling of good, pushing him to forgiveness. He is afraid that this question may provoke an answer that might be reproached by his conscience.
6. Do you regret your action? – A. I told you: my pride and my weakness are the cause.
7. When alive did you believe in God and in a future life? – A. My final words demonstrate that: I walk to my punishment.
OBSERVATION: He begins to understand his situation, about which he could have had an illusion in the beginning, because he could not be simultaneously saved and walked to his punishment.
8. When you took that resolution, what was in your mind? – A. I was very much aware of the justice to understand what makes me suffer now. For a short time I entertained the idea of the void but I soon rejected that. If I had such an idea I would not have killed myself. I would have sought revenge.
OBSERVATION: This answer is at the same time very logical and very profound. If he believed in the nothingness after death instead of killing himself he would have revenged or at least he would have started from vengeance. The idea of the future precluded him from committing a double crime. With the idea of the nothingness what was there to be afraid of if he wanted to take his own life? He would no longer fear people’s justice and would enjoy the pleasure of vengeance. Such is the consequence of the materialistic doctrines that certain wise people try to propagate.
9. If you were convinced that the cruelest vicissitudes of life are trials of too short a duration before eternity would you still have succumbed? – A. Very short, I know that, but despair does not give space to reason.
10. We beg God for His forgiveness in your favor and send Him our prayers, all of us united: “Almighty God, we know the fate of those who shorten their days and we cannot obstruct your justice. But we also know that your mercy is infinite. May that mercy be extended upon the soul of Alfred Leroy! May also our prayers show him that there are people on Earth who care about him, thus mitigating his sufferings for not having had the courage to endure the hardships of life! Good spirits, whose mission is to alleviate the unfortunate ones, take him under your protection; inspire regret in him for his actions and the firm desire of progress through new trials that he will withstand better. – A. Your prayers make me cry hence I feel happier.
11. In the beginning you said: I am saved. How can we reconcile those words with what you said later: I walk towards my punishment? – A. And how do you see God’s benevolence? I could not live. It was impossible. Wouldn’t you believe that God sees that impossibility in such a case?
OBSERVATION: Amidst some notably sensible answers there are others, and this last one is in that group, through which the spirit shows an imperfect idea of his current situation. There is no surprise here if we consider the fact that he has been dead for a few days only.
12. (To St. Louis) – Could you tell us what is the fate of the unfortunate spirit that we have just evoked? – A. Expiation and suffering. No, there is no contradiction between the first words of that unfortunate spirit and his pains. He says he is happy. He is happy for the termination of life. Since he is still attached to the Earthly bonds the only thing he feels is the absence of the bad things from Earth, but when his spirit is totally separated from the horizons of pain, a slow and terrible expiation will unfold before him, and the awareness of infinity, still hidden to his eyes, shall be the punishment that he had foreseen.
13. Which difference can you establish between this suicide case and the other one of the Samaritan? Both killed themselves out of despair, however their situation is very different: this one is perfectly conscious of himself; speaks clearly and does not suffer yet while the other one did not see himself dead and from the very initial moments he suffered a cruel pain, feeling the decomposition of his own body. – A. Huge difference. The suffering of each of those men reflects the individual character of their moral progress. The latter, a weak and broken soul, held up as much as he believed. He doubted his own strength and God’s benevolence, but he cannot be charged with blasphemy or slander; his inner, slow and profound suffering shall have the same intensity as the pain of the former suicide. It is just that the law of expiation is not uniform. NOTE: The story of the Samaritan suicide can be found in the issue of The Spiritist Review, June 1858.
14. To the eyes of God who is most to blame and who will suffer the greatest punishment: the one who succumbed to his own weakness or the other who was led to despair for the stiffness of his heart? – A. Surely the one who succumbed to the temptation.
15. Can the prayers on their behalf be useful to them? – A. Yes. Prayer is like a beneficial mist.
“In a vacant lot on the corner of a road called The Arcade which leads to Conflans and Charenton, yesterday in the morning the body of a man who had committed suicide was found by workers, hanging from a very tall pine tree. Once informed, the Charenton Police Chief went to the scene, followed by Dr. Josias, carrying out the full examination. The Droit says that the man was apparently around fifty years of age, of distinct looks, well dressed. A handwritten note was taken from one of his pockets and it read: ‘It is 11:45pm; I ascend to end my torture. May God forgive my errors.’ In the same pocket a letter was found without signature or addressee, containing the following: ‘Yes, I fought to the limit! Promises, guarantees, I lacked everything. I could get there; I had everything to believe in, everything to expect; lack of words kill me; I cannot go on. I now leave this so painful life. Full of strength and energy I am obliged to resort to suicide. God is my witness that I seriously wanted to pay back all those who helped me in my disgrace. Fatality crushes me. Everything is against me. Suddenly abandoned by those that I represented I now suffer my fate. I die without bitterness, I confess, and however much they say, the slanders will not preclude me from having a few moments of noble sympathy towards myself. Insulting the man that has been reduced to the last of all resolutions is an abuse. It is enough to be reduced to this. I am not all ashamed of myself. Selfishness would have killed me.’ According to other documents, the man was a so called Alfred Leroy, fifty years old, from Vimoutier, Orne. His profession and residence are unknown and after the customary formalities the unclaimed body was sent to the morgue.”
1. Evocation – A. I don’t come as a tortured man. I am saved! Alfred.
OBSERVATION: The words “I am saved” astonished the majority of the audience. The explanation was requested in the sequence of the conversation.
2. We learned from the papers about the desperate act in which you have succumbed to and although we don’t know you, we are very sorry because religion teaches us that we must have pity on all our unfortunate brothers and it is to testify our sympathy that we invoked you. – A. I need to shut out the real motives that led me to that desperate act. I thank you for what you are doing for me. It is a reason for joy, a message of hope. Thank you!
3. Can you first tell us if you are aware of your present situation? – A. Perfectly. I am relatively happy. I did not commit suicide for purely material causes and my last words demonstrate that. I was taken by an iron fist. When I incarnated on Earth I saw that suicide would be in my future. It was a trial that I had to fight. I wanted to be stronger than fatality but I succumbed.
OBSERVATION: It will be seen soon that this spirit does not escape the fate of all suicides, despite what he says. As for the word fatality, it is evident that there is a memory of Earthly things. People consider their destiny as every disgraceful event that cannot be avoided. For him suicide was the test that he had to pass. He yielded to the call instead of resisting, given his free-will, and he assumed that it was in his destiny.
4. You wanted to escape an unpleasant situation through suicide. Have you gained anything from that? – A. Here is my punishment: confusion of my pride, awareness of my weakness.
5. According to a letter that was found with you, it seems that people’s cruelty and lack of word have led you to your self-destruction. What is your feeling now towards those who were the cause of you fatal resolution? – A. Oh! Don’t you tempt me, don’t tempt me, I beg you.
OBSERVATION: This is a remarkable answer. It paints the situation of the spirit fighting the desire of hatred towards those who did him harm, and the feeling of good, pushing him to forgiveness. He is afraid that this question may provoke an answer that might be reproached by his conscience.
6. Do you regret your action? – A. I told you: my pride and my weakness are the cause.
7. When alive did you believe in God and in a future life? – A. My final words demonstrate that: I walk to my punishment.
OBSERVATION: He begins to understand his situation, about which he could have had an illusion in the beginning, because he could not be simultaneously saved and walked to his punishment.
8. When you took that resolution, what was in your mind? – A. I was very much aware of the justice to understand what makes me suffer now. For a short time I entertained the idea of the void but I soon rejected that. If I had such an idea I would not have killed myself. I would have sought revenge.
OBSERVATION: This answer is at the same time very logical and very profound. If he believed in the nothingness after death instead of killing himself he would have revenged or at least he would have started from vengeance. The idea of the future precluded him from committing a double crime. With the idea of the nothingness what was there to be afraid of if he wanted to take his own life? He would no longer fear people’s justice and would enjoy the pleasure of vengeance. Such is the consequence of the materialistic doctrines that certain wise people try to propagate.
9. If you were convinced that the cruelest vicissitudes of life are trials of too short a duration before eternity would you still have succumbed? – A. Very short, I know that, but despair does not give space to reason.
10. We beg God for His forgiveness in your favor and send Him our prayers, all of us united: “Almighty God, we know the fate of those who shorten their days and we cannot obstruct your justice. But we also know that your mercy is infinite. May that mercy be extended upon the soul of Alfred Leroy! May also our prayers show him that there are people on Earth who care about him, thus mitigating his sufferings for not having had the courage to endure the hardships of life! Good spirits, whose mission is to alleviate the unfortunate ones, take him under your protection; inspire regret in him for his actions and the firm desire of progress through new trials that he will withstand better. – A. Your prayers make me cry hence I feel happier.
11. In the beginning you said: I am saved. How can we reconcile those words with what you said later: I walk towards my punishment? – A. And how do you see God’s benevolence? I could not live. It was impossible. Wouldn’t you believe that God sees that impossibility in such a case?
OBSERVATION: Amidst some notably sensible answers there are others, and this last one is in that group, through which the spirit shows an imperfect idea of his current situation. There is no surprise here if we consider the fact that he has been dead for a few days only.
12. (To St. Louis) – Could you tell us what is the fate of the unfortunate spirit that we have just evoked? – A. Expiation and suffering. No, there is no contradiction between the first words of that unfortunate spirit and his pains. He says he is happy. He is happy for the termination of life. Since he is still attached to the Earthly bonds the only thing he feels is the absence of the bad things from Earth, but when his spirit is totally separated from the horizons of pain, a slow and terrible expiation will unfold before him, and the awareness of infinity, still hidden to his eyes, shall be the punishment that he had foreseen.
13. Which difference can you establish between this suicide case and the other one of the Samaritan? Both killed themselves out of despair, however their situation is very different: this one is perfectly conscious of himself; speaks clearly and does not suffer yet while the other one did not see himself dead and from the very initial moments he suffered a cruel pain, feeling the decomposition of his own body. – A. Huge difference. The suffering of each of those men reflects the individual character of their moral progress. The latter, a weak and broken soul, held up as much as he believed. He doubted his own strength and God’s benevolence, but he cannot be charged with blasphemy or slander; his inner, slow and profound suffering shall have the same intensity as the pain of the former suicide. It is just that the law of expiation is not uniform. NOTE: The story of the Samaritan suicide can be found in the issue of The Spiritist Review, June 1858.
14. To the eyes of God who is most to blame and who will suffer the greatest punishment: the one who succumbed to his own weakness or the other who was led to despair for the stiffness of his heart? – A. Surely the one who succumbed to the temptation.
15. Can the prayers on their behalf be useful to them? – A. Yes. Prayer is like a beneficial mist.
Jules Michel
Friend of Mrs. Costel’s son, the medium, deceased when he was 14 years old. Evoked 8 days after his death
1. Evocation – A. I thank you for the evocation. I remember you and our strolls at Monceau Park.
2. And what can you tell us about our comrade Charles? – A. Charles is very sorry for my death. But am I dead? I see, I feel alive, I think as I did before; it is just that I cannot touch myself and I don’t recognize anything around me.
3. What is it that you see? – A. I see a great clarity; my feet don’t touch the ground; I slide; I feel dragged. I see bright figures and others dressed in white; I feel their pressure and they surround me; some smile at me others scare me with their dark eyes.
4. Do you see your mother? – A. Ah! Yes. I see my mother, my sister and my brother. Here they are! My mother cries a lot. I wish I could speak with her as I do with you. She would see that I am not dead. How can I console her? I beg you to speak of me. I would like also that you tell Charles that I will have fun by watching his work.
5. Do you see your body? – A. Yes, I see my body there, stiff. However, I am not in that grave since I am here.
6. Where are you then? – A. I am here, by your table, on the right hand side. It is funny that you cannot see me when I see you so well!
7. What was your sensation when you left your body behind? – A. I don’t remember very well what I felt then. I had a splitting headache and there were a lot of things around me. I felt numb; I wanted to move but I couldn’t; my hands were wet from sweat and I noticed a lot of work done on my body; then I felt nothing else and woke up kind of relieved; there was no more suffering and I felt myself light as a feather. Then I saw myself in bed but I was not there; I saw all the arrangements around me and then I left.
8. How did you know that I called you? – A. I don’t understand that very well. I just heard your call and I promptly came because, as I used to tell Charles, you are not boring. Good bye Ma’am, so long. We will speak again, right?
1. Evocation – A. I thank you for the evocation. I remember you and our strolls at Monceau Park.
2. And what can you tell us about our comrade Charles? – A. Charles is very sorry for my death. But am I dead? I see, I feel alive, I think as I did before; it is just that I cannot touch myself and I don’t recognize anything around me.
3. What is it that you see? – A. I see a great clarity; my feet don’t touch the ground; I slide; I feel dragged. I see bright figures and others dressed in white; I feel their pressure and they surround me; some smile at me others scare me with their dark eyes.
4. Do you see your mother? – A. Ah! Yes. I see my mother, my sister and my brother. Here they are! My mother cries a lot. I wish I could speak with her as I do with you. She would see that I am not dead. How can I console her? I beg you to speak of me. I would like also that you tell Charles that I will have fun by watching his work.
5. Do you see your body? – A. Yes, I see my body there, stiff. However, I am not in that grave since I am here.
6. Where are you then? – A. I am here, by your table, on the right hand side. It is funny that you cannot see me when I see you so well!
7. What was your sensation when you left your body behind? – A. I don’t remember very well what I felt then. I had a splitting headache and there were a lot of things around me. I felt numb; I wanted to move but I couldn’t; my hands were wet from sweat and I noticed a lot of work done on my body; then I felt nothing else and woke up kind of relieved; there was no more suffering and I felt myself light as a feather. Then I saw myself in bed but I was not there; I saw all the arrangements around me and then I left.
8. How did you know that I called you? – A. I don’t understand that very well. I just heard your call and I promptly came because, as I used to tell Charles, you are not boring. Good bye Ma’am, so long. We will speak again, right?
Correspondence
"Rome, March 2nd, 1861
Dear Sir,
I have been involved with spiritist manifestations for about four years now and I am glad to have a good medium in the family that give us communications of a superior order. We have read and read again your work ‘The Spirits’ Book’ that is cause of happiness and consolation to us, giving us the most sublime and admissible notions of our future life. If I could have any doubt about them, the current proofs I have now are more than enough to reaffirm my faith. I lost persons who were very dear to me and I have the inappreciable happiness of knowing that they are happy and I am able to communicate with them. I cannot express my joy when I had that experience. The first time when they gave me real signs of their presence I said: Then it is all true that not everything dies with the body! I owe our Lord for having entrusted me. Believe in my eternal gratitude by the good that it does to me and for the reason that I was unwillingly tormented by the future. The idea of nothing terrified me and beyond the void there was only an oppressing uncertainty. There is no doubt any more. It seems that I was reborn for life. All my apprehensions are gone and my trust in God came back stronger than ever. I do hope that my sons, thanks to you, will not experience the same torments since they are fed by your truths and their mounting reason has to gain in strength.
However, we lack a safe guide to the practice. If I were not afraid
of bothering you I would have asked for the advices of your own experience
long ago. Fortunately your recent ‘The Mediums’ Book’ came
to fulfill that blank and we now march stronger steps since now we
are forewarned against the obstacles on the way.
I attach, dear Sir, some copies of the communications that we
have received. They were originally written in Italian and have undoubtedly
suffered some loss in the translation. Nonetheless I would
be most grateful for receiving your thoughts about them in case I am
favored with a reply. It will be an encouragement to us all. I apologize
for the length of this letter and receive the testimony of sympathy
from yours,
Count X…”
NOTE: The amount of material forces us to postpone the publication
of the communications transmitted by Mr. Count X… and there are
some really remarkable. We only extracted the following answers given by
one spirit who communicated with him:
1. Did you know The Spirits’ Book? – A. How can the spirits not
know their work? We all know it.
2. That is very natural with respect to those who participated in the
work. But how about the others? – A. There is a communion of
thoughts and solidarity among the spirits that you cannot understand,
you humans that are fed by selfishness and who see
through the window of your prison.
3. Have you participated in that work? – A. No, not personally, but I
knew that it was to be done and that other spirits, well above me,
were in charge of that mission.
4. Which results will that work produce? – A. It is a tree that has
already sowed profound seeds on Earth. Those seeds germinate;
they will soon mature and later the fruits shall be harvested.
5. Isn’t the opposition of the adversaries frightening? – A. When the
clouds that cover the Sun dissipate it shines stronger.
6. The clouds will dissipate then? – A. All that is needed is a breath
of God.
7. Then, in your opinion, Spiritism shall become a general belief? –
A. You should say universal.
8. However, some people seem very difficult to convince. – A. There
are some who will never be in this life but death collects them daily.
9. Won’t they be replaced by others who will become equally incredulous?
– A. God wishes the victory of good against evil and
truth against error, as announced. God’s Kingdom must come.
God’s designs are impenetrable but believe that whatever God
wishes God can do.
10. Will Spiritism always be accepted here? – A. It will be accepted
and flourish. (at this point the spirit takes the pencil back to the
previous answer and strongly underlines it)
11. What is the utility of Spiritism for the victory of good against
evil? Isn’t Christ’s law enough for that? – A. That law would certainly
be enough if practiced but how many do practice them?
How many only show an appearance of faith? Thus, God seeing
that His law was ignored and misunderstood and that, despite
the law, people precipitate even more into the abyss of incredulity,
God wanted to give them another demonstration of His infinite
benevolence, multiplying the proofs of the future before their eyes
through the magnificent manifestations that you witness, allowing
the warning to be given by those who have already left Earth
when they return and say: We are alive. Those who resist before
such testimonies will not have an excuse. They will atone for
their blindness and their pride through new and more difficult
existences on inferior worlds, up until the time when they finally
open their eyes to the light. Believe it, that among those who suffer
on Earth there are many who atone for previous existences.
12. Can Spiritism be considered a new law? – A. No, it is not a new
law. The interpretations given by people to the law of Christ
generated struggles that are contrary to its own spirit. God does
not want the law of love to be used as a pretext to disorder and fratricidal fights. Spiritism is destined to reestablish the unity of
beliefs by expressing itself in simple language and without allegories.
It is then the confirmation and clarification of Christianity
that is and will always be the divine law, the one that must reign
sovereign on Earth and whose propagation will be facilitated by
this powerful auxiliary.
Spiritist Teachings and Dissertations
Truth will be Born (Sent by Mr. Sabò, from Bordeaux)What is that painful moaning that reverberates in my heart, vibrating every single fiber of my soul? It is humanity struggling through the rude and painful work, preparing to give birth to light. Come, spiritists, surround its suffering bed. May the strongest among you stretch their stiff arms to support the convulsions of pain, and may the others wait the birth of that child, receiving it in their arms when it comes to life. The supreme moment arrives; in a last breath of effort it escapes from the conceiving heart, the mother left dazed behind abated by her weakness for some time. However, it was born healthy and robust and life breathes plentiful at full power. You, who have witnessed its birth must follow it every step of the way. Behold! The joy of having given birth resurrects the mother’s strength and courage, and with a maternal tone she calls all people to gather around the blessed child, for she foresees that with his powerful voice the scaffoldings of lies will fall in a few years, and immutable like God, truth will unite humanity under its flag through Spiritism. Triumph, however, will only come after the fight since its bloodthirsty enemies conspire against it. These enemies are pride, selfishness, greed, hypocrisy and fanaticism, almighty foes that have ruled sovereignly so far and will not be dethroned without a fight. Some laugh at its weakness, but others are scared of its arrival predicting their own ruin. That is why they try to eliminate it, like Herod sought to eliminate Jesus through the massacre of the innocent. That child has no homeland. It is all over the planet, looking for the people that will be the first to sustain its flag. Such people will be the most powerful among all peoples because that is the will of God.
Massilon
Massilon
Progression of a Wicked Spirit (Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, Medium Mrs. Costel)
We published in the December 1860 issue several communications signed by Clara under the title punishment of the selfish, in which that spirit reveals her bad inclinations and her currently deplorable situation. Our colleague, Mrs. Costel, who knew her when she was alive and who serves as a medium worked with her in the process of her moral education. Her efforts were crowned by success. It can be assessed by the spontaneous dissertation below, given at the Society on March 1st last.
“I will speak about the important difference between the divine and the human moral. The former supports the adulterous woman in her lonely fate and tells the sinners: ‘Repent and the kingdom of God will welcome you’ - The divine moral accepts every regret and all confessed faults while human moral rejects them, admitting the occult sins with a smile, saying that they are half-forgiven. It extends the grace of pardon to one; hypocrisy to the other. Truth seekers, you must choose! Choose from the heavens open to regret and tolerance that admits error as long as it does not affect its selfishness and false arrangements, but that denies the passion and the tears dropped after the publically confessed faults. Repent, all of you who sin; renounce to evilness but most importantly to the hypocrisy that hides the ugliness of evil under the smiles and deceiving mask of mutual conveniences.”
Clara
Here is another example of a conversation, obtained in a more or less similar situation. An unknown lady who was a medium was present at the same session, writing at the Society for the first time. She knew a woman that had died 9 years ago and that when alive was not much loved. Since her death she had become perverse, always seeking to do bad things. However, good advices given to her were able to develop better feelings. In this session she gave the following spontaneous dissertation: “I beg you for your prayers. I need to be good. I have persecuted and obsessed someone that was supposed to do good for a long time. God wants me to stop harassing people but I am afraid that I don’t have the necessary courage. Help me. I have been so bad! Oh! I suffer a lot! Much suffering! Being bad used to make me happy. I have done that with all my heart but I want to stop doing those bad things. Oh! Pray for me.”
Adele
“I will speak about the important difference between the divine and the human moral. The former supports the adulterous woman in her lonely fate and tells the sinners: ‘Repent and the kingdom of God will welcome you’ - The divine moral accepts every regret and all confessed faults while human moral rejects them, admitting the occult sins with a smile, saying that they are half-forgiven. It extends the grace of pardon to one; hypocrisy to the other. Truth seekers, you must choose! Choose from the heavens open to regret and tolerance that admits error as long as it does not affect its selfishness and false arrangements, but that denies the passion and the tears dropped after the publically confessed faults. Repent, all of you who sin; renounce to evilness but most importantly to the hypocrisy that hides the ugliness of evil under the smiles and deceiving mask of mutual conveniences.”
Clara
Here is another example of a conversation, obtained in a more or less similar situation. An unknown lady who was a medium was present at the same session, writing at the Society for the first time. She knew a woman that had died 9 years ago and that when alive was not much loved. Since her death she had become perverse, always seeking to do bad things. However, good advices given to her were able to develop better feelings. In this session she gave the following spontaneous dissertation: “I beg you for your prayers. I need to be good. I have persecuted and obsessed someone that was supposed to do good for a long time. God wants me to stop harassing people but I am afraid that I don’t have the necessary courage. Help me. I have been so bad! Oh! I suffer a lot! Much suffering! Being bad used to make me happy. I have done that with all my heart but I want to stop doing those bad things. Oh! Pray for me.”
Adele
Envy and the Mediums (Sent by Mr. Ky…, a corresponding member from the Karlsruhe Society)
“A vain man is to himself and his own intelligence as despicable as pitiful. He keeps the truth away from his eyes, replacing it by his own personal arguments and convictions that he sees infallible and undisputable because they are of his own. A vain man is always selfish and selfishness is the plague of humanity. He shows his insignificance by neglecting the rest of the world. By denying truths that are new to him he also shows the narrowness of his intelligence, perverted by his obstinacy, which in turn increases his vanity and selfishness. Unfortunate is the man who is dominated by these two enemies. When he wakes up from such a state when the truth and light will then be shed upon him from all sides and then only a miserable creature will be seen, someone that madness tried to raise above humanity in his Earthly life, and who will actually be below certain modest and simple people who he thought to be their inferior. You must be humble in your hearts, you who have been endowed by God’s spiritual gifts. Do not think that the merit is yours as much the credit for the work done is not of the utensils used but of the worker. Remember that you are no more than God’s instruments to manifest his Omnipotent Spirit to the world and there is no reason for you to be flattered. Ah! So many mediums become vain instead of humble as their gifts develop! That is a delay in the general progress since instead of being humble and passive the medium frequently repels important communications, out of pure vanity and pride, communications that will come to light through others who are worthy. God does not take into account the worldly position of someone in order to confer that person with the sacred spirit; much to the contrary, for God many times raises the lowly amongst the humble endowing him with the greatest gifts so that the world can see that it is not man but the spirit of God that makes miracles through man. As I said, the medium is a simple instrument of the Great Creator of all things and he is the one to be glorified; He is the one to be thanked for His endless benevolence.
I would also like to say a word about envy and jealousy that is often found amongst the mediums and that is necessary to remove like the weed and as soon as it sprouts, otherwise it can abate the good vegetation around. Envy is as much damaging to the medium as pride, again requiring the same testimony of humility. I say even that it demonstrates a lack of common sense. It is not by being envious of your neighbor’s gifts that you will receive similar ones; if God gives a lot to some rest assured that His reasons are well founded. Envy spoils the heart; it even muffles the best feelings in you; it is thus an enemy that can only be defeated with a lot of effort for there is no truce once envy is with us. That is applicable to every circumstance of your Earthly life but I here refer in particular to envy among mediums, something as much unfounded as ridiculous, a demonstration of man’s weakness when enslaved by passions.”
Luos
OBSERVATION: A discussion was established after reading this latest communication at the Society, comparing envy among mediums to that among the somnambulists. One of the members, Mr. D…, said that in his opinion the same happens among the somnambulists who cannot dissimulate their feelings when in the somnambulistic state.
Mr. Allan Kardec counters that opinion saying: “Envy seems to be inherent to the somnambulistic state due to a factor that is difficult to understand and that the somnambulists themselves cannot explain. Such feeling occurs among somnambulists who only show benevolence to one another when in their wake state. With the mediums it is far from natural and it is evidently related to the moral character of each person. One medium is the envy of another because it is in his nature to be envious. Such wickedness, son of pride and selfishness, is essentially harmful to the purity of the communications, while the most envious somnambulist can be very lucid and it can be easily understood. The somnambulist sees things by himself. It is his spirit that separates and acts. He does not need anybody else. The medium, on the contrary, is just an intermediary, receiving everything from strange spirits, and his personality is much less at play than that of the somnambulist. The spirits sympathize with a given medium for his qualities or his vices; now, the most repulsive defects to the good spirits are pride, selfishness and envy. Experience tells us that the mediumistic faculty is independent of the moral qualities; it thus can be found, like the somnambulistic one, in the highest degree in the most mischievous creature. However, the opposite happens with respect to the sympathies from the good spirits, who communicate more naturally and easily the purer the intermediary in charge of transmitting their thoughts is, the more sincere and the more distant from the bad spirits the medium is. They do the same with that respect as we do when we have someone as our confidante. In particular with respect to envy, as this is present in almost all somnambulists and it is much rarer with the mediums, it seems that it is a rule with the former and an exception with the latter, from what we must conclude that the cause must be different for each case.”
I would also like to say a word about envy and jealousy that is often found amongst the mediums and that is necessary to remove like the weed and as soon as it sprouts, otherwise it can abate the good vegetation around. Envy is as much damaging to the medium as pride, again requiring the same testimony of humility. I say even that it demonstrates a lack of common sense. It is not by being envious of your neighbor’s gifts that you will receive similar ones; if God gives a lot to some rest assured that His reasons are well founded. Envy spoils the heart; it even muffles the best feelings in you; it is thus an enemy that can only be defeated with a lot of effort for there is no truce once envy is with us. That is applicable to every circumstance of your Earthly life but I here refer in particular to envy among mediums, something as much unfounded as ridiculous, a demonstration of man’s weakness when enslaved by passions.”
Luos
OBSERVATION: A discussion was established after reading this latest communication at the Society, comparing envy among mediums to that among the somnambulists. One of the members, Mr. D…, said that in his opinion the same happens among the somnambulists who cannot dissimulate their feelings when in the somnambulistic state.
Mr. Allan Kardec counters that opinion saying: “Envy seems to be inherent to the somnambulistic state due to a factor that is difficult to understand and that the somnambulists themselves cannot explain. Such feeling occurs among somnambulists who only show benevolence to one another when in their wake state. With the mediums it is far from natural and it is evidently related to the moral character of each person. One medium is the envy of another because it is in his nature to be envious. Such wickedness, son of pride and selfishness, is essentially harmful to the purity of the communications, while the most envious somnambulist can be very lucid and it can be easily understood. The somnambulist sees things by himself. It is his spirit that separates and acts. He does not need anybody else. The medium, on the contrary, is just an intermediary, receiving everything from strange spirits, and his personality is much less at play than that of the somnambulist. The spirits sympathize with a given medium for his qualities or his vices; now, the most repulsive defects to the good spirits are pride, selfishness and envy. Experience tells us that the mediumistic faculty is independent of the moral qualities; it thus can be found, like the somnambulistic one, in the highest degree in the most mischievous creature. However, the opposite happens with respect to the sympathies from the good spirits, who communicate more naturally and easily the purer the intermediary in charge of transmitting their thoughts is, the more sincere and the more distant from the bad spirits the medium is. They do the same with that respect as we do when we have someone as our confidante. In particular with respect to envy, as this is present in almost all somnambulists and it is much rarer with the mediums, it seems that it is a rule with the former and an exception with the latter, from what we must conclude that the cause must be different for each case.”