Introduction

For new ideas new words are needed, in order to secure clearness of language by avoiding the confusion inseparable from the employment of the same term for expressing different meanings. The words spiritual, spiritualist, spiritualism, have a definite acceptation; to give them a new one, in order to apply them to the doctrine set forth by spirits, would be to multiply the causes of amphibology, already so numerous. Strictly speaking, Spiritualism is the opposite of Materialism; every one is a Spiritualist who believes that there is in him something more than matter, but it does not follow that he believes in the existence of spirits, or in their communication with the visible world. Instead, therefore, of the words spiritual, spiritualism, we employ, to designate this latter belief, the words spiritist, spiritism, which, by their form, indicate their origin and radical meaning, and have thus the advantage of being perfectly intelligible; and we reserve the words spiritualism, spiritualist, for the expression of the meaning attached to them by common acceptation. We say, then, that the fundamental principle of the spiritist theory, or spiritism, is the relation of the material world with spirits, or the beings of the invisible world; and we designate the adherents of the spiritist theory as spiritists.

New ideas need new words to keep language clear. Using the same word for different meanings inevitably causes confusion. The words spiritual, spiritualist, spiritualism, already have established meanings. Giving them new meanings to describe the doctrine set forth by spirits would create even more ambiguity. Strictly speaking, Spiritualism is the opposite of Materialism. Anyone who believes that something in them is more than matter is a Spiritualist. But that does not mean they believe spirits exist or communicate with the visible world. So, instead of spiritual and spiritualism, we use spiritist and spiritism to describe this belief in spirits. The forms of these words show their origin and basic meaning, making them perfectly clear. We reserve spiritualism, spiritualist, for their commonly accepted meanings. The fundamental principle of the spiritist theory, or spiritism, is the relationship between the material world and spirits, the beings of the invisible world. We call followers of the spiritist theory spiritists.

In a special sense, "The Spirits' Book" contains the doctrine or theory of spiritism; in a general sense, it appertains to the spritualist school, of which it presents one of the phases. It is for this reason that we have inscribed the words Spiritualist Philosophy on its title-page.

In a specific sense, "The Spirits' Book" contains the doctrine or theory of spiritism. In a general sense, it belongs to the spiritualist school and presents one of its forms. That is why we have placed the words Spiritualist Philosophy on its title page.

There is another word of which it is equally necessary to define the meaning, because it is the keystone of every system of morality, and also because, owing to the lack of a precise definition, it has been made the subject of innumerable controversies; we refer to the word soul. The divergence of opinion concerning the nature of the soul is a result of the variety of meanings attached to this word. A perfect language, in which every idea had its own special term, would save a vast deal of discussion; for, in that case, misunderstanding would be impossible.

There is another word whose meaning we must define. It is central to every system of morality. It has also been the subject of countless controversies because it lacks a precise definition. We mean the word soul. People disagree about the nature of the soul because they give the word different meanings. A perfect language would have a distinct word for every idea. It would save us a great deal of discussion, because misunderstandings would be impossible.

Some writers define the soul as being the principle of organic life, having no existence of its own, and ceasing with the life of the body. According to this purely Materialistic belief, the soul is an effect, and not a cause.

Some writers define the soul as the principle of organic life. They say it has no existence of its own and ends when the body dies. According to this purely materialistic belief, the soul is an effect, not a cause.

Others consider the soul as being the principle of intelligence, the universal agent, of which each being absorbs a portion. According to them, there is, in the entire universe, only one soul, which distributes sparks of itself among all intelligent beings during their life; each spark, after the death of the being it has animated, returning to the common source, and blending again with the general whole, as brooks and rivers return to the ocean from which they were produced. This opinion differs from the preceding one, inasmuch as, according to the latter hypothesis, there is in us something more than matter, something that remains in existence after our death; but, practically, it is much as though nothing remained of us, since, no longer possessing individuality, we should retain no consciousness of our identity. According to this hypothesis, the universal soul is God, and each being is a portion of the Divinity. It is a species of Pantheism.

Others see the soul as the source of intelligence, a universal force of which each being absorbs a portion. They believe there is only one soul in the entire universe. During their lives, all intelligent beings receive sparks from this soul. After a being dies, the spark that gave it life returns to the common source and merges with the whole. This is like brooks and rivers returning to the ocean from which they came. This view differs from the preceding one. According to this view, there is something in us beyond matter that continues to exist after death. But in practice, it is much as if nothing remained of us. Without individuality, we would have no awareness of our identity. According to this view, the universal soul is God, and each being is a portion of the Divinity. It is a form of Pantheism.

According to others, again, the soul is a moral being, distinct, independent of matter, and preserving its individuality after death. This acceptation of the word soul is certainly the one most generally received; because, under one name or another, the idea of a being that survives the body is found as an instinctive belief, and independently of all teaching, among all nations, whatever their degree of civilisation. This doctrine, according to which the soul is a cause, and not an effect, is that of the spiritualists.

Others say that the soul is a moral being, distinct from and independent of matter. They believe it keeps its individuality after death. This meaning of the word soul is certainly the most widely accepted. That is because all nations have an instinctive belief in a being that survives the body, whatever name they give it. This belief exists independently of any teaching, whatever the nation's level of civilization. The doctrine that the soul is a cause, not an effect, is the doctrine of the spiritualists.

Without discussing the value of these opinions, and considering the subject merely under its philological aspect, we say that these three applications of the word soul constitute three distinct ideas, each of which demands a different term. "Soul" has, therefore, a triple meaning, and is employed by each school according to the special meaning it attributes to that word. In order to avoid the confusion naturally resulting from the use of the same word to express three different ideas, it would be necessary to confine the word to one of these three ideas; it would not matter to which, provided the choice were clearly understood. We think it more natural to take it in its most common acceptation; and for this reason we employ the word soul to indicate the immaterial and individual being which resides in us, and survives the body. Even if this being did not really exist, and were only a product of the imagination, a specific term would still be needed to designate it.

Without judging the value of these opinions, we will consider the subject only from a linguistic perspective. These three uses of the word soul express three distinct ideas, each of which needs a different term. "Soul" therefore has three meanings. Each school of thought uses the word according to the particular meaning it gives it. To avoid the confusion that naturally results, we would need to limit the word to one of these three ideas. It would not matter which one, as long as the choice was clearly understood. We think it is more natural to use the word in its most common sense. For this reason, we use soul to mean the immaterial and individual being that lives within us and survives the body. Even if this being did not really exist and were only a product of the imagination, we would still need a specific term for it.

For want of such a term for each of the other ideas now loosely understood by the word soul, we employ the term vital principle to designate the material and organic life which, whatever may be its source, is common to all living creatures, from the plant to man. As life can exist without the thinking faculty, the vital principle is something distinct from and independent of it. The word vitality would not express the same idea. According to some, the vital principle is a property of matter; an effect produced wherever matter is found under certain given conditions; while, in the opinion of the greater number of thinkers, it resides in a special fluid, universally diffused, and of which each being absorbs and assimilates a portion during life, as inert bodies absorb light; the vital principle being identical with the vital fluid, which is generally regarded as being the same as the animalised electric fluid, designated also as the magnetic fluid, the nervous fluid, &c.

Since we lack a separate term for each of the other ideas loosely covered by the word soul, we use vital principle to mean material and organic life. Whatever its source, this life is common to all living creatures, from plants to humans. Life can exist without the ability to think, so the vital principle is distinct from and independent of that ability. The word vitality would not express the same idea. According to some, the vital principle is a property of matter. They say it is an effect produced wherever matter exists under certain conditions. But most thinkers believe it exists in a special fluid spread throughout the universe. During life, each being absorbs and takes in a portion of this fluid, just as nonliving bodies absorb light. In this view, the vital principle is identical to the vital fluid. This fluid is generally believed to be the same as animalized electric fluid, also called the magnetic fluid, the nervous fluid, and so on.

However this may be, one fact is certain, for it is proved by observation, viz., that organic beings possess in themselves a force which, so long as it exists, produces the phenomena of life; that physical life is common to all organic beings, and is independent of intelligence and thought; that intelligence and thought are faculties peculiar to certain organic species; and, lastly, that, among the organic species endowed with intelligence and thought, there is one which is endowed with a special moral sense that gives it an incontestable superiority over the others, viz., the human species.

Whatever the explanation, observation proves one fact. All living beings have a force within them that produces the phenomena of life as long as it exists. Physical life is common to all living beings and does not depend on intelligence or thought. Intelligence and thought are abilities found only in certain living species. Finally, among these species, humans alone have a special moral sense that gives them an undeniable superiority over the others.

It is evident that, being employed according to various acceptations, the term soul does not exclude either Materialism or Pantheism. Spiritualists themselves understand the term soul according to one or other of the first two definitions, without denying the distinct immaterial being, to which, in that case, it would give some other name. This word, therefore, is not the representative of an opinion; it is a Protean term, defined by each after his own fashion, and thus giving rise to interminable disputes.

Clearly, the term soul has several meanings, so it does not rule out either Materialism or Pantheism. Spiritualists themselves understand the term soul according to one or the other of the first two definitions. They do so without denying the existence of a distinct immaterial being, which they would then call by another name. The word, therefore, does not represent a particular belief. It is a shape-shifting term that each person defines in their own way, giving rise to endless disputes.

We might also avoid confusion, even while employing the word soul in the three senses defined above, by adding to it some qualifying term that should specify the point of view from which we consider it, or the mode in which we apply it. It would be, in that case, a generic word, representing at once the principles of material life, of intelligence, and of the moral faculty, each of which would be distinguished by an attribute, as is done, for example, with the word gas, by adding the words hydrogen, oxygen, &c. Thus we might say—and it would, perhaps, be the best plan to adopt—vital soul for the principle of material life, intellectual soul for the principle of intelligence, and spiritual soul for the principle of our individuality after death; in which case the vital soul would be common to all organic beings, plants, animals, and men; the intellectual soul would be the peculiar property of animals and men; and the spiritual soul would belong to men only.

We could also avoid confusion while using the word soul in the three senses defined above. We could add a qualifying term to show the sense in which we use it. The word would then be a general term for the principles of material life, intelligence, and moral capacity. A qualifier would distinguish each principle. For example, we distinguish types of gas by adding words such as hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, we could use vital soul for the principle of material life. We could use intellectual soul for the principle of intelligence, and spiritual soul for the principle of our individuality after death. Perhaps this would be the best approach. In that case, the vital soul would be common to all organic beings: plants, animals, and humans. The intellectual soul would belong only to animals and humans. The spiritual soul would belong only to humans.

We have thought it all the more important to be explicit in regard to this point, because the spiritist theory is naturally based on the existence in us of a being independent of matter, and that survives the body. As the word soul will frequently recur in the course of this work, it was necessary to define the meaning we attach to it, in order to avoid all misunderstanding.

We felt it was especially important to be clear about this point. Spiritist theory is naturally based on the existence of a being within us that is independent of matter and survives the body. The word soul will appear often in this work, so we needed to define what we mean by it. This should prevent any misunderstanding.

We now come to the principal object of this preliminary explanation.

We now come to the main purpose of this preliminary explanation.

Spiritist doctrine, like all new theories, has its supporters and its opponents. We will endeavour to reply to some of the objections of the latter, by examining the worth of the reasons on which they are based, without, however, pretending to be able to convince everybody, but addressing ourselves to those who, without prejudices or preconceived ideas, are sincerely and honestly desirous of arriving at the truth; and we will prove to them that those objections are the result of a too hasty conclusion in regard to facts imperfectly observed.

Spiritist doctrine, like all new theories, has supporters and opponents. We will try to answer some of the opponents’ objections by examining the reasons behind them. We do not claim that we can convince everyone. Instead, we address those who are sincerely and honestly seeking the truth, without prejudice or preconceived ideas. We will show them that these objections arise from hasty conclusions about facts that have not been fully observed.

Of the facts referred to, the one first observed was the movement of objects, popularly called "table-turning." This phenomenon, first observed in America (or rather, renewed in that country, for history proves it to have been produced in the most remote ages of antiquity), was attended with various strange accompaniments, such as unusual noises, raps produced without any ostensible cause, &c. From America this phenomenon spread rapidly over Europe and the rest of the world. It was met at first with incredulity; but the movements were produced by so many experimenters, that it soon became impossible to doubt its reality.

Of the events mentioned, the first observed was the movement of objects, popularly called "table-turning." This phenomenon was first observed in America. Or rather, it reappeared there, since history shows that it occurred in the most distant ages of antiquity. It was accompanied by various strange occurrences, such as unusual noises, raps with no apparent cause, and so on. From America, the phenomenon spread rapidly across Europe and the rest of the world. At first, people were skeptical. But so many experimenters produced the movements that it soon became impossible to doubt they were real.

If the phenomenon in question had been limited to the movement of inert objects, it might have been possible to explain it by some purely physical cause. We are far from knowing all the secret agencies of nature, or all the properties of those which are known to us. Electricity, moreover, is not only multiplying, day by day, the resources it offers to mankind, but appears to be about to irradiate science with a new light. It seemed, therefore, by no means impossible that electricity, modified by certain circumstances, or some other unknown agent, might be the cause of these movements. The fact that the presence of several persons increased the intensity of the action appeared to strengthen this supposition; for the union of these might not inaptly be regarded as constituting a battery, of which the power was in proportion to the number of its elements.

If the phenomenon had been limited to the movement of inert objects, a purely physical cause might have explained it. We are far from knowing all of nature's hidden forces or all the properties of those we do know. Electricity, moreover, is expanding its uses for humanity day by day. It also seems about to shed new light on science. It therefore seemed quite possible that electricity, altered by certain circumstances, or some other unknown force caused these movements. The presence of several people increased the intensity of the effect, which seemed to support this idea. Together, they might reasonably be regarded as forming a battery, whose power increased with the number of its elements.

That the movement of the tables should be circular was in no way surprising, for the circular movement is of frequent occurrence in nature. All the stars move in circles; and it therefore seemed to be possible that in the movement of the tables we had a reflex on a small scale of the movement of the universe; or that some cause, hitherto unknown, might produce, accidentally, and, in regard to small objects, a current analogous to that which impels the worlds of the universe in their orbits.

It was not surprising that the tables moved in circles, since circular motion is common in nature. All the stars move in circles. So the tables' movement seemed possibly to reflect the movement of the universe on a small scale. Or some previously unknown cause might accidentally produce a current affecting small objects. This current might be like the one that drives the worlds of the universe in their orbits.

But the movement in question was not always circular. It was often irregular, disorderly; the object moved was sometimes violently shaken, overthrown, carried about in various directions, and, in contravention of all known laws of statics, lifted from the ground and held up in the air. Still, in all this, there was nothing that might not be explained by the force of some invisible physical agent. Do we not see electricity overthrow buildings, uproot trees, and hurl to considerable distances the heaviest bodies, attracting or repelling, as the case may be?

But the movement was not always circular. It was often irregular and disorderly. The object was sometimes shaken violently, overturned, or moved in different directions. It was lifted off the ground and held in the air, contrary to all known laws of statics. Still, all of this might be explained by the force of some invisible physical agent. Don’t we see electricity knock down buildings, uproot trees, and hurl the heaviest objects great distances? It can attract or repel them, depending on the case.

The rappings and other unusual noises, supposing them to be due to something else than the dilatation of the wood, or other accidental cause, might very well be produced by an accumulation of the mysterious fluid; for does not electricity produce the loudest sounds?

Suppose the knocking and other unusual noises are not caused by wood expanding or some other accidental cause. They could very well be produced by a buildup of the mysterious fluid. After all, doesn't electricity produce the loudest sounds?

Up to this point everything might be considered as belonging to the domain of physics and physiology. Without going beyond this circle of ideas, the learned might have found in the phenomenon referred to matter well worthy of serious study. Why was this not done? It is painful to be obliged to make the confession, but the neglect of the scientific world was due to causes that add one more proof to the many already given of the frivolity of the human mind. In the first place, the commonness of the object which mainly served as the basis of the earliest experimentations had something to do with this disdain. What an influence, in regard to even the most serious matters, is often exerted by a mere word! Without reflecting that the movement referred to might be communicated to any object, the idea of tables became associated with it in the general mind, doubtless because a table, being the most convenient object upon which to experiment, and also because people can place themselves round a table more conveniently than round any other piece of furniture, was generally employed in the experiments referred to. But men who pride themselves on their mental superiority are sometimes so puerile as to warrant the suspicion that a good many keen and cultivated minds may have considered it beneath them to take any notice of what was commonly known as "the dance of tables." If the phenomenon observed by Galvani had been made known by some unlearned person, and dubbed with some absurd nickname, it would probably have been consigned to the lumber-room, along with the divining-rod; for where is the scientist who would not in that case have regarded it as derogatory to occupy himself with the dance of frogs?

Up to this point, everything could be seen as belonging to physics and physiology. Without going beyond those fields, scientists might have found the phenomenon well worth serious study. Why did they not study it? It is painful to admit, but the scientific world's neglect had causes that offer yet another proof of human frivolity. First, the ordinary nature of the object used in the earliest experiments helped explain their disdain. How much influence a mere word often has, even in the most serious matters! People came to associate the movement with tables, without considering that it could be passed on to any object. Doubtless this was because tables were generally used in the experiments. They were the most convenient objects for the purpose, and people could gather around them more easily than around other furniture. But people who pride themselves on their superior minds are sometimes remarkably childish. One might suspect that many sharp, educated minds thought it beneath them to notice what was commonly called "the dance of tables." Suppose an uneducated person had reported the phenomenon Galvani observed and given it some absurd nickname. It would probably have been tossed into the junk room along with the divining rod. For what scientist, in that case, would not have thought it beneath him to study the dance of frogs?

A few men of superior intellect, however, being modest enough to admit that nature might not have revealed to them all her secrets, conscientiously endeavoured to see into the matter for themselves; but the phenomena not having always responded to their attempts, and not being always produced at their pleasure, and according to their methods of experimenting, they arrived at an adverse conclusion in regard to them. The tables, however, despite that conclusion, continued to turn; and we may say of them, with Galileo, "Nevertheless, they move!" We may assert, still further, that the facts alluded to have been multiplied to such an extent that they have become naturalised among us, so that opinions are now only divided as to their nature.

A few highly intelligent men, however, were modest enough to admit that nature might not have revealed all its secrets to them. They made a conscientious effort to investigate the matter for themselves. But the phenomena did not always occur when they tried to produce them, using their own experimental methods. So they reached an unfavorable conclusion about the phenomena. Despite that conclusion, the tables continued to turn. We may say of them, with Galileo, "Nevertheless, they move!" We may go further and say that instances of these phenomena have become so numerous that they are now familiar to us. Opinions now differ only about their nature.

And here let us ask whether the fact that these phenomena are not always produced in exactly the same way, and according to the wishes and requirements of each individual observer, can be reasonably regarded as constituting an argument against their reality? Are not the phenomena of electricity and chemistry subordinated to certain conditions, and should we be right in denying their reality because they do not occur when those conditions are not present? Is it strange, then, that certain conditions should be necessary to the production of the phenomenon of the movement of objects by the human fluid, or that it should not occur when the observer, placing himself at his own individual point of view, insists on producing it at his own pleasure, or in subjecting it to the laws of phenomena already known, without considering that a new order of facts may, and indeed must, result from the action of laws equally new to us? Now, in order to arrive at a knowledge of such laws, it is necessary to study the circumstances under which those facts are produced; and such a study can only be made through long-sustained and attentive observation.

Let us ask whether these phenomena can reasonably be dismissed as unreal because they do not always occur in exactly the same way or according to each observer's wishes and requirements. Do not electrical and chemical phenomena also depend on certain conditions? Would we be right to deny that they are real because they do not occur when those conditions are absent? Is it strange, then, that certain conditions are necessary for objects to move through the human fluid? Or is it strange that this movement does not occur when an observer insists on producing it at will? The observer may also try to subject it to the laws governing phenomena already known. But this reflects only the observer's own point of view. It overlooks the possibility that a new order of facts may, and indeed must, result from laws equally new to us. To learn about such laws, we must study the circumstances in which those facts occur. And such a study requires prolonged, attentive observation.

"But," it is often objected, "there is evident trickery in some of the occurrences referred to." To this objection we reply, in the first place, by asking whether the objectors are quite sure that what they have taken for trickery may not be simply an order of facts which they are not yet able to account for, as was the case with the peasant who mistook the experiments of a learned professor of physics for the tricks of a clever conjuror? But even admitting that there has been trickery in some cases, is that a reason for denying the reality of facts? Must we deny the reality of physics because certain conjurors give themselves the title of physicists? Moreover, the character of the persons concerned in these manifestations should be taken into account, and the interest they may have in deceiving. Would they do so by way of a joke? A joke may amuse for a moment, but a mystification, if kept up too long, would become as wearisome to the mystifier as to the mystified. Besides, a mystification carried on from one end of the earth to the other, and among the most serious, honourable, and enlightened people, would be at least as extraordinary as the phenomena in question.

"But," people often object, "some of the events mentioned clearly involve trickery." First, we ask whether the objectors can be sure of this. Could what they take for trickery simply be a kind of event they cannot yet explain? A peasant once mistook a learned physics professor's experiments for the tricks of a clever magician. But even if some cases involved trickery, is that a reason to deny that these events are real? Must we deny the reality of physics because some magicians call themselves physicists? We should also consider the character of the people involved in these manifestations. What interest might they have in deceiving others? Would they do it as a joke? A joke may amuse people for a moment. But a deception carried on too long would become as tiresome for the deceiver as for those deceived. Besides, such a deception might be carried on from one end of the earth to the other. And it might involve the most serious, honorable, and enlightened people. If so, it would be at least as extraordinary as the phenomena themselves.

If the phenomena we are considering had been limited to the movement of objects, they would have remained, as we have already remarked, within the domain of physical science; but so far was this from being the case, that they speedily proved to be only the forerunners of facts of a character still more extraordinary. For it was soon found that the impulsion communicated to inert objects was not the mere product of a blind mechanical force, but that it revealed the action of an intelligent cause, a discovery that opened up a new field of observation, and promised a solution of many mysterious problems. Are these movements due to an intelligent power? Such was the question first to be answered. If such a power exists, what is it? What is its nature? What its origin? Is it superhuman? Such were the secondary questions which naturally grew out of that first one.

If the phenomena we are considering had been limited to moving objects, they would have remained within the domain of physical science, as we have already noted. But that was far from the case. They soon proved to be only the first signs of even more extraordinary events. It was soon found that the force moving inanimate objects was not merely a blind mechanical force. It revealed the action of an intelligent cause. This discovery opened a new field of observation and promised to solve many mysterious problems. Are these movements caused by an intelligent power? That was the first question to answer. If such a power exists, what is it? What is its nature? Where does it come from? Is it superhuman? These were the further questions that naturally arose from the first.

The earliest manifestations of intelligence were made by means of the legs of tables, that moved up and down, striking a given number of times, and replying in this way by "yes" or "no" to the questions asked. Even here, it must be confessed, there was nothing very convincing for the incredulous, as these apparent answers might be an effect of chance. But fuller replies were soon obtained, the object in motion striking a number of blows corresponding to the number of each letter of the alphabet, so that words and sentences began to be produced in reply to the questions propounded. The correctness of these replies, their correlation with the questions asked, excited astonishment. The mysterious being who gave these replies, when questioned as to its nature, declared itself to be a "spirit" or "genius," gave itself a name, and stated various particulars about itself. This is a circumstance of noteworthy importance, for it proves that no one suggested the idea of spirits as an explanation of the phenomenon, but that the phenomenon gave this explanation of itself. Hypotheses are often framed, in the positive sciences, to serve as a basis of argument; but such was not the case in this instance.

The earliest signs of intelligence came through the legs of tables. The legs moved up and down, striking a certain number of times to answer questions with "yes" or "no." Even so, one must admit that this did little to convince skeptics, since the apparent answers might have been due to chance. But fuller replies soon followed. The moving object struck a number of times corresponding to each letter of the alphabet. In this way, it began to produce words and sentences in answer to questions. People were astonished by the accuracy of the replies and their relevance to the questions. When asked about its nature, the mysterious being giving these replies declared itself to be a "spirit" or "genius." It gave itself a name and stated various details about itself. This is important because it proves that no one suggested spirits as an explanation of the phenomenon. Rather, the phenomenon gave this explanation of itself. In the natural sciences, hypotheses are often proposed as a basis for argument. But that was not the case here.

The mode of communication furnished by the alphabet being tedious and inconvenient, the invisible agent (a point worthy of note) suggested another, by advising the fitting of a pencil to a small basket. This basket, placed upon a sheet of paper, was set in motion by the same occult power that moved the tables; but, instead of obeying a simple and regular movement of rotation, the pencil traced letters that formed words, sentences, and entire discourses, filling many pages, treating of the deepest questions of philosophy, morality, metaphysics, psychology, &c, and as rapidly as though written by the hand.

Communicating through the alphabet was tedious and inconvenient. It is worth noting that the invisible agent suggested another method: attaching a pencil to a small basket. The basket was placed on a sheet of paper. The same hidden power that moved the tables set the basket in motion. But instead of simply turning in a steady circle, the pencil traced letters that formed words, sentences, and entire discourses. These filled many pages and dealt with the deepest questions of philosophy, morality, metaphysics, psychology, and other subjects. The pencil wrote as quickly as a hand would.

This suggestion was made simultaneously in America, in France, and in various other countries. It was made in the following terms, in Paris, on the 10th of June 1853, to one of the most fervent partisans of the new phenomena—one who, from the year 1849, had been busily engaged in the evocation of spirits:—"Fetch the little basket from the next room; fasten a pencil to it; place it upon a sheet of paper; put your fingers on the edge of the basket." This having been done, the basket, a few moments afterwards, began to move, and the pencil wrote, quite legibly, this sentence:—"I expressly forbid your repeating to any one what I have just told you. The next time I write, I shall do it better."

This suggestion was made at the same time in America, France, and various other countries. In Paris, on June 10, 1853, it was given in the following words to a fervent supporter of the new phenomena. He had been actively engaged in calling up spirits since 1849: “Fetch the little basket from the next room. Fasten a pencil to it. Place it on a sheet of paper. Put your fingers on the edge of the basket.” A few moments after this was done, the basket began to move. The pencil wrote this sentence quite legibly: “I expressly forbid you to repeat to anyone what I have just told you. The next time I write, I will do it better.”

The object to which the pencil is attached being merely an instrument, its nature and form are of no importance, convenience being the only point to be considered. The instrument known as the planchette has since been generally adopted.

The object attached to the pencil is merely a tool, so its material and shape do not matter. The only thing that matters is how convenient it is to use. The instrument known as the planchette has since been widely adopted.

The basket, or planchette, will only move under the influence of certain persons gifted with a special power or faculty, who are called mediums,—that is to say, go-betweens, or intermediaries between spirits and men. The conditions which give this power depend on causes, physical and moral, that are as yet but imperfectly understood, for mediums are of all ages, of both sexes, and of every degree of intellectual development. The faculty of mediumship, moreover, is developed by exercise.

The basket or planchette moves only under the influence of certain people with a special power or ability. These people are called mediums, meaning go-betweens or intermediaries between spirits and humans. The conditions that give people this power depend on physical and moral causes that are still imperfectly understood. Mediums are of all ages, both sexes, and every level of intellectual development. The ability to act as a medium also develops with practice.

It was next perceived that the basket and the planchette only formed, in reality, an appendix to the hand. The medium, therefore, now held the pencil in his hand, and found that he was made to write under an impulsion independent of his will, and often with an almost feverish rapidity. In this way the communications were not only made more quickly, but also became more easy and more complete. At the present day, this method is the one most frequently employed, the number of persons endowed with the aptitude of involuntary writing being very considerable, and constantly increasing. Experience gradually made known many other varieties of the mediumistic faculty, and it was found that communications could be received through speech, hearing, sight, touch, &c, and even through the direct writing of the spirits themselves,—that is to say, without the help of the medium's hand, or of the pencil.

It was then realized that the basket and the planchette were really only extensions of the hand. So the medium began holding the pencil and found that he was compelled to write independently of his will. He often wrote with almost feverish speed. This method made communications faster, easier, and more complete. Today, it is the method most often used. A great many people have the ability to write involuntarily, and their number is constantly growing. Experience gradually revealed many other kinds of mediumistic ability. Communications could be received through speech, hearing, sight, touch, and other means. They could even come through the spirits' own direct writing, without the help of the medium's hand or a pencil.

This fact established, an essential point still remained to be ascertained, viz., the nature of the medium's action, and the share taken by him, mechanically and morally, in the obtaining of the replies. Two points of the highest importance, and that could not escape the notice of the attentive observer, sufficed to settle the question. The first of these is the way in which the basket moves under the influence of the medium, through the mere laying of his fingers on its edges, and in such a manner that it would be impossible for him to guide it in any direction whatever. This impossibility becomes still more evident when two or three persons place their fingers at the same time on the same basket, for a truly phenomenal concordance of movements and of thoughts would be required between them, in order to produce, on the part of each, the same reply to the question asked. And this difficulty is increased by the fact that the writing often changes completely with each spirit who communicates, and that, whenever a given spirit communicates, the same writing re-appears. In such cases, the medium would have to train himself to change his handwriting an indefinite number of times, and would also have to remember the particular writing of each spirit.

With this fact established, an essential question remained: what role did the medium play in obtaining the replies, both mechanically and morally? Two points of the highest importance were enough to settle the question. Neither could escape the notice of an attentive observer. The first is how the basket moves under the medium’s influence. The medium merely places his fingers on its edges, and it moves in a way that makes it impossible for him to guide it in any direction. This becomes even clearer when two or three people place their fingers on the same basket at once. For each person to produce the same reply to the question asked, their movements and thoughts would have to agree to a truly phenomenal degree. The difficulty is greater because the handwriting often changes completely with each spirit who communicates. Whenever a particular spirit communicates, the same handwriting reappears. In such cases, the medium would have to train himself to change his handwriting an unlimited number of times. He would also have to remember the particular handwriting of each spirit.

The second point referred to is the character of the replies given, which are often, and especially when the questions asked are of an abstract or scientific nature, notoriously beyond the scope of the knowledge, and even of the intellectual capacity, of the medium, who, moreover, is frequently unaware of what he is made to write, since the reply, like the question asked, may be couched in a language of which he is ignorant, or the question may even be asked mentally. It often happens, too, that the basket, or the medium, is made to write spontaneously, without any question having been propounded, and upon some subject altogether unexpected.

The second point concerns the nature of the replies. They are often clearly beyond the medium's knowledge and even intellectual capacity. This is especially true when the questions are abstract or scientific. Moreover, the medium is often unaware of what he is made to write. The reply, like the question, may be in a language he does not know. The question may even be asked mentally. It also often happens that the basket or the medium is made to write spontaneously. This occurs without any question having been asked and concerns a completely unexpected subject.

The replies thus given, and the messages thus transmitted, are sometimes marked by such sagacity, profundity, and appropriateness, and convey thoughts so elevated, so sublime, that they can only emanate from a superior intelligence, imbued with the purest morality; at other times, they are so vapid, frivolous, and even trivial, that they cannot be supposed to emanate from the same source. This diversity of language can only be explained by the diversity of the intelligences who thus manifest themselves. Do these intelligences reside in the human race, or are they beyond the pale of humanity? Such is the next point to be cleared up, and of which the complete explanation will be found in the present work, such as it has been given by the spirits themselves.

The replies and messages given in this way are sometimes remarkably wise, profound, and fitting. They express thoughts so elevated and sublime that they can only come from a superior intelligence filled with the purest morality. At other times, they are so empty, frivolous, and even trivial that they cannot be thought to come from the same source. These differences in language can only be explained by differences among the intelligences that reveal themselves in this way. Do these intelligences belong to the human race, or are they beyond humanity? This is the next question to be settled. The present work contains a complete explanation, as given by the spirits themselves.

The facts referred to, as being of an order beyond our usual circle of observation, do not occur mysteriously, but in broad daylight, so that every one can see them and ascertain their reality; they are not the privilege of a single individual, but are obtained by tens of thousands of persons every day at pleasure. These effects have necessarily a cause; and as they reveal the action of an intelligence and a will, they are evidently beyond the domain of merely physical effects.

The facts mentioned are beyond what we usually observe. Yet they do not occur mysteriously, but in broad daylight, so everyone can see them and verify that they are real. They are not limited to a single person. Tens of thousands of people produce these effects at will every day. These effects must have a cause. And because they reveal the action of intelligence and will, they clearly go beyond purely physical effects.

Many theories have been broached in relation to this subject; these we shall presently examine, and shall then be able to decide whether they can account for all the facts now occurring. Let us, meanwhile, assume the existence of beings distinct from the human race, since such is the explanation given of themselves by the intelligences thus revealed to us, and let us see what they say to us.

Many theories have been proposed on this subject. We will examine them shortly and decide whether they can explain all the facts now occurring. Meanwhile, let us assume that beings distinct from humans exist. This is how the intelligences revealed to us describe themselves. Let us see what they say to us.

The beings who thus enter into communication with us designate themselves, as we have said, by the name of spirits or genii, and as having belonged, in many cases at least, to men who have lived upon the earth. They say that they constitute the spiritual world, as we, during our earthly life, constitute the corporeal world.

As we have said, the beings who communicate with us call themselves spirits or genii. They say that, in many cases at least, they belonged to people who lived on earth. They say they make up the spiritual world, just as we make up the physical world during our earthly lives.

We will now briefly sum up the most important points of the doctrine which they have transmitted to us, in order to reply more easily to the objections of the incredulous.

We will now briefly summarize the most important points of the doctrine they have given us. This will make it easier to answer the objections of those who do not believe.

"God is eternal, immutable, immaterial, unique, all-powerful, sovereignly just and good.

"God is eternal, unchanging, without physical substance, unique, all-powerful, and perfectly just and good.

"He has created the universe, which comprehends all beings, animate and inanimate, material and immaterial.

"He created the universe, which includes all beings, living and nonliving, material and immaterial.

"The material beings constitute the visible or corporeal world, and the immaterial beings constitute the invisible or spiritual world, that is to say, the spirit-world, or world of spirits.

"Material beings make up the visible, or physical, world. Immaterial beings make up the invisible, or spiritual, world. This is the spirit world, or the world of spirits.

"The spirit-world is the normal, primitive, eternal world, pre-existent to, and surviving, everything else.

"The spirit world is the normal, original, eternal world. It existed before everything else and will outlast it all.

"The corporeal world is only secondary; it might cease to exist, or never have existed, without changing the essentiality of the spiritual world.

"The physical world is only secondary. It could cease to exist, or might never have existed, without changing the essential nature of the spiritual world.

"Spirits temporarily assume a perishable material envelope, the destruction of which, by death, restores them to liberty.

"Spirits temporarily take on a material body that can perish. Death destroys this body and sets the spirits free.

"Among the different species of corporeal beings, God has chosen the human species for the incarnation of spirits arrived at a certain degree of development; it is this which gives it a moral and intellectual superiority to all the others.

"Among the different kinds of physical beings, God has chosen humans to embody spirits that have reached a certain stage of development. This gives humans moral and intellectual superiority over all other kinds of beings.

"The soul is an incarnated spirit, whose body is only its envelope.

"The soul is a spirit in a body. The body is only its covering.

"There are in man three things:—(1.) The body, or material being, analogous to the animals, and animated by the same vital principle; (2.) The soul, or immaterial being, a spirit incarnated in the body; (3.) The link which unites the soul and the body, a principle intermediary between matter and spirit.

"Human beings have three parts: (1.) The body, or material being, which is like that of animals and animated by the same vital principle. (2.) The soul, or immaterial being, a spirit embodied in the body. (3.) The link that joins the soul and body, a principle between matter and spirit.

"Man has thus two natures: by his body he participates in the nature of the animals, of which it has the instincts; by his soul, he participates in the nature of spirits.

"Man thus has two natures. Through his body, he shares the nature and instincts of animals. Through his soul, he shares the nature of spirits.

"The link, or perispirit, which unites the body and the spirit, is a sort of semi-material envelope. Death is the destruction of the material body, which is the grossest of man's two envelopes; but the spirit preserves his other envelope, viz., the perispirit, which constitutes for him an ethereal body, invisible to us in its normal state, but which he can render occasionally visible, and even tangible, as is the case in apparitions.

"The link between the body and the spirit, called the perispirit, is a kind of partly material covering. Death destroys the material body, the coarser of a person's two coverings. But the spirit keeps its other covering, the perispirit. This forms an ethereal body for the spirit, normally invisible to us. The spirit can sometimes make this body visible, and even tangible, as in apparitions.

"A spirit, therefore, is not an abstract, undefined being, only to be conceived of by our thought; it is a real, circumscribed being, which, in certain cases, is appreciable by the senses of sight, hearing, and touch.

"A spirit, then, is not an abstract, undefined being that exists only in our thoughts. It is a real being with definite boundaries. In certain cases, it can be perceived through sight, hearing, and touch.

"Spirits belong to different classes, and are not equal to one another either in power, in intelligence, in knowledge, or in morality. Those of the highest order are distinguished from those below them by their superior purity and knowledge, their nearness to God, and their love of goodness; they are "angels" or "pure spirits." The other classes are more and more distant from this perfection; those of the lower ranks are inclined to most of our passions, hatred, envy, jealousy, pride, &c.; they take pleasure in evil. Among them are some who are neither very good nor very bad, but are teazing and troublesome rather than malicious, are often mischievous and unreasonable, and may be classed as giddy and foolish spirits.

Spirits belong to different classes. They are not equal in power, intelligence, knowledge, or morality. The highest spirits are purer and more knowledgeable than those below them. They are closer to God and love goodness. They are "angels" or "pure spirits." The other classes are increasingly distant from this perfection. Spirits of the lower ranks are prone to most of our passions, including hatred, envy, jealousy, and pride. They take pleasure in evil. Among them are some who are neither very good nor very bad. They are teasing and troublesome rather than malicious. They are often mischievous and unreasonable, and may be classed as giddy and foolish spirits.

"Spirits do not belong perpetually to the same order. All are destined to attain perfection by passing through the different degrees of the spirit-hierarchy. This amelioration is effected by incarnation, which is imposed on some of them as an expiation, and on others as a mission. Material life is a trial which they have to undergo many times until they have attained to absolute perfection; it is a sort of filter, or alembic, from which they issue more or less purified after each new incarnation.

"Spirits do not remain forever at the same level. All are destined to reach perfection by passing through the different levels of the spirit hierarchy. They improve through incarnation, which is imposed on some as atonement and on others as a mission. Material life is a trial they must undergo many times until they reach absolute perfection. It is like a filter or a distilling vessel, from which they emerge more or less purified after each new incarnation.

"On quitting the body, the soul re-enters the world of spirits from which it came, and from which it will enter upon a new material existence, after a longer or shorter lapse of time, during which its state is that of an errant or wandering spirit.²

"When it leaves the body, the soul returns to the spirit world from which it came. After some time, it will leave that world to begin a new material life. In the meantime, it is an errant or wandering spirit.²

"Spirits having to pass through many incarnations, it follows that we have all had many existences, and that we shall have others, more or less perfect, either upon this earth or in other worlds.

"Spirits must pass through many incarnations. It follows that we have all had many lives. We will have more lives, more or less perfect, either on this earth or in other worlds.

"The incarnation of spirits always takes place in the human race; it would be an error to suppose that the soul or spirit could be incarnated in the body of an animal.

"Spirits are always incarnated as humans. It would be wrong to think that a soul or spirit could be incarnated in an animal's body.

"A spirit's successive corporeal existences are always progressive, and never retrograde; but the rapidity of our progress depends on the efforts we make to arrive at perfection.

"A spirit progresses with each physical life and never moves backward. But how quickly we progress depends on our efforts to reach perfection.

"The qualities of the soul are those of the spirit incarnated in us; thus, a good man is the incarnation of a good spirit, and a bad man is that of an unpurified spirit.

"The soul has the qualities of the spirit embodied in us. So, a good man is the embodiment of a good spirit, and a bad man is the embodiment of a spirit that has not been purified.

"The soul possessed its own individuality before its incarnation; it preserves that individuality after its separation from the body.

"The soul had its own individuality before it entered the body. It keeps that individuality after it leaves the body.

"On its re-entrance into the spirit world, the soul again finds there all those whom it has known upon the earth, and all its former existences eventually come back to its memory, with the remembrance of all the good and of all the evil which it has done in them.

"When the soul returns to the spirit world, it again finds everyone it knew on earth. Eventually, it remembers all its past lives and all the good and evil it did in them.

"The incarnated spirit is under the influence of matter; the man who surmounts this influence, through the elevation and purification of his soul, raises himself nearer to the superior spirits, among whom he will one day be classed. He who allows himself to be ruled by bad passions, and places all his delight in the satisfaction of his gross animal appetites, brings himself nearer to the impure spirits, by giving preponderance to his animal nature.

“The incarnated spirit is influenced by matter. A man who overcomes this influence by elevating and purifying his soul draws closer to the superior spirits. One day, he will be counted among them. A man who lets bad passions rule him and takes all his pleasure in satisfying his crude animal appetites draws closer to the impure spirits. He does this by giving his animal nature the upper hand.

"Incarnated spirits inhabit the different globes of the universe.

"Spirits in physical bodies live on the different worlds of the universe.

"Spirits who are not incarnated, who are errant, do not occupy any fixed and circumscribed region; they are everywhere, in space, and around us, seeing us, and mixing with us incessantly; they constitute an invisible population, constantly moving and busy about us, on every side.

"Spirits who are not incarnated wander without being confined to any fixed place. They are everywhere, in space and around us. They see us and mingle with us constantly. They form an invisible population, always moving and busy all around us.

"Spirits exert an incessant action upon the moral world, and even upon the physical world; they act both upon matter and upon thought, and constitute one of the powers of nature, the efficient cause of many classes of phenomena hitherto unexplained or misinterpreted, and of which only the spiritist theory can give a rational explanation.

"Spirits constantly influence the moral world and even the physical world. They act on both matter and thought and are one of the forces of nature. They cause many kinds of phenomena that have until now been unexplained or misunderstood. Only spiritist theory can explain these phenomena rationally.

"Spirits are incessantly in relation with men. The good spirits try to lead us into the right road, sustain us under the trials of life, and aid us to bear them with courage and resignation; the bad ones tempt us to evil: it is a pleasure for them to see us fall, and to make us like themselves.

"Spirits are always in contact with people. Good spirits try to guide us onto the right path and support us through life's trials. They help us bear those trials with courage and acceptance. Bad spirits tempt us to do evil. They take pleasure in seeing us fall and making us like themselves.

"The communications of spirits with men are either occult or ostensible. Their occult communications are made through the good or bad influence they exert on us without our being aware of it; it is our duty to distinguish, by the exercise of our judgment, between the good and the bad inspirations that are thus brought to bear upon us. Their ostensible communications take place by means of writing, of speech, or of other physical manifestations, and usually through the intermediary of the mediums who serve as their instruments.

"Spirits communicate with people either secretly or openly. Their secret communications take the form of good or bad influences that affect us without our knowing it. We must use our judgment to distinguish between the good and bad inspirations they give us. Their open communications take place through writing, speech, or other physical manifestations. These usually occur through mediums, who serve as the spirits' instruments.

"Spirits manifest themselves spontaneously, or in response to evocation. All spirits may be evoked: those who have animated the most obscure of mortals, as well as those of the most illustrious personages, and whatever the epoch at which they lived; those of our relatives, our friends, or our enemies; and we may obtain from them, by written or by verbal communications, counsels, information in regard to their situation beyond the grave, their thoughts in regard to us, and whatever revelations they are permitted to make to us.³

"Spirits appear spontaneously or when called upon. All spirits may be called upon, whether they inhabited the most obscure people or the most famous, and regardless of when they lived. We may call upon the spirits of our relatives, friends, or enemies. Through written or spoken messages, we may receive their advice, information about their situation beyond the grave, and their thoughts about us. We may also receive whatever revelations they are permitted to share with us.³

"Spirits are attracted by their sympathy with the moral quality of the parties by whom they are evoked. Spirits of superior elevation take pleasure in meetings of a serious character, animated by the love of goodness and the sincere desire of instruction and improvement. Their presence repels the spirits of inferior degree, who find, on the contrary, free access and freedom of action among persons of frivolous disposition, or brought together by mere curiosity, and wherever evil instincts are to be met with. So far from obtaining from spirits, under such circumstances, either good advice or useful information, nothing is to be expected from them but trifling, lies, ill-natured tricks, or humbugging; for they often borrow the most venerated names, in order the better to impose upon those with whom they are in communication.

"Spirits are attracted to those who summon them when they share the same moral qualities. Higher spirits take pleasure in serious gatherings inspired by a love of goodness and a sincere desire to learn and improve. Their presence drives away lower spirits. By contrast, lower spirits have free access and freedom to act among frivolous people, those gathered merely out of curiosity, and wherever evil instincts are found. Under such circumstances, people can expect no good advice or useful information from spirits. They can expect only nonsense, lies, malicious tricks, or deception. Spirits often take the most respected names to deceive those with whom they communicate.

"It is easy to distinguish between good and bad spirits. The language of spirits of superior elevation is constantly dignified, noble, characterised by the highest morality, free from every trace of earthly passion; their counsels breathe the purest wisdom, and always have our improvement and the good of mankind for their aim. The communications of spirits of lower degree, on the contrary, are full of discrepancies, and their language is often commonplace, and even coarse. If they sometimes say things that are good and true, they more often make false and absurd statements, prompted by ignorance or malice. They play upon the credulity of those who interrogate them, amusing themselves by flattering their vanity, and fooling them with false hopes. In a word, instructive communications worthy of the name are only to be obtained in centres of a serious character, whose members are united, by an intimate communion of thought and desire, in the pursuit of truth and goodness.

"It is easy to tell good spirits from bad ones. Highly evolved spirits always speak with dignity and nobility. Their language reflects the highest moral standards and shows no trace of earthly passion. Their advice expresses the purest wisdom. It always aims to improve us and promote the good of humanity. By contrast, messages from lesser spirits are full of contradictions. Their language is often ordinary and even coarse. Although they sometimes say things that are good and true, they more often make false and absurd statements out of ignorance or malice. They exploit the trust of those who question them. They amuse themselves by flattering their vanity and deceiving them with false hopes. In short, truly instructive messages can only be obtained in serious groups. Their members must be closely united in thought and desire as they pursue truth and goodness.

"The moral teaching of the higher spirits may be summed up, like that of Christ, in the gospel maxim, 'Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you;' that is to say, do good to all, and wrong no one. This principle of action furnishes mankind with a rule of conduct of universal application, from the smallest matters to the greatest.

"The moral teaching of the higher spirits, like that of Christ, can be summed up in the gospel maxim: 'Treat others as you would want them to treat you.' In other words, do good to everyone and wrong no one. This principle gives humanity a universal rule of conduct, from the smallest matters to the greatest.

"They teach us that selfishness, pride, sensuality, are passions which bring us back towards the animal nature, by attaching us to matter; that he who, in this lower life, detaches himself from matter through contempt of worldly trifles, and through love of the neighbour, brings himself back towards the spiritual nature; that we should all make ourselves useful, according to the means which God has placed in our hands for our trial; that the strong and the powerful owe aid and protection to the weak; and that he who misuses strength and power to oppress his fellow-creature violates the law of God. They teach us that in the spirit-world nothing can be hidden, and that the hypocrite will there be unmasked, and all his wickedness unveiled; that the presence, unavoidable and perpetual, of those whom we have wronged in the earthly life is one of the punishments that await us in the spirit-world; and that the lower or higher state of spirits gives rise in that other life to sufferings or to enjoyments unknown to us upon the earth.

"They teach us that selfishness, pride, and sensuality draw us back toward our animal nature by tying us to material things. In this earthly life, we can free ourselves from material things by rejecting worldly trifles and loving our neighbors. In doing so, we return toward our spiritual nature. We should all make ourselves useful, according to the means God has placed in our hands to test us. The strong and powerful owe help and protection to the weak. Anyone who misuses strength and power to oppress another person violates God's law. They teach us that nothing can be hidden in the spirit world. There, the hypocrite will be unmasked, and all his wickedness revealed. In the spirit world, we will be constantly and unavoidably in the presence of those we wronged on earth. This is one of the punishments that await us there. Spirits suffer or enjoy things unknown to us on earth, according to their lower or higher state.

"But they also teach us that there are no unpardonable sins, none that cannot be effaced by expiation. Man finds the means of accomplishing this in the different existences which permit him to advance progressively, and according to his desire and his efforts, towards the perfection that constitutes his ultimate aim."

"But they also teach us that no sins are unforgivable. All sins can be wiped away through atonement. People can achieve this through their different lives. These lives allow them to progress toward perfection, their ultimate goal, according to their desires and efforts."

Such is the sum of spiritist doctrine, as contained in the teachings given by spirits of high degree. Let us now consider the objections that are urged against it.

This is a summary of spiritist doctrine, as taught by spirits of high degree. Let us now consider the objections raised against it.

Many persons regard the opposition of the learned world as constituting, if not a proof, at least a very strong presumption, of the falsity of spiritism. We are not of those who affect indifference in regard to the judgment of scientific men; on the contrary, we hold them in great esteem, and should think it an honour to be of their number, but we cannot consider their opinion as being, under all circumstances, necessarily and absolutely conclusive.

Many people regard the opposition of the scientific community as strong grounds for believing spiritism is false, if not proof. We do not pretend to be indifferent to the judgment of scientists. On the contrary, we hold them in great esteem and would consider it an honor to be among them. But we cannot regard their opinion as necessarily and absolutely conclusive in every case.

When the votaries of science go beyond the bare observation of facts, when they attempt to appraise and to explain those facts, they enter upon the field of conjecture; each advances a system of his own, which he does his utmost to bring into favour, and defends with might and main. Do we not see every day the most divergent systems brought forward and rejected, one after the other; now cried down as absurd errors, and now cried up as incontestable truths? Facts are the sole criterion of reality, the sole argument that admits of no reply: in the absence of facts, the wise man suspends his judgment.

When scientists go beyond simply observing facts and try to assess and explain them, they enter the realm of speculation. Each puts forward a theory of their own, doing their utmost to win support for it and defending it vigorously. Every day, we see widely differing theories proposed and rejected, one after another. At one moment they are denounced as absurd errors, and at another praised as undeniable truths. Facts are the only measure of reality, the only argument that cannot be challenged. Without facts, the wise person withholds judgment.

In regard to all matters that have already been fully examined, the verdict of the learned is justly held to be authoritative, because their knowledge of them is fuller and more enlightened than that of ordinary men; but in regard to new facts or principles, to matters imperfectly known, their opinion can only be hypothetic, because they are no more exempt from prejudice than other people. It may even be said that scientific men are more apt to be prejudiced than the rest of the world, because each of them is naturally inclined to look at everything from the special point of view that has been adopted by him; the mathematician admitting no other order of proof than that of an algebraic demonstration, the chemist referring everything to the action of the elements, &c. When a man has made for himself a specialty, he usually devotes his whole mind to it; beyond the scope of this specialty he often reasons falsely, because, owing to the weakness of human reason, he insists on treating every subject in the same way; and therefore, while we should willingly and confidently consult a chemist in regard to a question of analysis, a physicist in regard to electricity, a mechanician in regard to a motive power, we must be allowed, without in any way derogating from the respect due to their special knowledge, to attach no more weight to their unfavourable opinion of spiritism than we should do to the judgment of an architect on a question relating to the theory of music.

On matters that have already been fully examined, the judgment of experts is rightly regarded as authoritative. Their knowledge of these matters is fuller and more informed than that of ordinary people. But on new facts or principles, or matters that are imperfectly understood, their opinions can only be tentative. Experts are no less prone to prejudice than anyone else. It may even be said that scientists are more prone to prejudice than other people. Each is naturally inclined to view everything from the perspective of their own specialty. A mathematician admits no proof except an algebraic demonstration. A chemist attributes everything to the action of the elements, and so on. When people develop a specialty, they usually devote their whole minds to it. Outside that specialty, they often reason falsely. Because of the weakness of human reason, they insist on treating every subject in the same way. We should therefore willingly and confidently consult a chemist about analysis, a physicist about electricity, and a mechanical expert about a source of power. Yet, without diminishing the respect due to their specialized knowledge, we must be allowed to give their unfavorable opinions of spiritism no more weight than we would give an architect's judgment on music theory.

The positive sciences are based on the properties of matter, which may be experimented upon and manipulated at pleasure; but spiritist phenomena are an effect of the action of intelligences who have wills of their own, and who constantly show us that they are not subjected to ours. The observation of facts, therefore, cannot be carried on in the latter case in the same way as in the former one, for they proceed from another source, and require special conditions; and, consequently, to insist upon submitting them to the same methods of investigation is to insist on assuming the existence of analogies that do not exist. Science, properly so called, is therefore incompetent, as such, to decide the question of the truth of spiritism: it has nothing to do with it; and its verdict in regard to it, whether favourable or otherwise, is of no weight. Spiritist belief is the result of a personal conviction that scientific men may hold as individuals, and independent of their quality as scientists; but to submit the question to the decision of physical science would be much the same thing as to set a company of physicists and astronomers to decide the question of immortality. Spiritism deals exclusively with the existence of the soul, and its state after death; and it is supremely unreasonable to assume that a man must be a great psychologist simply because he is a great mathematician or a great anatomist. The anatomist, when dissecting a human body, looks for the soul, and, as he does not find it under his scalpel as he finds a nerve, or see it evaporate as does a gas, he concludes that it does not exist, because he reasons from an exclusively material point of view; but it by no means follows that he is right, and that the opinion of the rest of the world is wrong. We see, therefore, that the task of deciding as to the truth or falsity of spiritism does not fall within the scope of physical science. When spiritist beliefs shall have become generalised, when they shall have been accepted by the masses (and, if we may judge by the rapidity with which they are being propagated, that time can hardly be very distant), it will be with those beliefs as with all new ideas that have encountered opposition; and scientific men will end by yielding to the force of evidence. They will be brought, individually, by the force of things, to admit ideas that they now reject; and, until then, it would be premature to turn them from their special studies in order to occupy them with a matter which is foreign alike to their habits of thought and to their spheres of investigation. Meanwhile, those who, without a careful preparatory study of the matter, pronounce a negative verdict in regard to it, and throw ridicule upon all who are not of their way of thinking, forget that such has been done in regard to nearly all the great discoveries that honour the human race. They risk seeing their names added to the list of illustrious proscribers of new ideas, and classed with those of the members of the learned assembly which, in 1752, received Franklin's paper on lightning-rods with peals of laughter, and voted it to be unworthy of mention among the communications addressed to it; or with that other one which caused France to miss the advantage of taking the lead in the application of steam to shipping, by declaring Fulton's plans to be impracticable: and yet these subjects lay within their competence. If those two assemblies, which numbered the most eminent scientists of the world among their members, had only contempt and sarcasm for ideas which they did not understand, but which were destined to revolutionise, a few years later, science, industry, and daily life, how can we hope that a question foreign to their labours should meet with any greater degree of favour at their hands?

The natural sciences are based on the properties of matter, which can be freely manipulated and tested. But spiritist phenomena result from the actions of intelligences with wills of their own. These intelligences constantly show us that they are not subject to our will. So we cannot observe spiritist phenomena in the same way as material phenomena. They come from a different source and require special conditions. To insist on investigating both by the same methods is to assume similarities that do not exist. Science, strictly speaking, is therefore not qualified to decide whether spiritism is true. It has nothing to do with the question. Its verdict, whether favorable or unfavorable, carries no weight. Spiritist belief results from a personal conviction that scientists may hold as individuals, independently of their status as scientists. But asking physical science to decide the question would be much like asking physicists and astronomers to decide whether the soul is immortal. Spiritism deals exclusively with the existence of the soul and its state after death. It is utterly unreasonable to assume that a great mathematician or anatomist must also be a great psychologist. When an anatomist dissects a human body, he looks for the soul. He does not find it under his scalpel as he finds a nerve. Nor does he see it evaporate like a gas. So he concludes that it does not exist, because he reasons from an exclusively material point of view. But it does not follow that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. We see, then, that deciding whether spiritism is true or false lies outside the scope of physical science. Spiritist beliefs will become widespread and accepted by the masses. If we judge by how quickly they are spreading, that time can hardly be far off. Then these beliefs will follow the course of all new ideas that have faced opposition. Scientists will eventually yield to the force of evidence. Circumstances will bring them, as individuals, to accept ideas they now reject. Until then, it would be premature to draw them away from their specialized studies. Spiritism is foreign both to their habits of thought and to their fields of investigation. Meanwhile, some people reject spiritism without first studying it carefully. They ridicule everyone who thinks differently. They forget that nearly all the great discoveries that honor humanity have been treated in the same way. They risk having their names added to the list of distinguished opponents of new ideas. They may be ranked with the members of the learned assembly that received Franklin's paper on lightning rods with peals of laughter in 1752. The assembly voted that the paper was not worthy of mention among the communications it received. They may also be ranked with the members of another assembly, which declared Fulton's plans impracticable. That decision caused France to miss the chance to lead in applying steam power to shipping. Yet both subjects lay within the assemblies' fields of expertise. These two assemblies included the world's most eminent scientists among their members. They had nothing but contempt and sarcasm for ideas they did not understand. Yet those ideas were destined, a few years later, to revolutionize science, industry, and daily life. If that is how they responded, how can we hope they would look any more favorably on a question outside their fields of work?

The erroneous judgments of learned men in regard to certain discoveries, though regrettable for the honour of their memory, do not invalidate the title to our esteem acquired by them in regard to other matters. But is common-sense only to be found associated with an official diploma, and are there only fools and simpletons outside the walls of scientific institutions? Let our opponents condescend to glance over the ranks of the partisans of spiritism, and see whether they contain only persons of inferior understanding, or whether, on the contrary, considering the immense number of men of worth by whom it has been embraced, it can be regarded as belonging to the category of old wives' fables; whether, in fact, the character and scientific knowledge of its adherents do not rather deserve that it should be said—"When such men affirm a matter, there must at least be something in it?"

Learned men have made mistaken judgments about certain discoveries. Though these errors cast an unfortunate shadow on their reputations, they do not diminish the respect they earned in other fields. But is common sense found only among people with official degrees? Are there only fools and simpletons outside scientific institutions? Let our opponents take a look at the supporters of spiritism. Do they include only people of inferior understanding? Or, given the immense number of worthy men who have embraced spiritism, can it be dismissed as an old wives' tale? Surely the character and scientific knowledge of its supporters might lead one to say, "When such men affirm something, there must at least be something in it?"

We repeat that, if the facts we are about to consider had been limited to the mechanical movement of inert bodies, physical science would have been competent to seek out the physical cause of the phenomena; but the manifestations in question being professedly beyond the action of laws or forces yet known to men, they are necessarily beyond the competence of human science. When the facts to be observed are novel, and do not fall within the scope of any known science, the scientist, in order to study them, should throw his science temporarily aside, remembering that a new study cannot be fruitfully prosecuted under the influence of preconceived ideas.

We repeat that, if the facts we are about to consider involved only the movement of inanimate objects, physical science could have sought a physical cause. But the manifestations in question are said to be beyond the action of laws or forces yet known to people. They are therefore necessarily beyond the competence of human science. When the facts to be observed are new and fall outside every known science, a scientist should temporarily set aside their scientific knowledge to study them. They should remember that a new study cannot be pursued fruitfully under the influence of preconceived ideas.

He who believes his reason to be infallible is very near to error. Even those whose ideas are of the falsest profess to base them on reason; and it is in the name of reason that they reject whatever seems to them to be impossible. They who formerly rejected the admirable discoveries that are the glory of the human mind did so in the name of reason; for what men call reason is often only pride disguised, and whoever regards himself as infallible virtually claims to be God's equal. We therefore address ourselves to those who are reasonable enough to suspend their judgment in regard to what they have not yet seen, and who, judging of the future by the past, do not believe that man has reached his apogee, or that nature has turned over for him the last leaf of her book.

Anyone who believes their own reason is infallible is very close to error. Even those with the most mistaken ideas claim to base them on reason. They reject whatever seems impossible to them in the name of reason. In the past, people rejected the admirable discoveries that are the glory of the human mind. They too did so in the name of reason. For what people call reason is often just pride in disguise. Anyone who considers themselves infallible is effectively claiming to be God's equal. We therefore address those who are reasonable enough to suspend judgment about what they have not yet seen. They judge the future by the past. They do not believe that humanity has reached its peak or that nature has revealed the last page of her book.

Let us add that the study of such a theory as that of spiritism, which introduces us at once to an order of ideas so novel and so grand, can only be fruitfully pursued by persons of a serious turn of mind, persevering, free from prejudice, and animated by a firm and sincere determination to arrive at the truth. We could not give this qualification to those who decide, in regard to such a subject, a priori, lightly, and without thorough examination; who bring to the work of study neither the method, the regularity, nor the sustained attention necessary to success: still less could we give it to those who, not to lose their reputation for wit and sharpness, seek to turn into ridicule matters of the most serious import, or that are judged to be such by persons whose knowledge, character, and convictions should command respect. Let those who consider the facts in question as unworthy of their attention abstain from studying them; no one would attempt to interfere with their belief; but let them, on their part, respect the belief of those who are of a contrary opinion.

Let us add that the study of a theory such as spiritism introduces us to ideas both new and grand. Only serious, persistent people can study such a theory fruitfully. They must be free from prejudice and firmly and sincerely determined to arrive at the truth. We cannot describe in this way those who make up their minds a priori, lightly and without thorough examination. Nor can we describe in this way those who study without the method, regularity, or sustained attention needed for success. Still less can we describe in this way those who ridicule matters of the greatest importance to preserve their reputation for wit and sharpness. Others regard these matters as serious, and their knowledge, character, and convictions should command respect. Those who consider the facts unworthy of their attention should leave them unstudied. No one would try to interfere with their beliefs. But they, in turn, should respect the beliefs of those who disagree.

The characteristics of serious study are the method and the perseverance with which it is carried on. Is it strange that sensible answers are not always obtained from spirits in reply to questions which, however serious in themselves, are propounded at random, and in the midst of a host of others, unconnected, frivolous, or foolish? Besides, a question is often complex, and the answer to it, in order to be clear, needs to be preceded, or completed, by various considerations. Whoever would acquire any science must make it the object of methodical study, must begin at the beginning, and follow out the sequence and development of the ideas involved in it. If one who is ignorant of the most elementary facts of a science should ask a question in regard to it of the most learned of its professors, could the professor, however excellent his goodwill, give him any satisfactory answer? For any isolated answer, given under such conditions, must necessarily be incomplete, and would, therefore, in many cases, appear unintelligible, or even absurd. It is exactly the same in regard to the relations which we establish with spirits. If we would learn in their school, we must go through a complete course of teaching with them; but, as among ourselves, we must select our teachers, and work on with steadiness and assiduity.

Serious study is marked by method and perseverance. Is it strange that spirits do not always give sensible answers to questions asked at random? Even serious questions may be asked among many others that are unrelated, frivolous, or foolish. Besides, a question is often complex. A clear answer may need to be introduced or completed by several other points. Anyone who wants to learn a science must study it methodically. They must begin at the beginning and follow the ideas as they develop. Suppose someone who knows nothing of a science's most basic facts asks its most learned professor a question. Could the professor give a satisfactory answer, however willing they might be to help? Under those conditions, any isolated answer must be incomplete. In many cases, it would therefore seem unintelligible or even absurd. The same is true of the relationships we establish with spirits. If we want to learn in their school, we must complete a full course of instruction with them. But, as among ourselves, we must choose our teachers and work steadily and diligently.

We have said that spirits of superior advancement are only attracted to centres in which there reigns a serious desire for light, and, above all, a perfect communion of thought and feeling in the pursuit of moral excellence. Frivolity and idle curiosity repel them, just as, among men, they repel all reasonable people; and the road is thus left open to the mob of foolish and lying spirits who are always about us, watching for opportunities of mocking us and amusing themselves at our expense. What becomes of any serious question in such a gathering? It will certainly be replied to, but by whom? It is just as though, in the midst of a convivial dinner-party, you should suddenly propound such questions as—"What is the soul? What is death?" or others equally out of harmony with the tone of the company. If we would obtain serious answers, we must ourselves be serious, and must place ourselves in the conditions required for obtaining them; it is only by so doing that we shall obtain any satisfactory and ennobling communications. We must, moreover, be laborious and persevering in our investigations, otherwise the higher spirits will cease to trouble themselves about us, as the professor ceases to occupy himself with the hopelessly idle members of his class.

We have said that more advanced spirits are attracted only to gatherings with a serious desire for enlightenment. Above all, those present must be united in thought and feeling in their pursuit of moral excellence. Frivolity and idle curiosity repel these spirits, just as they repel all reasonable people. This leaves the way open to the crowd of foolish and lying spirits who are always around us. They watch for chances to mock us and amuse themselves at our expense. What happens to a serious question in such a gathering? It will certainly be answered, but by whom? It is like suddenly asking questions such as "What is the soul? What is death?" at a lively dinner party. These and similar questions are out of keeping with the mood of the company. If we want serious answers, we must be serious ourselves. We must also create the conditions needed to obtain them. Only then will we receive satisfactory and uplifting communications. We must also work hard and persevere in our investigations. Otherwise, the higher spirits will stop bothering with us, just as a professor stops bothering with hopelessly idle students.

The movement of inert bodies is a fact already proved by experience; the point now to be ascertained is, whether there is, or is not, a manifestation of intelligence in this movement, and, if there is, what is the source of this intelligence? We are not speaking of the intelligence displayed in the movement of certain objects, nor of verbal communications, nor even of those which are written directly by the medium: these manifestations, of which the spirit-origin is evident for those who have thoroughly investigated the matter, are not, at first sight, sufficiently independent of the will of the medium to bring conviction to an observer new to the subject. We will therefore only speak, in this place, of writing obtained with the aid of an object of any kind provided with a pencil, such as a small basket, a planchette, &c, the fingers of the medium being placed upon the object in such a manner as to defy the most consummate skill to exercise the slightest influence on the tracing of the letters. But let us suppose that, by some wonderful cleverness, the medium succeeds in deceiving the most keenly observant eye, how can we explain the nature of the communications, when they are altogether beyond the scope of the medium's knowledge and ideas? And it is, moreover, to be remarked, that we are speaking not of monosyllabic replies, but of many pages, dashed off, as frequently happens, with the most astonishing rapidity, sometimes spontaneously, and sometimes upon a given subject; of poems of elevated character, and irreproachable in point of style, produced by the hand of an utterly illiterate medium. And what adds to the strangeness of these facts is, that they are occurring all the world over, and that the number of mediums is constantly increasing. Are these facts real or not? To this query we have but one reply to make: "See and observe; opportunities of doing so will not be lacking; but, above all, observe often, for a long time, and according to the conditions required for so doing."

Experience has already proved that inert bodies can move. The question now is whether this movement shows intelligence. If it does, what is the source of that intelligence? We are not speaking of intelligence shown in the movement of certain objects, or of spoken communications. Nor are we speaking of communications written directly by the medium. For those who have thoroughly investigated these manifestations, their spirit origin is clear. But at first sight, they do not seem independent enough of the medium’s will to convince a newcomer. We will therefore speak here only of writing obtained with an object fitted with a pencil. This object may be a small basket, a planchette, or something else. The medium’s fingers are placed on the object in such a way that even the greatest skill could not influence how the letters are formed. But suppose the medium somehow manages to deceive the sharpest observer. How can we explain the nature of communications that are entirely beyond the medium’s knowledge and ideas? Moreover, we are not speaking of one-word replies. We are speaking of many pages, often written with astonishing speed. Sometimes they are produced spontaneously, and sometimes on a given subject. We are also speaking of elevated poems, flawless in style, produced by the hand of a completely illiterate medium. What makes these facts even stranger is that they are occurring all over the world. The number of mediums is also constantly increasing. Are these facts real or not? We have only one reply: "See and observe. There will be no shortage of opportunities. But above all, observe often, for a long time, and under the conditions required for doing so."

To the evidence adduced by us, what do our antagonists reply? "You are," say they, "the dupes of imposition or the sport of illusion." We have to remark, in the first place, that imposition is not likely to occur where no profit is to be made; charlatans are not apt to ply their trade gratis. If imposition be practised, it must be for the sake of a joke. But by what strange coincidence does there happen to be an understanding between the jokers, from one end of the earth to the other, to act in the same way, to produce the same effects, and to give, upon the same subjects, and in different languages, replies that are identical, if not in words, at least in meaning? How is it that grave, serious, honourable, and educated persons can lend themselves to such manoeuvres, and for what purpose? How is it that the requisite patience and skill for carrying on such a piece of deception are found even in young children? for mediums, if they are not passive instruments, must possess a degree of skill, and an amount and variety of knowledge, incompatible with the age and social position of many of them.

What do our opponents say in response to the evidence we have presented? "You are," they say, "the victims of fraud or illusion." First, fraud is unlikely where there is no profit to be made. Charlatans do not usually practice their trade for free. If fraud is involved, it must be for the sake of a joke. But what a strange coincidence that jokers all over the world should agree to act in the same way. They produce the same effects and give the same answers on the same subjects, in different languages. If their answers are not identical in words, they are at least identical in meaning. How is it that serious, honorable, and educated people would take part in such schemes? And for what purpose? How is it that even young children have the patience and skill needed to carry out such a deception? For if mediums are not passive instruments, they must possess a degree of skill and a breadth of knowledge that many of them could not have, given their age and social position.

"But," urge our opponents, "if there be no trickery, both parties may be the dupes of an illusion." It is only reasonable that the quality of witnesses should be regarded as an element in deciding the value of their evidence; and it may fairly be asked whether the spiritist theory, whose adherents are already to be counted by millions, recruits these only among the ignorant? The phenomena on which it is based are so extraordinary that we admit the reasonableness of doubt in regard to them; but what is not admissible is the pretension of certain sceptics to a monopoly of common sense, and the unceremonious way in which, regardless of the moral worth of their adversaries, they tax all who are not of their opinion with infatuation or stupidity. For the affirmation of enlightened persons who have, for a long time, seen, studied, and meditated any matter, is always, if not a proof, at least a presumption in its favour, since it has been able to fix the attention of men of mark, having no interest in propagating an error, nor time to waste upon worthless trifles.

"But," our opponents argue, "even if there is no trickery, both parties may be fooled by an illusion." It is reasonable to consider the quality of witnesses when judging their evidence. And we may fairly ask whether spiritist theory, which already has millions of followers, attracts only the ignorant. The phenomena on which it is based are so extraordinary that we admit doubt is reasonable. But some skeptics claim a monopoly on common sense. Regardless of their opponents' moral worth, they bluntly accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being deluded or stupid. That is unacceptable. When educated people have spent a long time observing, studying, and reflecting on a subject, their testimony matters. If it is not proof, it is at least a reason to think the subject has merit. After all, it has attracted the attention of distinguished people who have no interest in spreading an error or time to waste on worthless trifles.

Among the objections brought forward by our opponents are some which are more specious, at least in appearance, because they are made by thoughtful minds.

Some objections raised by our opponents seem more convincing, at least on the surface, because they come from thoughtful people.

One of these objections is prompted by the fact that the language of spirits does not always seem worthy of the elevation we attribute to beings beyond the pale of humanity. But, if the objector will take the trouble to look at the doctrinal summary we have given above, he will see that the spirits themselves inform us that they are not equals, either in knowledge or in moral qualities, that we are not to accept everything said by spirits as literal truth, and that we must judge for ourselves of the value of their statements. Assuredly, those who infer from this fact that we have to deal only with maleficent beings, whose sole occupation is to deceive us, have no acquaintance with the communications obtained in the centres habitually frequented by spirits of superior advancement, or they could not entertain such an opinion. It is regrettable that they should have chanced to see only the worst side of the spirit-world, for we will not suppose that their sympathies attract evil, gross, or lying spirits, rather than good ones. We will merely suggest that, in some cases, the inquirers may not be so thoroughly principled in goodness as to repel evil, and that, taking advantage of their curiosity in regard to them, imperfect spirits make use of the opening thus afforded to come about them, while those of a higher order withdraw from them.

One objection arises from the fact that spirits do not always speak as we would expect from beings above humanity. But if the objector reads the summary of the doctrine given above, he will see what the spirits themselves tell us. They say that spirits differ in knowledge and moral qualities. We should not accept everything they say as literal truth. We must judge the value of their statements for ourselves. Some conclude from this that we are dealing only with evil beings whose sole occupation is deceiving us. Clearly, they are unfamiliar with the communications received at centers regularly visited by highly advanced spirits. Otherwise, they could not hold such an opinion. It is unfortunate that they have happened to see only the worst side of the spirit world. We will not suppose that their sympathies attract evil, crude, or lying spirits rather than good ones. We will merely suggest that, in some cases, the inquirers may not be firmly enough committed to goodness to repel evil. Imperfect spirits take advantage of their curiosity and use the opening to come among them. Meanwhile, spirits of a higher order withdraw from them.

To judge the question of spirits by these facts would be as little reasonable as to judge of the character of a people by the sayings and doings of a party of wild or disreputable fellows, with whom the educated and respectable classes of the population have nothing to do. Such persons are in the position of the traveller who, entering some great capital by one of its worst suburbs, should judge of all its inhabitants by the habits and language of this low quarter. In the world of spirits, as in our own, there are higher and lower classes of society. Let inquirers make a study of what goes on among spirits of high degree, and they will be convinced that the celestial city is not peopled solely by the ignorant and vicious. "But," it will be asked, "do spirits of high degree come among us?" To which question we reply, "Do not remain in the suburbs; see, observe, and judge; the facts are within reach of all but those alluded to by Jesus, as having eyes, but seeing not, and ears, but hearing not."

Judging the question of spirits by these facts would be unreasonable. It would be like judging a people by the words and actions of a group of wild or disreputable people. The educated and respectable classes have nothing to do with them. Those who judge spirits this way are like a traveler entering a great capital through one of its worst suburbs. The traveler judges all its inhabitants by the habits and language of that lowly neighborhood. In the spirit world, as in our own, society has higher and lower classes. Let inquirers study what goes on among spirits of high rank. They will then be convinced that the celestial city is not inhabited only by the ignorant and the wicked. "But," it will be asked, "do spirits of high rank come among us?" We reply, "Do not stay in the suburbs. Look, observe, and judge. The facts are within everyone's reach, except those Jesus spoke of as having eyes but not seeing, and ears but not hearing."

A variety of the same objection consists in attributing all spirit communications, and all the physical manifestations by which they are accompanied, to the intervention of some diabolical power—some new Proteus that assumes every form in order the more effectually to deceive us. Without pausing to analyse a supposition that we regard as not susceptible of serious examination, and that is, moreover, refuted by what we have already said, we have only to remark that, if such were the case, it would have to be admitted either that the devil is sometimes very wise, very reasonable, and, above all, very moral, or else that there are good devils as well as bad ones.

A variation on the same objection attributes all spirit communications and their accompanying physical manifestations to a diabolical power. This power is supposedly a new Proteus, taking every form to deceive us more effectively. We will not pause to analyze this idea, which we do not think deserves serious examination. Moreover, what we have already said refutes it. We need only point out what would follow if it were true. We would have to admit either that the devil is sometimes very wise, very reasonable, and, above all, very moral, or that there are good devils as well as bad ones.

But, in fact, is it possible to believe that God would permit only the Spirit of Evil to manifest himself, and this in order to ruin us, without giving us also the counsels of good spirits as a counterpoise? To suppose that He cannot do this is to limit His power; to suppose that He can do it, but abstains from doing it, is incompatible with the belief in His goodness. Both suppositions are equally blasphemous. It must be observed that, to admit the communication of evil spirits is to recognise the existence of spirit manifestations; but, if they exist, it can only be with the permission of God, and how then can we, without impiety, believe that He would permit them to occur only for a bad purpose, to the exclusion of a good one? Such a supposition is contrary alike to the simplest dictates of religion and of common sense.

But can we really believe that God would allow only the Spirit of Evil to manifest himself to ruin us? Would he not also give us advice from good spirits to counterbalance that evil? To suppose that God cannot do this is to limit his power. To suppose that he can, but chooses not to, is incompatible with belief in his goodness. Both suppositions are equally blasphemous. If we accept that evil spirits communicate, we recognize that spirits can manifest themselves. But if spirits manifest themselves, they can do so only with God's permission. How then can we believe, without impiety, that he would allow them to manifest themselves only for evil purposes, and not for good ones? Such a belief goes against the simplest principles of both religion and common sense.

One strange feature of the matter, urge other objectors, is the fact that only the spirits of well-known personages manifest themselves, and it is asked why these should be the only ones who do so? This query is suggested by an error due, like many others, to superficial observation. Among the spirits who present themselves spontaneously, the greater number are unknown to us, and, therefore, call themselves by names that we know, and that serve to characterise them. With regard to those whom we evoke, unless in the case of relatives or friends, we naturally address ourselves to spirits whom we know of, rather than to those who are unknown to us; and as the names of illustrious persons are those which strike us most forcibly, they are, for that reason, those which are most remarked.

Other critics point to what they see as a strange feature of the matter. They ask why only the spirits of well-known people appear. This question is based on a mistake, caused by superficial observation, like many other mistakes. Most spirits who appear on their own are unknown to us. They therefore use names we know, which serve to describe them. When we summon spirits, we naturally address those we know of rather than those unknown to us, unless they are relatives or friends. The names of famous people strike us most strongly, so they are the ones we notice most.

It is also considered as strange that the spirits of eminent men should respond familiarly to our call, and should sometimes interest themselves in things that appear trifling in comparison with those which they accomplished during their life. But there is in this nothing surprising for those who know that the power and consideration which a man may have possessed in this lower life give him no supremacy in the spirit-world. Spirits confirm the gospel statement that "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last," as regards the rank of each of us when we return among them. Thus he who has been first in the earthly life may be one of the last in that other world; he before whom all bowed their heads during the present life may then find himself beneath the humblest artisan, for, on quitting the earthly life, he leaves all his grandeur behind him; and the most powerful monarch may be lower than the lowest of his subjects.

People also find it strange that the spirits of eminent men should respond casually when we call them. They find it strange that these spirits sometimes take an interest in things that seem trivial compared with their accomplishments in life. But there is nothing surprising about this to those who understand the spirit world. They know that a man's power and standing in this earthly life give him no superiority there. Spirits confirm the gospel statement that "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." This applies to the rank each of us holds when we return among them. So a person who was first in earthly life may be among the last in the other world. Someone before whom everyone bowed during this life may then find himself beneath the humblest craftsperson. For when he leaves earthly life, he leaves all his grandeur behind. The most powerful monarch may be lower than the lowest of his subjects.

A fact ascertained by observation, and confirmed by the spirits themselves, is the borrowing of well-known and venerated names by spirits of inferior degree. How, then, can we be sure that those who say they were, for example, Socrates, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Fenelon, Napoleon, Washington, &c, were really the men they claim to have been? This doubt exists among many fervent adherents of spiritist doctrine. They admit the reality of the intervention and manifestation of spirits, but they ask themselves what certainty we can have of their identity? This certainty it is, in fact, very difficult to obtain; but though it cannot be settled as authentically as by the attestation of a civil register, it may, at least, be established presumptively, according to certain indications.

Observation has shown that spirits of a lower order borrow well-known and respected names. The spirits themselves have confirmed this. How, then, can we be sure that spirits are who they claim to be? They may say, for example, that they were Socrates, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Fenelon, Napoleon, Washington, and others. Many devoted followers of spiritist doctrine share this doubt. They accept that spirits intervene and manifest themselves, but ask how we can be certain of their identity. In fact, such certainty is very difficult to obtain. We cannot establish their identity as conclusively as we could through an official register. But we can at least make a reasonable judgment based on certain indications.

When the spirit who manifests himself is that of some one personally known to us, of a relative or friend, for instance, and especially if of one who has been dead but a short time, it is generally found that his language is perfectly in keeping with what we know of his character; thus furnishing a strong presumption of his identity, which is placed almost beyond reach of doubt when the spirit speaks of private affairs, and refers to family matters known only to the party to whom he addresses himself. A son could hardly be mistaken as to the language of his father and mother, nor parents as to that of their child. Most striking incidents often occur in evocations of this intimate kind—things of a nature to convince the most incredulous. The most sceptical are often astounded by the unexpected revelations thus made to them.

When a spirit who appears is someone we knew personally, such as a relative or friend, the spirit’s language generally fits what we know of their character. This is especially true if the person died only recently. This gives us strong reason to believe the spirit is who they claim to be. Their identity is almost beyond doubt when they speak of private affairs and family matters known only to the person they are addressing. A son could hardly mistake the language of his father or mother, nor could parents mistake that of their child. Striking things often happen when spirits are called upon in this intimate way. They can convince even the most skeptical. The most skeptical are often astonished by the unexpected revelations made to them.

Another very characteristic circumstance often helps to establish a spirit's identity. We have already said that the handwriting of the medium generally changes with the spirit evoked, the same writing being reproduced exactly every time the same spirit presents himself; and it often happens that, in the case of persons recently deceased, this writing bears a striking resemblance to that of the person during life, the signatures, especially, being sometimes perfectly exact. We are, nevertheless, very far from adducing this fact as a rule, or as being of constant recurrence; we merely mention it as a point worthy of notice.

Another distinctive sign often helps establish a spirit's identity. As we have said, the medium's handwriting generally changes with the spirit evoked. The same handwriting is reproduced exactly each time the same spirit appears. When the spirit is someone who has recently died, the writing often closely resembles their handwriting during life. Signatures, especially, are sometimes perfectly exact. Nevertheless, we are far from presenting this as a rule or as something that happens consistently. We mention it only as a point worth noting.

It is only when spirits have arrived at a certain degree of purification that they are entirely freed from all corporeal influences; and as long as they are not completely dematerialised (to employ their own expression), they retain most of the ideas, tendencies, and even the hobbies, they had while on earth, all of which furnish additional means of identification; but these are especially to be found in the vast number of small details that are only perceived through sustained and attentive observation. Spirits who have been authors are seen to discuss their own works or views, approving or blaming them; others allude to various circumstances connected with their life or death; and from all these indications we obtain what may, at least, be regarded as moral presumptions in favour of their identity, the only ones that can be looked for under the circumstances of the case.

Only when spirits have reached a certain degree of purification are they entirely free from bodily influences. As long as they are not completely dematerialised (to use their own expression), they retain most of their earthly ideas, tendencies, and even hobbies. All of these provide further ways to identify them. But the best clues lie in the many small details noticed only through careful, sustained observation. Spirits who were authors are seen discussing their own works or views, approving or criticizing them. Others refer to various circumstances connected with their lives or deaths. From all these indications, we obtain what may at least be regarded as presumptive evidence of their identity. Under the circumstances, this is the only kind of evidence we can expect.

If, then, the identity of the spirit evoked may be established, to a certain extent and in certain cases, there is no reason why that identity may not exist in others; and although we may not have the same means of identification in regard to persons whose death is of more distant date, we always have that of language and character, for the spirit of a good and enlightened man will assuredly not express himself like that of a depraved or ignorant one. As for inferior spirits who assume honoured names, they soon betray themselves by the character of their language and statements. If some one, for instance, calling himself Fenelon gave utterance to remarks at variance with common sense or morality, his imposture would at once become evident; but if the thoughts expressed by him were always noble, consistent, and of an elevation worthy of Fenelon, there would be no reason to doubt his identity, for otherwise we should have to admit that a spirit whose communications inculcate only goodness would knowingly be guilty of falsehood. Experience shows us that spirits of the same degree, of the same character, and animated by the same sentiments, are united in groups and families; but the number of spirits is incalculable, and we are so far from knowing them all, that the names of the immense majority of them are necessarily unknown to us. A spirit of the same category as Fenelon may therefore come to us in his name, and may even be sent by him as his representative; in which case he would naturally announce himself as Fenelon, because he is his equivalent, and able to supply his place, and because we need a name in order to fix our ideas in regard to him. And, after all, what does it matter whether a spirit be really Fenelon or not, if all that he says is excellent, and such as Fenelon himself would be likely to say? For, in that case, he must be a spirit of superior advancement; and the name under which he presents himself is of no importance, being often only a means of fixing our ideas. This sort of substitution would not be acceptable in evocations of a more intimate character; but, in these, as just pointed out, we have other means of ascertaining the identity of the communicating spirit.

If we can establish the identity of a spirit we summon, to some extent and in certain cases, there is no reason why the spirit could not be identified in other cases. We may not have the same means of identifying people who died longer ago. But we can always judge by their language and character. The spirit of a good and enlightened person will surely not express itself like that of a wicked or ignorant one. Inferior spirits who assume honored names soon give themselves away through their language and statements. Suppose someone calling himself Fenelon made remarks that offended common sense or morality. His deception would be immediately obvious. But suppose his thoughts were always noble, consistent, and as lofty as Fenelon’s. Then there would be no reason to doubt his identity. Otherwise, we would have to admit that a spirit whose messages teach only goodness would knowingly lie. Experience shows us that spirits of the same level and character, who share the same feelings, form groups and families. But there are countless spirits, and we are far from knowing them all. We therefore do not know the names of the vast majority of them. A spirit of the same kind as Fenelon may come to us in his name. Fenelon may even send such a spirit as his representative. In that case, the spirit would naturally call himself Fenelon. He is Fenelon’s equal and can take his place, and we need a name to give us a clear idea of him. After all, what does it matter whether a spirit is really Fenelon or not? This is true if everything he says is excellent and likely to be said by Fenelon himself. In that case, he must be a highly advanced spirit. The name he uses is unimportant. It is often only a way to give us a clear idea of him. This kind of substitution would not be acceptable when we summon spirits for more intimate reasons. But as we have just noted, in those cases we have other means of establishing the communicating spirit’s identity.

It is certain, however, that the assumption of false names by spirits may give rise to numerous mistakes, may be a source of error and deception, and is, in fact, one of the most serious difficulties of practical spiritism; but we have never said that this field of investigation, any more than any other, is exempt from obstacles, nor that it can be fruitfully explored without serious and persevering effort. We cannot too often reiterate the warning that spiritism is a new field of study, and one that demands long and assiduous exploration. Being unable to produce at pleasure the facts on which spiritism is based, we are obliged to wait for them to present themselves; and it often happens that, instead of occurring when we are looking for them, they occur when least expected. For the attentive and patient observer, materials for study are abundant, because he discovers in the facts thus presented thousands of characteristic peculiarities which are for him so many sources of light. It is the same in regard to every other branch of science; while the superficial observer sees in a flower only an elegant form, the botanist discovers in it a mine of interest for his thought.

It is certain, however, that spirits using false names can cause many mistakes, errors, and deceptions. In fact, this is one of the most serious difficulties in the practice of spiritism. But we have never said that this field of investigation is free of obstacles, any more than any other. Nor have we said that it can be explored fruitfully without serious and sustained effort. We cannot repeat this warning too often: spiritism is a new field of study, and it demands long and diligent exploration. We cannot produce the facts on which spiritism is based whenever we wish. So we must wait for them to appear. Often, instead of appearing when we look for them, they appear when least expected. The attentive and patient observer finds plenty of material to study. This is because they discover thousands of distinctive details in these facts, each of which sheds light on the subject. The same is true in every other branch of science. While a superficial observer sees only a graceful shape in a flower, a botanist finds a wealth of ideas to explore.

The foregoing remarks lead us to say a few words in relation to another difficulty—viz., the divergence which exists in the statements made by spirits.

These remarks lead us to say a few words about another difficulty: the differences in what spirits say.

Spirits differing very widely from one another as regards their knowledge and morality, it is evident that the same question may receive from them very different answers, according to the rank at which they have arrived; exactly as would be the case if it were propounded alternately to a man of science, an ignoramus, and a mischievous wag. The important point, as previously remarked, is to know who is the spirit to whom we are addressing our question.

Spirits differ greatly in their knowledge and morality. So the same question may receive very different answers from them, depending on the rank they have reached. The same would happen if the question were put in turn to a scientist, an ignorant person, and a mischievous joker. As noted earlier, the important thing is to know which spirit we are questioning.

But, it will be argued, how is it that spirits who are admittedly of superior degree are not all of the same opinion? We reply, in the first place, that there are, independently of the cause of diversity just pointed out, other causes that may exercise an influence on the nature of the replies, irrespectively of the quality of the spirits themselves. This is a point of the highest importance, and one that will be explained by our ulterior study of the subject, provided that this study be prosecuted with the aid of the sustained attention, the prolonged observation, the method and perseverance that are required in the pursuit of every other branch of human inquiry. Years of study are needed to make even a second-rate physician; three-quarters of a lifetime to make a man of learning: and people fancy that a few hours will suffice to acquire the science of the infinite! Let there be no mistake in regard to this matter. The subject of spiritism is immense. It involves all other subjects, physical, metaphysical, and social; it is a new world that opens before us. Is it strange that time, and a good deal of time, should be required for becoming acquainted with it?

But someone will ask, why do spirits acknowledged to be of a higher order not all agree? First, besides the cause of disagreement just mentioned, other causes may influence the answers, regardless of the spirits’ own qualities. This is a point of the utmost importance. Our further study will explain it, provided we pursue that study with sustained attention, prolonged observation, method, and perseverance. These are required in every other field of human inquiry. Years of study are needed to make even a second-rate doctor, and three-quarters of a lifetime to make a scholar. Yet people imagine that a few hours will be enough to learn the science of the infinite! Let there be no mistake about this. The subject of spiritism is immense. It involves every other subject, whether physical, metaphysical, or social. A new world is opening before us. Is it strange that getting to know it should take time, and a great deal of time?

The contradictions alluded to, moreover, are not always as absolute as they may seem to be at first sight. Do we not see every day that men who are pursuing the same science give various definitions of the same thing; sometimes because they make use of different terms, sometimes because they consider it from different points of view, although the fundamental idea is the same in each case? Let any one count up, if he can, the different definitions that have been given of grammar! It must also be remembered that the form of the answer often depends on the form under which the question has been put; and that it would be childish to regard as a contradiction what is often only a difference of words. The higher spirits pay no heed to forms of expression; for them, the thought itself is everything.

Moreover, the contradictions mentioned are not always as absolute as they may seem at first. Every day, we see people studying the same science give different definitions of the same thing. Sometimes they use different words. Sometimes they look at it from different points of view. Yet the basic idea is the same in each case. Let anyone count, if they can, the different definitions that have been given for grammar! We must also remember that the way an answer is expressed often depends on how the question was asked. It would be childish to see a contradiction where there is often only a difference in words. Higher spirits pay no attention to forms of expression. For them, the thought itself is everything.

Let us take, for example, the definition of soul. That word, having no fixed meaning, spirits like ourselves may differ in the meaning they give to it. One of them may say that it is "the principle of life;" another may call it "the animic spark;" a third may say that it is internal; a fourth, that it is external, &c.; and each may be right from his own special point of view. Some of them might even be supposed to hold materialistic views; and yet such is not the case. It is the same with regard to the word God. According to some, God is "the principle of all things;" according to others, "the creator of the universe," "the sovereign intelligence," "the Infinite," "the great Spirit," &c.; and nevertheless it is always "God." And so in regard to the classification of spirits. They form an uninterrupted succession from the lowest to the highest; all attempts at classification are therefore arbitrary, and they may be regarded as forming three, five, ten, or twenty classes, without involving error or contradiction. All human sciences offer the same variations of detail; every investigator has his own system; and systems change, but science remains the same. Whether we study botany according to the system of Linnaeus, of Jussieu, or of Tournefort, what we learn is none the less botany. Let us then cease to attribute more importance than they deserve to matters that are merely conventional, and let us devote ourselves only to what is really important; and we shall often discover, on reflexion, a similitude of meaning in statements that appeared to us, at first sight, to be contradictory.

Let us take the definition of soul, for example. The word has no fixed meaning, so spirits like ourselves may give it different meanings. One may say that it is "the principle of life." Another may call it "the animic spark." A third may say that it is internal, a fourth that it is external, and so on. Each may be right from their own particular point of view. Some might even seem to hold materialistic views, but that is not the case. The same is true of the word God. According to some, God is "the principle of all things." Others call God "the creator of the universe," "the sovereign intelligence," "the Infinite," "the great Spirit," and so on. Yet all of them still mean "God." The same applies to the classification of spirits. They form an unbroken succession from the lowest to the highest. All attempts to classify them are therefore arbitrary. They may be divided into three, five, ten, or twenty classes, without error or contradiction. All human sciences show the same variations in detail. Every investigator has a system of their own. Systems change, but science remains the same. We may study botany according to the system of Linnaeus, Jussieu, or Tournefort. What we learn is still botany. Let us stop giving matters of convention more importance than they deserve. Let us focus only on what is truly important. Then, after reflection, we will often find similar meanings in statements that at first seemed contradictory.

We should pass over the objection of certain sceptics in relation to the faulty spelling of some spirits, were it not that this objection affords us an opportunity of calling attention to a point of great importance. Spirit-orthography, it must be confessed, is not always irreproachable; but he must be very short of arguments who would make this fact the object of serious criticism, on the plea that, "since spirits know everything, they ought to be well up in spelling." We might retort by pointing to the numerous sins against orthography committed by more than one of the lights of science in our own world, and which in no wise invalidate their scientific authority; but a much more important point is involved in the fact alluded to. For spirits, and especially for those of high degree, the idea is everything, the form is nothing. Freed from matter, their language among themselves is as rapid as thought, for it is their thought itself that is communicated without intermediary; and it must therefore be very inconvenient for them to be obliged, in communicating with us, to make use of human speech, with its long and awkward forms, its insufficiencies and imperfections, as the vehicle of their ideas. They often allude to this inconvenience; and it is curious to see the means they employ to obviate the difficulty. It would be the same with us if we had to express ourselves in a language of which the words and locutions were longer, and the stock of expressions more scanty, than those we habitually employ. The same difficulty is felt by the man of genius, impatient of the slowness of his pen, which always lags behind his thought. It is therefore easy to understand that spirits attach but little importance to questions of spelling, especially in the transmission of serious and weighty teachings. Should we not rather wonder that they are able to express themselves equally in all tongues, and that they understand them all? It must not, however, be inferred from these remarks that they are unable to express themselves with conventional correctness; they do this when they judge it to be necessary; as, for instance, when they dictate verses, some of which, written, moreover, by illiterate mediums, are of a correctness and elegance that defy the severest criticism.

We would pass over the objection some skeptics raise about spirits' faulty spelling, except that it gives us a chance to discuss an important point. We must admit that spirits do not always spell perfectly. But anyone who seriously criticizes them for it must be very short of arguments. Such critics claim that, "since spirits know everything, they ought to be good at spelling." We could point to the many spelling errors made by more than one leading scientist in our own world. These errors do nothing to undermine their scientific authority. But the spirits' spelling raises a much more important point. For spirits, especially those of a high order, the idea is everything and the form is nothing. Freed from matter, they communicate with one another as quickly as they think. They communicate their thoughts directly, without any intermediary. So it must be very inconvenient for them to use human speech to convey their ideas to us. Its forms are long and awkward, and it is inadequate and imperfect. Spirits often mention this inconvenience. It is curious to see how they try to overcome the difficulty. We would face the same problem if we had to express ourselves in a language with longer words and phrases, and fewer expressions, than the one we usually use. A person of genius feels the same difficulty, impatient with a pen that always lags behind their thoughts. So it is easy to understand why spirits attach little importance to spelling, especially when conveying serious and weighty teachings. Should we not instead wonder that they can express themselves equally well in every language and understand them all? We should not conclude from this that spirits cannot express themselves according to accepted rules. They do so when they think it necessary, as when they dictate verses. Some of these verses are written down by illiterate mediums. Yet they are so correct and elegant that they defy the severest criticism.

There are persons who see danger in everything that is new to them, and who have therefore not failed to draw an unfavourable conclusion from the fact that some of those who have taken up the subject of spiritism have lost their reason. But how can sensible people urge that fact as an objection? Does not the same thing often happen to weak heads when they give themselves up to any intellectual pursuit? Who shall say how many have gone mad over mathematics, medicine, music, philosophy, &c.? But what does that prove? And are those studies to be proscribed on that account? Arms and legs, the instruments of physical activity, are often injured by physical labour; the brain, instrument of thought, is often impaired by intellectual labour, to which, in fact, many a man may be said to fall a martyr. But, though the instrument may be injured, the mind remains intact, and, when freed from matter, finds itself again in full possession of its faculties.

Some people see danger in everything new to them. So they have naturally drawn an unfavorable conclusion from the fact that some people who studied spiritism have lost their reason. But how can sensible people offer that fact as an objection? Doesn’t the same thing often happen to weak-minded people who devote themselves to any intellectual pursuit? Who can say how many have gone mad over mathematics, medicine, music, philosophy, and so on? But what does that prove? Should those studies be forbidden for that reason? Arms and legs, the instruments of physical activity, are often injured by physical labor. Likewise, the brain, the instrument of thought, is often damaged by intellectual work. Indeed, many people may be said to become martyrs to it. But although the instrument may be injured, the mind remains intact. When freed from matter, it finds itself in full possession of its faculties again.

Intense mental application of any kind may induce cerebral disease; science, art, religion even, have all furnished their quota of madmen. The predisposing cause of madness is to be found in some tendency of the brain that renders it more or less accessible to certain impressions; and, where the predisposition to insanity exists, its manifestation takes on the character of the pursuit to which the mind is most addicted, and which then assumes the form of a fixed idea. This fixed idea may be that of spirits, in the case of those who have been deeply absorbed by spiritist matters; as it may be that of God, of angels, the devil, fortune, power, an art, a science, a political or social system. It is probable that the victim of religious mania would have gone mad on spiritism, if spiritism had been his predominant mental occupation; just as he who goes mad over spiritism would, under other circumstances, have gone mad over something else.

Intense mental effort of any kind may cause brain disease. Science, art, and even religion have all produced their share of people with mental illness. A predisposition to madness lies in a tendency of the brain that makes it more or less susceptible to certain impressions. When this predisposition exists, madness takes on the character of the pursuit that most occupies the mind. That pursuit then becomes a fixed idea. For those deeply absorbed in spiritist matters, this fixed idea may be spirits. It may also be God, angels, the devil, fortune, power, an art, a science, or a political or social system. A person suffering from religious mania would probably have gone mad over spiritism if it had been their chief mental occupation. Just as someone who goes mad over spiritism would, under other circumstances, have gone mad over something else.

We assert, therefore, that spiritism does not predispose to insanity; nay, more, we assert that, when correctly understood, it is a preservative against insanity.

We therefore assert that spiritism does not make people more likely to become insane. More than that, we assert that, when correctly understood, it protects against insanity.

Among the most common causes of cerebral disturbance must be reckoned the disappointments, misfortunes, blighted affections, and other troubles of human life, which are also the most frequent causes of suicide. But the enlightened spiritist looks upon the things of this life from so elevated a point of view, they seem to him so petty, so worthless, in comparison with the future he sees before him—life appears so short, so fleeting—that its tribulations are, in his eyes, merely the disagreeable incidents of a journey. What would produce violent emotion in the mind of another affects him but slightly; besides, he knows that the sorrows of life are trials which aid our advancement, if borne without murmuring, and that he will be rewarded according to the fortitude with which he has borne them. His convictions, therefore, give him a resignation that preserves him from despair, and consequently from a frequent cause of madness and suicide. He knows, moreover, through spirit communications, the fate of those who voluntarily shorten their days; and as such knowledge is well calculated to suggest serious reflection, the number of those who have thus been arrested on the downward path is incalculable.

Among the most common causes of mental disturbance are disappointment, misfortune, frustrated love, and other troubles of human life. These are also the most frequent causes of suicide. But the enlightened spiritist views the things of this life from a higher perspective. Compared with the future he sees before him, they seem trivial and worthless. Life appears so short and fleeting that its troubles seem merely unpleasant incidents on a journey. What would cause another person intense emotion affects him only slightly. Besides, he knows that life's sorrows are trials that help us advance, if we bear them without complaint. He also knows that he will be rewarded according to the courage with which he has endured them. His convictions therefore give him an acceptance that protects him from despair, and thus from a frequent cause of madness and suicide. Moreover, through spirit communications, he knows the fate of those who voluntarily end their lives. Such knowledge is well suited to prompt serious reflection. The number of people it has stopped on that downward path is impossible to calculate.

Such is one of the results of spiritism. The incredulous may laugh at it as much as they please; we only wish them the consolations it affords to those who have sounded its mysterious depths.

This is one of the results of spiritism. Skeptics may laugh at it as much as they like. We only wish them the comfort it brings to those who have explored its mysterious depths.

Fear must also be reckoned among the causes of madness. Dread of the devil has deranged many a brain; and who shall say how many victims have been made by impressing weak imaginations with pictures of which the horrors are enhanced by the hideous details so ingeniously worked into them? The devil, it is sometimes said, frightens only little children, whom it helps to make docile and well-behaved. Yes; but only as do nursery-terrors and bugaboos in general; and when these have lost their power, they who have been subjected to this sort of training are apt to be worse than before; while, on the other hand, those who have recourse to it overlook the risk of epilepsy involved in such disturbing action upon the delicate child-brain. Religion would be weak indeed if its power could only be sustained by fear. Happily such is not the case, and it has other means of acting on the mind. Spiritism furnishes the religious element with a more efficient support than superstitious terror. It discloses the reality of things, and thus substitutes a salutary appreciation of the consequences of wrong-doing for the vague apprehensions of unreasonable fear.

Fear must also be counted among the causes of madness. Fear of the devil has driven many people mad. Who can say how many victims have been made by filling vulnerable imaginations with horrifying images? Their horrors are made worse by the hideous details so cleverly worked into them. Some say the devil frightens only young children and helps make them obedient and well-behaved. Yes, but only as other childhood terrors and bogeymen do. When these fears lose their power, those raised with them are likely to be worse than before. Meanwhile, those who use such fears overlook the risk of epilepsy from disturbing a child’s delicate brain. Religion would be very weak if its power could only be sustained by fear. Fortunately, that is not the case. Religion has other ways to influence the mind. Spiritism gives the religious element more effective support than superstitious terror does. It reveals the reality of things. It thus replaces the vague anxieties of irrational fear with a healthy understanding of the consequences of wrongdoing.

Two objections still remain to be examined, the only ones really deserving of the name, because they are the only ones founded on a rational basis. Both admit the reality of the material and moral phenomena of spiritism, but deny the intervention of spirits in their production.

Two objections remain to be examined. They are the only ones that truly deserve to be called objections, because only they have a rational basis. Both accept the reality of the physical and moral phenomena of spiritism, but deny that spirits produce them.

According to the first of these objections, all the manifestations attributed to spirits are merely effects of magnetism, and mediums are in a state that might be called waking somnambulism, a phenomenon which may have been observed by any one who has studied animal magnetism. In this state the intellectual faculties acquire an abnormal development; the circle of our intuitive perceptions is extended beyond its ordinary limits; the medium finds in himself, and with the aid of his lucidity, all that he says, and all the notions transmitted by him, even in regard to subjects with which he is least familiar in his usual state.

According to the first objection, all manifestations attributed to spirits are simply effects of magnetism. Mediums are in a state that might be called waking somnambulism. Anyone who has studied animal magnetism may have observed this phenomenon. In this state, intellectual abilities develop beyond their normal capacity. Intuitive perception also extends beyond its usual limits. With the help of this heightened awareness, the medium finds within himself everything he says and every idea he conveys. This includes ideas about subjects he knows least about in his usual state.

It is not by us, who have witnessed its prodigies and studied all its phases during thirty-five years, that the action of somnambulism could be contested, and we admit that many spirit-manifestations may be thus explained; but we assert that sustained and attentive observation shows us a host of facts in which any intervention of the medium, otherwise than as a passive instrument, is absolutely impossible. To those who attribute the phenomena in question to magnetism, we would say, as to all others, "See, and observe, for you have certainly not seen everything;" and we would also ask them to consider the two following points, suggested by their own view of the subject. In the first place, we would ask them, What is the origin of the hypothesis of spirit-action? Is it an explanation invented by a few individuals to account for those phenomena? Not at all. By whom, then, has it been broached? By the very mediums whose lucidity you extol. But if their lucidity be such as you declare it to be, why should they attribute to spirits what they have derived from themselves? How can they have given information so precise, logical, sublime in regard to the nature of those extra-human intelligences? Either mediums are lucid, or they are not; if they are, and if we trust to their veracity, we cannot, without inconsistency, suppose them to be in error on this point. In the second place, if all the phenomena had their source in the medium himself, they would always be identical in the case of each individual; and we should never find the same medium making use of different styles of expression, or giving utterance to contradictory statements.

We do not dispute the effects of somnambulism. For thirty-five years, we have witnessed its wonders and studied every phase of it. We accept that it may explain many spirit manifestations. But careful, sustained observation reveals many cases where the medium could not possibly have intervened except as a passive instrument. To those who attribute these phenomena to magnetism, we would say, as we do to everyone else, "Look and observe, for you certainly have not seen everything." We would also ask them to consider two points raised by their own view. First, where did the hypothesis of spirit action come from? Was it an explanation invented by a few people to account for the phenomena? Not at all. Who, then, put it forward? The very mediums whose lucidity you praise. But if they are as lucid as you say, why would they attribute to spirits what came from themselves? How could they have given such precise, logical, and sublime information about the nature of those intelligences beyond humanity? Either mediums are lucid or they are not. If they are lucid, and if we trust their truthfulness, we cannot consistently suppose they are mistaken on this point. Second, if all the phenomena originated in the medium, they would always be identical for each individual. We would never find the same medium using different styles of expression or making contradictory statements.

The want of unity so often observed in the manifestations obtained by the same medium is a proof of the diversity of the sources from which they proceed; and as the cause of this diversity is not to be found in the medium himself, it must be sought for elsewhere.

The manifestations obtained through the same medium often lack consistency. This proves that they come from different sources. Since the cause of this diversity cannot be found in the medium himself, it must be sought elsewhere.

According to the other objection, the medium is really the source of the manifestations, but, instead of deriving them from himself, as is asserted by the partisans of the somnambulic theory, he derives them from the persons among whom he finds himself. The medium is a sort of mirror, reflecting all the thoughts, ideas, and knowledge of those about him; from which it follows that he says nothing which is not known to, at least, some of them. It cannot be denied, for it is one of the fundamental principles of spiritist doctrine, that those who are present exercise an influence upon the manifestations; but this influence is very different from what it is assumed to be by the hypothesis we are considering, and, so far from the medium being the mere echo of the thoughts of those around him, there are thousands of facts that prove directly the contrary. This objection is therefore based on a serious mistake, and one that shows the danger of hasty judgments; those who bring it forward, being unable to deny the reality of phenomena which the science of the day is incompetent to explain, and being unwilling to admit the presence of spirits, explain them in their own way. Their theory would be specious if it explained all the facts of the case; but this it cannot do. In vain is it proved by the evidence of facts that the communications of the medium are often entirely foreign to the thoughts, knowledge, and even the opinions of those who are present, and that they are frequently spontaneous, and contradict all received ideas; the opponents referred to are not discouraged by so slight a difficulty. The radiation of thought, say they, extends far beyond the circle immediately around us; the medium is the reflection of the human race in general; so that, if he does not derive his inspirations from those about him, he derives them from those who are further off, in the town or country he inhabits, from the people of the rest of the globe, and even from those of other spheres.

Another objection holds that the medium is indeed the source of the manifestations. But it claims that the medium draws them from the people around him, rather than from himself, as supporters of the somnambulic theory assert. In this view, the medium is a kind of mirror, reflecting all the thoughts, ideas, and knowledge of those around him. It follows that he says nothing that at least one of them does not know. Those present do influence the manifestations. This cannot be denied, since it is one of the fundamental principles of spiritist doctrine. But their influence is very different from what this theory assumes. Far from being a mere echo of the thoughts around him, the medium has shown the exact opposite in thousands of cases. This objection is therefore based on a serious mistake, one that shows the danger of hasty judgments. Those who raise it cannot deny the reality of phenomena that the science of the day cannot explain. Yet they are unwilling to admit the presence of spirits, so they explain the phenomena in their own way. Their theory would seem plausible if it explained all the facts, but it cannot. The facts show that the medium’s communications are often completely unrelated to the thoughts, knowledge, and even opinions of those present. They are also frequently spontaneous and contradict all accepted ideas. Yet this evidence is offered in vain. These opponents are not discouraged by so slight a difficulty. Thought, they say, radiates far beyond the circle immediately around us. The medium reflects the human race in general. So if he does not draw his inspiration from those around him, he draws it from people farther away. These may be people in the town or country where he lives, people elsewhere on the globe, or even people in other spheres.

We do not think that this theory furnishes a more simple and probable explanation than that given by spiritism; for it assumes the action of a cause very much more marvellous. The idea that universal space is peopled by beings who are in perpetual contact with us, and who communicate to us their ideas, is certainly not more repugnant to reason than the hypothesis of a universal radiation, coming from every point of the universe, and converging in the brain of a single individual, to the exclusion of all the others.

We do not think this theory offers a simpler or more likely explanation than spiritism does. It assumes that a far more extraordinary cause is at work. The idea that beings inhabit all of space is certainly no less reasonable than the theory of universal radiation. These beings are in constant contact with us and communicate their ideas to us. The theory of universal radiation holds that radiation comes from every point in the universe and converges in one person’s brain, but not in anyone else’s.

We repeat (and this is a point of such importance that we cannot insist too strongly upon it), that the somnambulic theory, and that which may be called the theory of reflection, have been devised by the imagination of men; while, on the contrary, the theory of spirit-agency is not a conception of the human mind, for it was dictated by the manifesting intelligences themselves, at a time when no one thought of spirits, and when the opinion of the generality of men was opposed to such a supposition. We have therefore to inquire, first, from what quarter the mediums can have derived a hypothesis which had no existence in the thought of any one on earth? and, secondly, by what strange coincidence it can have happened that tens of thousands of mediums, scattered over the entire globe, and utterly unknown to one another, all agree in asserting the same thing? If the first medium who appeared in France was influenced by opinions already received in America, by what strange guidance was he made to go in search of ideas across two thousand leagues of sea, and among a people whose habits and language were foreign to his own, instead of taking them in his own immediate vicinity?

We repeat a point that is so important we cannot emphasize it too strongly. The somnambulic theory and what may be called the theory of reflection were invented by human imagination. The theory of spirit-agency, on the other hand, was not an idea conceived by the human mind. It was dictated by the manifesting intelligences themselves. At the time, no one was thinking of spirits, and most people were opposed to such an idea. We must therefore ask two questions. First, where could the mediums have found a theory that no one on earth had thought of? Second, how could tens of thousands of mediums all agree in asserting the same thing? They were scattered across the globe and did not know one another at all. If the first medium to appear in France was influenced by ideas already accepted in America, what strange guidance led him there? Why did he go in search of ideas across two thousand leagues of sea? Why did he seek them among a people whose customs and language were foreign to him, rather than nearby?

But there is yet another circumstance to which sufficient attention has not been given. The earliest manifestations, in Europe, as in America, were not made either by writing or by speech, but by raps indicating the letters of the alphabet, and forming words and sentences. It is by this means that the manifesting intelligences declared themselves to be spirits; and therefore, even though we should admit an intervention of the medium's mind in the production of verbal or written communications, we could not do so in regard to raps, whose meaning could not have been known beforehand.

But there is another point that has not received enough attention. The earliest manifestations in Europe and America came neither through writing nor speech. They came through raps that indicated letters of the alphabet and formed words and sentences. The intelligences making themselves known used these raps to declare that they were spirits. We might admit that the medium's mind plays a part in spoken or written communications. But we could not say the same of the raps, whose meaning could not have been known beforehand.

We might adduce any number of facts proving the existence of a personal individuality and an absolutely independent will on the part of the manifesting intelligence; and we therefore invite our opponents to a more attentive observation of the phenomena in question, assuring them that, if they study these without prejudice, and refrain from drawing a conclusion until they have made themselves thoroughly acquainted with the subject, they will find that their theories are unable to account for all of them. We will only propose to such antagonists the two following queries:—

We could cite countless facts proving that the intelligence behind these manifestations has its own individuality and an absolutely independent will. We therefore invite our opponents to observe the phenomena more carefully. If they study the phenomena without prejudice, they will find that their theories cannot explain them all. But they must not draw a conclusion until they thoroughly understand the subject. We will put only the following two questions to our opponents:

1. Why does it so often happen that the manifesting intelligence refuses to answer certain questions in regard to matters that are perfectly known to the questioner, as, for instance, his name or age, what he has in his hand, what he did yesterday, what he intends to do on the morrow, &c.? If the medium be only a mirror reflecting the thought of those about him, nothing should be easier for him than to answer such questions.

1. Why does the manifesting intelligence so often refuse to answer questions about things the questioner knows perfectly well? For example, it may refuse to say the questioner's name or age, or what he holds in his hand. It may refuse to say what he did yesterday or what he plans to do tomorrow, and so on. If the medium merely reflects the thoughts of those around him, nothing should be easier than answering such questions.

If our adversaries retort by inquiring why it is that spirits, who ought to know everything, are unable to answer questions so simple, and conclude, from this presumed inability, that the phenomena cannot be caused by spirits, we would ask them whether, if an ignorant or foolish person should inquire of some learned body the reason of its being light at noonday, any answer would be returned to his question? and whether it would be reasonable to conclude, from the derision or the silence with which such a question might be received, that its members were merely a set of asses? It is precisely because they are at a higher point than ourselves that spirits decline to answer idle and foolish questions; keeping silence when such are asked, or advising us to employ ourselves with more serious subjects.

Our opponents may ask why spirits, who ought to know everything, cannot answer such simple questions. They may conclude from this supposed inability that spirits cannot be responsible for the phenomena. In reply, we would ask whether a group of scholars would answer an ignorant or foolish person who asked why it is light at noon. If they laughed at the question or said nothing, would it be reasonable to conclude that they were merely a bunch of fools? It is precisely because spirits are above us that they refuse to answer pointless and foolish questions. When asked such questions, they remain silent or advise us to turn our attention to more serious subjects.

2. We have also to ask them why it is that spirits come and depart at their own pleasure, and why, when once they have taken their departure, neither prayers nor entreaties can bring them back? If the medium were acted upon solely by the mental impulsion of those around him, it is evident that the union of their wills, in such a case, ought to stimulate his clairvoyance. If, therefore, he do not yield to the wishes of those assembled, strengthened by his own desire, it is because he obeys an influence which is distinct from himself and from those about him, and which thus asserts its own independence and individuality.

2. We must also ask them why spirits come and go as they please. Why, once they have left, can neither prayers nor pleas bring them back? If the medium were influenced only by the thoughts of those around him, their combined wills should clearly stimulate his clairvoyance. But he does not give in to their wishes, even when he shares their desire. This is because he obeys an influence distinct from himself and those around him. In this way, that influence asserts its own independence and individuality.

Incredulity in regard to spirit-communication, when not the result of systematic opposition from selfish motives, has almost always its source in an imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the case; which, however, does not prevent a good many persons from attempting to settle the question as though they were perfectly familiar with it. It is possible to be very clever, very learned, and yet to lack clearness of judgment; and a belief in one's own infallibility is the surest sign of the existence of this defect. Many persons, too, regard spirit manifestations as being only a matter of curiosity. Let us hope that the reading of this book will show them that the wonderful phenomena in question are something else than a pastime.

Disbelief in communication with spirits is sometimes the result of deliberate opposition based on selfish motives. Otherwise, it almost always comes from an incomplete knowledge of the facts. Yet many people still try to settle the question as if they knew all about it. A person can be very clever and well educated, yet lack sound judgment. The surest sign of this failing is a belief in one's own infallibility. Many people also regard spirit manifestations as nothing more than a curiosity. Let us hope this book shows them that these remarkable phenomena are more than a pastime.

Spiritism consists of two parts: one of these, the experimental, deals with the subject of the manifestations in general; the other, the philosophic, deals with the class of manifestations denoting intelligence. Whoever has only observed the former is in the position of one whose knowledge of physics, limited to experiments of an amusing nature, does not extend to the fundamental principles of that science. Spiritist philosophy consists of teachings imparted by spirits, and the knowledge thus conveyed is of a character far too serious to be mastered without serious and persevering attention. If the present book had no other result than to show the serious nature of the subject, and to induce inquirers to approach it in this spirit, it would be sufficiently important; and we should rejoice to have been chosen for the accomplishment of a work in regard to which we take no credit to ourselves, the principles it contains not being of our own creating, and whatever honour it may obtain being entirely due to the spirits by whom it has been dictated. We hope that it will achieve yet another result—viz., that of serving as a guide to those who are desirous of enlightenment, by showing them the grand and sublime end of individual and social progress to which the teachings of spiritism directly tend, and by pointing out to them the road by which alone that end can be reached.

Spiritism has two parts. The experimental part deals with manifestations in general. The philosophical part deals with manifestations that show intelligence. Anyone who has observed only manifestations in general is like someone whose knowledge of physics is limited to entertaining experiments. Such a person does not know the fundamental principles of the science. Spiritist philosophy consists of teachings given by spirits. The knowledge they convey is far too serious to master without serious and sustained attention. This book may have no other result than to show how serious the subject is and encourage inquirers to approach it accordingly. Even so, it would be sufficiently important. We would be glad to have been chosen to carry out this work, though we claim no credit for it. We did not create the principles it contains. Whatever honor it may receive is entirely due to the spirits who dictated it. We hope the book will also guide those who seek enlightenment. We hope it will show them the grand and sublime goal of individual and social progress toward which Spiritist teachings directly lead. We also hope it will point out the only road by which that goal can be reached.

Let us wind up these introductory remarks with one concluding observation. Astronomers, in sounding the depths of the sky, discovered seemingly vacant spaces not in accordance with the general laws that govern the distribution of the heavenly bodies, and they therefore conjectured that those spaces were occupied by globes that had escaped their observation. On the other hand, they observed certain effects the cause of which was unknown to them; and they said to themselves, "In such a region of space there must be a world, for otherwise there would be a void that ought not to exist; and the effects we have observed imply the presence in that seeming void of such a world as their cause." Reasoning, then, from those effects to their cause, they calculated the elements of the globe whose presence they had inferred, and facts subsequently justified their inference. Let us apply the same mode of reasoning to another order of ideas. If we observe the series of beings, we find that they form a continuous chain from brute matter to man. But between man and God, who is the alpha and omega of all things, what an immense hiatus! Is it reasonable to suppose that the links of the chain stop short with man, that he can vault, without transition, over the distance which separates him from the Infinite? Reason shows us that between man and God there must be other links, just as it showed the astronomers that between the worlds then known to them there must be other worlds as yet unknown to them. What system of philosophy has filled this hiatus? Spiritism shows that it is filled with the beings of all the ranks of the invisible world, and that these beings are no other than the spirits of men who have reached the successive degrees that lead up to perfection; and all things are thus seen to be linked together from one end of the chain to the other. Let those who deny the existence of spirits tell us what are the occupants of the immensity of space which spirits declare to be occupied by them; and let those who scoff at the idea of spirit-teachings give us a nobler idea than is given by those teachings of the handiwork of God, a more convincing demonstration of His goodness and His power.

Let us end these introductory remarks with one final observation. As astronomers explored the depths of the sky, they found spaces that seemed empty. These gaps did not fit the general laws governing the distribution of heavenly bodies. The astronomers therefore guessed that the spaces contained worlds they had not yet observed. They also observed certain effects whose cause was unknown. They said to themselves, "There must be a world in such a region of space. Otherwise, there would be a gap where none should exist. And the effects we have observed suggest that a world in that seemingly empty space is their cause." Reasoning from these effects to their cause, they calculated the characteristics of the world they believed was there. Later, the facts confirmed their inference. Let us apply the same reasoning to another set of ideas. If we look at the series of beings, we find a continuous chain from lifeless matter to man. But what an immense gap there is between man and God, the beginning and end of all things! Is it reasonable to suppose that the links of the chain stop with man? Can he leap, without any transition, across the distance that separates him from the Infinite? Reason shows us that there must be other links between man and God. In the same way, it showed astronomers that there must be unknown worlds among those they already knew. What system of philosophy has filled this gap? Spiritism shows that it is filled with beings of every rank in the invisible world. These beings are none other than the spirits of men who have reached the successive stages leading to perfection. In this way, everything is shown to be connected, from one end of the chain to the other. Let those who deny the existence of spirits tell us what occupies the vastness of space that spirits say they occupy. And let those who mock the idea of teachings from spirits give us a nobler view of God's handiwork. Let them offer a more convincing demonstration of his goodness and power than these teachings provide.

ALLAN KARDEC.

ALLAN KARDEC.