The Case of the Marvelous and the SupernaturalBy Louis Figuier
(First article)
It happens to the word marvelous the same that happens to the word
soul; there is an elastic meaning in both, given to multiple interpretations.
That is why we consider it useful to establish some general principles
in the preceding article, before entering into considerations of the
story given by Mr. Figuier.
When that work was published the adversaries of Spiritism applauded,
saying that we would undoubtedly have a strong resistance ahead of us. In
their charitable thoughts they saw us inexorably dead. The sad effects of a
passionate and thoughtless blindness, if they had taken the burden of analyzing
what they want to destroy they would have seen that Spiritism will
one day be, and earlier than they might think, the safeguard of society
and perhaps they themselves may owe Spiritism their salvation, we don’t
say in the next world, with which they care little about, but in this very
world! We don’t say these words lightheartedly. It is not time yet to develop
them. There are many people, however, that already understand us.
Coming back to Mr. Figuier, we ourselves thought to have found a truly
serious adversary in him, with peremptory arguments that would deserve
a serious refutation. His work covers four volumes. The two first ones
contain an explanation of principles in a preface and an introduction,
then a list of very well known facts that will nonetheless be read with
interest, given the scholarly research carried out by the author. We believe
it to be the most complete report ever given to the subject. The first volume
is almost entirely dedicated to the story of Urbain Grandier and the
religious of Loudun. After that comes the convulsionary of Saint-Médard,
the story of the protestant prophets, the magic wand and the animal magnetism.
The fourth and just published book deals particularly with the
turning tables and the rapping spirits. We shall come back to this latest
volume later, limiting ourselves for now to the summary of the analysis of
the whole thing.
The critical part of the stories contained in the two initial volumes consists
in the demonstration, by authentic witnesses, that intrigue, human
passions and charlatanism had a significant role in the subject, and that
certain facts have a clear sign of deception, but that is what nobody objects.
Nobody has ever guaranteed the integrity of all these facts, less than
any other, and the spiritists must be grateful to Mr. Figuier for having
collected proof that will avoid many compilations. They have interest that
the fraud is unveiled and all those who find these frauds in the phenomena
falsely qualified, as spiritist will be doing them a favor. Well, nobody
better than the enemies to do such a service. As seen, they have their
utility.
The only problem is that the desire for criticism sometimes drags people
far away, and in the heat of discovering evil they frequently see it where
it is not, for not having examined the subject with the necessary care
and impartiality, which is even rarer. The true critic must stay away from
preconceived ideas, undressed from any prejudice, or otherwise the subject
will be analyzed from a personal point of view, which is not always fair. Let us take an example: let us suppose that the political history of
contemporary events is written with great impartiality, that is, entirely
true, and let us suppose that this story is told by two critics of contrary
opinion. Considering that all facts are absolutely true, this will forcibly
hurt the opinion of one of them. Thus, two contradictory judgments: one
that will elevate the work to the skies; the other that will declare it to be
good enough for the fire. However, the work contains nothing different
from the truth. If that is the case with patent facts like in history, it is
also and with even stronger motive when dealing with philosophical doctrines.
Well, Spiritism is a philosophical doctrine and those who only see
it in the turning tables or who assess it based on absurd stories or the abuse
that confuses Spiritism with sorcery demonstrate that they don’t know it.
Is Mr. Figuier equipped to judge Spiritism with impartiality? That is what
must be evaluated.
Here is how he begins his preface:
“In 1854 when the talking and turning tables appeared in France, imported
from America, they produced an impression here that nobody can
forget. Many wise and sensible people became alarmed by such an unpredictable
development of the passion towards the marvelous. People could
not understand such madness, right now in the nineteenth century, with
an advanced philosophy and amidst this magnificent scientific movement
that drives everything these days to the positive and useful.”
He passed his judgment: the belief in the turning tables is madness. Since
Mr. Figuier is a positive man one must believe that before he published
his book he had seen and studied everything, in depth; in a word, that
he knows what he is talking about. If that were not the case he would
make the same mistake as Mr. Schiff and Mr. Jobert (de Lamballe) with
their theory of the cracking muscle (see The Review issue of June 1859).
We do know, however, that only one month ago he attended a session
where he gave demonstrations of ignoring the most elemental principles of Spiritism. Should he be considered sufficiently enlightened because he
was present in one session? It is true that we don’t question his perspicacity;
however great it is, though, we cannot admit that he can know and
particularly understand Spiritism in one session, as he did not learn physics
in one lesson. If Mr. Figuier were capable of that we would consider the
fact as one of the most marvelous. When he has studied Spiritism with the
same dedication that one does in the study of a science; when he has given
it the necessary moral time; when he has participated into thousands of
experiments; when he has become aware of all facts, without exception;
when he has compared every theory, it is only then that he will be able
to make a judicious criticism. Until then his judgment is only a personal
opinion, without any pro or con weight.
Let us take it from another point of view. We said that Spiritism is thoroughly
founded on the existence of an immaterial principle in us, or in
other words, in the existence of the soul. Someone that does not admit
their own spirit cannot admit a spirit outside. In consequence, by not admitting
the cause the effect cannot be admitted. We would like to know if
Mr. Figuier would place the following principle in his book, as statement
of faith:
1. I believe in God, creator of everything, All-mighty, sovereignly
just and good, and infinite in his perfections;
2. I believe in God’s Providence;
3. I believe in the existence of the soul, that outlives the body and in
its individuality after death. I believe in that not as a probability,
but as something necessary and consequent to the attributes of
the Divinity;
4. By admitting the soul and its survival, I do believe that it would
not be according to the justice or God’s benevolence that good
and evil were treated equally after death, since they rarely receive
the deserved reward or punishment in this life;
5. If the soul of the bad and the good one are not treated in the same
way, then some are happy and others unhappy, that is to say, they
are punished or rewarded according to their deeds.
Had Mr. Figuier made that statement we would tell him: this is
the confession of every spiritist because Spiritism would not make sense
without it, with the only difference that what you believe in theoretically
Spiritism demonstrates through facts, because every spiritist fact is a consequence
of those principles. As the spirits that inhabit the space are nothing
more than the souls of those who lived on Earth or in other worlds, as
soon as the soul, its survival and individuality are admitted, the spirits are
also admitted for that very reason. Now that the basis is acknowledged,
everything depends on the admission that those spirits or souls may communicate
with the living ones; if they can act upon matter; if they have
influence on the physical as well as moral world; or on the contrary, if
they are destined to an eternal inutility, or only to be concerned with
themselves, which is unlikely as long as God’s Providence is admitted and
the remarkable universal harmony is taken into account, where even the
miniscule creatures have their role.
If Mr. Figuier’s answer were negative or only politely doubtful, in order
to avoid shocking very abruptly respectable prejudices, in the words of
certain persons, we would tell him: you are no more competent to judge
matters of Spiritism than a Muslim to judge matters of the Catholic religion;
your judgment could not be impartial and you would unsuccessfully
try to avoid preconceived ideas, considering that those ideas are already in
your opinion, regarding the fundamental principles that you deny a priori
and before knowing the subject.
If one day a board of scientists nominated a secretary to report and examine
the issue of Spiritism and that reporter was not frankly spiritualist,
this would be the same as having a religious council nominating Voltaire
to deal with the subject of dogma. It must be said in passing that people
are surprised by the fact that the scientific corporations have not given their opinion but they forget that their mission is the study of the laws
of matter and not the attributes of the soul, and even less to decide if the
soul does exist. They may have individual opinions about such subject, as
they may have about religion; but they shall never have to pronounce as a
scientific corporation.
We don’t know if Mr. Figuier would respond to the statement of faith
above, but his book allows it to be foreseen. In fact here is how the second
paragraph is formulated:
“A precise knowledge of history would have prevented or at least diminish
such astonishment. In fact it would be a great mistake to imagine
that the ideas that generated the belief in the turning tables and the rapping
spirits have a modern origin. This passion for the marvelous is not
particular to our times: it is present in all countries and at all times, because
it is linked to the very nature of the human spirit. By an instinctive
and unjustifiable mistrust in his own capabilities, the human being is led to
place invisible forces above his head, exerted from an inaccessible sphere. This
congenital disposition has always existed in all periods of human history,
dressed differently according to the time, place and costumes, giving rise
to different manifestations in the form, however having the same principle
in its foundation.”
By saying that “by an instinctive and unjustifiable mistrust in his own
capabilities, the human being is led to place invisible forces above his head,
exerted from an inaccessible sphere” there is an acknowledgement that the
human being is everything, that can do everything, and that there is nothing
above him. If we are not mistaken, this is not only materialism but
atheism. As a matter of fact such ideas stick out from a number of passages
in his preface and introduction, to which we call to the attention of our
readers who we are convinced will share our opinion. Can it be said that
those words are not applicable to the Divinity, but to the spirits? We shall
respond that he then ignores the first word of Spiritism since denying
the spirit is the same as denying the soul. Spirits and souls are the same
thing and the spirits do not exert their influence in an inaccessible sphere
because they are around us, touching us, acting upon the inert matter and every other imponderable and invisible fluid that, irrespectively, are
the most powerful drivers and the most active agents of nature. It is only
God that exerts his influence from a sphere inaccessible to human beings.
Denying such a power is thus denying God. He will finally say that the
effects that we attribute to the spirits are certainly due to some of those
fluids? That would be possible. However, we would then ask how can
unintelligent fluids produce intelligent effects?
Mr. Figuier indicates a capital point when he says that the passion for
the marvelous is in all countries and appeared at all times, since it is in the
very human nature. What he calls passion for the marvelous, simply put,
is the instinctive belief, innate, as he says, in the existence of the soul and
in its survival to the body, a belief that has taken multiple forms according
to the times and places but fundamentally having an identical principle.
Would God have inspired this universal, innate feeling in the individual,
to mock later? That would be the same as denying God’s benevolence, and
even denying God Himself.
Do you want more proof than those above? The following passages
are also from the preface:
“When a new religion transformed Europe in the Middle Ages, the
religion was taken by the marvelous. People believed in diabolic possessions,
in witches and magicians. For several centuries that belief was
sanctioned by a relentless and merciless war against the unfortunate ones
accused of secret trade with demons or with sorcerers who are the demons’
representatives.”
“Towards the end of the seventeenth century, at the dawn of a tolerant
and enlightened philosophy, the devil age and the accusation of sorcery
became a used argument, but that is not enough to deny the marvelous
in its own rights.”
“The miracles spread widely in the churches of the multiple Christian
beliefs; people simultaneously believed in the divining wand, referring to
the movements of a forked stick in order to localize objects of the physical
world and to learn about things of the moral world. Several sciences still
believe in the supernatural influences, formerly introduced by Paracelsus.”
“Despite the fact that the Cartesian theory about philosophical matters
is in fashion in the eighteenth century, whilst all eyes open to the
lights of reason and common sense, in this century of Voltaire and the
encyclopedia, it is only the marvelous that still resists to the downfall of
up until venerated beliefs and the miracles are still plentiful.”
If Voltaire’s philosophy has opened the eyes to the lights of reason and
common sense and shook the foundations of so many superstitions, if that
could not eradicate the innate idea of an occult power, wouldn’t that be
for the fact that such an idea is untouchable?
The philosophy of the eighteenth century shattered the abuse but
stopped before the foundation. If such ideas had triumphed against the
attacks carried out by the apostle of incredulity, would Mr. Figuier expect
to be more successful? Allow us to doubt it.
Mr. Figuier makes a singular confusion with the religious beliefs,
the miracles and the divining rod. To him, they all come from the
same source: the superstition, the belief in the supernatural. We will
not try to defend here that little forked stick which would have the
unique property of serving the research of the physical world, because
we have not studied the subject and because we have by principle only
to praise or criticize something that we know. However, if we wanted
to discuss by analogy we would ask Mr. Figuier if the little pointer
made of steel with which the sailor finds his route, if that pointer
does not have a virtue which is as marvelous as that of the wooden
stick. No, he will say, because we know the cause that acts upon the
needle and that cause is entirely physical. We agree. But who says that
the cause that acts upon the wand is not entirely physical? Before the
theory of the magnetic compass was known, what would you have
thought if you lived in those days, when the sailors had only the stars
as their guides, and that sometimes spoke with them; what would you
have thought of a man who told you: I have in my hands a little box,
the size of a chocolate box, and a little needle, with which the largest
ships can be safely guided; that shows the route in any weather condition
with the precision of a clock?
Still once more, we don’t defend the divining rod, and even less the
charlatanism that has taken that over. Our only point is what would be
more supernatural than a piece of wood, under certain conditions, were
agitated by an invisible earthly flow, like the magnetized needle is by the
magnetic flux that one cannot see either? Wouldn’t that needle also serve
the search for things of the physical world? Wouldn’t it be influenced by
the existence of an underground iron mine? The marvelous is the fixed
idea of Mr. Figuier; it is his nightmare; he sees it wherever there is something
that he cannot understand.
Nevertheless, can he tell us, from his own knowledge, how the tiny
grain germinates and reproduces? What is the force that turns the flower
towards the light source? Who pulls the roots underground towards
a richer and more adequate soil, even through the toughest obstacles?
Strange aberration of the human spirit that thinks to know everything
and in fact knows nothing; that has before their eyes endless wonders but
denies a super-human power!
Since it is based on the existence of God, such super-human power is
exerted on an inaccessible sphere; and since it is based on the existence of
the soul that outlives the body, keeping its individuality and consequently
its influence, religion then has by principle what Mr. Figuier calls the
“marvelous”. Had he limited his comments to saying that there are some
ridicule and absurd among those classified as “supernatural”, a fact supported
by reason, we would applaud him with all our heart, but we could
not agree with his opinion when he mixes the principle and the abuse of
the principle in the same reproach; when he denies the existence of any
power above humanity. As a matter of fact, that conclusion is unequivocally
formulated in the following passage:
“From these discussions we believe that it will result to the reader the
perfect conviction of the non-existence of supernatural agents and the
certainty that all prodigies that have provoked man’s surprise or awe, at all
times, can be explained by the exclusive knowledge of our physiological
organization. Denial of the marvelous, such is the conclusion to be taken
from this book which could be entitled the marvelous explained. If we reach the proposed objective, we are convinced that we would have done
a true service to the benefit of all.”
Shedding light upon the abuses and demystifying fraud and hypocrisy
everywhere, is no doubt the realization of a great service. However,
we do believe that attacking the principle just for the fact that it has been
abused is a disservice to society and to individuals. It is the same as taking
a tree down just because it has produced a bad fruit.
A well understood Spiritism, revealing the cause of certain phenomena,
shows what is possible and what is not possible. Hence, it tends to
destroy the truly superstitious ideas; demonstrating the principle, at the
same time, it gives an objective to good; it fortifies the fundamental beliefs
that incredulity tries to break, under the assumption of abuse; it
fights the disease of materialism which is the negation of duty, moral and
every hope, and that is why we say that it shall one day be the safeguard
of society.
We are in fact far from being sorry for Mr. Figuier’s work. It shall not
have any influence whatsoever upon the adepts for they will immediately
recognize every vulnerable point. Upon the others it will have the same
effect as other criticism: provoke curiosity. Since Spiritism has appeared,
or better saying, re-appeared, a lot has been written about it. There has
been no lack of sarcasm or attacks. It has not been given the honor of one
thing only: a pyre, thanks to the customs these days. Has it blocked its
progress? By no means, since it counts its adepts by the millions already,
in all corners of the world and those numbers increase daily. Criticism has
unwillingly given much contribution to that because its effect, as we said,
is to provoke analysis. People want to see the pros and cons and become
stunned when finding a rational, logical, consoling doctrine that appeases
the anguishes of the doubt, solving what no other philosophy had been
able to solve, when they thought it was just a ridiculous belief.
The more renowned the contradictor is, the more repercussion his
criticism has and more good it can do, calling the attention even of the
indifferent. Mr. Figuier’s work serves that purpose very well. Besides, it
was written as a very serious work, not allowing it to be dragged to the terrain of rude and gross personalism, the only resource of the low level
critics. Considering that he intends to treat the subject from a scientific
point of view, and his position allows him to do so, people will see the last
word of science against this doctrine and the public will then know which
one to choose.
If the wise work carried out by Mr. Figuier is not powerful enough
to cast the last blow onto the doctrine that we doubt that any other
will have a better fate. In order to fight it efficiently he has only one
means that we gladly indicate to him. One cannot destroy a tree by
cutting its branches, but cutting its root. Then, it is necessary to attack
Spiritism in its root and not the branches that are born-again after the
pruning.
Well, Spiritism’s roots, of this madness of the nineteenth century, to
use one of his expressions, its roots are the soul and its attributes. He has
then to demonstrate that the soul does not exist and cannot exist since
there is no spirit without soul. When this is demonstrated Spiritism will
no longer have a reason to exist and we shall acknowledge defeat. If his
skepticism does not go that far may he then demonstrate, and not by
a simple denial, but by a mathematical, physical, chemical, mechanical,
physiological, or any other proof that:
1. The being that thinks during his life no longer does it after his
death;
2. If he does think he no longer wishes to communicate with the
loved ones left behind;
3. If he can go anywhere he cannot be around us;
4. If he is around us, he cannot communicate with us;
5. He cannot act upon matter through his fluidic body;
6. If he can act upon matter he cannot act upon an animated being;
7. If he can act upon an animated being, he cannot direct the medium’s
hand to write;
8. If he can make the medium write he cannot respond to the medium’s
questions and transmit his thought to him.
When the adversaries of Spiritism demonstrate to us its impossibility,
based on reasons as patent as those of Galileo when he demonstrated
that it is not the Sun that moves around Earth, we can then say that their
doubts are founded. Unfortunately, up until now, their argumentation is
reduced to this: I don’t believe, hence it is impossible. They will certainly
say that it is up to us to demonstrate the reality of the manifestations; we
demonstrate them by the facts and through reason. If they don’t admit
one or the other and if they deny even what they see, it is up to them to
prove that our reasoning is faulty and the facts impossible. We will analyze
Mr. Figuier’s theory in another article. We hope it is better than Mr.
Jobert’s theory of the cracking muscle.
