Reading a newspaper, we found this proverbial sentence:
In France, ridicule always kills. This suggested the following thoughts:
Why in France rather than elsewhere? It is because there, more than elsewhere, the spirit, at the same time fine, caustic, and jovial, grasps the pleasant or ridiculous side of things at first sight; he seeks it by instinct, feels it, guesses it, sniffs it, so to speak; he discovers it where others would not see it, and highlights it with skill. But above all, the French spirit wants good taste, urbanity, even in mockery; he willingly laughs at a fine, delicate, particularly witty joke, while the bad taste caricatures, the heavy, crude, corrosive criticism, like the paw of the bear or the punch of the ignorant, disgusts him, because he has an instinctive repulsion for triviality.
It will perhaps be said that some modern events seem to belie these qualities. There is much to be said about
the causes of this deviation, that is all too real, but which is only partial, and cannot prevail over the substance of the national character, as we will someday demonstrate. We will only say, in passing, that these successes that amaze people of good taste, are largely due to the very vivid curiosity also in the French character. But listen to the crowd at the end of some exhibitions; the judgment that dominates, even in the mouths of the people, can be summed up in these words: it is disgusting, and yet we went there, only to be able to say that we saw an eccentricity; they do not go back there, but until the crowd of curious people has paraded, the success is done, and that's all it is asked. The same is true about some so-called literary successes.
The aptitude of the French spirit in grasping the comic side of things, turns ridicule into a real force, greater in France than in other countries; but is it correct to say that it always kills?
It is necessary to distinguish what can be called the
intrinsic ridicule, that is inherent in the thing itself, and the
extrinsic ridicule, coming from outside, and poured onto something. The latter can probably be thrown at everything, but it only hurts the vulnerable; when it tackles things that have no hold, it slips without harming them. The most grotesque caricature of an irreproachable statue does not deprive it of its own merit, and does not diminish it in the general opinion, because everyone is able to appreciate it.
The power of ridicule is only real when it strikes with precision, bringing out with wit and finesse real defects: it is then that it kills; but when it is wrong, it kills nothing at all, or rather it kills itself. For the above adage to be completely true, one would have to say: "In France, ridicule always kills
what is ridiculous." What is really true, good and beautiful is never ridiculous. If one ridicules a notoriously respectable personality, like Father Vianney, for example, one will inspire disgust, even to the skeptical, since it is true that what is respectable in itself is always respected by public opinion.
Since not everyone has neither the same taste nor the same way of seeing things, what is true, good, and beautiful to some, may not be true to others; who will be the judge? The collective being that is called everyone, and against whose decisions isolated opinions protest in vain. Some individuals may be momentarily led astray by ignorant, malicious, or unconscious criticism, but not the masses whose judgments always end up succeeding. If most guests at a banquet likes a dish, however much you may say that it is bad, you will not prevent them from eating it, or at least tasting it.
That explains why the ridicule poured out profusely onto Spiritism has not killed it. If it has not succumbed, it is not for lack of having been turned in all directions, transfigured, distorted, grotesquely ridiculed by its antagonists; and yet, after ten years of relentless aggression, it is stronger than ever; it is like the statue we talked about earlier.
In the end, what was sarcasm particularly
about, regarding Spiritism? On what really lends the flank to criticism: abuses, eccentricities, exhibitions, exploitations, quackery in all its aspects, absurd practices, that are only the parody of what serious Spiritism has never defended, but that it has, on the contrary, always disavowed. Therefore, ridicule only struck and could only bite on what was ridiculous in the way some ill-informed people conceive of Spiritism. If it has not yet quite killed these abuses, it has thrown at them a mortal blow, and that was justice.
True Spiritism could then only benefit from being rid of the wound of its parasites, and it was its enemies who took care of it. As for the doctrine itself, it should be noted that it has almost always remained outside the debate; and yet it is the main part, the soul of the cause. Its opponents understood well that ridicule could not touch it; they felt that the thin blade of the witty mockery would slide over its shield, and that is why they attacked it with the club of the crude insult, and the punch of the brute, but also with little success.
From the very beginning, and to some individuals seeking intrigue, Spiritism seemed a fertile mine to be exploited by its novelty; a few, less affected by the purity of its morality than by the chances they saw in it, put themselves under the flag of its name in hopes of making it a means; they are the ones that can be called
Spiritists of circumstance. What would have happened to this doctrine if it had not used all its influence to thwart and discredit the maneuvers of exploitation? We would have seen charlatans swarming on all sides, making a sacrilegious alliance with what is most sacred: respect for the dead, with the alleged art of sorcerers, soothsayers, card-pullers, fortune tellers, replacing the Spirits through fraud, when they do not come. We would soon have seen manifestations taken to the stages, falsified by deception; Spiritist consulting offices publicly displayed, and resold, as employment agencies, according to the size of the clientele, as if the mediumistic faculty could be transmitted like a share in a company.
Through its silence, that would have been a tacit approval, the doctrine would have made itself solidary with those abuses, and we say more: it would have been complicit. Criticism would then be in a favorable condition because it could, rightly so, have attacked the doctrine, that by its tolerance, would have assumed the responsibility for the ridicule, and consequently, for the fair disapproval poured onto the abuses; it would have been perhaps more than a century before recovering from such a failure. One would have to fail to understand the character of Spiritism, let alone its true interests, to believe that such auxiliaries could be useful for its propagation, and be suitable to have it considered a holy and respectable thing.
By stigmatizing exploitation, as we have done, we are certain that we have spared the doctrine from a real danger, a danger greater than the ill-will of its avowed antagonists, because it would have resulted in its discredit; for that very reason, the Doctrine would have offered them a vulnerable side, while they stopped before the purity of its principles. We are aware that we have aroused the animosity of the exploiters against us, and that we were kept away from their supporters; but what does it matter to us? Our duty is to take the cause of the Doctrine into our own hands, and not their interests; and we will fulfill such a duty with perseverance and firmness to the end. The fight against the invasion of quackery, in a century like this, was not a small thing, especially a seconded quackery, often aroused by the most implacable enemies of Spiritism, for having failed by the arguments, they understood well that ridicule could be the most fatal thing against it; for that, the surest way to have it discredited before public opinion, was to have it exploited by charlatanism.
All sincere Spiritists understood the danger we pointed out, and supported us in our efforts, reacting on their side against the tendencies that threatened to develop. It is not a few facts of manifestations, assuming them real, given in spectacles as aperitif to the minority, that give Spiritism real proselytes, because, in such conditions, they allow suspicion. The skeptical themselves are the first to say that if the Spirits truly communicate, it cannot be to serve as companions or cronies to a price per session; that is why they laugh at it; they find it ridiculous that these scenes are mixed with respectable names, and they are absolutely right. For each person brought to Spiritism through such a channel, always assuming a real fact, there will be a hundred who will be diverted from it, not willing to hear more about it. The impression is quite different in circles where sincerity, good faith, and disinterestedness are unequivocal, and where the well-known good reputation of people demands respect. If they do not come out convinced from there, at least they do not take away the idea of deception. Spiritism therefore has nothing to gain, and could only lose by relying on exploitation, while it would be the exploiters who would benefit. Its future is not in an individual's belief in this or that fact of manifestation; it is entirely in the ascendancy that it will conquer through its morality; that is how it has succeeded, and that is how it will succeed over the maneuvers of its opponents. Its strength is in its moral character, and that is what cannot be taken away from it.
Spiritism is entering a solemn phase, but where it will still have to endure great struggles; it must therefore be strong by itself, and to be strong, it must be respectable. It is up to its devoted followers to make it so, first by personally preaching it through word and example, and then by disavowing, in the name of the Doctrine, anything that might harm the consideration that it must be given. That is how one will be able to challenge intrigue, mockery, and ridicule.
