April
Another Word about Mr. Deschanel
From the Journal des Débats
In the previous issue of The Spiritist Review the readers could see our personal letter to Mr. Deschanel with our thoughts about his article. The very short letter was aimed at the rectification of a serious error by Mr. Deschanel and we sought his agreement to have our response inserted in that periodical. He presented the Spiritist Doctrine as if based on the grossest materialism that was a total distortion of its true nature since the Doctrine tends, on the contrary, to destroy the foundations of materialism. His article had many other mistakes that could be pointed out but the latter was too important to let go without an answer; it was really serious because it did a disservice to the so many followers of Spiritism. Mr. Deschanel decided not to accept our request and below is his answer to us:
“Dear Sir,
I had the honor of receiving your letter dated February 25th. Your editor, Mr. Didier, was kind enough to assign me with the task of explaining to you that I had given in to his reiterated requests to give a review about your The Spirits’ Book, allowing me to criticize it as much as I wanted. That was the agreement. I thank you for your understanding that the use of your right of replica would be strictly legal but certainly not as kind as the abstention with which you agreed, according to what I was informed this morning by Mr. Didier.
Yours…etc.
E. Deschanel”
The letter above is inaccurate in several points. It is true that Mr. Didier sent a volume of The Spirits’ Book to Mr. Deschanel, as done from an editor to a journalist but it is inaccurate to say that Mr. Didier agreed not to let us know about his reiterated requests to have the work appreciated and if Mr. Deschanel decided to dedicate 24 columns of the newspaper with mockery he must allow us to suppose that he did so neither out of tolerance nor respect towards Mr. Didier. In fact, as we said, that is not why we are sorry for the fact. He is in his own right to criticize and since he does not share our point of view he had the freedom of assessing our work from his standpoint, as it usually happens all the time. Some have it in the highest regard, others show total disbelief but none goes without an appeal. The ultimate judge is the public, particularly the future public that is away from the current passions and intrigues. The exaggerated praise from little groups does not prevent us from burying from good what is really bad and what is really good survives, despite the diatribes originated from jealousy and envy.
• This striking proof two fables now shall prove;
• Matter enough is here your faith to move
La Fontaine would have said; we will not quote two fables but two facts. When Racine’s Phèdre appeared it had the opposition of the Court and the people of Paris and was ridiculed. The bashing was such that at the age of only 38 years old, he completely gave up writing for the theater. . Pradon’s Phèdre, on the contrary, was praised to the extreme. What is today the situation of both works? A more modern book, Paul et Virginie, was declared dead at birth by the renowned Buffon that found it boring and insipid; however, it is a fact that no book has ever been so popular. Our objective with these two examples is to demonstrate that the opinion of a critic, whatever their merit, is always a personal opinion, not always ratified by posterity. Let us move back from Buffon to Mr. Deschanel, without comparison since Buffon was totally mistaken while Mr. Deschanel believed, no doubt, that the same will not happen to him. In his letter he acknowledges the fact that our right to contest would be strictly legal but he finds it more polite that we don’t exercise that right. He is also bluntly wrong when he says that we agreed with the abstention, leading to believe that we agreed with a request and even that Mr. Didier was in charge of informing him about that. There is nothing further from the truth. We don’t believe that we must demand the publication of our counter argument. He has the freedom of finding our Doctrine bad, disgusting, absurd, of shouting it out loud from the roof tops, but we expected his loyalty with the publication of our letter whose intent was the rectification of a false allegation that could damage our reputation, when he accuses us of professing and propagating the very doctrines that we fight against, since we see them as subversive of the social order and public moral. We did not ask for a disclaimer that would be refused by his ego, but only the publication of our protest, convinced that we were not abusing our own right of response, particularly considering that we were offering 30 or 40 lines against his 24 columns in the publication. Our readers will understand the extent of his denial. If he wanted to see kindness in our procedure we cannot say the same about his attitude.
When Father Chesnel published his article about Spiritism in the Univers in 1859, he also gave a false idea about the Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, presenting it as a religious sect with cults and priests. Such allegations completely denatured its objectives and its true foundations and could deceive public opinion. It was completely mistaken given the fact that the Society’s bylaws preclude it from dealing with religious matters. As a matter of fact, a religious Society that could not deal with religious matters is unthinkable. We then protest against such statement and not by means of a few lines by through a whole article that the periodical Univers acknowledged our right to publish as a result of a simple request from our side. We are sorry that Mr. Deschanel from the Journal des Débats believes to be less morally obliged to reestablish the truth than those gentlemen from the Univers. If it were not a question of legal right it will always be of loyalty. Pretending to have the right of attacking without providing an opportunity for defense is an easy way of convincing his readers that he is right.
Mr. Louis Jourdan and The Spirits’ Book
Since we are talking about journalists with respect to Spiritism let us not stop on the way. We are not generally spoiled by those gentlemen and considering that we don’t hide their criticism they must allow us to present our counterpoint and arguments against the opinion of Mr. Deschanel and others like a writer whose celebrity and influence are unquestionable, and without being accused of self-serving interest. The praises in fact are not directed to us, personally; at least we don’t take them personally and always address them to our spiritual guides that kindly supervise our work. Therefore we could not benefit from any merit that might be found in our work; we accept the praise not as a confirmation of our personal worth but as a recognition to the endeavor that with the help of God we hope to take on successfully for we have not finished yet and the most difficult part is yet to come. From that point of view, Mr. Louis Jourdan’s opinion has some weight because everyone knows that he does not speak lightheartedly just to fill out the columns of a newspaper with empty words. He can certainly be wrong, like anyone else, but his opinion is always conscientious.
It would be premature to uphold that Mr. Jourdan is a confessed follower of Spiritism. He himself declares that he has not seen any manifestation and that he is not in touch with any medium. He analyzes from his own personal thoughts and since he does not base his opinion on the denial of the soul or any other extra-human power, he sees in the Spiritist Doctrine a new phase of moral life and a means of explaining what was inexplicable up until now. Behold, by admitting the foundations his reason does not absolutely refuse to admit their consequences while Mr. Figuier cannot admit such consequences since he repels the fundamental principle.
He did not study everything nor had he investigated everything of this vast science, hence it is not surprising that his ideas are not well established about all points and for that reason certain questions may seem hypothetical. As a sensible man, however, he does not say: “I don’t understand, hence it cannot be.” He, on the contrary, says: “I don’t know because I did not learn that but I don’t deny it.” As a serious man he does not ridicule an issue that addresses the most serious interests of humanity and as a wise man he remains silent about things that he ignores, afraid of having his denials belied by the facts, as it has happened to so many others who then hear the irresistible argument: “You speak of something that you don’t know.”
He then releases matters of detail, confessing his incompetence, limiting himself to the appreciation of the principle, admitting its possibility is only led by reason as commonly happens every day. Mr. Jourdan first published an article about The Spirits’ Book in the #8 issue of the ‘Le Causeur Magazine, in 1860. It is now over a year since that publication and we had not yet mentioned the fact in our Review, a demonstration that we don’t hastily prevail from the praises during a time when we textually cited or indicated the bitterest criticisms, also a demonstration that we are not afraid of their influence. That article was reproduced as a full chapter in his new book ‘Un Philosophe au coin du feu *. We extracted the following passages from that article:
“I formally promised to return to a subject about which I only mentioned a few words and that deserves a very special attention. It is about The Spirits’ Book that contains the principles of the spiritist doctrine and philosophy. The word may sound barbarian to us but what can one do? New things do need new names. The turning tables led to Spiritism and today we have a complete doctrine, entirely revealed by the spirits since The Spirits’ Book was not produced by any man. Mr. Allan Kardec’s function was limited to the collection and organization of the answers given by the spirits to the many questions addressed to them, brief responses that do not always satisfy the curiosity of the interrogator, but when considered as a whole they actually form a doctrine, a moral and even perhaps a religion.”
“You must appreciate it yourself. The spirits provided clear explanations about the primary causes, about God and the infinite, about the attributes of God. They gave us the general elements of the universe, knowledge about the principle of everything, the properties of matter. They discussed the mysteries of creation, the formation of the worlds and the living beings, and also the causes of diversities in the human races. From there to the vital principle it is just a step, and they also told us what the vital principle is, the meaning of life and death, intelligence and instinct.”
“Then, they unveiled the spiritual world, that is, the world of the spirits, and told us about its origin and nature; how the spirits incarnate and the objective of such incarnation; the process of returning from the corporeal to the spiritual life. Wandering (errant) spirits, transient worlds, perceptions, sensations and sufferings of the spirits, relationships beyond the grave, sympathetic and antipathetic relationships among the spirits, return to the corporeal life, emancipation of the soul, intervention of the spirits on the physical world, occupations and missions of the spirits, hiding nothing from us.”
“I said that the spirits were not only founding a doctrine and a philosophy, but also a religion. They have in fact established the code of moral life in which there are laws that seem of great wisdom to me, not even missing the future penalties and rewards that could be understood from words like heaven, purgatory and hell. As seen from the above, it is a complete system and I have no problem in admitting the fact that if it does not show the powerful cohesion of a philosophical work, if there are contradictions here and there, it is at least of remarkable originality given its elevated moral reach and for the unforeseen solutions given to the complex issues that have concerned the human spirit at all times.”
“I am a total stranger to the spiritist school; I don’t know its leader or its followers; I have never seen any little table dancing or turning; I don’t have any contact with any medium; I have not witnessed any of those supernatural or miraculous events that are reported to me by the spiritist publications. I don’t absolutely confirm or deny the communications with the spirits; in principle I believe that such communications are possible and it does not shock my reason at all. In order to believe in them I don’t need the explanations given to me by a scholar, friend of mine, Mr. Louis Figuier, about facts that he attributes to the magnetic influence of the mediums.”
“I don’t think that it is impossible to establish communication between the invisible world and us. Don’t ask me how and why; I know nothing about it. That is more a question of feeling than mathematical demonstration. Hence, I am expressing my feeling, but it is a far from a vague feeling, a feeling that leaves a well-defined impression in my heart and in my spirit.”
“If we can capture the vital fluids from the infinite space around us, through the movement of our lungs, it is evident that we are constantly interacting with the invisible world. Is such a world populated by wandering spirits, like lost souls, always ready to respond to our calls? That is more difficult to admit but also premature to deny absolutely.”
“Undoubtedly it is not difficult to believe that God’s creatures are not all like us, the sad inhabitants of our planet. We are very imperfect, submitted to unrefined material needs, thus it is not difficult to imagine that there are superior beings who are not subjected to any corporeal penalty; bright and luminous creatures, spirit and matter like us but a more subtle, pure matter, less dense and not so heavy; fluid messengers uniting the universes, sustaining the multiple races and planets for the accomplishment of their missions.”
“Through breathing we are in contact with a myriad of creatures whose existence we cannot understand and whose shapes we cannot reproduce. Thus, it is not absolutely impossible that some of those beings may accidentally get in touch with us but what does seem trivial is the need for a material support of a table, a basket or a medium so that those relationships may be established.”
“Those communications are either useful or pointless. If useful then the spirits must not need to be mysteriously evoked and questioned in order to teach people what people need to know. If pointless, why resort to using them?”
“I have no problem with the idea of accepting these influences, inspirations, revelations if you will. What I do absolutely deny is when people say: God said so, so you must obey. And that under pretext it is a revelation. God spoke through Moses, Christ, Mohamed thus you will be Jewish, Christian or Muslim otherwise you shall endure the eternal penalties and while we wait we will damn you here on Earth.”
“No, no. I don’t accept similar revelations at any price. There is a supreme law above all revelations, all inspirations and all prophets, past and future: the law of freedom. I can accept anything that you like as long as that law is in its foundation. Remove that law and it is only violence and darkness. I want to have the freedom of believing or not believing and admitting that out loud. It is my own right and I want to use it. It is my freedom and I want to preserve that. If you tell me that I will lose my soul if I don’t believe what you teach me; it is possible. I want to stretch my freedom to that limit; I want to be able to lose my own soul if I desire to do so. Who will then be the judge of my salvation or my loss? Who will be able to say: That one was saved, this one here is lost for good? Shouldn’t the mercy of God be infinite? Will anyone be able to assess the abyss of the conscience?”
“The same principle is found in the curious book by Mr. Allan Kardec and that is why I am reconciled with the spirits that were questioned by him. The briefness of the answers is a proof that the spirits have no time to waste; what surprises me is the fact that they still waste some in order to complacently address the call of so many people who waste theirs in the evocations.”
“Everything more or less clearly stated by the spirits, and whose answers Mr. Allan Kardec compiled, was developed and exposed with remarkable clarity by Michel who is certainly to me the most complete and most advanced of all contemporary mystics. His revelation is at the same time a doctrine and a poem, a healthy and energizing doctrine, bright poetry. The only advantage that I find in the questions and answers published by Mr. Allan Kardec is the fact that they are given in a much more accessible format to the general mass of readers, and in particular to the female readers, the main ideas about which is important to have their attention. Michel’s books are not of an easy reading; they continually require a very attentive reader. The book that we mentioned above, on the contrary, may be considered a kind of vade mecum (handbook); if we take it and serendipitously open it in any page the questions will call our attention, raising our curiosity. The questions addressed to the spirits are typically those that concern all of us. The answers are sometimes very weak; on other occasions they encompass the most complex issues in a few words and always offer vivid interest and healthy indications. I am not aware of a more attractive, more consoling, and more fascinating course of moral. There one finds confirmation of the greatest principles on which modern civilizations are founded, particularly the principle of all principles: freedom! Heart and spirit are smoothed and strengthened by that book. The chapters about the plurality of the systems and the law of individual and collective progress have a special appeal and exert a powerful attraction. As for me, Mr. Allan Kardec’s spirits have not taught anything about that. I believe since long ago that there is a progressive development of life through the worlds; that death is the portal to a new life whose trials are in proportion to the achievements of a previous existence. This is in fact the old Gallic faith, the druidic doctrine and the spirits invented nothing here but they did add a series of deductions and excellent practical rules to guide one’s life. That book may have great utility, regardless of the interest and curiosity generated by its origin, particularly to the indecisive minds, to the insecure souls that navigate the turbulent waters of doubt. Doubt is the worst evil! It is the most horrific prison from which one needs to escape at any price. This strange book will help men and women in the consolidation of their lives, breaking the shackles of their prisons, precisely because it is presented in a simple and elemental way, like a popular catechism that everybody can understand.”
After the citation of a few questions about marriage and divorce that he finds trivial and not handled according to his personal taste, Mr. Jourdan finishes his article as below:
“I must say, however, that the spirits’ answers about this subject are not superficial. The whole book is remarkable; the general subject is marked by a certain magnificence and a lively originality. May it stem out or not from a wonderful source, the work is exciting in several aspects and just because it has made me largely interested I am led to believe that many people may also be interested.”
_________________________________
* A philosopher by the fire – 1 vol., Dentu edition
Response
Assessment of Mr. Louis Figuier’s Book History of the Marvelous - By Mr. Escande, editor of the La Mode Nouvell
The Sea By Mr. Michelet
Mr. Michelet must be on guard since all the maritime gods of Antiquity are about to cause harm to him. That is what we learn from Mr. Taxile Delord in his witty article published in the Siècle last February 4th. His language is worthy of the Orpheus in the Underworlds of the Parisian operettas and here is a sample: “Neptune suddenly appears at the door of Amphitrite’s home and says: You sent for me, here I am Neptune. You did not expect me now, dear Amphitrite. It is time for my nap but I cannot close my eyes since the arrival of that devilish book entitled ‘The sea’. I wanted to browse it but it is full of nonsense. I don’t know which seas he wants to talk about. As for me, I cannot recognize myself. Everybody knows very well that the sea ends at the Pillars of Hercules. What else can be beyond that…?”
It goes without saying, that Mr. Michelet is a winner from all points of view. Well, after his adversaries disappeared Mr. Taxile Delord tells him: “You would perhaps be glad to know what became of the maritime gods after they were expelled by the sea from its empire. Neptune is a large scale fish breeder; Glaucus is a swimming teacher at the Ouanier’s baths; Amphitrite works as a receptionist in one of the Mediterranean baths in Marseille; Nereus has accepted the position of cook on one of the transatlantic liners; several Tritons died and others are exposed in fairs.”
We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided by Mr. Delord about the current situation of former Olympian heroes, but in principle and unwillingly he said something more serious than intended. The word god in former times had a very elastic meaning. It was a generic qualification applied to every being that seemed to rise above human level. That is why their great individuals were deified. We would not find them so ridiculous if we had not used the same word to designate the unique being, the sovereign Lord of the universe. The spirits that existed in those days as they do today also manifested and those mysterious creatures must have belonged to the same class of gods, according to the ideas of that time and with more reason than today. Ignorant people worshiped them, looking at them as superior creatures. They were sung to by the poets and their stories flooded with profound philosophical truths, hidden by the veil of ingenious allegories, whose scope formed the pagan mythology. The masses that generally only see the surface of things took it as a rule, not investigating the bottom line of those thoughts, absolutely as people in our time only see La Fontaine’s fables as nothing more than animal talk.
That is in essence the principle of mythology. The gods were nothing more than the spirits or souls of the mortals, as in our days. However, the common passions of pagan religion do not provide a good impression of their elevation in the spiritist hierarchy, starting with their leader, Jupiter, something that did not preclude them from enjoying the incense that was burnt at their altars.
Christianity swept their prestige away and Spiritism now reduces it to their true value. Their own inferiority allowed them to endure several incarnations on Earth. It is then possible to find some, among our contemporaries, who have received the honors of deity, something that does not make them any more advanced. Mr. Taxile Delord, who undoubtedly does not believe in these things, just wanted to make a joke. In spite of that he still said something that is perhaps more truthful than he thought or at least it is not physically impossible, as a principle. That is how, imitating Mr. Jourdain, many people practice Spiritism without knowing it.
Family Conversations from Beyond the Grave
The Suicide of Mr. Alfred Leroy (Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, March 8th, 1861)“In a vacant lot on the corner of a road called The Arcade which leads to Conflans and Charenton, yesterday in the morning the body of a man who had committed suicide was found by workers, hanging from a very tall pine tree. Once informed, the Charenton Police Chief went to the scene, followed by Dr. Josias, carrying out the full examination. The Droit says that the man was apparently around fifty years of age, of distinct looks, well dressed. A handwritten note was taken from one of his pockets and it read: ‘It is 11:45pm; I ascend to end my torture. May God forgive my errors.’ In the same pocket a letter was found without signature or addressee, containing the following: ‘Yes, I fought to the limit! Promises, guarantees, I lacked everything. I could get there; I had everything to believe in, everything to expect; lack of words kill me; I cannot go on. I now leave this so painful life. Full of strength and energy I am obliged to resort to suicide. God is my witness that I seriously wanted to pay back all those who helped me in my disgrace. Fatality crushes me. Everything is against me. Suddenly abandoned by those that I represented I now suffer my fate. I die without bitterness, I confess, and however much they say, the slanders will not preclude me from having a few moments of noble sympathy towards myself. Insulting the man that has been reduced to the last of all resolutions is an abuse. It is enough to be reduced to this. I am not all ashamed of myself. Selfishness would have killed me.’ According to other documents, the man was a so called Alfred Leroy, fifty years old, from Vimoutier, Orne. His profession and residence are unknown and after the customary formalities the unclaimed body was sent to the morgue.”
1. Evocation – A. I don’t come as a tortured man. I am saved! Alfred.
OBSERVATION: The words “I am saved” astonished the majority of the audience. The explanation was requested in the sequence of the conversation.
2. We learned from the papers about the desperate act in which you have succumbed to and although we don’t know you, we are very sorry because religion teaches us that we must have pity on all our unfortunate brothers and it is to testify our sympathy that we invoked you. – A. I need to shut out the real motives that led me to that desperate act. I thank you for what you are doing for me. It is a reason for joy, a message of hope. Thank you!
3. Can you first tell us if you are aware of your present situation? – A. Perfectly. I am relatively happy. I did not commit suicide for purely material causes and my last words demonstrate that. I was taken by an iron fist. When I incarnated on Earth I saw that suicide would be in my future. It was a trial that I had to fight. I wanted to be stronger than fatality but I succumbed.
OBSERVATION: It will be seen soon that this spirit does not escape the fate of all suicides, despite what he says. As for the word fatality, it is evident that there is a memory of Earthly things. People consider their destiny as every disgraceful event that cannot be avoided. For him suicide was the test that he had to pass. He yielded to the call instead of resisting, given his free-will, and he assumed that it was in his destiny.
4. You wanted to escape an unpleasant situation through suicide. Have you gained anything from that? – A. Here is my punishment: confusion of my pride, awareness of my weakness.
5. According to a letter that was found with you, it seems that people’s cruelty and lack of word have led you to your self-destruction. What is your feeling now towards those who were the cause of you fatal resolution? – A. Oh! Don’t you tempt me, don’t tempt me, I beg you.
OBSERVATION: This is a remarkable answer. It paints the situation of the spirit fighting the desire of hatred towards those who did him harm, and the feeling of good, pushing him to forgiveness. He is afraid that this question may provoke an answer that might be reproached by his conscience.
6. Do you regret your action? – A. I told you: my pride and my weakness are the cause.
7. When alive did you believe in God and in a future life? – A. My final words demonstrate that: I walk to my punishment.
OBSERVATION: He begins to understand his situation, about which he could have had an illusion in the beginning, because he could not be simultaneously saved and walked to his punishment.
8. When you took that resolution, what was in your mind? – A. I was very much aware of the justice to understand what makes me suffer now. For a short time I entertained the idea of the void but I soon rejected that. If I had such an idea I would not have killed myself. I would have sought revenge.
OBSERVATION: This answer is at the same time very logical and very profound. If he believed in the nothingness after death instead of killing himself he would have revenged or at least he would have started from vengeance. The idea of the future precluded him from committing a double crime. With the idea of the nothingness what was there to be afraid of if he wanted to take his own life? He would no longer fear people’s justice and would enjoy the pleasure of vengeance. Such is the consequence of the materialistic doctrines that certain wise people try to propagate.
9. If you were convinced that the cruelest vicissitudes of life are trials of too short a duration before eternity would you still have succumbed? – A. Very short, I know that, but despair does not give space to reason.
10. We beg God for His forgiveness in your favor and send Him our prayers, all of us united: “Almighty God, we know the fate of those who shorten their days and we cannot obstruct your justice. But we also know that your mercy is infinite. May that mercy be extended upon the soul of Alfred Leroy! May also our prayers show him that there are people on Earth who care about him, thus mitigating his sufferings for not having had the courage to endure the hardships of life! Good spirits, whose mission is to alleviate the unfortunate ones, take him under your protection; inspire regret in him for his actions and the firm desire of progress through new trials that he will withstand better. – A. Your prayers make me cry hence I feel happier.
11. In the beginning you said: I am saved. How can we reconcile those words with what you said later: I walk towards my punishment? – A. And how do you see God’s benevolence? I could not live. It was impossible. Wouldn’t you believe that God sees that impossibility in such a case?
OBSERVATION: Amidst some notably sensible answers there are others, and this last one is in that group, through which the spirit shows an imperfect idea of his current situation. There is no surprise here if we consider the fact that he has been dead for a few days only.
12. (To St. Louis) – Could you tell us what is the fate of the unfortunate spirit that we have just evoked? – A. Expiation and suffering. No, there is no contradiction between the first words of that unfortunate spirit and his pains. He says he is happy. He is happy for the termination of life. Since he is still attached to the Earthly bonds the only thing he feels is the absence of the bad things from Earth, but when his spirit is totally separated from the horizons of pain, a slow and terrible expiation will unfold before him, and the awareness of infinity, still hidden to his eyes, shall be the punishment that he had foreseen.
13. Which difference can you establish between this suicide case and the other one of the Samaritan? Both killed themselves out of despair, however their situation is very different: this one is perfectly conscious of himself; speaks clearly and does not suffer yet while the other one did not see himself dead and from the very initial moments he suffered a cruel pain, feeling the decomposition of his own body. – A. Huge difference. The suffering of each of those men reflects the individual character of their moral progress. The latter, a weak and broken soul, held up as much as he believed. He doubted his own strength and God’s benevolence, but he cannot be charged with blasphemy or slander; his inner, slow and profound suffering shall have the same intensity as the pain of the former suicide. It is just that the law of expiation is not uniform. NOTE: The story of the Samaritan suicide can be found in the issue of The Spiritist Review, June 1858.
14. To the eyes of God who is most to blame and who will suffer the greatest punishment: the one who succumbed to his own weakness or the other who was led to despair for the stiffness of his heart? – A. Surely the one who succumbed to the temptation.
15. Can the prayers on their behalf be useful to them? – A. Yes. Prayer is like a beneficial mist.
Jules Michel
1. Evocation – A. I thank you for the evocation. I remember you and our strolls at Monceau Park.
2. And what can you tell us about our comrade Charles? – A. Charles is very sorry for my death. But am I dead? I see, I feel alive, I think as I did before; it is just that I cannot touch myself and I don’t recognize anything around me.
3. What is it that you see? – A. I see a great clarity; my feet don’t touch the ground; I slide; I feel dragged. I see bright figures and others dressed in white; I feel their pressure and they surround me; some smile at me others scare me with their dark eyes.
4. Do you see your mother? – A. Ah! Yes. I see my mother, my sister and my brother. Here they are! My mother cries a lot. I wish I could speak with her as I do with you. She would see that I am not dead. How can I console her? I beg you to speak of me. I would like also that you tell Charles that I will have fun by watching his work.
5. Do you see your body? – A. Yes, I see my body there, stiff. However, I am not in that grave since I am here.
6. Where are you then? – A. I am here, by your table, on the right hand side. It is funny that you cannot see me when I see you so well!
7. What was your sensation when you left your body behind? – A. I don’t remember very well what I felt then. I had a splitting headache and there were a lot of things around me. I felt numb; I wanted to move but I couldn’t; my hands were wet from sweat and I noticed a lot of work done on my body; then I felt nothing else and woke up kind of relieved; there was no more suffering and I felt myself light as a feather. Then I saw myself in bed but I was not there; I saw all the arrangements around me and then I left.
8. How did you know that I called you? – A. I don’t understand that very well. I just heard your call and I promptly came because, as I used to tell Charles, you are not boring. Good bye Ma’am, so long. We will speak again, right?
Correspondence
"Rome, March 2nd, 1861
Dear Sir,
I have been involved with spiritist manifestations for about four years now and I am glad to have a good medium in the family that give us communications of a superior order. We have read and read again your work ‘The Spirits’ Book’ that is cause of happiness and consolation to us, giving us the most sublime and admissible notions of our future life. If I could have any doubt about them, the current proofs I have now are more than enough to reaffirm my faith. I lost persons who were very dear to me and I have the inappreciable happiness of knowing that they are happy and I am able to communicate with them. I cannot express my joy when I had that experience. The first time when they gave me real signs of their presence I said: Then it is all true that not everything dies with the body! I owe our Lord for having entrusted me. Believe in my eternal gratitude by the good that it does to me and for the reason that I was unwillingly tormented by the future. The idea of nothing terrified me and beyond the void there was only an oppressing uncertainty. There is no doubt any more. It seems that I was reborn for life. All my apprehensions are gone and my trust in God came back stronger than ever. I do hope that my sons, thanks to you, will not experience the same torments since they are fed by your truths and their mounting reason has to gain in strength.
Spiritist Teachings and Dissertations
Truth will be Born (Sent by Mr. Sabò, from Bordeaux)Massilon
Progression of a Wicked Spirit (Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, Medium Mrs. Costel)
“I will speak about the important difference between the divine and the human moral. The former supports the adulterous woman in her lonely fate and tells the sinners: ‘Repent and the kingdom of God will welcome you’ - The divine moral accepts every regret and all confessed faults while human moral rejects them, admitting the occult sins with a smile, saying that they are half-forgiven. It extends the grace of pardon to one; hypocrisy to the other. Truth seekers, you must choose! Choose from the heavens open to regret and tolerance that admits error as long as it does not affect its selfishness and false arrangements, but that denies the passion and the tears dropped after the publically confessed faults. Repent, all of you who sin; renounce to evilness but most importantly to the hypocrisy that hides the ugliness of evil under the smiles and deceiving mask of mutual conveniences.”
Clara
Here is another example of a conversation, obtained in a more or less similar situation. An unknown lady who was a medium was present at the same session, writing at the Society for the first time. She knew a woman that had died 9 years ago and that when alive was not much loved. Since her death she had become perverse, always seeking to do bad things. However, good advices given to her were able to develop better feelings. In this session she gave the following spontaneous dissertation: “I beg you for your prayers. I need to be good. I have persecuted and obsessed someone that was supposed to do good for a long time. God wants me to stop harassing people but I am afraid that I don’t have the necessary courage. Help me. I have been so bad! Oh! I suffer a lot! Much suffering! Being bad used to make me happy. I have done that with all my heart but I want to stop doing those bad things. Oh! Pray for me.”
Adele
Envy and the Mediums (Sent by Mr. Ky…, a corresponding member from the Karlsruhe Society)
I would also like to say a word about envy and jealousy that is often found amongst the mediums and that is necessary to remove like the weed and as soon as it sprouts, otherwise it can abate the good vegetation around. Envy is as much damaging to the medium as pride, again requiring the same testimony of humility. I say even that it demonstrates a lack of common sense. It is not by being envious of your neighbor’s gifts that you will receive similar ones; if God gives a lot to some rest assured that His reasons are well founded. Envy spoils the heart; it even muffles the best feelings in you; it is thus an enemy that can only be defeated with a lot of effort for there is no truce once envy is with us. That is applicable to every circumstance of your Earthly life but I here refer in particular to envy among mediums, something as much unfounded as ridiculous, a demonstration of man’s weakness when enslaved by passions.”
Luos
OBSERVATION: A discussion was established after reading this latest communication at the Society, comparing envy among mediums to that among the somnambulists. One of the members, Mr. D…, said that in his opinion the same happens among the somnambulists who cannot dissimulate their feelings when in the somnambulistic state.
Mr. Allan Kardec counters that opinion saying: “Envy seems to be inherent to the somnambulistic state due to a factor that is difficult to understand and that the somnambulists themselves cannot explain. Such feeling occurs among somnambulists who only show benevolence to one another when in their wake state. With the mediums it is far from natural and it is evidently related to the moral character of each person. One medium is the envy of another because it is in his nature to be envious. Such wickedness, son of pride and selfishness, is essentially harmful to the purity of the communications, while the most envious somnambulist can be very lucid and it can be easily understood. The somnambulist sees things by himself. It is his spirit that separates and acts. He does not need anybody else. The medium, on the contrary, is just an intermediary, receiving everything from strange spirits, and his personality is much less at play than that of the somnambulist. The spirits sympathize with a given medium for his qualities or his vices; now, the most repulsive defects to the good spirits are pride, selfishness and envy. Experience tells us that the mediumistic faculty is independent of the moral qualities; it thus can be found, like the somnambulistic one, in the highest degree in the most mischievous creature. However, the opposite happens with respect to the sympathies from the good spirits, who communicate more naturally and easily the purer the intermediary in charge of transmitting their thoughts is, the more sincere and the more distant from the bad spirits the medium is. They do the same with that respect as we do when we have someone as our confidante. In particular with respect to envy, as this is present in almost all somnambulists and it is much rarer with the mediums, it seems that it is a rule with the former and an exception with the latter, from what we must conclude that the cause must be different for each case.”