Assessment of Mr. Louis Figuier’s Book History of the Marvelous - By Mr. Escande, editor of the La Mode NouvellIn the articles that we published about this work we tried to identify,
before anything else, the standpoint of the author, a not so difficult
endeavor once we demonstrate that it is based on materialistic ideas quoting
his own words. Since the basis is false, at least from the point of view
of the large majority of humankind, he arrived at wrong consequences
from facts that he classifies as marvelous; hence his conclusions are full
of mistakes. That fact did not preclude some of his comrades of the press
from praising his merit, the depth and acumen of his work. Not everybody
shares that opinion though. We found an article in the La Mode
Nouvelle *, a newspaper that is more serious than its title, as remarkable
for its style as fair in its analysis. Its extension prevents us from reproducing
the whole text. Besides, the author also promises to publish more since
he only deals with the first volume here. The readers can appreciate the
fragments below.
I
“This book is unjustifiably pretentious. It was supposed to be considered
erudite, touching sciences, showing an apparent abundance
of research, but its erudition is superficial, its science incomplete, its
research premature and badly coordinated. Mr. Figuier’s specialty
was to collect, one by one, thousands of minor events that are daily
reported in the academy, like the long rows of mushrooms that sprout
overnight on cryptogrammic fernlike layers, followed by the writing
of books about them that compete with others like the Bourgeois
Kitchen or treatise of Poor Richard’s Almanac. He is very used to
these kind of easy compositions – inferior to the compilation carried
out by the good father Trublet, wittily mocked by Voltaire – that forcibly
gives him pleasure, he said to himself that it would not be more
difficult to exploit people’s passion for the marvelous, which excites
imaginations now more than never before, than utilizing the almost
idle second class conversations of the Institute. He is used to writing
scientific Reviews about someone else’s work, containing his summary
reports with theses and memories that he discusses; he then compiles
the summaries of the summaries and writes his own books. Loyal to
his past tradition, he hastily gathers every book about the subject that
he can find, break them into pieces and mixes them up as he wishes,
then composing a new book in his own style; we have no doubt that
he must have exclaimed, like Horace: Exegi monumentum – I also
erected a monument that will last longer than bronze.”
“He would be rightly proud of his creation if the quality of the
work was measured by quantity. In fact that History of the Marvelous
is made up of four volumes and it contains modern history only from
1630 to our present days; those two centuries only give an indication
that it would contain more than twice as much volumes of the
thickest encyclopedia had he decided to include in the history of the
marvelous at all times and from all populations!”
“Thus, when we think that such a vast publication has taken
him but a few months’ work we are led to believe that such a grand
and hastily delivery is more marvelous than the marvels it contains.
However, such amazing productiveness is no longer a prodigy when
his process of composition is better scrutinized and one realizes that
such process is so common to him that one could not expect anything
else from him. Instead of consolidating the facts, summarizing them,
leaving aside useless details and concentrating on the facts of the most
significant events, and then discussing them in the sequence, he just
wrote a feuilleton even more extensive than those which he weekly
writes in the La Presse.”
“Scissors in hand he cut from preceding works anything that
favored the prejudiced ideas that he wanted to promote, keeping
away others that could oppose the prior opinion he had formed about
this important subject, particularly anything that could counter the
natural explanation that he wanted to provide about the manifestations
qualified as wonderful and that the free-thinkers unanimously
call public credulity because that is one of the ambitious goals of his
book – although this one is not better justified than the others – to
provide a new physical or medical solution found by him, a triumphant
solution, unimpeachable, from now on immune to any objection
raised by anyone, sufficiently simple to believe that God is more
powerful than our scholars. He repeats that over again in hundreds of
passages of his book so that nobody may ignore it, with the hopes that
sooner or later people will believe, although he just repeats what was
said before by every physicists and medical doctors, philosophers and
chemists who are more horrified by the idea of the wonderful than
Pascal was by the vacuum.”
“The result is that this history of the marvelous lacks both authority
and proportion. From a dogmatic point of view it does not
go beyond the denial of previous denials; it does not add a single
new argument to the previous ones and we don’t understand
the utility of his echo regarding this point and all others. There is more: tormented by the desire to be better than Calmeil, Esquiros,
Montègre, Hecquet and so many others that preceded him and will
always be his masters, Mr. Louis Figuier sometimes gets lost in
the confusing maze of demonstrations that he borrows from them,
pretending to have their ownership and sometimes arguing with
Mr. Babinet and his logic. As for the facts he accumulated a large
number of them although somewhat by chance, truncating some,
discarding others, only interested in those that could offer some attraction
to the reading. This demonstrates that his major concern
was the easy success rather than fighting the contemporary romance
writers and we are even led to question how come he did not convince
his editor to include his work to be sold at the booksellers at
the train stations, to have direct access to the crowds that only read
for distraction rather than instruction.”
“We cannot deny the fact that his book is amusing, if all that
is required to deserve such an adjective is to resemble a collection
of little picturesque tales, without much compromise of the truth,
something that does not preclude him from uselessly and non-stop
boasting around others about his impartiality, his truthfulness –
one more pretention to be added to the so many others mentioned
above, one that he pretends as strongly as he dissimulates when he
does not have it. As it is the best comparison we can provide, is with
those popular restaurants that carry plenty of very seductive dishes,
as far as their appearance goes, but that serve their customers without
any real concern for the quality of what their provide. More
superficial than profound, anything important is sacrificed before
the futile, the principal before the accessory, and the dogma before
the eventful.”
“In fact, the blanks are so abundant as the useless things and
there is no lack of contradictions, sustaining here what is denied
further down, so much so that we are tempted to believe that Mr.
Louis Figuier assigned himself with the task of teaching others what he himself did not know, differently from the renowned Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola that was capable of writing the De Omni re
scibili **.”
II
“We could stop our analysis of the ‘History of the Marvelous’ here
if we were not supposed to justify these tough but fair assessments.
For starters, do we have to add that the writer does not believe in
the possibility of the supernatural? We doubt it. His supernumerary
academic position – a title that is likely to outlive him considering
the power that he is conferred as a scientific writer in that periodical
– would not allow him to sustain any other thesis without being
exposed to an army of skeptics in which he is supposedly enlisted. He is
also a non-believer and his denial is beyond suspicion. He belongs to
the group of ‘those wise minds, witnesses of the unforeseen boundless
growth of the contemporary marvelous, who cannot understand such
a mistake right now in the XIX century, enriched by an advanced
Philosophy and amidst a magnificent scientific movement that leads
everything to the positive and useful’ - We acknowledge that it must
be painful to those ‘wise minds’ that the public mind refuses to reject
its prejudices thus persisting on beliefs that differ from the philosophical
positivism and are nonetheless typically animal. As a matter of
fact such disgust dates from other times too. Mr. Louis Figuier spitefully
confesses so when he asks using confusing terms how can it be
that the marvelous had resisted the XVIII century, ‘the century of
Voltaire and the Encyclopedia, when all eyes were opening to enlightenment
and rational common sense’.”
“What can one do then? That lively belief in the marvelous has
been so much present in all religions, at all times and with all peoples,
at all latitudes and in all continents, that the free-thinkers should be glad to see it agitating on its own and they would do great from now
on by just abstaining from a proselytism whose success they know is
inevitable.”
“Mr. Louis Figuier, however, is not one of those feeble hearts
frightened by the uselessness of his own efforts. Full of himself and believing
in his strength he boasts about having achieved what Voltaire,
Diderot, Lamétrie, Dupuis, Volney, Dulaure, Pigault-Lebrun had
not done; or what Dulaurens with his Le Compere Mathieu, the
chemists with their alembics, the physicists with their electrical batteries,
the astronomers with their compasses, the pantheists with their
sophisms or the malevolent mockers with their bad taste were all incapable
of achieving.”
“He proposed to triumphantly demonstrate that ‘the marvelous
does not exist and had never existed’ and as a consequence that ‘the
prodigies of ancient times as well as those of modern times can all
be attributed to a natural cause’. A difficult task; so far the most
intrepid ones have succumbed before such a task. However, he continues,
the ‘conclusion that would necessarily deny any wonderful agent,
would be a victory of science over superstition, to the great benefit of
human reason and dignity.’ And his ambition was satisfied by such a
victory – an easier victory than we might think if Mr. Figuier is not
wrong when he says in his introduction that ‘our century is not much
interested in matters of theology and religious disputes.’”
“Why then to start a war against a belief that does not exist? Why
attacking the opinions of a theology that has no followers? Why giving
attention to superstitions that are no longer our concern? – ‘Victory
without danger is triumph without glory’ the poet says, and it is not
very convenient to sound the fighting trumpet if all that there is to
fight is windmills.”
“What else do you want? When writing this Mr. Figuier forgot
what he wrote above when he shamefully confessed that our century,
deaf to the lessons of the encyclopedia and those of the lay press, had
all of a sudden been taken over by the love for the marvelous, and even more than their predecessors, this century now believes in the
marvelous, an incomprehensible aberration that he intended to cure.
Such contradiction, however, is so small that it might not be worth
pointing out. We shall see many others and will be forced to neglect
several!”
“Mr. Figuier thus denies that supernatural manifestations do occur
in our days and that they might have occurred at any other time.
With respect to miracles, they can only be made by Science. God’s
power has nothing to do with that. Even when we say that God
does not have such power we experience some sort of scruples for the
incomplete translation of his thoughts. Does he acknowledge another
god besides the god of nature, a god that is as remarkable in his blind
intelligence and that unsuspectingly realizes wonders, a dear god to
the wise people, complacent enough to allow them to steal a slice of his
sovereignty? We prefer to stay away from this issue.”
“Marvelously mediocre, the ‘history of the marvelous’ begins by
an introduction that Mr. Louis Figuier calls a quick glance at the
supernatural in Ancient times and in the Middle Ages that we will
not discuss since there is too much to say. His work alters the most
important manifestations, under the pretext of summarizing them,
and it would understandably require a long time to restitute the true
meaning of thousands of events that he only mentioned in-passing.”
“The edifice is worthy of the open colonnade. That history of
the marvelous during the last two centuries begins with a report of
the subject matter related to Urbain Grandier and the religious ladies
of Loudun; then comes the magic divining rod the tremblers of
Cevennes, the convulsionary Jansenists, Cagliostro, magnetism and
the turning tables. However, not a single word about the possession
of Louviers, the Illuminati, the Martinists, the Swedenborgism, the
stigmatized of Tirol, the remarkable manifestation of children in
Sweden less than fifty years ago. He only says a word about the exorcism
of father Gassner and less than an insignificant page is dedicated
to the clairvoyant of Prevorst.”
“Mr. Figuier would have done better if he had given the following
title to his book: Episodes of the History of the Marvelous in
Modern Times. Even the episodes that he chose may give rise to serious
objections. Nobody has ever attributed any supernatural meaning to
the magic tricks of Cagliostro. He was a skillful sorcerer with curious
tricks that he used very well to fascinate those who were exploited by
him, and he had several accomplices. If anything, Cagliostro should
have a place among the revolutionary precursors rather than amidst
the witches.”
“Equally strange, is the placement of animal magnetism together
with marvelous events, particularly from the point of view used by
Mr. Figuier. Magnetism stands out from the Academy of Medicine
and Sciences by whom it was greatly stigmatized; however, it must
not be of any interest to the marvelous unless perhaps for certain manifestations
neglected by Mr. Figuier, using the opportunity to speak
about Mesmer’s life, the experiences of the Marquis de Puységur, and
the incident related to the famous report of Mr. Husson. We discussed
that important issue two years ago and will not repeat it here. We will
also let go of the turning tables that were examined on the same occasion.
However, there would be a lot to be said about Mr. Figuier’s
pretentious physical and natural explanations about those dancing
tables and the manifestations that follow. In any case it is necessary to
impose limits to our discussion.”
“We will then let him fight the Spiritualist Magazine and The
Spiritist Review, two periodicals published in Paris by followers of
spiritist manifestations who accuse him of having written his repository
without a previous consultation with witnesses nor key players
in the process. One and the other sustain that he had never attended
a single spiritualist session and that he clearly stated that his opinion
was already formed and that in no circumstance would he change it.”
“Is that so? We don’t know. All we can say is that, after having
correctly denied Mr. Babinet’s solution through the unconscious and
primitive movements, he ended up by adopting that theory himself given the dimension of the inconsistency of his thoughts and writings.
Here is the proof when he writes: ‘During those sessions where individuals
were permanently connected for twenty minutes to half an
hour, hands open and resting on the table, forming an uninterrupted
chain, without the freedom of any distraction during that concentrated
operation, the large majority of people do not experience any
particular effect. It is a rare case if even at least one person will not
fall into a hypnotic state – to Mr. Figuier, hypnotism gives the answer
to everything as we will see later – Not more than a second in such
a state is necessary so that the expected phenomenon may take place.
The link of that human chain, thus fallen into some sort of nervous
sleep and no longer aware of his own actions, produces the motion
of the object.’ – Why doesn’t Mr. Figuier mock himself here, since he
used to mock Mr. Balbinet? That would have been logical, particularly
after having announced that he would elucidate the mystery
and considering that all he did was to use that ridiculous little light
in his lantern, previously used by the wise scholar. But logic and Mr.
Louis Figuier are divorced in that history of the marvelous. Ah! The
echoes hopelessly pretend to speak but all they can do is to repeat what
they hear.”
“As for the long chapters dedicated to the magic divining rod and
in particular to Jacques Aymar, our first observation to him is that
he is mistaken if he thinks that the problem was sufficiently studied
by Mr. Chevreul. It is an illusion, that he can attribute it to that
wise man. However, outside the Academy of Sciences he will find nobody
who will admit that the theory of the exploring pendulum will
respond to every one of his objections. The statement attributed to
Galileo ‘…Nevertheless, it (Earth) turns!’ has also some application
to the magic divining rod. It turned and continues to turn, in spite of
the skeptics that deny the movement because they don’t want to see it.
The thousands of examples that we can refer to – mentioned by Mr.
Figuier himself – attest the reality of the phenomenon. Does it turn
following a diabolic or spiritual impulse, as people say today, or it does so under the influence of some unknown fluid? In good faith we
reject any marvelous influence, although it may be admitted in certain
cases. The inexistence of unknown fluids does not seem to have
been demonstrated to us. Among others, the magnetic fluid counts on
many followers whose declarations deserve as much authority as the
denials of the adversaries. At any rate, the magic divining rod has
made marvels that may prove not to be supernatural but that science
is still incapable of explaining, science that still explains so little of the
many wonders that we see around us, as for example the life of the
tiniest leaf. It would do him good to acquire some modesty, a virtue
that he lacks so much.”
“Among so many marvels, those carried out by Jacques Aymar
already mentioned so many times deserved a detailed report. One
day he was called to Lyon, following a horrific crime committed in
that town. With his divining rod he explored the basement where
the crime was staged, declaring that there were three murderers; he
then began to follow their trails, leading to a gardener whose house
was located at the Rhône river bank, stating that the three had returned
to that house and had a bottle of wine there. The gardener
denied this but his young sons confessed after being questioned that
three men had come to their place and in the absence of their father
they sold wine to the men. Aymar then continues to follow the trail,
always guided by the rod. He discovers where they boarded a boat at
the Rhône; he takes a canoe and navigates to every place where they
had been and goes to the fields of Sablon, between Vienne and Saint
Vallier, indicating that they had stopped there for a few days. He
continues his chase from point to point and arrives at Beaucaire, at
the time when there was a town fair; he walks around the busy streets
and stops at the town jail; he goes inside and points towards a little
hunchback man, saying that he was one of the murderers. His indications
were that the two other assassins had fled towards Nimes but
the law enforcement did not want to follow his leads. The hunchback
was taken to Lyon where he confessed the crime and was sentenced to death. That was Jacques Aymar’s prowess and there are many other
cases like that in his life. Mr. Figuier admits that in the details. As
a matter of fact, he could not say otherwise since these are attested
by hundreds of trustworthy witnesses – ‘from three reports and so
many agreeing letters, written by eyewitnesses and by equally honored
judges, impossible to expect in our days any foul play among them.’”
“Mr. Figuier transforms Jacques Aymar into a police detective,
of a much greater perspicacity than Mr. Sartines, regardless of his
celebrity. Compared to him our police authorities from Sûreté would
be like schoolchildren. He then supposes that the divining rod handler,
after spending three or four hours in Lyon had time enough to
learn more about the event than local law enforcement. So, he drove
the investigation to the gardener’s house because it was evident that
the murderer(s) had boarded a boat at the Rhône to get away more
swiftly; he guessed about the wine drinking at the gardener’s house
since they must had been thirsty; they stopped at the various places
along the river as confirmed later because those well-known ports had
to be familiar to them; they went to the fields of Sablon because they
evidently wanted to see the spectacle of the assembly of the troops; later
he went to Beaucaire due to the obvious and incontrollable desire
that the murderers would have there; he then stopped at the local jail
because one of the murders was unlucky enough to have been arrested
already. ‘That is why your daughter is deaf!’ Says Sganarelle; and
Mr. Louis Figuier does not do better, or different. He believes that he
is right particularly for the fact that when Jacques Aymar was called
to Paris, given the rumors of his celebrity, he saw his perspicacity facing
real failures there together with some real triumphs. However,
due to those mistakes that resulted in some bitterness against Jacques
Aymar, Mr. Figuier, of all others, couldn’t criticize him; he couldn’t
have used this to declare Jacques Aymar an imposter, and he knows
that better than everybody else; he knows, regarding magnetism,
that certain types of experiments are more unpredictable than others,
yielding good results one day, failing the other. He adds a less forgiving inconsequence to that one. Not satisfied by accusing Jacques
Aymar of charlatanism he generalizes the same accusation against
every divining rod handler, stating: ‘Among the practical followers
only a small number was formed by ill-faith people; but even those
did not always act in bad faith; the great majority of them acted in
good faith. The divining rod positively turned in their hands, independent
from any artifice and the phenomenon and the facts were
actually real.’ Well then, there we have the truth. But how and why
did it turn? It is impossible to avoid that question, responded by Mr.
Figuier: ‘The motion of the divining rod happened following their
unconscious mind control, completely oblivious to their own will.’ –
Always that unconsciousness that is more marvelous than the marvelous
that they deny. Believe it or not.”
Escande
_________________________________
* Office at Rue Sainte-Anne, 63 – February 22nd, 1861 Edition – price 1 franc
** About every knowable thing, by the Italian Renaissance Philosopher, Pico della
Mirandola, 1643 - 1495
