PREFACE
In turning to the question of spiritism [1] we must first make our intentions as clear as possible. Many works have been devoted to this question, and in these last times they have become more numerous than ever. Nevertheless, we do not believe that everything has been said on the subject or that we will be repeating what has been presented in any other book. Nor do we intend to treat the subject exhaustively, for this would oblige us to repeat too many things found easily enough in other works, and so would be a task as enormous as it would be useless. Instead, we prefer to limit our attention to those aspects which until now have been treated most inadequately. And this is why we shall try first of all to dispel those confusions and misunderstandings which we have frequently noted in this order of ideas. Then we shall lay particular stress on pointing out the errors that constitute the basis of spiritist doc-trine-insofar as one can call it a doctrine.
It would be difficult and of little value to consider this matter from a specifically historical point of view. One could of course write the history of a well-defined sect [2] with a distinct organization or a minimum of internal cohesion; but such is not the case with spiritism. From the beginning, the spiritists have been divided into a variety of schools, and these in turn have split into various independent and often rival groups. Even if it were possible to enumerate all these schools and all their branches, no profit that might thus accrue to the reader could justify such tedium. Further, in order to call oneself a spiritist it is by no means necessary to belong to any association; it suffices to admit certain theories which ordinarily accompany the relevant practices. Many people practice spiritism in isolation or in small groups, and this is an element of the matter that eludes the historian. In this respect spiritism is quite different from Theosophy and the greater number of occultist schools. Though this is far from being the most important point characterizing the spiritists, it is nevertheless the consequence of certain other less obvious differences which we will explain later. We believe that what we have said is sufficient to explain why we will introduce historical considerations only when they can shed light on our study without making the historical aspect the object of special attention.
Another point we do not intend to treat exhaustively is the examination of the phenomena which spiritists adduce in support of their theories and which others, even while admitting the reality of the phenomena, interpret in an entirely different way. We will make clear what we think of these things, but more or less detailed descriptions of these phenomena have so often been given by spiritist practitioners that it would be redundant to return to them. For the rest, this is not an area that particularly interests us; and in this regard we prefer to indicate the possibility of certain explanations which the practitioners in question, spiritists or otherwise, certainly do not suspect. In spiritism, theories are doubtless never separated from experimentation, and so we do not intend to separate them entirely. What we assert is that the phenomena in question furnish
only a purely illusory basis for spiritist theories, and that apart from these theories spiritism is no longer involved at all. But this does not prevent us from recognizing that if spiritism were only theoretical it would be much less dangerous than it is in fact, and that if it were only theoretical many people would find it much less attractive. We must insist, however, on the danger that spiritism does actually pose, and this danger is the most pressing of the motives that have impelled us to write this book.
We have frequently pointed out the dire effects that have followed upon the spread, since the late nineteenth century, of various theories that may be designated 'neo-spiritist'. In our day there are assuredly many other errors, many other counter-truths, which also need combatting. But the spiritist theories have a quite special character that probably renders them more sinister, or in any case sinister in a different manner, than those that are presented in simple philosophical or scientific guise. Spiritism is more or less a 'pseudo-religion'. We have applied this term to Theosophy, but it is equally applicable to spiritism, even though this latter aberration has often made a show of scientific pretensions by virtue of its experimental character, in which it believes it finds not only the basis but even the source of its doctrine. Spiritism is fundamentally a deviation of the religious spirit, in conformity with the 'scientistic' mentality shared by so many of our contemporaries. In addition, among all the 'neo-spiritualist' doctrines, spiritism is certainly the most popular and widespread. This is easily understood because it is the most 'simplistic', one might even say the crudest. It is within the reach of every intelligence, however mediocre; and the phenomena on which it rests, or the most ordinary of them at least, can easily be obtained by anyone. It is spiritism, therefore, that garners the greatest number of victims, its ravages having increased in recent times in quite unexpected proportions owing to disturbances that recent events have induced in many people's minds. [3] When we speak of ravages and victims, these are not mere metaphors; everything of
this nature-spiritism more so than others-results in irremediable disequilibrium and disorder for a multitude of unhappy souls who, had they not encountered these things, might have continued to lead a normal life. This is a peril not to be dismissed as negligible and which, especially in present circumstances, it is particularly necessary and opportune to resolutely denounce. All these considerations combine to reinforce our more general concern to safeguard the rights of truth against all forms of error.
We must add that it is not our intent to offer a purely negative critique; instead, a critique of spiritism, justified by the reasons given above, necessarily provides an occasion to expound certain truths. On many points we will be obliged to limit ourselves to summary observations, but we think it possible nonetheless to provide glimpses of questions that are often ignored even though they can open new avenues of research for those able to appreciate their significance. Furthermore, we must caution readers that our point of view is in many respects very different from that of most authors who have spoken of spiritism-both those who have opposed and those who have defended it. We are inspired, always and above all, by the ideas of pure metaphysics, such as are provided by the doctrines of the East. Indeed, in our judgment it is only in this way, rather than by placing ourself on their level, that certain errors can be totally refuted. We know only too well that from both the philosophical and the scientific points of view these matters can be discussed interminably without coming to a conclusion, and that to lend oneself to such controversies is often to play the adversary's game, no matter how little he may be able to bend the discussion. We are therefore more persuaded than anyone of the need for doctrinal principles from which one should never deviate, for such principles alone enable one to handle certain things with impunity. On the other hand, since we do not wish to close the door on any possibility and want to oppose only that which we know to be false, for us this doctrinal direction can only be of the metaphysical order, understanding this word in the sense which we have explained elsewhere. [4] It goes without saying that such a book as this cannot be
regarded as properly metaphysical throughout, but we unhesitatingly assert that in its inspiration there is more true metaphysics than in all that philosophers improperly designate by this name. And no one should be alarmed by this assertion: the true metaphysics to which we refer has nothing in common with the tedious subtleties of philosophy or the confusions it creates and gratuitously entertains. Besides, the present work as a whole has nothing of the rigor of a purely doctrinal exposition. What we mean is that we are constantly guided by principles which for whoever has understood them are absolutely certain, and in the absence of which one is greatly at risk of going astray in the dark labyrinths of the 'world below'. Too many rash explorers, notwithstanding their scientific or philosophical pretensions, have provided sad examples of this.
All this does not mean that we disdain the efforts of those who have adopted perspectives different from our own; quite the contrary. From our standpoint all these points of view, insofar as they are legitimate and valid, can only harmonize with and complete one another. But there are distinctions to be made and a hierarchy to be observed; a particular point of view is valid only within a limited domain and one must be aware of the limits beyond which it ceases to be applicable, something too often forgotten by specialists of the experimental sciences. On the other hand, those with a religious point of view have the inestimable advantage of doctrinal guidance just like the one we have mentioned, but which by reason of the form in which it is clad is not universally acceptable. This doctrinal guidance suffices to keep them from losing themselves but it does not provide adequate answers to every question. Whatever the case, in the face of present events we are persuaded that one can never do too much by way of opposition to certain injurious activities, and that every effort accomplished in this direction, provided it is wellconceived, will be useful and perhaps better adapted than some others to deal with this or that definite point. Finally, and to speak in an idiom that some will understand, we repeat that there can never be too much light shed in dispelling all the emanations of the 'dark Satellite'.