THE MODERN CHARACTER OF SPIRITISM
What was new in spiritism was not the phenomena, for these had always been known, as we remarked in connection with 'haunted houses'. And in any event it would have been quite astonishing if these phenomena-assuming they were real-had not been manifested before our own time, or at least that no one had perceived them until now. What is new and specifically modern is the interpretation the spiritists give to these things, that is, the theory by which they claim to explain them. But it is precisely this theory that properly constitutes spiritism, as we have tried to make clear from the start. Without the theory there would be no spiritism but something else, something that could even be entirely different. It is essential that we insist on this point because those insufficiently informed on these matters cannot make the necessary distinctions, and because of the confusions entertained by the spiritists themselves, who claim that their doctrine is as old as the world itself. This, incidentally, is an illogical attitude on the part of those who make progress an article of faith. Spiritists do not go so far as to appeal to an imaginary tradition as do the Theosophists, against whom we have voiced the same objection, [1] but at the least they seem to see in the antiquity with which they falsely credit their belief (many no doubt doing so in good faith) a source of some strength. Basically, all these people live with a contradiction of
which they are unaware, and if it passes unnoticed it is because intelligence plays only a modest part in their convictions. This is why their essentially sentimental theories do not really merit the name of doctrine, and if they are attached to them it is primarily because they find them 'consoling', and because they are suited to satisfy the aspirations of a vague religiosity.
Belief in progress, which plays such an important role in spiritism, shows that this latter is something essentially modern. For the notion of progress is itself of quite recent origin, dating only from the second half of the eighteenth century, and conceptions from this period have left their imprint in spiritist terminology just as, more immediately, they have inspired all the socialist and humanitarian theories that provide the doctrinal elements of spiritism, among which the idea of reincarnation must be noted in particular. This idea is in fact also very recent, despite frequently repeated assertions to the contrary, and it rests on entirely erroneous assimilations. It was likewise toward the end of the eighteenth century that Lessing gave voice to it for the first time, at least to our knowledge. And this fact draws our attention to German Masonry, with which Lessing was affiliated, as he probably also was with other secret societies of the kind we spoke of earlier. In face of this, it is curious that many so loudly protest that American 'spiritists' originated their own movement. It is pertinent to ask whether this conception expressed by Lessing could have been transmitted a little later to certain French socialists, but of this we cannot be sure. It is not proven that Fourier and Pierre Leroux were aware of it, and it could be that in seeking to resolve a question that greatly preoccupied them, each was led independently to the same idea, namely that of the inequality of social conditions. Whatever the case may be, these were the individuals who really promoted the reincarnationist theory, and it was from them that it was borrowed and popularized by the spiritists, to be sought and embraced by others in their turn. In the second part of this study we will return to this conception for a more thorough examination, for, crude as it is, it has acquired a real importance in our day by reason of its astonishing success at the hands of French spiritism. Not only has it been adopted by most of the 'neo-spiritualist' schools that have subsequently come into existence, certain
ones of which-Theosophy in particular-have been the means whereby it has penetrated into the spiritism of Anglophone countries hitherto refractory to the idea. People now accept the notion without being directly or indirectly attached to any of these schools, thereby placing themselves under the influence of various currents of thought of whose existence they are hardly aware.
For the moment, and reserving the right to explain this later, we will say only that reincarnation has absolutely nothing in common with such ancient ideas as metempsychosis and transmigration, to which the spiritists wrongly wish to assimilate it. From what we have said in trying to define spiritism, we are at least aware that the explanation of the major differences, which is misunderstood by the spiritist, is to be found in what relates to the constitution of the human being; and likewise for the question of communication with the dead, on which subject we shall now concentrate our efforts.
It is a widespread error to try to link spiritism to the cult or veneration of the dead, such as exists in every religion in one form or another, as well as in various traditional doctrines lacking any religious character. In reality, this cult, in whatever form it appears, by no means implies a real communication with the dead. At the most we can perhaps in certain cases speak of a kind of ideal communication, but this never occurs by the material means that constitute the basic postulate of spiritism. In particular, what is called the 'cult of ancestors', established in China in accordance with Confucian rites (which, it must not be forgotten, are purely social and not religious), has absolutely nothing in common with evocatory practices. Nevertheless, this is one of the examples most frequently noted by those who believe in the antiquity and universality of spiritism, who even specify that Chinese evocatory procedures are often quite similar to their own. But here is the reason for this confusion: there are in fact those in China who make use of instruments similar to the spiritist 'turning tables', but what is involved are divinatory practices in the realm of magic, and these are quite distinct from Confucian rites. Moreover, those who make a profession of magic are deeply despised both in China and in India, and the utilization of these practices is regarded as blameworthy, outside of certain specific circumstances with which we need not be concerned here, but which
have only a quite external similarity to ordinary cases. In any event, what is essential is not the phenomenon produced but the end for which it is produced, as well as the manner in which this is accomplished. Thus the first distinction to be made is between magic and the 'cult of ancestors', and indeed, this is more than a distinction, for by right as well as in fact it is an absolute separation. But there is still something more: magic is not spiritism, from which it differs entirely in theory, and, in very large measure, in practice. We should first note that the magician is the complete opposite of a medium; he plays an essentially active role in the production of phenomena, whereas the medium is by definition an essentially passive instrument. In this relationship the magician is more analogous to a hypnotist, while the medium is analogous to the hypnotic 'subject'. But we should add that the magician does not necessarily operate by means of a 'subject'; this is in fact very rare, for his sphere of action is far more extensive and complex than that of the hypnotist. Secondly, magic does not imply the use of forces such as those the spiritists call upon, and even where it presents phenomena comparable to those of spiritism, it offers entirely different explanations. For example, someone can easily use a divination process without in any way assuming that the 'souls of the dead' play any part in the results obtained. Moreover, what we have just said applies very generally: the procedures which the spiritists congratulate themselves for discovering in China also in existed Greco-Roman antiquity. Thus, Tertullian speaks of divination accomplished by means of goats and tables; and other authors, such as Theocritus and Lucian, speak also of vases and sieves that were made to rotate. But all this is exclusively a matter of divination; for the rest, even if the 'souls of the dead' could in certain cases be mixed up in such practices (which the text of Tertullian seems to indicate), or in other words if in exceptional cases evocation is joined to divination, this is because the 'souls' in question are something other than what the spiritists call 'spirits'. They are only that 'something' to which we alluded above in order to explain certain phenomena, but the nature of which we have not yet specified. We will return to this shortly and show that spiritism has no right whatsoever to appeal to magic, even that of the special kind involved in evocations-not that
this constitutes any recommendation for it. But let us now turn from China to India, regarding which they have committed similar errors, and these we shall also treat in detail.
On this subject we have found astonishing things written in a book that nevertheless appears serious, which is why we feel we must make special mention of it. This well-known book is that of Dr Paul Gibier, [2] who is by no means a spiritist. He claims to be impartially scientific, and the whole experimental part seems quite conscientiously reported. But we may ask why nearly all those who occupy themselves with these things, even while claiming to maintain a strictly scientific point of view and refraining from drawing conclusions favorable to spiritism, nevertheless find it necessary to flaunt anti-Catholic opinions that have no direct bearing on what is at issue. This is truly strange, and Dr Gibier's book contains passages of this kind such as would arouse the jealousy of Flammarion, who so loved to interject such rants even into his popularizations of astronomy. It is not this that we wish to consider, however, but rather another and more important issue of which many are unaware, for the same book contains some truly outrageous blunders concerning India. The provenance of these remarks can be easily shown, moreover: the author makes the serious mistake of believing the fantastic accounts of Louis Jacolliot [3] and the no less fantastic documents provided him by a certain 'Atmic Society' that existed in Paris around 1886, and that consisted of little more than its founder, the engineer Tremeschini. We will not pause over errors of detail, such as the author's taking the title of an astronomical treatise as a personal name, [4] for these are of interest only in demonstrating the unreliability of his information. We have spoken of howlers, and we do not believe this expression too strong to describe things like this:
Modern spiritist doctrine . . . is in nearly complete agreement with the present esoteric religion of the Brahmins. Now this latter has been taught to lower grade initiates in Himalayan temples for perhaps more than a hundred thousand years! This similarity is curious at the very least, and one can say without paradox that spiritism is only esoteric Brahmanism in broad daylight. [5]
First of all, there is properly speaking no 'esoteric Brahmanism'; and since we have explained this elsewhere, [6] we will not return to it here. But even if there were such a thing, it would not have the least relationship to spiritism since the latter contradicts the very principles of Brahmanism, and also because spiritism is one of the most grossly exoteric doctrines that has ever existed. If the intention was to allude to the theory of reincarnation, we will repeat that it has never been taught in India, even by the Buddhists, [7] and that it belongs strictly to the modern West. Those who claim otherwise simply do not know what they are talking about. [8] But our author's error is still graver and more complete, for further on we read:
With the Brahmins, the practice of evoking the dead is the fundamental basis of the temple liturgy and the foundation of their religious doctrine. [9]
This assertion is exactly contrary to the truth. We can state in the most categorical fashion that all Brahmins without exception, far from regarding evocation as a fundamental element of their doctrine and their rites, actually proscribe it absolutely in all its forms. It seems that the 'accounts of European travelers, and probably those of Jacolliot above all, are the source from which Dr Gibier has learned that 'the evocations of the souls of the ancestors can only be
performed by Brahmins of various ranks. [10] Now, practices of this kind, when they cannot be suppressed entirely, are at least left to men of the lowest castes, often even the chandalas, that is, men without caste, whom the Europeans call pariahs; and yet attempts are made to dissuade them as much as possible from such practices. In many cases Jacolliot is manifestly dishonest, as when he misrepresents Isha Krishna as Jezeus Christna in order to fit an anti-Christian thesis. But beyond this, he and those like him must occasionally have been mystified, and, if during their sojourn in India they happened to witness real phenomena, they would certainly not have been given the real explanation. We allude especially to the phenomena of the fakirs; but before getting to that we will say this: in India, when it happens that what the spiritists call mediumship is spontaneously manifested (we say spontaneously because no one would ever seek to acquire or develop this faculty), it is considered a veritable calamity for the medium and for his entourage. The common man does not hesitate to attribute phenomena of this kind to the devil, and even those who in some degree involve the dead in these things envisage only the intervention of pretas, that is, inferior elements that remain attached to the corpse, elements that are strictly identical to the manes of the ancient Latins, and that in no way represent the spirit. For the rest, natural mediums have been everywhere regarded as 'possessed' or 'obsessed', as the case may be, and the concern was only to try to deliver and heal them. Only the spiritists have made a privilege of this infirmity, trying to preserve and cultivate it, even to stimulate it artificially; and only they have surrounded those unfortunates so afflicted with an unbelievable veneration instead of regarding them as objects of pity or revulsion. It suffices to be unprejudiced to see clearly the danger of this strange reversal of things. The medium, whatever the nature of the influences exercised on and by him, must be considered as truly sick, as abnormal and unbalanced. Far from remedying this disequilibrium, spiritism tries with all its might to further it, and so must be denounced as dangerous to public health. But this is not its only danger.
Turning again to India, there is one last question that must be dealt with in order to dispel the equivocation in the very title Dr Gibier gave to his book: to characterize spiritism as 'western fakirism' is more than adequate proof that he knows nothing either of spiritism, about which it is only too easy to inform oneself, or of fakirism. The Arabic word fakir properly signifies a poor man or a mendicant, and is applied in India to a category of individuals held in rather low esteem, except by Europeans, and who are regarded as tricksters who amuse the crowd by their antics. In saying this, we in no way wish to contest in any way the reality of their special powers, but these powers, the acquisition of which entails a long and wearisome training, are of an inferior order and as such are not judged particularly desirable. To seek them is to show that one is incapable of attaining results of a higher order, to which they can only be an obstacle. And we find here yet another example of the discredit that in the East attaches to all that pertains to the realm of magic. In fact, the phenomena of the fakirs are sometimes simulated; but even this simulation supposes a power of collective suggestion acting on all the onlookers, something that at first glance is hardly less astonishing than the production of real phenomena. This has nothing to do with prestidigitation, which is excluded by the very conditions to which all fakirs are subject, and is also something quite different from hypnotism as practiced in the West. As for the real phenomena of which the others are imitations, they are as we have said the results of magic; the fakir, always active and conscious in the production thereof, is a magician; and in the other case he can be assumed a magnetizer or hypnotist. He in no way resembles a medium, and if an individual possesses even the least trace of mediumship, this suffices to render him incapable of obtaining any of the phenomena of fakirism in the way that is essentially characteristic, for the two methodologies are diametrically opposed, and this is true even for effects that may have some outward resemblance. Moreover, any such similarity exists only in the simplest phenomena that the fakirs produce. Again, no fakir ever claimed that the spirits or the 'souls of the dead' have the least part in the production of these phenomena; or if some of them have recounted such things to Europeans, as they did to Jacolliot, in no way did they believe it
themselves. As with most Easterners, their responses in such situations reflect the preconceptions they discern in their interlocutors, for they have no wish to convey to them the true nature of the forces involved. Moreover, given the mentality of their onlookers and apart from other motives for acting in this way, they feel that any attempt to provide a real explanation would be perfectly useless. Uneducated as some fakirs undoubtedly are, they still retain certain concepts that would appear 'transcendent' to most Westerners; even regarding things they are incapable of explaining, they at least do not have the false ideas essential to spiritism, for they have no reason to fabricate suppositions in complete disagreement with traditional Hindu conceptions. The magic of fakirs is not evocatory magic, which no one would dare exercise publicly; the dead have absolutely nothing to do with it. Moreover, a real understanding of evocatory magic itself would contribute to the destruction rather than to the confirmation of the spiritist hypothesis. We have thought it well to go into all this detail at the risk of some tedium because concerning fakirism and related questions, ignorance is the rule in Europe; the occultists do not know much more about these things than do spiritists and 'psychics. [11] On the other hand, certain Catholic writers who have written on the same subjects have limited themselves to repeating the errors they have found in others. [12] As for the 'official' scholars, they are naturally content to deny what they cannot explain, except for those, more prudent still, who simply pass over these things in silence.
If in ancient civilizations that still exist, such as China and India, these things are such as we have described them, then we may strongly presume that such was also the case in civilizations
that disappeared which, according to all that is known, rested on analogous traditional principles. Thus, the ancient Egyptian idea of the constitution of the human being scarcely differed from Hindu and Chinese conceptions. It seems to have been the same for the Chaldeans. We would thus have to draw similar conclusions from this, both regarding posthumous states, and to explain evocations in particular. We need not go into great detail here, but merely touch generally upon this; and we must not be stayed by certain apparent divergences, which are not contradictions but rather correspond to diverse perspectives. The forms may differ from one tradition to another, but the principles remain identical for the simple reason that truth is one. So true is this that peoples such as the Greeks and the Romans, who had already largely lost the raison d'être of their rites and symbols, nevertheless still preserved certain teachings that agree perfectly with what is found in more complete forms elsewhere, but which the moderns no longer understand; and the esoterism of their Mysteries probably included many teachings that are expressed more openly in the East, without for all that being popularized, their very nature not admitting this. Moreover, we have many reasons for thinking that the Mysteries themselves were Eastern in origin. Speaking of magic and evocations, we can thus say that all the ancients understood them in the same way; we find the same ideas everywhere, although clad in different expressions, because the ancients, like the Easterners of today, still knew how these things should be understood. [13] In all that has come down to us we have not found the least trace of anything resembling spiritism; for the rest, let us say that spiritists obviously cannot invoke in their favor what has been lost completely; and if anything can be said concerning such things, it is that reasons of coherence and analogy lead us to think that they would also not find anything here to justify their claims.
To complete what has already been said, we will now consider in greater detail the distinctions between magic and spiritism. In order
to avoid certain misunderstandings, let us first say that magic is properly speaking an experimental science that has nothing in common with religious or pseudo-religious conceptions. But this is not so of spiritism, where such conceptions predominate, even when it claims to be 'scientific'. If magic has always been treated more or less as an 'occult science' reserved to a few, this is because of the grave dangers that accompany it. Nevertheless, there is in this connection a difference between one who, while taking all the necessary precautions, consciously produces phenomena of which he has studied the laws, and one ignorant of all these laws, who places himself at the mercy of unknown forces, passively awaiting what they will produce. One thus sees the advantage the magician has over the spiritist, whether medium or merely onlooker, even were all the other conditions comparable. In speaking of necessary precautions, we are thinking of the precise and rigorous rules to which magical operations are subject, all of which have their reasons. The spiritists, on the other hand, neglect the most elementary of these rules; or rather, they have no notion of them, acting like children who, all unconscious of danger, toy with the most formidable machines, and so, without anything capable of protecting them, unleash forces capable of striking them down. It goes without saying that all this in no way recommends magic, indeed quite the contrary, for it only shows that if magic is very dangerous, spiritism is much more so. And it is dangerous in yet another way because it is in the public domain, whereas magic has always been reserved to some few, in the first instance precisely because it was considered dangerous, and then by reason of the knowledge it presupposes and the complexity of its practices. Moreover, it is to be noted that those with complete and thorough knowledge of these things always rigorously abstain from magical practices, apart from some few exceptional cases where they act in a manner completely different from an ordinary magician. This latter is most often an 'empiricist', at least to some extent; not that he is lacking all knowledge, but he does not always know the real reasons for what he does. In any case, although such magicians are exposed to certain dangers, the peril is very limited, since these practitioners are always few in number (and so much the
fewer in that these practices, apart from those that are relatively inoffensive, are quite rightly prohibited strictly by the legislation of all peoples who know what is involved), whereas spiritism is open to all without exception. But this is enough on magic in general. We will now consider only evocatory magic, a very restricted branch and the only one to which spiritism can claim to have any connection. Actually, many of the phenomena manifested in spiritist séances do not depend on this special domain, in which case there is evocation only in the intentions of those present, not in the results obtained. But we reserve for another chapter our explanations on the nature of the forces that intervene in this case. For all that is of this category, even if it is a question of similar occurrences, it is only too obvious that the magical and the spiritist interpretations are entirely different; and we shall see that evocations are scarcely less so in spite of certain misleading appearances.
Of all magic practices, it was those of evocation that were subject to the most unconditional prohibition among the ancients, and yet at the same time it was known that it could not really be a question of 'spirits' in the modern sense, and that the results that could be claimed were, ultimately, of much less importance; how therefore would spiritism have been judged, supposing the spiritists' assertions corresponded to some possibility? It was well known that what can be evoked does not represent the real person, who is beyond reach because he has passed to another state of existence (we will speak more of this in the second part of this study), but are only inferior elements which the being has left behind in the terrestrial domain following that dissolution of the human composite which we call death. As already stated, this is what the ancient Latins called manes, and the Hebrews $ob$, the word always used in biblical texts when evocation is involved, and which some wrongly take as designating a demonic entity. In fact, the Hebrew notion of the human constitution agrees perfectly with all the others; and, making use of Aristotelian terms to make ourselves better understood, we say that not only is the $ob$ not the spirit or the 'rational soul' (neshamah), but neither is it the 'sensitive soul' (ruah), or even the 'vegetative soul' (nephesh). Doubtless, the Judaic tradition seems to indicate, as
one of the reasons for prohibiting the evocation of the $ob$, [14] that a certain connection subsists between it and the superior principles; and this would be a point worth examining in greater detail, taking into account the rather unusual manner in which this tradition envisages the posthumous states of man. But in any event, the $ob$ does not remain directly and immediately linked to the spirit but rather to the body, and this is why rabbinic language calls it habal de garmin, or 'breath of the bones', [15] which is precisely what enables us to explain the phenomena we noted above. What is in question, therefore, in no way resembles the 'perispirit' of the spiritists or the 'astral body' of the occultists, both of which are supposed to clothe the spirit even of the dead. And there is a further major difficulty, for it is not a body; it is, if one wishes, like a subtle form that can only take an illusory corporeal appearance when it is manifested in certain conditions, whence the name 'double' given it by the Egyptians. For the rest, it is in every respect only an appearance: separated from the spirit, this element cannot be conscious in the true sense of the word; nevertheless, it possesses a semblance of consciousness, a virtual image so to speak of the consciousness of the living being. And the magician revivifies this appearance by temporarily lending it what it lacks, a reflex consciousness of sufficient consistency to respond when it is interrogated, as when the evocation has divination as its goal-which properly speaking is necromancy. We hope the reader will bear with us if these explanations do not seem perfectly clear; they will be completed by what we have to say regarding forces of another order. It is difficult to express these things in ordinary language and one is forced to use expressions that are only approximations or 'manners of speaking'. The fault lies in large part with modern philosophy, which, totally ignoring these questions, is unable to provide an adequate terminology for discussing them. At this point it is important to avoid an ambiguity in connection with the theory just discussed; from a superficial point of view it might seem that the posthumous element in question could
be comparable to what Theosophists call 'shells', which they interject into the explanation of most spiritist phenomena. But it is nothing of the sort, even though this latter theory is probably derived from the other by way of deformation, proving the incomprehension of its authors. In fact, the Theosophists believe that a 'shell' is an 'astral cadaver', that is to say the remains of a decomposing body. And apart from the fact that rather than being essentially tied to the 'physical body', this body is supposed not to have been abandoned by the spirit until some more or less lengthy period after death, the very concept of 'invisible bodies' seems to us grossly wrong, and is one of the ideas that leads us to characterize 'neo-spiritualism' as 'materialism transposed'. Doubtless Paracelsus' theory of the 'astral light' contains at least some truth; moreover, it is of much wider import than that which presently concerns us. But occultists have scarcely understood it, and it is related only marginally to their 'astral body' or to the 'plane' which they give the same name. These are entirely modern ideas, notwithstanding the occultists' claims, and are not in agreement with any authentic tradition.
We will also offer a few reflections which, although not directly related to our subject, nevertheless seem necessary on account of the special mentality of modern Westerners. Practically speaking, the greater number of these latter are positivists, whatever their religious or philosophical convictions may be, and it seems they cannot leave behind this attitude without falling into the extravagances of 'neo-spiritism', perhaps because they know nothing else. This is so to such an extent that many sincerely religious men, influenced by current ideas and unable to do other than admit certain possibilities in principle, energetically refuse to accept the consequences, and end up denying in fact if not in principle everything that does not enter into their notion of 'ordinary life'. The observations we have set forth will no doubt seem as strange to them as they do to the most blinkered of 'scientists'. But it is really of little importance to us if these people sometimes believe themselves more competent than anyone else in matters of religion, and in the name of this religion even qualified to judge things that exceed their understanding. This is why we think it well to voice a warning about these things, though without being under any illusion as to the effects it will produce.
Once again, we remind the reader that we have no intention of limiting ourselves to the religious point of view, and that the things we are discussing pertain to a sphere entirely distinct from that of religion. Moreover, if we express certain ideas it is because we know they are true and as such independent of any preoccupations extraneous to pure intellectuality.
Despite the above caveat it may be added that these ideas, more so than many others, enable us to understand certain points concerning religion itself. For example, how can the Catholic cult of relics or pilgrimages to the tombs of saints be justified if it is not admitted that in one way or another something immaterial remains attached to the body after death? However, we will not conceal the fact that in linking the two questions in this way, we oversimplify them. In reality the forces under consideration (we use the word 'forces' advisedly and in a very general sense) are not identical with those we have just been discussing, although there may be a certain relationship between them. They are of a superior order, for something intervenes that is as if superadded, and their application in no way involves magic but rather what the Neoplatonists called theurgy-still another distinction that should not be forgotten. To take another example of the same kind, the cult of images and the idea that certain places enjoy special privileges are completely unintelligible if it is not admitted that these are veritable centers of forces (whatever the nature of these forces), and that certain objects can act as 'condensers'. Let one simply refer to the Bible and see what is said there concerning the Ark of the Covenant, as well as the Temple of Jerusalem, and one will perhaps understand what we want to convey. Here we touch on the question of spiritual influences, but we will not linger on the subject, for to treat it would entail many difficulties, requiring reference to teachings that are properly metaphysical and even of the highest metaphysical order. We will only cite one final case: among certain schools of Islamic esoterism, the founding Master (Shaykh), though dead many centuries, is regarded as always living and acting by his spiritual influence (barakah); but this in no way concerns his real personality, which is not only beyond this world but also beyond all the 'Paradises', that is to say beyond all those superior states that are still only transitory. One
will see how far we are here, not only from spiritism but also from magic. And if we have spoken of these things it is only in order not to leave incomplete our recital of necessary distinctions; indeed, the difference that separates this last order of things from all the others is even the most profound of all.
We think we have said enough now to show that before modern times nothing comparable to spiritism existed. As regards the West, we have considered antiquity above all, but everything we have said regarding magic remains valid for the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, if one wanted at all costs to find something to which spiritism may be compared, at least up to a point and on condition of considering its practices only (for its theories are not found anywhere else), what one would find would quite simply be sorcery. In fact, sorcerers are manifestly empiricists, although the most ignorant of them probably know more than the spiritists in several respects. They know only the lowest branches of magic; and the forces they bring into play, the most inferior of all, are those with which the spiritists normally deal. Finally, the cases of possession and obsession, closely related to the practices of sorcery, are the only authentic manifestations of mediumship that had been observed before the appearance of spiritism. And since then, have things changed so much that the same words are no longer applicable? We do not at all think so; if the spiritists can only recommend themselves on such suspect and unenviable kinship, we would counsel them rather to renounce any affiliation whatsoever, and to take up their role in a modernity which, in all logic, should in no way be an embarrassment to partisans of progress.