EXPLANATION OF SPIRITIST PHENOMENA

It is not our intent to make an in-depth study of the phenomena of spiritism, but before bringing forward the more decisive arguments against spiritism, we must give at least some summary explanation, if for no other reason than to show that the spiritist hypothesis can very well be jettisoned. We will not follow a purely logical exposition, and it should be noted that apart from any consideration of the phenomena themselves, there are fully sufficient reasons to reject absolutely the hypothesis at issue. Given the impossibility of this theory, it is necessary to seek a satisfactory explanation to account for the phenomena, even if there is no other theory at hand. But since the mentality of our time is turned especially toward experimentation, it will in many cases be better prepared to admit the impossibility of a theory and to examine without prejudice the proofs adduced in its favor if it is first shown that the said theory is useless, and that there are other theories that can replace it to advantage. On the other hand, it is important first of all to state that many if not all the facts in question do not pertain to ordinary science and cannot be forced into the narrow categories to which it is now restricted. The facts in question lie quite outside physiology and classical psychology, contrary to some psychists who are very much deceived in this regard. Feeling no respect for the prejudices of modern science, we do not think we need apologize for the apparent strangeness of some of the considerations to follow; but it is well to anticipate that by reason of their acquired habits of thought some readers may find them simply too extraordinary. This is not to say that we accord to psychic phenomena any 'transcendent' character whatsoever. Moreover, no phenomenon of any kind has such an intrinsic character; but this does not prevent there being many such phenomena that are recalcitrant to the methods used by modern Western science-which is not so 'advanced' as some of its admirers believe, or at least is so only on very particular points. Even magic has absolutely nothing 'transcendent' about it, although it is an experimental science. What can be so regarded is 'theurgy', the effects of which, even when they resemble magic, are totally different as to their cause. And it is precisely the cause and not the phenomenon produced that is of a transcendent order. In order to be better understood, we may borrow an analogy from Catholic doctrine (we mean analogy only and not assimilation, as we do not adopt a theological point of view): there are phenomena in the lives of saints, as well as of sorcerers, that are outwardly quite alike; it is obvious that only those in the first case can qualify as 'miraculous' and properly 'supernatural'. In the case of sorcerers, the phenomena can at most be called 'preternatural'. If, however, the phenomena are the same, the difference then lies uniquely in their cause and not in their nature, and it is only from their 'modality' and 'circumstances' that such phenomena draw their supernatural character. When psychism is in question it goes without saying that no transcendent cause can intervene, whether the phenomena are produced by ordinary spiritist practices or are magnetic and hypnotic, or anything more or less related to these. Thus we need not be concerned here with things of the transcendent order; and there are questions, like those of 'mystical phenomena' for example, which may remain entirely outside such explanations as we have in view. Moreover, we need not examine all psychic phenomena without distinction, but only those having some connection with spiritism. Further, we can leave to one side such phenomena as 'incarnation', which has already been mentioned, or those produced by 'healing mediums', which can be reduced either to suggestion or magnetism, for it is obvious that they can be explained sufficiently quite apart from the spiritist hypothesis. We do not mean to say that there is no difficulty in explaining facts of that kind, but spiritists cannot claim to annex the entire domain of hypnotism and magnetism; and besides, it is possible that such facts of this may in addition be clarified somewhat by information provided on the others. After these general observations, which were necessary to establish the parameters of the question, we may recall the principal theories purporting to explain spiritist phenomena. There are many of them, but Dr Gibier believed he could reduce them to four types. [1] His classification is far from flawless but it can serve as point of departure. He called the first of these the 'theory of the collective being', which is defined thus: A special fluid is released from the person of the medium, combines with the fluids of persons present to constitute a new person, independent in some measure, producing the known phenomena. Then comes the 'demoniac' theory, according to which 'everything is produced by the devil or his supports,' which amounts to reducing spiritism to sorcery. In third place there is a theory that Dr Gibier labels with the bizarre name 'gnomic', according to which there is a category of beings, an immaterial world, living at our side and manifesting its presence under certain conditions; these are the beings known from all time as genies, fairies, sylvans, lutins, gnomes, farfadets, and so forth. We do not know why he chose the name 'gnome' rather than one of the others to supply the name for his theory, which he links with that of the Theosophists (attributing it wrongly to Buddhism), which traces the phenomena to 'elementals'. Finally, there is the spiritist theory, according to which all these manifestations are due to the spirits or souls of the dead, which make contact with the living by manifesting their qualities or their faults, their superiority or, to the contrary, their inferiority, all as if they were still living. Each of these theories, except the spiritist theory-which alone is absurd-may contain a part of the truth and explain certain of the phenomena, though not all of them. The error of their respective advocates is to be too exclusive and to want to reduce everything to one theory. As for us, we do not believe that all these phenomena must be explicable by one or another of the theories just listed, for there are omissions as well as confusions in the list; moreover, we are not among those who believe that the simplicity of an explanation guarantees its verity. One might certainly wish this were the case, but things are not obliged to conform to our wishes, and there is no reason why they should be arranged in a way that is most comfortable for us or more likely to facilitate our understanding. Such anthropocentrism on the part of many scientists and philosophers presumes some naive illusions. The 'demoniac' theory makes both the spiritists and the scientists quite furious, since both profess not to believe in demons. For the spiritists it seems that there cannot be anything in the 'invisible world' other than human beings, and this is the most improbable and arbitrary restriction that can be imagined. As we will be explaining our position below regarding satanism, we will not belabor the point now, noting only that opposition to this theory, scarcely less present among the occultists than among the spiritists, is much less understandable on their part since they do admit the intervention of various beings, proving at least that their theories are less limited. From this point of view the 'demoniac' theory might seem related to the 'gnomic' theory of Dr Gibier, for in both of them it is a question of actions exercised by non-human beings. In principle, nothing is opposed to this, for not only might there be such beings but they might also be as diversified as possible. It is certain that almost all peoples, at all times, have believed in such creatures as Dr Gibier mentions; and there must be something to this, for whatever the names given these creatures, there is remarkable agreement as to their manner of action. We do not think, however, that they have ever been regarded as properly immaterial. Moreover, this aspect of the question was not posed in quite the same way for the ancients as it is for moderns, the very notions of 'matter' and 'spirit' having changed greatly in meaning. On the other hand, the way these beings have been 'personified' relates especially to popular conceptions which rather hide truth than express it, and which correspond more to manifested appearances than to deeper realities. A similar anthropomorphism, entirely exoteric in origin, can be imputed to the theory of 'elementals', which clearly derives from the preceding, and is in effect its modernized form. In fact, 'elementals' in the proper sense of the word are nothing other than the 'spirits of the elements', which ancient magic divided into four categories: salamanders, or spirits of the fire; sylphs, or spirits of the air; undines, or spirits of the water; and gnomes, or spirits of the earth. It is understood that the word 'spirits' is not taken here in the spiritist sense, but rather designates beings of the subtle realm, having a temporary existence and consequently having nothing 'spiritual' about them in the modern philosophical acceptation. Further, all this is only the exoteric expression of a theory the true sense of which we shall return to below. The Theosophists have accorded a considerable importance to the 'elementals'. Madame Blavatsky probably had the idea from George H. Felt, a member of the 'HB of L', who gratuitously attributed it to the ancient Egyptians. Subsequently, the theory was extended and modified, as much by the Theosophists themselves as by the French occultists, who obviously borrowed it from them, although they claimed to owe them nothing. Moreover, this is one of those theories regarding which the ideas of the various schools were never clarified, and we would certainly not want to be given the task of reconciling all the things that have been said on 'elementals'. Most Theosophists and occultists hold grossly anthropomorphic views, although there are those who have wanted to give the theory more of a 'scientific' allure and who, completely lacking the traditional teachings necessary to restore the original and esoteric sense, have quite simply adapted it to modern ideas or to the caprices of their own fantasy. Some have wished to identify the 'elementals' with the monads of Leibnitz; [2] others have reduced them to nothing more than 'unconscious forces' in the manner of Papus, for whom they are 'the sanguine globules of the universe,' [3] being at the same time 'potentialities of beings'; [4] still others have believed they see in them 'embryos of animal or human souls. [5] There have also been some who have taken an opposite tack, pushing the confusion so far as to identify the 'elementals' with the 'spiritual hierarchies' of the Jewish Kabbalah; they hold that the name 'elementals' designates angels and demons who by this sleight of hand are made to 'lose their fantastic character'! [6] What is especially fantastic is the collection of disparate concepts customary with the occultists. Where something true is found, the concepts do not properly pertain to the occultists but are ancient ideas more or less badly interpreted, and the occultists seem to have taken it as their task to mix up all these notions rather than to clarify them and bring them into some order. An example of false interpretations has already been given in the theory of 'astral shells', which Dr Gibier has completely forgotten in his nomenclature, and which is another borrowing of the occultists from the Theosophists. We have given above the true meaning of which the 'astral shell' notion is a distortion and we will not return to it here, except to recall that it is only in the manner there indicated that in certain phenomena an intervention of the dead, or rather an appearance of this intervention, can be admitted. The real being of the deceased is in no way concerned and is not affected by these manifestations. As to the theory of 'elementaries' on which occultists and Theosophists differ as little as in the previous cases, it appears to be extremely loose. It is sometimes confused with the 'shells', and at other times, and more frequently, is taken so far as to be identified with the spiritist hypothesis itself, excepting only a few limitations. Papus wrote that 'what the spiritist calls a spirit, an 'I', the occultist calls an elementary, an astral shell. [7] We do not believe he spoke in good faith when he made this assimilation, which is unacceptable to the spiritists; but let us continue: The inferior principles, illuminated by the intelligence of the human soul [with which they have no more than a 'fluidic link'], form what occultists call an elementary and float about the earth in the invisible world, while the superior principles evolve on another plane. . . In most cases, the spirit that comes in a séance is the elementary of the person evoked, that is to say a being possessing only the instincts and the memory of earthly things. [8] That is frank enough, and if there is a difference between a 'shell' properly so called and an 'elementary', it is that the first is literally an 'astral cadaver', while the second is said to retain a 'fluidic link' with superior principles, seeming to imply that all the elements of the human being must be situated somewhere in space. The occultists, with their 'planes', take a rather gross image for a reality. On the other hand, the statements we have cited do not inhibit the author, in other parts of the same book, from characterizing the 'elementaries' as 'conscious and willing beings', as the 'nervous cells of the universe', nor from assuring us that 'it is they who appear to the unhappy victims of sorcerous hallucinations in the guise of devil, to which [sic] one makes pacts, [9] this last role being most often attributed by occultists to the 'elementals'. Still elsewhere Papus points out that the 'elementary' (he claims that this term pertains to the Kabbalah, although there is nothing Hebraic about it) 'is formed by the immortal spirit in its upper register, by the [upper part of the] astral body in its median register, and by the shell in its lower register. [10] According to this version, therefore, it would be the true and complete human being as he is constituted during the more or less long period he sojourns on the 'astral plane'. This is the prevailing opinion among occultists as well as among Theosophists, and generally both have come to admit that this being can be evoked while in this state, that is to say during the period running from 'physical death' to 'astral death'. Only, it is added that the 'disincarnate' who are most readily manifested in spiritist séances (exceptions being 'deceased loved ones') are people of the most inferior nature, notably drunks, sorcerers, criminals, and also those who have died a violent death, especially suicides; and it is precisely for these inferior beings, with whom relations are said to be very dangerous, that some Theosophists reserve the term 'elementaries'. The spiritists, who are absolutely opposed to all these theories we have been discussing, do not seem to appreciate this concession. Nevertheless, it is quite serious, amounting in brief to this: the spiritists themselves readily acknowledge that 'bad spirits' mingle in their séances; but if it were only that, one need only scrupulously refrain from spiritist practices. This, in fact, is what the leaders of occultism, and especially the Theosophist leaders, recommend, but without winning the assent of a certain group of their adherents for whom anything of a 'phenomenal' nature possesses an irresistible attraction. We now come to theories that seek to explain these phenomena by the action of living human beings and which Dr Gibier confusedly groups under the heading (improper for some of them) 'theory of the collective being'. The theory that truly merits this name is really grafted upon another, with which it is not necessarily in agreement, and which is sometimes called the 'animist' or 'vitalist' theory. In its commonest form, which is expressed in the definition given by Dr Gibier, this theory could be labeled 'fluidic'. The point of departure is that in man there is something susceptible of exteriorization, that is, of leaving the limits of the body; and many findings indicate that this is indeed the case. We will only recall the experiments of Colonel de Rochas and other psychists on the 'exteriorization of sensibility' and the 'exteriorization of motivity'. To acknowledge this obviously does not imply adherence to any school, but some have felt the need to picture this 'something' as a 'fluid', which they call either 'nervous fluid' or 'vital fluid'. Those in question are naturally the occultists, who in this as in everything else pertaining to 'fluids', have merely followed in the wake of the magnetizers and the spiritists. In fact, this so-called 'fluid' is identical to that of the magnetizers: it is the od of Reichenbach, which some have wanted to link with the 'invisible radiations' of modern physics. [11] It separates from the human body in the form of effluvia, which some believe to have been photographed; but this is another question that is outside our subject. As to the spiritists, we have said that they took this idea of 'fluids' from mesmerism and use it to explain mediumship as well. The divergences arise because the spiritists want a 'spirit' to make use of the exteriorized 'fluid' of the medium, while the occultists and psychists more reasonably suppose that in many cases the 'fluid' itself can be responsible for all aspects of the phenomenon. In fact, if something in man can be exteriorized, no extraneous factors are required to explain such phenomena as knocks or the movement of objects without physical contact, which moreover would not constitute 'action at a distance', since a being is everywhere that it acts. Wherever the action is produced, there the medium who projected something of himself, although no doubt unconsciously. Only those who believe that man is limited absolutely by his body can deny that such a thing is possible, proving that they are familiar only with a very small segment of human possibilities. We are well aware that this supposition is habitual with modern Westerners, but it is justified only by shared ignorance. It amounts to saying that the body is the measure of the soul (we use the words body and soul only to make ourself more easily understood), which in India is one of the heterodox beliefs of the Jains. This is too easily reducible to the absurd for us to insist on it. Is it conceivable that the soul should or even could conform to the quantitative contours of the body, and that, for example the amputation of a limb entails a proportionate diminution of the soul? Moreover, it is difficult to conceive that modern philosophy could pose such a senseless question as that of 'the seat of the soul', as if there were a question of something localizable. And in this respect the occultists are no more exempt from reproach, for they tend to localize all elements of the human being, even after death. As for the spiritists, they keep repeating that the 'spirits' are in 'space' or in what they call 'erracity'. It is precisely this habit of materializing everything that we criticize in the 'fluidic' theory; we would find nothing to fault if, instead of speaking of 'fluids', one simply spoke of 'forces', as do some of the more prudent psychists, or those among them who are less infected with 'neo-spiritualism'. This word 'forces' is no doubt rather vague, but there is no better word in such a situation, and we do not see that ordinary science can offer any greater precision. But let us return to the phenomena by which we can explain exteriorized force. The cases we have mentioned are the most elementary of all, but will it be the same when one finds the mark of a certain intelligence, as for example when the table that moves responds more or less well to questions put to it? We do not hesitate to answer affirmatively for many such cases, for it is rather exceptional that the responses or 'communications' obtained exceed the intellectual level of the medium or those in attendance. The spiritist who, having certain mediumistic faculties, secludes himself for whatever reason in order to consult his table does not suspect that he is simply consulting himself in this roundabout way; nevertheless, this is what most often occurs. In group séances the presence of a number of bystanders complicates matters a bit, for the medium is then not reduced to his own thoughts; on the contrary, his special state renders him eminently open to all forms of suggestions and he can quite easily reflect and express the thoughts of anyone present. Moreover, in this case as well as in the previous one, it is not necessarily a question of a thought that is discernibly conscious at that precise moment, and in any event such a clear thought will hardly be formed unless someone has the definite intention of influencing the responses. What is manifested usually derives rather from that complex region that psychologists call the 'subconscious'. The term 'subconscious' is sometimes abused because it is convenient to appeal to what is obscure and poorly defined, but even so the 'subconscious' corresponds to something real. There is a little of everything in it, however, and psychologists, limited by the means at their disposal, would be hard put if they had to bring it into some kind of order. First of all, there is what can be called 'latent memory': nothing is ever absolutely forgotten, as is proven by abnormal cases of 'reviviscence' which are often attested. It suffices therefore that something had been known to one of those in attendance even if it was thought to have been forgotten completely; and there is no need to search elsewhere when such a 'forgotten memory' is expressed in a spiritist 'communication'. There are also all manner of 'previsions' and 'presentiments' that occur even in normal circumstances and may become clearly conscious with certain persons; many of the spiritists' predictions that prove true must certainly be related to these premonitions-without forgetting that many other premonitions, probably the greater number, do not come to pass and represent nothing more than vague thoughts like those taking form in any reverie. [12] But we will go further: a 'communication' announcing facts really unknown to all those in attendance may nevertheless derive from the subconscious of one of them; for in this respect, too, one is ordinarily far from knowing all the possibilities of the human being. Each one of us can, by this obscure part of ourselves, be in harmony with beings and things we have never known in the usual sense of this word, and innumerable ramifications may be established to which it is impossible to assign definite limits. We are very far here from the conceptions of classical psychology, and it may all seem very strange, especially that the 'communications' may be influenced by the thoughts of absent persons. Nevertheless, we do not hesitate to assert that there is nothing impossible in all this. When the occasion arises, we will return to the question of the 'subconscious'; for the moment, we speak of it only to show the spiritists' imprudence in citing facts of the kind just mentioned as certain proofs of their theory. These last considerations enable us to understand the theory of the 'collective being', at least as to the element of truth it contains. This theory, let us hasten to add, has been admitted by some of the more independent spiritists, who do not believe it indispensable to introduce 'spirits' in every case without exception. Such, for example, are Eugène Nus, the first to have used the expression 'collective being, [13] and Flammarion. According to this theory, the 'collective being' is formed by a kind of combination of the 'perispirits' or 'fluids' of the medium and of those in attendance, and with each séance it is strengthened provided those in attendance remained the same. Occultists seized this conception with so much the more eagerness because they thought they could align it with the ideas of Eliphas Lévi on eggrégores [14] or 'collective entities'. It must be noted, however, in order not to push the assimilation too far, that with Eliphas Lévi it was generally a question of what can be called the 'soul' of some collectivity, a nation for example. The great error of the occultists in cases like this is to take literally certain 'manners of speaking' and to believe that it is really a question of a being comparable to a living creature, which they naturally situate on the 'astral plane'. To return to the 'collective being' of the spiritist séances, we will simply say that, leaving aside all 'fluids', here should be seen only the actions and reactions of the various 'subconsciousnesses' present, which we have just discussed-the effect, that is, of the relationships established between them in a more or less durable manner and which are amplified in the measure that the group becomes more strongly constituted. Moreover, there are cases where the 'subconscious' alone, whether individual or collective, suffices to explain everything without there being the least exteriorization of force on the part of the medium or the bystanders. It is thus for 'incarnating mediums', and even for 'writing mediums'; these states, we repeat, are rigorously identical to somnambulist states (at least when there is no question of a real 'possession', but this latter does not happen so generally). In this connection we will add that the medium's hypnotized subject and a natural somnambulist resemble one another closely. There is an ensemble of psycho-physiological conditions common to both, and their manner of behavior is often the same. We will cite here what Papus says of the relationship between hypnotism and spiritism: A rigorous series of observations led to the conclusion that spiritism and hypnotism were not different fields of study, but rather different degrees of the same order of phenomena. The medium showed numerous points in common with the hypnotic subject, points that so far as I know have not been sufficiently emphasized heretofore. But spiritism leads to experimental results that are much more complete than those of hypnotism. The medium is certainly a subject, but a subject who pushes the phenomena beyond the boundaries presently known in hypnotism. [15] On this point, at least, we are in full agreement with the occultists, although with a few reservations: on the one hand, it is certain that hypnotism can be taken much further than as studied by certain researchers until now, but we see no advantage in extending this designation to include all psychic phenomena without distinction. On the other hand, and as we said above, every phenomenon that is linked to hypnotism thereby escapes spiritism; moreover, the experimental results obtained by spiritist practices do not constitute spiritism itself. Spiritism is defined by theories, not by facts; and it is in this sense that we say that spiritism is only error and illusion. There are still certain categories of phenomena which we have not discussed but which are among those obviously presuming an exteriorization. These are the phenomena known as 'transpositions' or 'materializations'. Transpositions are, in brief, displacements of objects, but with the complication that these objects may come from very distant places; and it often seems that they must pass through material obstacles. If in one way or another the medium emits prolongations of himself in order to act upon objects, great distance counts for nothing in the matter, implying only more highly developed faculties. And if the intervention of 'spirits' or other extra-terrestrial entities is not always necessary, this does not mean that such entities are never involved. The difficulty lies in the real or apparent passage through matter; to explain this, some suppose that there is 'dematerialization' followed by 'materialization' of the object produced. Others construct more or less intricate theories in which a 'fourth dimension' of space plays a leading role. We will not discuss these diverse hypotheses, cautioning only that it is well to be wary of the fantasies that 'hypergeometry' has inspired in neospiritualists of various schools. In cases of the transport of an object it seems preferable to simply envisage 'changes in state', which we will not specify further. And we will add that the impenetrability of matter is only a very relative thing, notwithstanding the beliefs of modern physicists. In any case, it suffices to note that here, too, the supposed action of 'spirits' resolves nothing; once the role of the medium is admitted, it is only logical to seek to explain such facts by properties of the living being. Moreover, for the spiritists the death of the human being entails the loss of certain properties rather than the acquisition of new ones. Finally and apart from any particular theory, the living being is obviously more favorably placed to act on physical matter than is a being whose constitution comprises no element of this matter. As to 'materializations', these are perhaps the rarest of phenomena but also those the spiritists believe most conclusive. How can the presence of a 'spirit' be doubted when it appears in a perfectly empirical manner, when it is enclosed in a form that can be seen, touched, and even photographed (which excludes the hypothesis of hallucination)? Nevertheless, the spiritists themselves recognize that the medium has a role in all this: a kind of substance, at first shapeless and nebulous, seems to separate from the medium's body, and then gradually condense. Everyone admits this, except those who contest the very reality of the phenomenon; but the spiritists add that a 'spirit' then comes and shapes this substance ('ectoplasm' as some psychists call it), gives it its form, and animates it temporarily as a real body. Unfortunately, there are 'materializations' of imaginary persons, just as there are 'communications' signed by Roman heroes. Éliphas Lévi avows that Dunglas Home has evoked phantoms of supposed relatives who have never existed. [16] Cases have been noted in which the 'materialized' forms quite simply copied portraits or fantastic figures borrowed from pictures or designs seen by the medium. Papus tells how at the Congress of Spiritists in 1889 one Donald MacNab showed us a photographic negative of a young girl whom he and six of his friends had been able to touch and whom he had been able to photograph. The lethargic medium was seen at one side of the apparition. Now this materialized apparition was only the material reproduction of an old drawing dating back several centuries, which had greatly impressed the medium in his waking state. [17] On the other hand, if the evoked person is recognized by one of those in attendance it obviously proves that this onlooker had an image of the evoked in his memory, and the observed resemblance could very well derive from this memory. Contrariwise, if no one recognizes the so-called 'disincarnated' one who is presented, the identity cannot be verified and the spiritist argument again collapses. For the rest, Flammarion himself had to acknowledge that the identity of the 'spirits' had never been demonstrated, that even the most remarkable cases leave room for doubt. And how can it be otherwise? Even for a living man it is theoretically, if not practically, almost impossible to provide truly rigorous and irrefutable proofs of his identity. It is necessary therefore to hold to the 'ideoplastic' theory according to which not only the substratum of the 'materialization' derives from the medium, but even its form is due to an idea, or more precisely to a mental image (which may be only subconscious) either from the medium also or from someone else present. All facts of this kind can be explained by this theory, and some cannot be explained otherwise. Let us note in passing that, admitting this theory, it follows that it is not necessarily a case of fraud when 'materializations' appear without relief like the drawings which are their models. This of course does not mean that there are not in fact very frequent frauds, but only that cases such as the latter must be closely examined instead of being prejudged. Moreover, we know that there are more or less complete 'materializations'. Sometimes there are forms which can be touched but remain invisible; there are also apparitions that are incomplete, these being most often forms of hands. These apparitions of isolated hands deserve further attention. Attempts have been made to explain them by saying that since an object is ordinarily seized by the hand, the desire to take hold of an object must necessarily awaken the idea of hand and consequently the mental representation of a hand. [18] Though accepting this explanation in principle, one may consider that it is not altogether adequate, for similar manifestations have been observed in the realm of sorcery, as we have already mentioned concerning the events of Cideville. The 'ideoplastic' theory does not in fact cxclude all outside intervention, as might be believed by those inclined to systematize; it only restricts the number of cases in which such an appeal is made. Notably, it does not exclude the action of living men who nevertheless are not physically present (sorcerers operate in this way), nor that of various forces to which we will return below. Some say that what is exteriorized is the 'double' of the medium; this expression is improper, at least in the sense that the alleged 'double' can take on an appearance quite different from that of the medium himself. For occultists this 'double' is obviously identical with the 'astral body'. There are those who consciously and intentionally try to effect this 'doubling' or 'astral projection', that is, to realize actively what the medium realizes passively, even while they acknowledge that such experiments are extremely dangerous. When the results are not purely illusory and due to simple autosuggestion, they are in any case interpreted incorrectly. We have already said that the 'astral body' is no more admissible than 'fluids'; these are only very grotesque representations that consist in imagining matcrial states which hardly differ from ordinary matter except in the supposition that they have a lesser density. When we speak of a 'subtle state' we mean something entirely different; it is not a body of rarefied matter, not an 'aerosome' according to the term used by some occultists. The 'subtle state' is rather something that is truly 'incorporeal'; we do not know whether it should be called material or immaterial, and it is of little importance, for these words have only a very relative value for one who places himself outside the conventional framework of modern philosophy. Moreover, these preoccupations are entirely foreign to Eastern doctrines, from which perspective alone the matters in question can be properly studied. We wish to make clear that what we are presently alluding to is essentially a state of the living man, for at death the being is changed quite otherwise than by the simple loss of his body, contrary to what the spiritists and even occultists hold. Also, what can be manifested after death can only be regarded as a sort of vestige of the subtle state of the living being; it is no more this state itself than the corpse is the animated organism. During life, the body is the expression of a certain state of the being, but this being has equally and at the same time incorporeal states, among which the one under discussion is nearest the corporeal state. This subtle state discloses itself to an observer as a force or an ensemble of forces rather than as a body, and the corporeal appearance of the 'manifestations' is only an exceptional addition to its ordinary properties. All this has been singularly distorted by occultists, who correctly say that the 'astral plane' is the 'world of forces', but that this in no way prevents bodies being there. Again, it should be said that 'subtle forces' are very different, both in their nature and in their actions, from the forces studied by ordinary physics. As a consequence of these considerations, it is odd to note that even those who claim it is possible to evoke the dead (we mean the real being of the dead) should believe it equally possible, and even easier, to evoke a living being; for in their view the dead have not acquired any new elements and whatever the state in which the dead is presumed to be, this state in comparison with that of the living is never so closely similar as when the living are compared among themselves. It follows that the possibilities of communication, if they exist, could not but be diminished and not augmented. Now it is remarkable that spiritists protest violently against this possibility of evoking a living being and seem to find it particularly formidable for their theory. But we who deny any basis for the spiritist theory recognize on the contrary the possibility of evoking a living being, and we will try and show our reasons a little more clearly. The corpse does not have any properties other than those of the animated organism, of which it retains only certain ones. Likewise, the ob of the Hebrews or the preta of the Hindus cannot have properties that are new in respect to the state of which it is only a vestige. If therefore this element can be evoked, then the living can also be evoked when in the corresponding state. The ob (we use this term for convenience) is not an 'astral corpse'; it is only the occultists who, mixing analogy with identity, have made of it the 'shell' of we have spoken. We repeat that occultists have only collected bits of knowledge which they do not understand. Let it be noted that all traditions agree in recognizing the reality of magical evocation of the ob, whatever name they may give it. In particular, the Hebrew Bible reports the case of the evocation of the prophet Samuel, [19] and if this were not a reality the prohibitions of the practice would be meaningless and insignificant. But let us return to the matter at hand. If a living person can be evoked, there is the difference, as compared with the evocation of the dead, that since the composition of the living person is not dissolved, the evocation will necessarily affect his real being. In this regard, therefore, it can have far graver consequences than in the case of the ob-which is not to say that there are no serious consequences there as well, but only that they are of a different order. On the other hand, the possibility of evocation should be especially realizable when a man is asleep precisely because he is then in a state corresponding to that which can be evoked, at least when he is in really deep sleep, where nothing can reach him and no exterior influence can be brought to bear. This possibility refers only to what can be called the dream state, between waking and deep sleep; and it is also here that the true explanation of the phenomena of dreaming should be sought, an explanation that is impossible both for psychologists and physiologists. It is hardly necessary to say that we do not counsel anyone to attempt the evocation of a living person, and especially that anyone should voluntarily submit to such an experiment. It would be extremely dangerous to provide the least indication publicly that might assist someone to obtain such a result; but what is most unfortunate is that one may happen to obtain the result without having sought it, this being one of the disadvantages of the popularization of the actual practices of the spiritists. We do not wish to exaggerate the importance of this danger, but it is already too much that it exists at all, no matter how exceptional it may be. Here is what a psychist resolutely opposed to the spiritist hypothesis, the engineer Donald MacNab, has to say on this subject: It may happen that in a séance the physical identity of a distant person in psychic rapport with the medium is materialized. If one then acts clumsily, this person may be killed. Many cases of sudden death can be traced to this cause. [20] Elsewhere the same author considers other possibilities of the same kind beyond evocation properly so called: A person some distance away may be psychically present at a séance in such a way as to account very well for the fact that the phantom of that person or any other image in his unconscious, including deceased persons he has known, can be observed. The person in question is generally unaware of the manifestation, but does experience a kind of absence or abstraction. This is less rare than is thought. [21] Let 'unconscious' simply be replaced by 'subconscious' and we will have almost exactly what was said above regarding the obscure ramifications of the human being, which provide an explanation of so many things in spiritist 'communications'. Before going further we will say that the 'materializing medium' is always plunged into this special sleep that the Anglo-Saxons call trance, because his vitality as well as his consciousness is then concentrated in the 'subtle state'. As a matter of fact, this trance is more like an apparent death than ordinary sleep because in it there is a more or less complete dissociation between the 'subtle' and the corporeal states. This is why in all 'materialization' experiments the medium is in constant danger of death, no less than is the occultist who attempts 'doubling'. To avoid this danger it is necessary to have recourse to special means unavailable to either the spiritist medium or the occultist. In spite of all their claims, the 'practical' occultists, just like the spiritists, are naive empiricists who do not know what they are doing. The 'subtle state' that we have mentioned, to which are related not only the general 'materializations', but also all the other manifestations that suppose an 'exteriorization' in any degree whatsoever, carries the name taijasa in Hindu doctrine because Hinduism regards the corresponding principle as being of the nature of the igneous element (tejas), which is both heat and light. This could be understood better through an account of the constitution of the human being as envisaged in Hindu doctrine, but we cannot undertake it here since it would require a special study which we intend to undertake on some other occasion. [22] For the moment we must limit ourselves to noting very summarily some of the possibilities of the 'subtle state', possibilities that go far beyond all the phenomena of spiritism and to which these latter cannot even be compared. Consider for example the following: the possibility of transferring into that state the integral individual consciousness and not merely a portion of the 'subconsciousness', as happens in ordinary sleep and in hypnotic and mediumistic states; the possibility of 'localizing' this state at any place, which is 'exteriorization' properly speaking, and of condensing by this means and in the said place a bodily appearance analogous to the 'materializations' of the spiritists but without the intervention of any medium; the possibility of giving to this appearance either the form of the body (where it would truly merit the name 'double'), or a form corresponding to some mental image; and finally, the possibility of 'transposing' into that state (if one can use such an expression) the constitutive elements of the body itself, which will doubtless seem even more extraordinary than all the rest. It will be noted that some of this can help explain phenomena of 'bilocation', which are among those to which we alluded when we said that there are phenomena which on the surface seem similar in both saints and sorcerers. Explanations are also to be found here of those stories, far too widespread to be without foundation, of sorcerers who go about in the forms of animals; and also why blows to these animal forms have repercussions as real wounds on the body of the sorcerer, as also when the sorcerer's phantom is seen in its natural form (though it may not be seen by all present). On this last point as on many others the Cideville case is particularly striking and instructive. On the other hand, it is to rudimentary and incomplete realizations of the last named possibility that phenomena of 'levitation' should be linked, phenomena of which we have not spoken heretofore (and for which the same observation as for 'bilocation' must be repeated). This is also true for changes of weight reported by mediums (changes that have given certain psychists the absurd illusion of 'weighing the soul'); also changes of state, or at least of modalities, which are produced in 'transpositions'. There are even cases that can be regarded as incomplete 'bilocations'; such are the phenomena of 'telepathy', that is, apparitions of human beings at a distance and produced either during their lives or at the moment of death, apparitions which can present extremely variable degrees of consistency. The possibilities in question, being beyond the domain of ordinary psychism, a fortiori permit explanations of many of the phenomena that psychism studies; but as we shall see, these phenomena represent only attenuated cases reduced to their most mediocre proportions. We speak only of possibilities and agree that there are things on which it is difficult to insist, especially considering the tenor of the modern mentality. For example, who could be made to believe that a human being, under certain conditions, could quit his earthly existence without leaving behind a corpse? Nevertheless, we will call the Bible to witness again: Enoch 'was seen no more, because God took him'; [23] Moses was buried 'in the land of Moab . . . but no one knows his grave to this day'; [24] Elijah mounted up to Heaven 'in a chariot of fire,' [25] which reminds us of the 'fiery vehicle' of the Hindu tradition. If these examples imply the intervention of a transcendent cause, it is nonetheless true that this very intervention presupposes certain possibilities in the human being. Whatever the case, we point out these things only as an occasion for reflection for those capable of it, and to enable them to conceive something of the possibilities of the human being, possibilities so completely unsuspected by most of our contemporaries. For these latter, too, we add that everything related to the 'subtle state' closely touches the very nature of life, which latter the ancients such as Aristotle, in accordance with the Easterners, assimilated to heat itself, the specific property of the element tejas. [26] Further, this element is as it were polarized into heat and light, whence it comes that the 'subtle state' is linked to the corporeal state in two complementary ways: by the nervous system as to the luminous quality, and by the blood as to the caloric quality. In this we have the principles of a whole 'psycho-physiology' which has no connection with that of modern Westerners and of which these latter lack the least notion. And here we must again recall the role of the blood in the production of certain phenomena, its use in various magical and even religious rites, as well as the prohibition of its use as food in traditional law, such as that of the Hebrews. But all this could take us too far afield; moreover, these are not things that can be spoken of without reserve. Finally, the 'subtle state' must not be conceived only in connection with living individuals; as with every other state, it has its correspondences in the cosmic order. It is to this that the mysteries of the 'World Egg', an ancient symbol common to the Druids and the Brahmins, refer. It seems that we are quite far from the phenomena of spiritism; this is true, but with our last remarks we are brought back to it, and can now complete the explanation that we began, for something is still lacking. In each of its states, the living being is in touch with the corresponding cosmic milieu. This is obvious for the corporeal state, but for other states the analogy must also be pointed out here as in all things. True analogy correctly applied, obviously cannot be held responsible for all the abuses of false analogy that are constantly found among occultists. Under the name of the 'astral plane' they have denatured and caricatured the cosmic environment that corresponds to the 'subtle state'. This environment is incorporeal, and the only image a physicist might make of it is as a 'field of forces', and then only with the reservation that these forces are entirely different from all those that he ordinarily manipulates. Here we have something that can explain the alien actions that in certain cases are added to the actions of living beings, uniting with them for the production of phenomena. And here, too, what is most to be feared in formulating theories is the arbitrary limitation of possibilities which are properly indefinite (note that we do not say infinite). The forces that can come into play are diverse and multiple. As long as one is speaking in generalities it matters little whether they are regarded as coming from special beings, or simply as forces more or less in the sense in which the physicist understands the word, for both the one and the other may be true according to circumstances. These forces include those which are by their nature closer to the corporeal world and to physical forces and which consequently will be more easily manifested when they come into contact with the sensible domain by the intermediary of a living organism, that of a medium, for example, or by any other means. Now these forces are precisely the most inferior of all and therefore those whose effects can be the most baneful, and for this reason they should be most carefully avoided. In the cosmic order, they correspond to the lowest regions of the 'subconscious' of the human being; all the forces generically denominated by Far-Eastern tradition as 'wandering influences' must be grouped here. The management of these forces constitutes the most important part of magic; and their manifestation-sometimes spontaneous-gives rise to all kinds of phenomena, of which 'haunting' is the most commonly known. These forces are, in sum, all the non-individualized energies, of which there are naturally many different kinds. Some of them can be truly 'demoniacal' or 'satanic', and it is these notably that are used in sorcery. Furthermore, spiritist practices can often attract them, although involuntarily; the medium is a being whose unfortunate constitution gives him a kind of affinity for all that is least commendable in this world and even in inferior worlds. We must also include in this category of 'wandering influences' all those elements coming from the deceased that may occasion sensible manifestations, for it is a question of elements that are no longer individualized. Such is the ob itself, and such, all the more, are all the psychic elements of lesser importance which are 'the product of the disintegration of the unconscious (or better, "subconscious") of a dead person. [27] Let us add that in the case of a violent death the ob retains for a time a special degree of cohesion and quasi-vitality, and this accounts for a good number of phenomena. We give only a few examples, and repeat that there is no need to show a necessary source for these influences. Whatever their provenance, they can be captured by complying with certain laws; but ordinary researchers who know absolutely nothing of these laws should not be surprised or disappointed if they cannot make the 'psychic forces' obey them. Indeed, these forces sometimes seem to delight in thwarting the most ingenious arrangements of the experimental method. It is not because this force (which moreover is not unitary) is more 'capricious' than another, but because one must know how to direct it; unfortunately, it has other misdeeds to its credit than the tricks it plays on researchers. The magician, who knows the laws of the 'wandering influences', is able to fix them by several procedures, for example, by taking as supports certain substances or certain objects which act as 'condensers'. It goes without saying that there is only a purely outward resemblance between operations of this kind and the action of 'spiritual influences' discussed previously. Conversely, the magician can also dissolve the 'conglomerates' of subtle force, whether these have been formed intentionally by him or by others, or spontaneously; in this regard, the power of points has been known from all time. These two inverse actions are analogous to what alchemy calls 'coagulation' and 'solution'-analogous, but not identical, for the forces put into operation by alchemy and by magic are not of exactly the same order. They constitute the 'summons' and the 'dismissal' by which every operation of Western 'ceremonial magic' opens and closes. But these operations are eminently symbolic, and the worst absurdities result when the 'personification' of these forces is understood in a literal sense, though this is what the occultists do. The truth beneath this symbolism is this: the forces in question can be grouped in different classes, and the classification will depend on the point of view; in the perspective of Western magic these forces are distributed in four 'elementary kingdoms' according to their affinities, and no other origin or real significance for the modern theory of 'elementals' should be sought. [28] On the other hand, in the interval between the two inverse phases, the two extremes of his operation, the magician can lend to the forces he has captured a kind of consciousness, the reflection or prolongation of his own; and this synthesizes them as a temporary individual. It is this artificial individualization that gives the illusion of living beings to empiricists who apply rules they do not understand. The magician knows what he is doing, and if he questions these pseudoindividualities he has raised up at the expense of his own vitality, he can see in this artificial development only a means of rendering visible what his own subconscious already contains in a latent state. The same theory is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to all divinatory procedures whatsoever. The explanation of spiritist 'communications' must be sought here, when simple exteriorizations of the living do not entirely suffice, with the difference that the 'wandering influences' not directed by any will, express themselves in a most incoherent and disordered manner. There is also another difference in the procedures used, for prior to spiritism the use of the human being as a condensor was practiced only by sorcerers of the lowest class; and there is even a third difference, for the spiritists are more ignorant than the least of sorcerers, none of whom have ever pushed ignorance so far as mistaking 'wandering influences' for the 'spirits of the dead'. Before leaving this subject we must add that beyond the mode of action of which we have just spoken and which is the only one known to ordinary magicians, at least in the West, there is another that is completely different, whose principle consists in condensing these influences in oneself in a way that permits one to make use of them at will and to have at one's disposal the permanent possibility of producing certain phenomena. The phenomena of fakirs must be linked to this mode of action; but it must not be forgotten that these fakirs are still only relatively ignorant, and that those who best know the laws of this order of things are also those most completely disinterested in their application. We do not claim that the preceding discussion, abbreviated as it is, constitutes a complete explanation of the phenomena of spiritism; nevertheless, it contains all that is necessary for this explanation, of which we have tried to show at least the possibility before moving on to the proofs of the inanity of spiritist theories. In this chapter we have had to distill considerations which would require several volumes to explain. And again, we emphasize that we would not have done even this if present circumstances had not proven it necessary to oppose certain truths to the mounting flood of 'neospiritualist' deviations. Indeed, these are not things on which we wish to focus our attention, and we are far from experiencing the attraction of the 'intermediary world' to which they refer, the attraction felt by lovers of 'phenomena'. In this area we would not want to go beyond general and synthetic considerations, which alone can be set forth without disadvantage. We believe these explanations, such as they are, go much further than anything to be found elsewhere on the subject; but we must expressly state that they would be of no use to those who might want to experiment or give themselves up to any kind of practices-things which, far from being encouraged in any way, can never be counseled against sufficiently.