THE QUESTION OF SATANISM

AMONG THOSE WHO pride themselves on being more or less 'modern' it is the convention not to speak of the devil without a smile of disdain or an even more contemptuous shrug of the shoulders. There are those who, even while holding certain religious convictions, are nevertheless not the last to adopt such an attitude, perhaps from fear of being considered 'backward', or perhaps in a more sincere manner. These latter are in fact obligated in principle to admit the existence of the devil although they would be quite embarrassed if they had to affirm his effective action, for that would too greatly upset the restricted range of ready-made ideas in which they are accustomed to move. This is an example of that 'practical positivism' alluded to before. Religious conceptions are one thing, but 'ordinary life' is something else, and between the two care is careful to establish a bulkhead as watertight as can be. This is, in fact, as much as to say that one behaves like a veritable unbeliever, though without the logic. But how else can one act in a society as 'enlightened' and as 'tolerant' as our own without running the risk of being treated as one 'deluded'? A certain prudence is no doubt often necessary, but to say prudence is not to say negation 'a priori' and without discernment. Yet in defense of certain Catholic circles we must admit the memory of some only too well known hoaxes, such as Léo Taxil's, is not unrelated to this negation; the pendulum swings from one excess to its opposite. If this is still a ruse of the devil to get people to deny him, it must be agreed that he has not done too badly. For our part, we approach this question of satanism with some repugnance, but not for the kind of reasons we have just indicated. Ridicule of this kind concerns us very little, and since we take a definite stand against the modern mentality in all its forms we do not have to be too ceremonious. But this subject can hardly be treated without stirring up things one would rather leave in the shadows; and one must be resigned to doing this in some measure, for there is a risk that total silence in this regard would be misunderstood.

We do not believe that conscious satanists, that is to say true worshippers of the devil, have ever been very numerous. The _Yézidi_ sect is often cited, but that is an exceptional case and it is still not certain that the matter has been correctly interpreted. Everywhere else one finds only isolated cases, sorcerers of the lowest category, for one must not believe that even more or less straightforward sorcerers or 'black magicians' fall equally under this definition; there may even be among them those who in no way believe in the devil. On the other hand there is also the question of Luciferians; certainly there are such, even apart from the fantastic accounts of Léo Taxil and his collaborator, Dr Hacks; and perhaps some remain in America or elsewhere. If they have established organizations, this would seem to go against what we have just said, although not necessarily, for if men invoke Lucifer and perform his cult it is because they do not consider him the devil but rather the ‘light-bearer',^[1] and we have even heard it said that they go so far as to call him 'the Great Creative Intelligence.' But strange as this may seem to those who do not go to the heart of things, these people, though in fact satanists, are only unconsciously so, for they are mistaken as to the nature of the entity to whom they address their worship. And unconscious satanism in its various degrees is far from rare. As to the Luciferians, we must call attention to a singular error: we have heard that the first American spiritists recognized a relationship with the devil, to whom they gave the name Lucifer. In reality, Luciferians can in no way be spiritists, for spiritism consists essentially in believing in communication with 'disincarnated' humans, and denies the intervention of any other beings in the production of phenomena. Even if it happens that Luciferians use procedures analogous to those of spiritism, they are not thereby spiritists. The thing is possible, though the use of properly magical processes may be more probable. If spiritists for their part receive a 'message' signed by Lucifer or Satan, they do not hesitate for one moment to attribute it to some 'mischievous spirit' since they profess not to believe in the devil, and they are vehement in their denial. To speak to the spiritists of the devil is to risk awakening in them not only disdain but, even more so, fury, which is moreover quite a bad sign. What the Luciferians have in common with spiritists is that they are quite limited intellectually and are equally removed from all truth of a metaphysical order. But they are also limited in another way, and there is incompatibility between the two theories. Naturally this is not to say that the same forces cannot be at work in the two cases, but the respective ideas are completely different.

It is useless to reproduce the spiritists' innumerable denials—or those of the occultists and the Theosophists—on the question of the existence of the devil; one could easily fill a whole volume, which would be monotonous and without great interest. We have already seen that Allan Kardec taught that 'bad spirits' will improve progressively; for him, both angels and demons alike are human beings, though found at the two extremes of the 'spiritual scale.' And he adds that Satan is only 'the personification of evil in allegorical form.'^[2] For their part, occultists appeal to a symbolism which they hardly understand and which they accommodate to their fantasies; furthermore, they generally class demons with 'elementals' rather than with the 'disincarnated'. They at least admit beings that do not belong to the human species, and this is already something. But here is the somewhat unconventional opinion (not fundamentally so, but by the appearance of erudition in which it is clothed) of Charles Lancelin, whom we have already mentioned. He summarizes as follows 'the result of his research' on the question of the existence of the devil, to which moreover he has devoted special works:^[3]

The devil is only a phantom and symbol of evil. Primitive Judaism was ignorant of him; moreover, the tyrannical and bloody Jehovah of the Jews had no need of this foil. The legend of the angels' fall is found in the _Book of Enoch_, long recognized as apocryphal and of late composition. During the great captivity of Babylon, Judaism received the impression of evil divinities from oriental religions, but this idea remained popular and did not penetrate into dogma. Lucifer is still the morning star and Satan an angel, a child of God. Later, if Christ speaks of the Evil One and of the devil, it is simply to accommodate the popular ideas of his time. But for him the devil did not exist. . . . In Christianity, the vindictive Jehovah of the Jews became a Father of goodness. From that time, next to him, other divinities became divinities of evil. As it developed, Christianity came into contact with Hellenism and from it received the idea of Pluto and the Furies, and especially of Tartarus, which it adapted to its own ideas, confusedly assimilating all the bad divinities of Greco-Roman paganism and of the various other religions with which it came into contact. But the devil was really born in the Middle Ages. In that period of incessant turmoil without law and without restraint, the clergy were led to make the devil the gendarme of society in order to check the powerful. They revived the idea of the Evil One and the divinities of evil, blending them all in the personality of the devil and making him the bugbear of kings and people. But this idea, of which he was the representative, gave him an unquestionable power; he was rapidly caught in his own snare, and from that time on the devil existed. In the current of modern times his personality was affirmed, and in the seventeenth century he reigned as master. Voltaire and the encyclopedists began the reaction; the idea of the demon declined, and today many enlightened priests regard him simply as a symbol. . . .^[4] It goes without saying that these 'enlightened' priests are all plainly modernists and that the spirit animating them is strangely similar to that affirmed in these lines. This more than fanciful manner of writing history is quite curious, but all told it is the same as that of the official representatives of the so-called 'science of religions.' It is clearly inspired by the same 'critical' methods and the results do not differ greatly. One must be quite naive to take seriously men who make the texts say everything they want them to say, and who always find the means to interpret them in conformity with their own prejudices.

But let us return to what we call unconscious satanism, and to avoid all error let us say first of all that a satanism of this kind may be purely mental and theoretical, implying no attempt to have dealings with any entities whatsoever, the existence of which is in many cases not even considered. It is in this sense that every theory that notably disfigures the Divinity should in some measure be regarded as satanic; and conceptions of a limited God and of a God who evolves should here be placed in the front rank. Moreover, the one is only a particular case of the other, because to suppose that a being can evolve obviously requires that it be conceived as limited. In this context we say 'a being' because in such conditions God cannot be Universal Being but only a particular and individual being, implying a certain 'pluralism' wherein Being in a metaphysical sense can find no place. All 'immanentism' more or less openly submits the Divinity to becoming. This may not be apparent in older forms such as the pantheism of Spinoza, and perhaps this consequence was contrary to Spinoza's intention (there is no philosophical system that does not contain, at least in germ, some internal contradiction). In any case, all this is very clear in Hegel, that is to say ever since evolutionism made its appearance; and in our own times the conceptions of the modernists are particularly significant in this respect. Today the idea of a limited God has many avowed supporters, either in the sects mentioned at the end of the previous chapter (the Mormons go so far as to maintain that God is a corporeal being, assigning him a definite place of residence, the imaginary planet _Colob_), or in certain currents of philosophy, from the 'personalism' of Renouvier to the ideas of William James, which the novelist Wells tries to popularize.^[5] Renouvier denied the metaphysical Infinite because he confused it with the mathematical pseudo-infinite. For James it is quite otherwise, his theory taking its point of departure in a thoroughly Anglo-Saxon 'moralism. From the sentimental point of view it is advantageous to represent God as an individual, with moral qualities comparable to our own. It is therefore this anthropomorphic conception which must be held as true according to the pragmatist attitude, which consists essentially in substituting utility (whether moral or material) for truth. Furthermore and in conformity with the tendencies of the Protestant mind, James confuses religion with simple religiosity, that is to say he sees nothing in it but the sentimental element. But in the case of James there is something more serious still, and this above all concerns what we have said regarding 'unconscious satanism, an expression which so exasperated some of his admirers, especially in Protestant circles mentally disposed to receive such ideas.^[6] It is James's theory of 'religious experience' which makes him see in the ‘subconscious' the means by which man communicates with the Divine. It will be agreed that it is only a step from there to condoning the practices of spiritism, conferring on them an eminently religious character, and to considering mediums as the instruments _par excellence_ of this communication. Among widely diverse elements, the 'subconscious' incontestably contains all that which, in the human individual, constitutes traces or vestiges of the inferior states of being and with which it most surely puts man in contact, that is to say everything in our world that represents these same inferior states. Thus, to claim that this is a communication with the Divine is really to put God in the inferior states of being, _in inferis_ in the literal sense of this expression.^[7] This then is a properly ‘infernal' doctrine, a reversal of universal order, which is precisely what we call ‘satanism.’ But as this clearly is not intended, and as those who advance or accept such theories do not take into account their enormity, it is only an unconscious satanism.

Satanism, even when conscious, is always characterized by a reversal of the normal order; it is the exact opposite of orthodox doctrine, and intentionally inverts certain symbols or formulas. Sorcerers' practices are in many cases only religious practices accomplished in reverse. Some very curious things could be said regarding the reversal of symbols, and although we cannot deal with the matter at present, we can say that it is a sign that rarely deceives. We note too that whether this reversal is intentional or not indicates whether the satanism is conscious or unconscious.^[8] Thus in the 'Carmeleen' sect founded long ago by Vintras, the use of an upside down cross is a sign that at first glance appears eminently suspect. It is true that this sign was interpreted as indicating that the reign of 'Christ suffering' must henceforth give way to that of 'Christ glorified'; also, it is quite possible that Vintras himself was only a completely unconscious satanist in spite of all the phenomena that occurred around him and which clearly arose from a 'diabolical mysticism.' But perhaps as much cannot be said of some of his disciples and more or less legitimate successors. Moreover, this question would require a special study, which would help shed considerable light on a host of 'preternatural' manifestations throughout the course of the nineteenth century. Whatever the case, there is certainly more than a nuance between ‘pseudo-religion’ and ‘counter-religion,’ and it is necessary to guard against unjustified comparisons. But between 'pseudo-religion', and 'counter-religion' there can^[9] be many degrees by which a passage from one to the other is almost insensibly effected without the movement being perceived. This is one of the special dangers inherent to any encroachment, even involuntary, on the properly religious domain. When one starts down a slope such as this it is almost impossible to know just where one will stop, and it is very difficult to get hold of oneself before it is too late.

We have explained the satanic character of certain conceptions which are not normally so considered, and this in turn entails complementary considerations which we consider indispensable for the reason that too many people do not know how to distinguish between domains that are nevertheless essentially and profoundly separate. What we have just said naturally alludes to the metaphysical theory of the multiple states of the being, and it is this that justifies the language we have used, for all that is said theologically of the angels and demons can also be said metaphysically of the superior and inferior states. This is quite remarkable at the very least, and there is a 'key' here, as the occultists say; but the arcana which this key opens are not within their competence. This is an example of what we have said elsewhere,^[10] that every theological truth can be transposed into metaphysical terms; but the reverse does not hold true, for there are metaphysical truths not susceptible of translation into theological terms. On the other hand there is never anything between the two but correspondence, and not identity, nor even equivalence. The difference of language marks a real difference of perspective, and as long as things are not envisaged under the same aspect they do not relate to the same domain. Universality, which characterizes metaphysics alone, is in no way found in theology. What metaphysics properly considers are the possibilities of the being, and of every being, in all states; and of course in superior and inferior states as well as in the present state there may be non-human beings, or more exactly, beings whose possibilities do not specifically include human individuality. But the latter, which seems to be of especial interest for the theologian, does not have the same import for the metaphysician, for whom it suffices to admit that it must be so once it is an effective possibility, and because no arbitrary limitation is compatible with metaphysics. Moreover, if there is a manifestation of which the principle is in a certain state, it is of little importance whether that manifestation must be referred to this being rather than to another among those situated in this state, and in truth, it may not be connected with any determined being whatsoever. It is the state alone that is to be considered, in the measure that we perceive in the state wherein we find ourselves something like a reflection or a vestige, whether of a state superior or inferior to our own. It is important to stress the point that such a manifestation, whatever its nature, translates only indirectly what pertains to another state. This is why we say it has its principle rather than its immediate cause in that other state. These remarks make possible an understanding of what we have said regarding 'wandering influences, some of which can truly be taken as 'satanic' or 'demonic', whether one regards them as pure and simple forces or as the means of action used by certain beings in the proper sense.^[11]

Either may be true according to a given case, and we must leave the door open to all possibilities. Yet this changes nothing as to the intrinsic nature of the influences in question. This shows to what degree we intend to abstain from all theological discussion, which is not to say that we do not fully recognize the legitimacy of this point of view. And even when we use certain theological terms, basing ourselves on real correspondences, we only borrow a means of expression appropriate to making ourselves more readily understood—which is our right. That being said in order to put things in focus and to anticipate as much as possible the confusions of ignorant or evil-intentioned men, it is no less true that if they see fit, theologians can make use of the considerations here set forth for the benefit of their point of view. As for others, if there are some who fear words, they will have to find another name for what we will persist in calling the devil or the demon, because we do not see in this any serious disadvantage and because we will probably be better understood than if we introduced a less commonly used terminology, which would merely be a perfectly useless complication.

The devil is not only terrible, he is often grotesque; let each one take this according to his own understanding. But as to those who may be astonished or scandalized by such an assertion, let them refer to the absurd details inevitably found in every account of sorcery and then relate these to the inept manifestations which spiritists foolhardily attribute to the 'disincarnate'. Here is one sample taken from among thousands:

A prayer is read to the spirits and everyone places his hands either on the table or on the pedestal nearby; then the room is darkened.... The table oscillates a little, by which Mathurin announces his presence.... Suddenly a violent scratching, as of a steel claw, scratched the table under our hands, making all of us start with surprise. From this point the phenomena began. Violent blows were struck on the floor near a window in a corner inaccessible to us, then a materialized finger roughly scratched my forearm. An icy hand touched my two hands, one after the other. The hand became warm; it tapped my right hand and tried to take my ring but was unable to do so. . . . It took my cuff and threw it on the knees of the person opposite me; I did not recover it until the end of the séance. My wrist was pinched between the thumb and index finger of the invisible hand. The bottom of my jacket was pulled down; several times fingers drummed my right thigh. A finger inserted itself under my right hand, which lay flat on the table and somehow—I do not know how—scratched the palm of my hand.... At each of these exploits Mathurin, who seemed enchanted with himself, rolled over on the table near our hands. On several occasions he asked us to sing; he even explained by knocks the parts he preferred, and these were sung. . . . Before the séance a glass of water containing sugar, a carafe of water, a glass, a small carafe of rum, and a small spoon had been placed on the dining room table near the window. We marvelled to hear the creature approach, put some water, then some rum, into the glass, and open the sugar bowl. Before putting sugar in the grog being prepared, the entity took two morsels of sugar, all the while producing strange sparks by rubbing the morsels together. Then she^[12] returned to the grog after having thrown the two rubbed morsels on the table and took some sugar from the bowl to put into the glass. We heard the spoon turn, and knocks announced that I was to be offered the drink. To make it more difficult I turned my head so that Mathurin, if he sought my mouth, would find only my ear. But I underrated my guest; the glass came in search of my mouth, which it found without delay, and the grog was delivered brusquely but impeccably, with not a drop spilled. . . . These are the facts which for almost fifteen years were produced every Sat-urday, with but few variations. . ..^[13]

It would be difficult to imagine something more puerile; more than naïveté is necessary to believe that the dead return to indulge in these jokes in poor taste. And what should we think of this 'prayer to the spirits' which begins such a séance? The grotesque character of all this is obviously the mark of something of a very low order. Even when the source is within the human being (we understand this as applying to 'entities' artificially formed and more or less enduring), it surely comes from the lowest regions of the ‘subconscious'. And all spiritism, including both its practices and theories, is stamped with this character to a more or less marked degree. We make no excep-tion for what is more 'elevated', as the spiritists say, in the 'commu-nications' they receive. Those claiming to express ideas are either absurd or unintelligible, or of a banality which only completely uncultivated men could fail to see; for the rest, they consist of the most ridiculous sentimentality. Surely, it is not necessary to intro-duce the devil to explain such productions, which are in fact on the level of the human 'subconscious'; if the devil consented to mix in this, he would certainly have no trouble doing much better. It is even said that when he wishes the devil can be quite a good theologian, but it is true nevertheless that he always lets slip some bit of stupidity, which is his signature as it were. And we will add that only one domain is rigorously forbidden him, that of pure metaphysics. This is not the place to indicate the reasons for this, although those who have understood the preceding explanations can divine some of them without much difficulty. But let us return to the wanderings of the 'subconscious': it suffices that this latter may contain 'demonic' elements in the sense that we have used, and that these may be capable of placing man in involuntary contact with influences which, even if they are only unconscious forces in themselves, are nonetheless themselves 'demonic' as well; we hold that this is enough for the same character to be expressed in some of the 'communications' in question. These 'communications' are not necessarily those which are distinguished by the crudity of their language, as is frequently the case; it can sometimes happen that these are also those before which the spiritists fall in admiration. In this connection there are marks rather difficult to distinguish at first view; here, too, it may be a simple signature, so to speak, constituted by the very tone of the whole, or by some special formula, or by a certain phraseology. And there are terms and formulas which are in fact found almost everywhere and which go beyond the atmosphere of this or that particular group, seemingly imposed by some will that exercises a more general action. We simply note this without intending to draw precise conclusions, preferring to leave discourse on this subject to proponents of the 'third mysticism,' that 'human mysticism' imagined by the imperfectly converted Protestant Görres (whose mentality in certain aspects remained Protestant and 'rationalist'). For ourselves, if we had to pose the question in the theological arena, it would not be done entirely in this way since it is a question of elements that are properly 'infra-human' and therefore representative of other states, even if they are included in our humanity. But again, this is not our affair.

The things to which we have just alluded are encountered especially in 'communications' of a particularly moral character, which moreover describes the greater number. Many people will feel indignant that the devil is brought into this, however indirectly, and that it is being said that the devil can preach morality—this even being an argument spiritists frequently employ against their adversaries who support the 'demoniac' theory. Here, for example, are the terms in which a spiritist—at the same time a Protestant pastor—expresses himself, words which by reason of their double quality merit some attention:

> It is said in the Churches: but these spirits that manifest themselves are demons, and it is dangerous to come into contact with the devil. I do not have the honor of knowing [sic] the devil, but let us suppose he exists. What I know of him is that he has a well-established reputation, that of being very intelligent, very malicious, and at the same time of not being an essentially good and charitable personage. Now, if the communications come to us from the devil, how does it happen that they have a character so elevated, so beautiful, so sublime that they could quite well figure in cathedrals and in the preaching of the most eloquent religious orators. How does it happen that the devil, if he is so evil and so intelligent, applies himself in so many circumstances to furnishing those who communicate with him, the most consoling and the most moral instructions? Therefore, I do not believe that I am in communication with the devil.^[14]

This argument makes no impression whatsoever on us, in the first place because, if the devil can be a theologian when it is to his advantage, he can _a fortiori_ be a moralist, which does not demand as much intelligence; one can even accept with some plausibility that he adopts this disguise in order to better deceive men and make them accept false doctrines. Next, 'consoling' and 'moralizing' are in our view precisely of the most inferior order, and one must be blinded by certain prejudices to find them 'elevated' and 'sublime.' To place morality above everything else, as do the Protestants and spiritists, is again to reverse the normal order of things. This itself is therefore 'diabolic,' which is not to say that all who think in this way are in effective communication with the devil.

There is something more to say in this connection: those circles where morality is continuously preached are often the most immoral in practice; explain it as you will, it is a fact. For us, the quite simple explanation is that everything touching this sphere inevitably brings into play what is lowest in human nature. It is not without reason that the notions of good and evil are inseparable from one another and cannot exist except by their opposition. But if an incurable bias has not closed their eyes, let those who admire morality at least see whether in spiritist circles there are not many things that might feed the indignation they so readily manifest. If those who have frequented these groups can be believed, there is much that is very unsavory underneath the surface. F.-K. Gaboriau, then director of _Lotus_ (and who some while later left the Theosophical Society) responded to attacks appearing in various spiritist publications^[15] thus:

Spiritist works teach and promote passivity, that is to say blindness, the weakening, both physically and morally, of the unfortunate beings whose nervous system and psyche are kneaded and mangled in the séances where all the worst and most grotesque passions break out.... We could, in retaliation, if retaliation were allowed in Theosophy, publish a series of articles on spiritism, unfolding in _Lotus_ all the grotesque and hideous stories we know of (and do not forget that we, the phenomenalists, have all been part of it), showing all the celebrated mediums with their hand in the bag (which would take from them only their sanctity, not their authenticity); we could cruelly analyze the publications of Bérels,^[16] and they are legion; we could explain all that is in _La Spirite_, the book of Hucher; we could revisit the story of the underside of spiritism, copy advertisements for houses of prostitution from the American spiritist magazines, recount in detail horrors of every kind which have occurred and still occur in murky materialization séances in America, England, India, and France; in a word, we could perhaps perform a useful task of cleansing. But we prefer to keep quiet and not trouble minds already sufficiently troubled.^[17]

In spite of his reserve, here is a very clear witness and one who cannot be doubted, for it is that of a 'neo-spiritualist' who, having gone through spiritism, is quite well informed. We have more recent ones of the same kind, like that of Jollivet-Castelot, an occultist who has occupied himself with alchemy as well as with psychism, and who long ago broke with the school of Papus, to which he had belonged at the outset. This was at a moment when there was some noise in the press about the incontestable frauds that had been discovered in materialization experiments involving Mme Julliette Alexandre-Bisson (widow of the celebrated writer of vaudeville) and Dr von Schrenck-Notzing, pursued with a medium designated mysteriously only as Eva C... The spiritists were angered when, in a letter published in _Le Matin_, Jollivet-Castelot revealed that Eva C... or Carrière (who had also been known as Rose Dupont) was in fact none other than Marthe Béraud, who had already duped Dr Richet at the villa Carmen in Algiers and was the very same person whom other official savants wanted to experiment with in a laboratory at the Sorbonne.^[18] Mr Chevreuil, in particular, heaped insults on Jollivet-Castelot,^[19] who, pushed to the limit, brutally unveiled the unspeakable morés of certain spiritist circles—'the sadism mixed with fraud, credulity, and the unfathomable foolishness found among many mediums . . . and experimenters.' He used terms too crude for us to reproduce here, so we will cite only these lines:

It is certain that the source is often impure. These nude mediums, these examinations of small 'hiding places, these precise touches of materialized phantoms, translate into eroticism rather than a miracle of spiritism and psychism. I believe that if the spirits returned, it would be in a manner other than this.^[20] Thereupon, Chevreuil cried: I do not want even to pronounce the name of the author who, Psychotic with Hatred [sic], has drowned himself in filth; his name no longer exists for us.^[21] But this rather comic indignation cannot take the place of a refuta- tion; the accusations remain intact, and we have every reason to believe that they are well founded. During this time the spiritists discussed the question of whether children should be admitted to séances. It seems that in 'Fraternism' they are excluded from gather- ings where experiments are conducted; but to make up for this, 'courses of kindness' [sic] have been instituted for them.^[22] On the other hand, Paul Bodier declared quite plainly in a conference of the 'French Society for the Study of Psychic Phenomena' that 'per- haps nothing could be more injurious than to allow children to attend experimental séances, which are held almost everywhere,' and that 'experimental spiritism must not be approached until ado- lescence.'^[23] Those spiritists who are somewhat reasonable, there- fore, fear the nefarious influence that their practices cannot fail to exercise on the minds of children; but does not this avowal consti- tute a real condemnation of these practices, whose effect on adults is hardly less deplorable? In fact, spiritists always insist that the study of [spiritist] phenomena as well as the theories by which they explain them, be open to all without exception. Nothing is more contrary to their thinking than to consider that these things should be reserved to a kind of elite that might be better protected against the dangers involved. On the other hand, the exclusion of children — which may astonish those familiar with the propagandist tendencies of spiritism—is only too well explained when one recalls all the more than dubious things which occur in certain séances, and on which we have offered undeniable testimony.

Another question which casts a strange light upon the mores of some spiritist and occultist circles and which, furthermore, is directly connected to the question of satanism, is that of the incubus and the succubus. We alluded to this when we spoke of an inquiry made in a rather unexpected manner into the 'sex of the spirits'. In publishing the response of Ernest Bosc on this subject, the editors of _Fraterniste_ added this note:

Mr Legrand of Institute no. 4 [this being the name of a frater-niste group] called our attention at the beginning of March [1914] to the case of a young woman of eighteen years, a virgin who since the age of twelve has submitted to the passion of an incubus every night. The matter was supported by stupefying and detailed evidence.^[24]

Unfortunately, we are not told whether, contrary to the rule, this young woman frequented spiritist séances; in any event she evidently found herself in a favorable milieu for such manifestations. We will not judge whether this was only breakdown and hallucination or whether something else was involved. But the case is not isolated: Ernest Bosc, even while rightly declaring that it is not a question of 'disincarnates', assured the reader that 'widows as well as young women had made absolutely stunning confidences' to him. However he prudently added: 'But we cannot speak of this here, for this constitutes a true esoteric and incommunicable secret.' This last statement is quite simply monstrous. The truly incommunicable secrets, those meriting the name 'mysteries' in the proper sense of the word, are of an entirely different nature; and they are such only because all words are powerless to express them. True esoterism has absolutely nothing in common with these unsavory matters.^[25]

There are other occultists who are far less reserved on this subject than Bosc; we know one who has gone so far as to publish in a brochure a 'practical method for incubus and succubus', where it is really only a matter of autosuggestion pure and simple. We will not dwell on this point, but if some should insist on more precise details, we charitably warn them that they will regret it. We have known only too long about certain persons who today pose as 'grand masters' of this or that pseudo-initiatic organization, and who would be better advised to remain in obscurity. We do not willingly elaborate on subjects of this nature, but we cannot neglect to point out that there are those who feel an unhealthy need to mix these things with occultist studies and so-called mysticism. It is well to state as much, if only to make known the mentality of such people. Naturally one must not generalize, but these cases are much too numerous in 'neo-spiritualist' circles to be purely accidental. And there is yet another danger to point out, which is that it really seems that 'neo-spiritualist' circles are prone to produce all these sorts of breakdown, but even when nothing more than that is involved, is the epithet 'satanic', taken in a figurative sense if one prefers, too strong to characterize something so unhealthy?

There is also another particularly serious affair on which a few words must be said. In 1912 the Chevalier Le Clément de Saint Marcq, then president of the 'Belgian Spiritist Federation' and of the 'International Office of Spiritism', published a vile brochure entitled _L'Eucharistie_, meretriciously representing it as an 'historical study', which he dedicated to Emmanuel Vauchez, former colleague of Jean Macé at the 'French League for Education'. In a letter inserted at the beginning of the brochure Emmanuel Vauchez stated 'on the part of superior minds' that 'Jesus was not at all proud of the role the clergy had him play'. One can judge from this the peculiar mentality of these men, who are simultaneously eminent spiritists and directors of associations of free-thinkers. Thousands of free copies of the pamphlet were distributed as propaganda. The author attributed to the Catholic clergy, and even to all clergy, practices the nature of which cannot be detailed; he claimed not to blame anyone, but saw in these practices a secret of the greatest importance from the religious and even political points of view, however unlikely that may seem. The scandal was very great and many spiritists themselves quite indignant in Belgium,^[26] where numerous groups quit the Federation; the resignation of the President was demanded, but the committee declared its solidarity with him. In 1913 Le Clément de St Marcq undertook a round of conferences at various centers in the course of which he was to explain his thinking, but he only succeeded in poisoning things further. The question was submitted to the International Spiritist Congress in Geneva, which formally condemned the brochure and its author.^[27] Le Clement de St Marcq was forced to resign, and along with those who had followed him in retirement, he formed a new sect called 'Sincerism', whose agenda he formulated in these terms:

True morality is the art of bringing peace to conflicts: religious peace, by the disclosure of mysteries and the alleviation of the dogmatic character of the Churches' teaching; international peace, by the federal union of all civilized nations in an elective monarchy; industrial peace, by sharing management among capital, labor, and the public; social peace, by the renunciation of luxury and by applying surplus revenue to works of charity; individual peace, by the protection of maternity and the repression of all manifestations of the sentiment of jealousy.^[28]

The brochure on _L'Eucharistie_ had already sufficiently demonstrated in what sense the 'disclosure of the mysteries' must be understood. As to the last article in the program, although it was intentionally framed in equivocal terms, it can be understood without difficulty by reference to the theories of those favoring 'free union'. It was in 'Fraternism' that Le Clément de St Marcq found his most ardent defenders. Without going so far as to approve his ideas, one of the leaders of this sect, Paul Pillault, pleaded irresponsibility and found this excuse: As a psychosist, I must declare that I do not believe in the responsibility of Le Clément de St Marcq, who is a very accessible instrument of diverse psychoses, just like any other human being. Having been influenced, he had to write this brochure and publish it; moreover, it is in the tangible and visible part that the cause must be sought, that the action producing the content of the incriminated brochure must be found.^[29]

It should be noted that 'Fraternism', which is fundamentally only spiritism with a very strong Protestant bent, gives the name 'psychosia' or 'psychosic philosophy' to its particular doctrine. The 'psychoses' are 'invisible influences' (the barbarous term 'influencism' is also used), of which there are good ones and bad ones, and all their séances begin with an invocation to the _‘Good Psychose.’_^[30] This theory is pushed to the point that it even suppresses man's free will almost completely. It is certain that the liberty of an individual being is something relative and limited, as is the being himself, but this must not be exaggerated. In a certain measure and especially in a case such as the one in question, we readily admit the work of various kinds of influences, but they are not those the spiritists imagine. In the final analysis, however, Le Clément de St Marcq is not, so far as we know, a medium, but merely plays the role of a purely passive and unconscious instrument. Moreover, even among the spiritists not everyone excused him so easily. For their part, the Belgian Theosophists (to their credit, it must be said) were among the first to voice vehement protests, although unfortunately this attitude was not entirely disinterested for it occurred at the time of the Madras scandals^[31] and Le Clément de St Marq had judged it advantageous to cite in support of his thesis theories of which Leadbeater had been accused; there was thus an urgent to repudiate such a compromising solidarity. On the other hand, another Theosophist, Theodore Reuss, Grand-Master of the 'Order of Oriental Templars,' wrote to Le Clément de St Marcq these revealing lines (we scrupulously retain his jargon): 'I address to you two brochures: Oriflammes,^[32] in which you will find that the Order of Oriental Templars has the same awareness that is found in the brochure _Eucharistie_. In _Oriflammes_, published in 1912, we in fact find this, which clarifies the question:

Our Order possesses the key to all the Masonic and Hermetic mysteries: this is the doctrine of sexual Magic, a doctrine which explains, leaving nothing obscure, all the enigmas of nature, all Masonic symbolism, all the religious systems.

In this connection, we must say that Le Clément de St Marcq was a high level dignitary of Belgian Masonry, and one of his compatriots, Herman Boulenger, wrote in a Catholic journal:

Is Masonry still enamored of having such an extraordinary exegete of its own? I do not know. But as he declares that his doctrine is also the secret of the sect (and by my faith, although I do not know his processes of documentation, I can believe that he is very well placed to know), his presence there is terribly compromising, especially for those members who have risen up publicly against such aberrations.^[33]

It hardly needs saying that there is absolutely no basis for the claims of Le Clément de St Marcq and Theodore Reuss. It is truly tiresome that some Catholic writers have believed they must admit such a thesis as their own, either as concerns Masonry or as concerns the mysteries of antiquity, without perceiving that they only weaken their own position (likewise, when they accept a fanciful identification of magic and spiritism); in reality one can only see in these things the divagations of sick minds that are more or less ‘psycho-sed' as the Fraternists say, or 'obsessed' as we would more simply put it. Allusion was made to Le Clément de St Marcq's 'processes of documentation'; these processes, wherein the most notorious dishonesty is evident, brought forth a number of denials on the part of those whom he had imprudently implicated. It was thus that he had claimed the support of 'a still active Catholic priest', citing a sentence so out of context as to give it an entirely different meaning than that intended, and which he called 'a formidable confirmation'.^[34] The priest in question, Father J.-A. Petit, whom we have mentioned previously, hastened to rectify the matter, doing so in these terms:

> The sentence is this: 'Your thesis rests on a primordial truth which to my knowledge you have been the first to bring before the public. Presented in this way, the sentence seems to approve the thesis put forth by Le Chevalier Clément de St Marcq. But it is of essential importance that every misunderstanding be dispelled. What is this primordial truth? Catholics claim that in the Eucharist it is the very body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary and crucified, which is present under the appearances of bread and wine. Le Clément de St Marcq said 'no', and in my view he is right. Christ cannot claim to place his body there, especially his crucified body, as the institution of the Sacrament preceded the crucifixion. Christ is present in the Eucharist by the vital principle which was incarnated in the Virgin; this is what Le Clément de St Marcq was the first, to my knowledge, to make public, and which I call a 'primordial truth'. On this point we are in agreement; but the coincidence of our ideas ends there. Le Clément de St Marcq introduces a human element, and I introduce a spiritual element, with all the range that St Paul attributes to this word,^[35] so that we are at the antipodes of one another. . . . I am his declared adversary, as my recent refutation of his brochure testifies.^[36]

As it happens, these personal interpretations of Father Petit seem hardly less heterodox than his claim that the 'resurrection of the flesh' signifies reincarnation; and then too can he himself be entirely honest in introducing the word 'crucified,' as he does regarding the body of Christ present in the Eucharist? In any case, it takes much good will to declare oneself in agreement, even on a single point, with Le Clément de St Marcq, for whom Jesus is only a man, though his response nonetheless constitutes a formal denial. Elsewhere, Msgr Ladeuze, rector of the University of Louvain, addressed the following letter to the _Revue Spirite Belge_ on April 19, 1913:

Your number of March 1, 1913 has been sent to me, in which allusion is made to a passage in the brochure _L'Eucharistie_ launched by Le Clément de Saint-Marcq, where the latter cites one of my works in order to prove the existence of revolting practices involving the sacrament of the Eucharist. I will not lower myself so far as to enter into discussion with Le Clément de Saint Marcq on such a base subject. I only pray you to advise your readers that in order to interpret my text as it was interpreted it would have been necessary either to be dishonest or ignorant of the Latin language to the point of knowing nothing of it. The author had me say, for example (I chose this example because it is possible to speak of it without sullying myself, since at this point the author did not introduce into my words the sickening theory in question): '_Lies can never be permitted unless to avoid a greater temporal evil._' In the passage alluded to I had actually said: '_Falsehood is never permitted, not even to avoid the greatest temporal evils._' Here is the Latin text: _Dicendum est illud nunquam, ne ad maxima quidem temporalia mala vitanda, fieri posse licitum._ A fourth-year Latin student could not misunderstand the sense of this text.

After all this, the label 'Sincerism' seems rather ironic, and we can end the discussion of what Herman Boulenger has called

a scabrous story in which any reader who is at all up-to-date in mystical theology can recognize the traditional characteristics of diabolic action in the things revealed to him.^[37] We will only add that the discord occasioned in Belgian spiritism by this affair was short-lived. On April 26, 1914, the inauguration of the 'House of Spirits' took place in Brussels; the ‘Kardecist League' and the 'Sincerest Federation' had been invited. Two discourses were given, the first by Mr Fraikin, the new president of the 'Spiritist Federation', and the second by Le Clément de Saint Marcq; the reconciliation was thereby effected.^[38]

We have desired only to put forth some facts which each reader can appraise as he will. Theologians will probably see herein something more and other than simple ‘moralists' might find. As for ourselves, we do not want to push things to extremes, and it is not for us to pose the question of a direct and 'personal' action of satan. But this is of little importance, for when we speak of 'satanism', this is not necessarily how we understand matters. Ultimately, questions of 'personification, if one may so express oneself, are perfectly immaterial from our point of view. What we wish to say is in reality quite independent of this particular interpretation as well as of all others, of which we do not intend to exclude any, on the sole condition that they correspond to a possibility. In any case, what we see in all this, and more generally in spiritism and other analogous movements, are influences that incontestably come from what some have called the 'sphere of the Antichrist'. This designation can also be taken symbolically, but that changes nothing in reality and does not render the influences less ill-omened. Assuredly, those who participate in such movements, and even those who believe they direct them, may know nothing of these things. This is where the greatest danger lies, for quite certainly many of them would flee in horror if they knew they were servants of the 'powers of darkness'. But their blindness is often irremediable and their good faith even helps draw in other victims. Does not this allow us to say that the supreme craft of the devil, however he may be conceived, is to make us deny his existence?