THE INTELLECTUAL-MORAL ARISTOCRACY OF THE FUTURE.

Aristocracy comes from the Greek aristos, the best, and kratos, power. Aristocracy, therefore, in its literal sense, means: power of the best. It must be conceded that the primitive sense has at times been singularly distorted; but let us see what influence Spiritism can exert on its application. To that end, let us take things at the point of departure and follow them through the ages, in order to deduce from them what will happen later on.

At no time, nor in the bosom of any people, have men, in society, been able to do without chiefs; we find these among the most savage tribes. This results from the fact that, by reason of the diversity of aptitudes and characters inherent in the human species, there are everywhere incapable men, who need to be directed, weak men who require protection, passions that demand repression. Hence the imperious necessity of an authority. It is known that, in primitive societies, this authority was conferred upon the heads of families, upon the elders, upon the aged; in a word: upon the patriarchs. That is the first of all aristocracies. Societies having become numerous, patriarchal authority came to be powerless in certain circumstances. Quarrels between neighboring settlements gave rise to combats; to direct them, it became necessary to have no longer the old men, but men who were strong, vigorous, and intelligent; hence the military chiefs. Victorious, these chiefs were invested with authority, those they commanded hoping that with their valor they would be guaranteed against the attacks of enemies. Many, abusing the position to which they had been raised, seized it for themselves. Then, the victors came to impose themselves upon the vanquished, or reduced them to slavery. Hence the authority of brute force, which was the second aristocracy. The strong, with the goods they possessed, very naturally transmitted to their sons the authority they enjoyed; and the weak, daring to say nothing, became accustomed little by little to regarding those sons as heirs of the rights the fathers had conquered and to considering them their superiors. Thus came the division of society into two classes: that of the superiors and that of the inferiors, that of those who command and that of those who obey. The aristocracy of birth established itself in such a way that it became as powerful and preponderant as that of force, since, if it did not have force on its side, as in the first times, when it mattered that each one make the sacrifice of his person, it disposed of a mercenary force. In possession of all power, it naturally arrogated to itself all privileges. For the conservation of these, it was necessary that they be given the prestige of legality; it then made laws to its own benefit, which was easy for it, since no one else made them. As this, however, did not suffice, it joined to the privileges the prestige of divine right, in order to render them respectable and inviolable. In order to assure them the respect of the subjected classes, which became ever more numerous and more difficult to be contained, even by force, there was a single means: to prevent them from seeing clearly, that is, to keep them in ignorance. If the superior class had been able to maintain the inferior class without occupying itself with anything, it would have governed it easily for a long time yet; but, as the second was obliged to work in order to live, and to work all the more the more pressed it found itself, it resulted that the necessity of incessantly finding new resources, of struggling against an invading competition, of seeking new markets for its products, developed its intelligence and brought about that the very causes the superior class made use of to keep it subjected enlightened it. Is not the finger of Providence made manifest there? The subjected class saw things clearly; it saw the feeble consistency that was opposed to it and, feeling itself strong by its numbers, abolished the privileges and proclaimed equality before the law. This principle, in the bosom of some peoples, marked the end of the reign of the aristocracy of birth, which came to be merely nominal and honorific, since it no longer confers legal rights.

There then arose a new power, that of money, because with money one disposes of men and of things. It was a rising sun before which all bowed, as formerly they stooped before a coat of arms. What was not granted to the title was granted to wealth, and wealth likewise had its privileges. Soon, however, it was perceived that, to obtain wealth, a certain dose of intelligence was necessary, not much being necessary to inherit it, and that the descendants are almost always more skilled in consuming it than in earning it, that the very means of enrichment are not always irreproachable, whence it resulted that money was little by little losing its moral prestige and that this power tended to be replaced by another, by a more just aristocracy: that of intelligence, before which all may bow without debasing themselves, because it belongs to the poor as much as to the rich. Will it be the last? Will it be the highest expression of civilized Humanity? No.

Intelligence is not always a pledge of morality, and the most intelligent man may make the worst use of his faculties. On the other hand, morality, in isolation, may, many a time, be incapable. The union of these two faculties, intelligence and morality, is, therefore, necessary to create a legitimate preponderance, to which the mass will submit blindly, because it will inspire in it full confidence, by its lights and by its justice.

That will be the last aristocracy, the one that will present itself as a consequence, or rather, as a sign of the advent of the reign of good on Earth. It will rise very naturally by the very force of things. When men of such a category are numerous enough to form an imposing majority, the mass will confide their interests to them.

As we have seen, all the aristocracies had their reason for being; they were born of the state of Humanity; so it will happen with the one that will become a necessity. All have filled or will fill their time, according to the countries, because none had as its base the moral principle; only this principle can constitute a durable supremacy, because it will have sentiments of justice and charity to animate it. This aristocracy we shall call: the intellectual-moral aristocracy.

But will such a state of things be possible with the egoism, the pride, the cupidity that reign supreme on Earth? We will answer conclusively: yes, not only is it possible, but it will implant itself, because it is inevitable.

Already today intelligence dominates; it is sovereign, no one can contest it. This is so true that one already sees the man of the people reach the offices of the first order. Will this aristocracy not be more just, more logical, more rational, than that of brute force, of birth, or of money? Why, then, would it be impossible for morality to be joined to it? — Because, say the pessimists, evil dominates upon the Earth. — Who will dare to say that good will never overcome it? Are not customs, and consequently the social institutions, worth a hundred times more today than in the Middle Ages? Is not each century marked by a progress? Why, then, would Humanity stop, when it still has so much to do? By natural instinct, men seek their well-being; if they do not find it complete in the reign of intelligence, they will seek it elsewhere, and where will they be able to find it, if not in the reign of morality? For that, it is necessary that morality preponderate numerically. There is no contesting that very much remains to be done; but, once again, it would be a foolish pretension to say that Humanity has reached its apogee, when it is seen to advance continually along the path of progress. Let us say, above all, that the good, on Earth, are not absolutely so rare as is thought; the wicked are numerous, that is unfortunately true; what, however, makes them appear still more numerous is that they have more audacity and feel that this audacity is indispensable to them for success. To such a degree, however, do they understand the preponderance of good that, being unable to practice it, they mask themselves with it.

The good, on the contrary, make no display of their good qualities; they do not put themselves in evidence, whence they appear so few in number. Search out, nevertheless, the intimate acts practiced without ostentation and, in all the social strata, you will come upon creatures of a good and loyal nature in number sufficient to tranquillize your heart, in such a way that you will not despair of Humanity. Then, it must also be said, among the wicked there are many who are so only by being dragged along and who would become good, were they submitted to a good influence. Let us admit that, in 100 individuals, there are 25 good and 75 wicked; of these last, 50 are reckoned to be so through weakness and who would be good if they observed good examples and, above all, if they had been well guided from infancy; of the 25 wicked, not all will be incorrigible. In the present state of things, the wicked are in the majority and dictate the law to the good. Let us suppose that some circumstance or other brings about the conversion of 50 percent of them: the good will be in the majority and in their turn will dictate the law; of the other 25, frankly wicked, many will suffer the influence of the former, leaving only a few incorrigible ones without preponderance.

Let us take an example, to illustrate what we have just said: There are peoples in whose bosom murder and theft are the normality, good constituting the exception. Among the most advanced and best-governed peoples of Europe, crime is the exception; held at bay by the laws, it exerts no influence upon society. What still predominates among these peoples are the vices of character: pride, egoism, cupidity with their retinues.

Why, with these peoples progressing, would the vices not become the exception, as crimes are today, while the inferior peoples would climb to our level? To deny the possibility of this ascending march would be to deny progress.

Certainly, to reach such a state of things cannot be the work of a day, but, if there is a cause capable of hastening its advent, that cause is, beyond any doubt, Spiritism. A factor, par excellence, of human fraternity through showing that the trials of the present life are the logical and rational consequence of the acts practiced in previous existences, through making of each man the voluntary artificer of his own happiness, the universal popularization of Spiritism will necessarily result in a sensible elevation of the moral level of the present time. Barely elaborated and coordinated, the general principles of our philosophy have already congregated, in an imposing communion of ideas, millions of adherents scattered over all the Earth.

The progress realized by their influence, the individual and local transformations they have provoked in less than fifteen years, allow us to appreciate the immense and radical modifications they will operate in the future.

But if, thanks to the development and the general acceptance of the teachings of the Spirits, the moral level of Humanity tends constantly to rise, anyone who supposed that morality will preponderate over intelligence would singularly delude himself. Spiritism, indeed, does not want to be accepted blindly; it demands discussion and light.

“Instead of blind faith, which annihilates the liberty of thinking, it says:

Faith is unshakable only when it can look reason face to face, in all the epochs of Humanity. Faith needs a base, and this base consists in the perfect intelligence of that which one is to believe.

To believe, it is not enough to see, it is, above all, necessary to understand.” (The Gospel According to Spiritism.) With good right, then, we may consider Spiritism as one of the strongest precursors of the aristocracy of the future, that is, of the intellectual-moral aristocracy.