SHORT SPIRITIST CONFERENCE - FIRST DIALOGUE. — THE CRITIC - Questions 1-16.

The Visitor. — I confess to you, sir, that my reason refuses to admit the reality of the strange phenomena attributed to Spirits, for I am convinced that the latter exist only in our imagination. I would nevertheless bow before the evidence, if I had incontestable proofs of it; for that reason, I ask your permission to attend only one or two experiments, so as not to be indiscreet, in order to convince myself, if that is possible.

Allan Kardec. — Since your reason rejects what we consider irrefutable, it is because you believe it superior to that of all the people who do not share your opinions. I do not doubt your talent, nor do I have the pretension of supposing my intelligence superior to yours; grant, then, that I am deluded, since it is your reason that tells you so, and let us touch upon the subject no further.

The Visitor. — If, however, you were to succeed in convincing me, since I am known as an antagonist of your ideas, this would be a miracle eminently favorable to the cause you defend.

A. K. — I am very sorry, sir, but I do not have the gift of performing miracles. Do you think that one or two sessions would suffice for you to acquire conviction? It would, indeed, be a true prodigy; I needed more than a year of work to become convinced, which proves that I did not reach that state lightly. Moreover, sir, I do not hold public sessions, and it seems to me that you have been mistaken about the purpose of our gatherings, considering that we do not conduct experiments with a view to satisfying anyone's curiosity.

The Visitor. — You do not seek, then, to make proselytes?

A. K. — Why should we make a proselyte of you, when you do not wish to be one? I force no conviction whatever. When I encounter people who sincerely desire to instruct themselves and do me the honor of asking me for clarification, I answer them to the limit of my knowledge, which, for me, is a pleasure and a duty; but as for antagonists who, like you, have deep-rooted convictions, I do not take a single step to draw them away from those convictions, since the number of those who show themselves well disposed is great enough that we cannot lose our time with those who are not. Sooner or later conviction will come, in the face of the facts themselves, so that the most incredulous will be carried along by the torrent; for now, a few partisans more or less will make no difference on the scale. That is why you will never see me put myself out to attract to our ideas those who, like you, have good reasons to flee from them.

The Visitor. — There would, however, be more interest in convincing me than you suppose. Will you permit me to explain myself frankly, and do you promise me not to be offended by my words? These are my ideas about the thing itself and not about the person to whom I am speaking; I can respect the person without sharing his opinions.

A. K. — Spiritism has taught me not to take into account those petty susceptibilities of self-love, and not to be offended by words. If your expressions go beyond the bounds of civility and propriety, I will merely conclude that you are an ill-bred man. As for me, I prefer to let others keep their errors rather than to share in them. From that alone you already see that Spiritism is good for something.

As I have already told you, sir, I do not have the pretension of making you adopt my opinion; I respect yours, if it is sincere, as I desire that you respect mine. And, because you believe that Spiritism is a senseless dream, you surely said, when coming to my house: I am going to see a madman. Confess it frankly, for I will not be offended by it. All Spiritists are mad, that is a well-known thing. Well then! Since you judge thus, I fear to transmit to you my mental infirmity, and it causes me surprise to see that you seek, with such a thought, a conviction that will place you among the number of the mad. If you are already convinced that we shall not succeed in convincing you, your approach is useless, for it will have only curiosity as its aim. Please, let us close the subject, for I have no time to waste in conversations without an objective.

The Visitor. — A man may be mistaken, may let himself be deluded, without being mad for that reason.

A. K. — Speak with clarity; say at once, like so many others, that this is a fashion that will last a certain time; but you must admit that a pastime which, in a few years, has won millions of partisans in every country, which counts among its adherents learned men of every order, which spreads preferably among the most enlightened classes, is a singular mania, one that deserves to be examined.

The Visitor. — I have my ideas on the matter, it is true, but they are not so absolutely fixed that I would not consent to sacrifice them to the evidence. I have already told you on another occasion, sir, that you would have a certain interest in convincing me. I confess to you that I am to publish a book in which I propose to demonstrate ex professo (sic) my opinion about what I consider an error; and since this book is to have a great reach, dealing a sure blow to Spiritism, I would refrain from publishing it should I become convinced of the reality of your doctrine.

A. K. — I should be very sorry, sir, that you be deprived of the benefit that may be afforded you by a book that is to produce so much effect; besides, I have no interest whatever in preventing its publication; on the contrary, I wish it great circulation, for thus it will serve us as a prospectus and advertisement. When a thing is attacked, it soon awakens people's attention; there are many who want to see the pros and cons, and criticism brings the truth to light, even to the eyes of those who were not seeking it there; it is thus that often, without wishing to, one publicizes that which one wishes to combat. On the other hand, the question of the Spirits is so gripping, it so strikes one's curiosity, that it suffices to call attention to it for the desire to delve into it to be born. A. K.'s Note: Since this interview, written in 1859, experience has come to demonstrate the full correctness of this proposition.

The Visitor. — Then, according to your understanding, criticism serves for nothing, public opinion is worth nothing at all?

A. K. — I do not consider criticism as the expression of public opinion, but as an individual judgment, which may well be mistaken. Read History and you will see how many important works were criticized upon appearing, without that excluding them from the number of great works; but, when a thing is bad, there is no praise that can make it good. If Spiritism is a falsehood, it will fall of itself; if, however, it is a truth, there is no diatribe that can make of it a lie. Your book will be a personal appraisal, reflecting your point of view; true public opinion will decide whether you judged correctly. They will seek to examine it. If, later, they recognize that you were mistaken, your book will become ridiculous like those which, until quite recently, were published against the theories of the circulation of the blood, of vaccination, etc. I was forgetting, however, that you were going to treat the question ex professo, which amounts to saying that you have studied it in all its aspects; that you have seen all that can be seen, have read all that has been written on the matter, have analyzed and compared the various opinions; that you have placed yourself in the best conditions of personal observation; that for years you have consecrated your nights to it; in short: that you have neglected nothing in order to arrive at the verification of the truth. I must believe that this has been the case, if you are a serious man, because only he who has done all this has the right to say that he speaks with knowledge of the cause. What judgment would you form of a man who set himself up as censor of a literary work or of a painting, though he knew neither literature nor had studied painting? It is elementary logic that the critic should know, not superficially but thoroughly, that of which he speaks, without which his opinion will have no value whatever. To combat a calculation, one must oppose to it another calculation, which requires knowing how to calculate. The critic must not limit himself to saying that such a thing is good or bad; he must justify his own opinion by means of a clear and categorical demonstration, based on the principles of the art or the science to which the object of the criticism belongs. How will he be able to do this if he is ignorant of those principles? Could you appraise the qualities or the defects of a given machine if you do not know mechanics? No! Well then: your judgment regarding Spiritism, which, moreover, you do not know, would have no more value than the opinion you might issue about the aforesaid machine. At every step you would be caught in flagrant delict of ignorance, because those who have studied the matter will soon see that you are unacquainted with it, concluding, consequently, that you are not a serious man or that you are acting in bad faith. In either case, you risk receiving a contradiction little flattering to your self-love.

The Visitor. — It is precisely to avoid that danger that I came to ask your permission to attend a few experiments.

A. K. — And do you think that this would suffice for you to be able, ex professo, to speak of Spiritism? How could you understand these experiments and, with even stronger reason, judge them, if you have not yet studied the principles on which they are based? How could you appreciate the result, satisfactory or not, of metallurgical trials, for example, not knowing metallurgy thoroughly? Permit me to tell you, sir, that your project is absolutely the same thing as if, not having studied Mathematics nor Astronomy, you presented yourself to one of the members of the Observatory, saying to him: "Sir, I want to write a book on Astronomy and prove that your system is false; but, as I am unacquainted with the smallest rudiments of that science, allow me, once or twice, to make use of your telescope, which will suffice for me to come to know as much as you." It is only by extension of meaning that the word criticize has become synonymous with censuring; in its proper acceptation and according to its etymology, it means to judge, to appraise. Criticism may, then, be approving or disapproving. To make a criticism of a book is not necessarily to condemn it; whoever undertakes that task should do so without preconceived ideas; but, if before opening the book he already condemns it in his thought, the examination cannot be impartial.

This is the case with the majority of those who have spoken against Spiritism. They have formed an opinion merely on the name, acting like a judge who would pronounce a sentence without first examining the documents of the case. Such a judgment is, consequently, entirely false and, instead of convincing, has provoked laughter. As for the people who have seriously studied the question, the greater part have changed their minds, and more than one adversary has become an adherent of Spiritism, upon recognizing that its objective is very different from what he imagined.

The Visitor. — You speak of the examination of books in general; do you believe that it is materially possible for a journalist to read and study all those that pass through his hands, especially when they deal with new theories, which he would need to delve into and verify? It would be the same as demanding of a printer that he read all the works issued from his press.

A. K. — To so judicious a reasoning I have no other answer to give than that, when we lack the time to do a thing conscientiously, it is better not to do it; it is preferable to produce a single good work than to make ten bad ones.

The Visitor. — Do not think, sir, that my opinion has been formed lightly; I have seen tables turn and produce sounds; I have seen people who supposed themselves to be writing under the influence of the Spirits; I am, however, convinced that in all this there was only charlatanism.

A. K. — How much did you pay to see these things?

The Visitor. — Absolutely nothing, I assure you.

A. K. — Now, there you have charlatans of a singular kind, who are going to rehabilitate the name of their class. Until today disinterested charlatans had never yet been seen. From the fact that a prankster amused himself thus, it does not follow that the other people present have colluded with him. Besides, to what end would they make themselves accomplices in a mystification? To amuse the company, you will say… I agree that they might lend themselves on occasion to such a jest; but when that jest lasts for months and years, I believe that the one mystified is the mystifier himself. Is it credible that, merely for the pleasure of making others believe in a thing he knows to be false, someone would spend whole hours around a table? Such a pleasure would not be worth the trouble. Before judging this to be a fraud, one must first inquire what interest there was in deceiving. Now, you will not fail to grant that there are situations that exclude all suspicion of deceit; people whose character is already a guarantee of probity.

It would be otherwise if it were a matter of a speculation, because the temptation of gain is a bad counselor. But, even admitting that, in this latter case, a fraudulent maneuver were well proven, this would prove nothing against the reality of the principle, since one can abuse anything. Because adulterated wine is sold, one must not conclude that pure wine does not exist. Spiritism is no more responsible for the acts of those who abuse and exploit its name than is medical science for the acts of the charlatans who sell their drugs, or religion for the actions of the wicked priests who corrupt their ministry.

By its novelty and even by its nature, Spiritism lends itself to abuses; it, however, furnishes the means by which they may be recognized, clearly defining its true character and refusing all solidarity with those who would exploit it or divert it from its exclusively moral end, in order to transform it into a means of livelihood, into an instrument of divination or of futile investigations.

Considering that Spiritism itself traces the limits within which it confines itself, defines what it can or cannot say or do, what is or is not within its attributions, what it accepts and what it repudiates, every fault falls upon those who, not taking the trouble to study it, judge it by appearances and who, having encountered mountebanks adorning themselves under the name of Spiritists in order to attract people, say with gravity: this is what Spiritism is. Upon whom, after all, will the ridicule fall? It will not fall upon the mountebank, who plies his trade, nor upon Spiritism, whose written doctrine belies such assertions, but upon the critics, who speak of what they do not know or consciously distort the truth. Those who attribute to Spiritism what is contrary to its essence do so out of ignorance or ill intention; in the first case there is thoughtlessness, in the second, bad faith. In this latter case, they resemble certain historians who, in the interest of upholding a party or an opinion, alter the historical facts. A party that uses such means becomes discredited and does not achieve its objective. Note well, sir, that I do not claim that criticism must necessarily approve our ideas, even after having studied them; we do not criticize in any way those who do not think as we do. What is evident to us may not be so to you others; each one judges things from his own point of view, and from the most positive fact not all draw the same consequences. If a painter, for example, depicts a white horse in his picture, there will be no lack of someone to say that this color does not suit it, that the black color would be more fitting, and in this he will commit no error; he will err, however, if, seeing that the horse is white, he affirms that it is black. This is what the majority of our adversaries do. In sum, sir, everyone has entire liberty to approve or to censure the principles of Spiritism, to deduce from them the good or bad consequences that please them, but conscience imposes upon every serious critic the obligation not to say the contrary of what he knows to be. Now, for that, the first condition is that he not speak of what he does not know.

The Visitor. — Let us return, please, to the turning and speaking tables. Could it not happen that they were prepared with some contrivance?

A. K. — It is always the same question of good faith, to which I have already responded. When the fraud is proven, I will acknowledge it to you; if you discover proven facts of deceit, charlatanism, speculation, or abuse of confidence, lash out at them, and I declare to you here and now that I will not take up their defense, because serious Spiritism is the first to repudiate them, and whoever denounces such abuses assists it in the work of preventing them and renders it an important service. But to generalize those accusations, to cast upon a great number of honorable people the reproof that only a few isolated individuals deserve, is an abuse of another kind, because it is a calumny. If, as you said, we were to admit that the tables were prepared, the mechanism employed would have to be quite ingenious to make them produce movements and sounds so varied. How, then, would the name of the skillful artisan who manufactured them not be known? Yet he ought to enjoy great celebrity, since his apparatuses are scattered over the five parts of the world. It would also have to be admitted that his process is quite subtle, to be able to adapt itself to the first table that presents itself, without leaving any external sign that betrays it. How to explain that, from Tertullian, who already dealt with the turning and speaking tables, down to the present, no one has managed to see or describe such a mechanism?

The Visitor. — Here is what deludes you. A celebrated surgeon recognized that certain people can, by the contraction of a muscle of the leg, produce a noise similar to that which you attribute to the table, concluding from the fact that the mediums amuse themselves at the expense of the credulity of those present.

A. K. — If it is a cracking of the muscle, then it is not the table that is prepared. Since each one explains in his own way this supposed fraud, it is proven that the true cause is not known.

I respect the science of that learned surgeon; I find, however, only that some difficulties arise in the application, to the speaking tables, of the indicated theory. The first is that it is singular that this faculty, until the present exceptional and regarded as a pathological case, should suddenly have become common; the second, that one must have a great desire to mystify in order to make the muscle crack for two or three hours running, when nothing results from it but fatigue and pain; the third, that I do not quite understand how this muscle can respond at the doors and walls where the raps are heard; the fourth, finally, that one must grant to this cracking muscle an exceptional property for it to be able to move a heavy table, lift it, open it, close it, keep it suspended without a point of support, and, finally, make it burst apart in falling. No one, certainly, suspected that this muscle possessed so much virtue… (Spiritist Review, June 1859, p. 141: The Muscle that Creaks.) The celebrated surgeon of whom you speak, did he study the phenomenon of typtology on the individuals who produce it? No; he observed an abnormal physiological effect in a few people who had never occupied themselves with rapping tables and, noticing a certain analogy between this effect and that which these tables produce, without further examination concluded, with all the authority of his science, that all those who make the tables speak must have the property of making the short peroneal muscle crack, being nothing but impostors, whether they be princes or workmen, whether or not they receive payment. Now, did the said surgeon at least study the phenomenon of typtology in all its phases? Did he verify, by means of this muscular cracking, whether he could produce all the typtological effects? No; because, otherwise, he would have become convinced of the insufficiency of his process, which did not prevent him, however, from proclaiming his discovery in full session of the Institute of France. Is such a judgment not quite compromising for a learned man? Who today thinks of that opinion? I confess to you that, if I had to submit to a surgical operation, I would hesitate greatly to entrust myself to that physician, fearful that he might not judge my ailment with more perspicacity. And since this judgment proceeds from one of the authorities on which you seem to wish to rely in order to annihilate Spiritism, I am completely at ease as to the force of the other arguments you wish to validate, unless you seek them in more authentic sources.

The Visitor. — Nevertheless, you well see that the fashion of the turning tables, which for some time created a furor, has now passed. Today, no one occupies himself with them any longer. What is the reason for this, since it is a serious matter?

A. K. — Because from the turning tables came something more serious still: a complete science and philosophical doctrine, of the greatest interest to men who reflect. When these had nothing more to learn from the "dance" of the tables, they no longer occupied themselves with them. For futile people, who wish to delve into nothing, this phenomenon was a pastime, a diversion, which they abandoned when they grew bored of it. They are people upon whom science does not count.

The period of curiosity had its time; that of observation succeeded it. Spiritism then entered the domain of serious people, who do not wish to amuse themselves with it, but to instruct themselves. For this reason, the people who consider it a grave matter do not lend themselves to any experiment of curiosity, and still less to satisfying that of those who present themselves with hostile thoughts; as they do not jest, neither do they wish to serve as a plaything for others. I belong to that number.

The Visitor. — Nevertheless, only experience can convince, even him who, at the start, is moved by curiosity. If you work only in the presence of convinced people, permit me to say to you the following: you teach those who already know.

A. K. — It is one thing to be convinced, and another to be disposed to convince oneself; it is to these latter that I address myself, and not to those who deem it a humiliation to come and listen to what they call reveries. With these I do not concern myself in any way. As for those who manifest a sincere desire to enlighten themselves, the best way they have to prove it is to show perseverance; they are recognized by other signs, and not merely by the desire to see one or two experiments: these wish to work seriously.

Conviction is acquired only with time, by means of a series of observations made with most particular care. Spiritist phenomena differ essentially from those that our exact sciences present: they are not produced at will; we must gather them in passing. It is by observing much and for a long time that one discovers a quantity of proofs that escape at first sight, especially when one is not familiar with the conditions under which one can encounter them, and still more when one comes with the mind prejudiced. Proofs abound for the assiduous and reflective observer: a word, an apparently insignificant fact is, for him, a ray of light, a confirmation; while for the superficial observer, or one who observes the phenomena out of simple curiosity, the facts have no meaning. This is the reason why I do not lend myself to making experiments without probable result.

The Visitor. — In short, everything must have a beginning. The apprentice, who knows nothing, who has seen nothing, but who desires to enlighten himself, how will he be able to do so, if you do not afford him the means?

A. K. — I make a great distinction between the incredulous through ignorance and the incredulous through system. When I discover someone with favorable dispositions, it costs me nothing to enlighten him; but there are people in whom the will to instruct themselves is only apparent; with these one loses time, because, if they do not soon find what they seem to be seeking, and what would perhaps have troubled them had it appeared, the little they see is not sufficient to destroy their preconceptions; they judge the obtained results poorly and transform them into an object of mockery, there being, consequently, no usefulness whatever in furnishing them.

To whoever desires to instruct himself, I will say: "One cannot give a course of experimental Spiritism as one gives a course of Physics or of Chemistry, since no one is master to produce the Spiritist phenomena at will, and since the intelligences of these agents cause all our forecasts, many times, to be frustrated. Those which you might accidentally see present no connection, nor any necessary linkage, being, therefore, little intelligible to you. Instruct yourself first by theory, read and meditate upon the works that deal with this science; in them you will learn the principles, you will find the description of all the phenomena, you will understand their possibility through the explanation that they will give you, and through the description of a great number of spontaneous facts of which you may have been a witness without understanding them, but which will come back to your memory. You will be in a condition to appraise and judge all the difficulties that may arise and will form, in this way, a first moral conviction. Then, when the occasion presents itself for you to observe or operate personally, you will understand, whatever the order in which the facts show themselves, because you will see nothing strange." There, my dear sir, is what I advise to all who say they wish to instruct themselves, and, by the answer they give, whether there is in them anything beyond curiosity.