The little man is still alive.

— Mr. Émile Deschanel, whose name was unknown to us, saw fit to devote twenty-four columns of the feuilleton of the Journal des Débats to us, in the issues of November 15 and 29 last. We thank him for the fact, but not for the intention. Indeed, after the article in the Bibliographie catholique and that in the Gazette de Lyon, which hurled anathema and insult with full mouth, in such a way as to make one believe in a return to the fifteenth century, we know nothing more malevolent, less scientific, and above all longer, than that of Mr. Deschanel. So vigorous an onslaught must have made him think that Spiritism, struck by him right and left, would be forever quite dead and buried. As we had not answered him, served him no summons, and entered into no extreme polemic with him, he may have been mistaken as to the cause of our silence. We must set forth our reasons. The first is that, in our opinion, there was nothing urgent, and we were quite at ease to wait, in order to judge the effect of this assault and to regulate our reply. Today, now that we are fully informed about it, we shall say a few words. The second reason is a consequence of the preceding one. To refute the article in detail, it would have been necessary to reproduce it in full, in order to set the attack and the defense side by side, which would already have absorbed one issue of our Review; the refutation alone would absorb at least two issues; we would thus have three issues employed in refuting what? Reasons? No, merely Mr. Deschanel's jests. Frankly, it was not worth the trouble, and our readers prefer something else. Those who wish to become acquainted with his logic may content themselves with reading the issues cited. And, moreover, our reply would have been nothing more than the repetition of what we have written, of what we have already answered to the journal Univers, to Mr. Oscar Comettant, to the Gazette de Lyon, to Mr. Louis Figuier, and to the Bibliographie catholique, n because all these attacks are nothing but variants of one and the same theme. It would then have been necessary to repeat the same thing in other terms so as not to be monotonous, and we would not have had the time for that. What we could say would be useless to the adherents and would not be complete enough to convince the unbelievers; therefore, lost labor. We prefer to refer those who truly wish to enlighten themselves to our works; they will be able to compare the arguments for and against: their own reason will do the rest. Moreover, why should we answer Mr. Deschanel? To convince him? But that does not interest us in the least. It will be said that it would be one more adherent. But what does the person of Mr. Deschanel matter to us, one more or one less? What weight can he carry in the balance, when adhesions arrive by the thousands, from the top of the social ladder downward? — But he is a publicist, and if, instead of making a diatribe, he had made a eulogy, would it not have been much better for the doctrine? This is a graver question; let us examine it.

First of all, who would guarantee that the newly converted Mr. Deschanel would have published twenty-four columns in favor of Spiritism, as he published them against it? We do not believe it, for two reasons: the first, because he would have feared being held up to ridicule by his colleagues; the second, because the director of the journal probably would not have accepted them, for fear of intimidating certain readers less frightened by the devil than by Spirits. We know a good number of men of letters and publicists who are in this situation, and they are not for all that good and sincere Spiritists. It is known that Mme. Émile de Girardin, who is reputed to have had some intelligence during her life, was not only a great believer but also a very good medium, and obtained countless communications; but she reserved them for the intimate circle of her friends, who shared her convictions; to others she did not speak of it. For us, then, a publicist who dares indeed to speak against, but who would not dare speak in favor, were he convinced, is nothing more than a simple individual. And when we see a mother desolate at the loss of a beloved child find ineffable consolations in the doctrine, her adhesion to our principles has for us a hundred times the value of the conversion of some illustrious person, if that illustrious person dares say nothing. Besides, men of good will are not lacking; they are in great number, and so many come to us that we can scarcely answer them. Thus, we do not see why we should waste our time with the indifferent and run after those who do not seek us. A single word will make known whether Mr. Deschanel is a serious man. Here is the beginning of his second article, published on November 29:

“The Spiritist Doctrine refutes itself: it suffices to set it forth. After all, it is not wrong to call itself simply Spiritist, since it is neither Spiritist nor spiritualist. On the contrary, it is based on the grossest materialism, and it is not amusing only because it is ridiculous.”

To say that Spiritism is based on a gross materialism, when it combats it without truce, when it would be nothing without the soul, its immortality, and the future penalties and rewards, of which it is the patent demonstration, is the height of ignorance of what one is dealing with. If it is not ignorance, it is bad faith and calumny. Seeing this accusation, and hearing him cite the biblical texts, the prophets, the law of Moses, which forbids interrogating the dead — proof that they can be interrogated, for one does not forbid an impossible thing — we might believe him of a furious orthodoxy, but on reading the factious passage of his article, which we are going to transcribe, the readers will be much embarrassed to pronounce upon his opinions:

— “How can Spirits become manifest? How can they be seen, heard, and felt? And how can they write themselves and leave us autographs from the other world? — “Oh! but it is that these Spirits are not Spirits, as you might believe; Spirits purely Spirits. “The Spirit — hear this well — is not an abstract, indefinite being, which thought alone can conceive; it is a real, circumscribed being, which, in a certain case, is appreciable by the senses of sight, hearing, and touch.”

— “But, then, these Spirits have bodies?

— “Not exactly.

— “But, then?…

— “There are three things in man:

“1st The body, or material being, analogous to the animals, moved by the same vital principle;

“2nd The soul, or immaterial being, a Spirit incarnated in the body;

“3rd The bond that unites the soul and the body, an intermediary principle between matter and Spirit.”

— “Intermediary? What the devil do you mean? Either it is matter or it is not.

— “That depends.

— “What! that depends!

— “Here is the thing: the bond, or perispirit, which unites the body and the Spirit, is a kind of semi-material envelope…”

— “Semi! semi!

— “Death is the destruction of the grosser envelope; the Spirit retains the second, which constitutes for it an ethereal body, invisible to us in the normal state, but which accidentally it can render visible and even tangible, as happens in the phenomenon of apparitions.”

— “Ethereal, it is all the same; a body is a body. That makes two. And matter is matter. Subtilize it as much as you like, and there is no semi inside it. Electricity itself is nothing but matter, and not semi-matter. And as for your… What do you call it?

— “The perispirit?

— “Yes, your perispirit… I think it explains nothing and that it itself needs a good explanation.

— “The perispirit serves as a first envelope to the Spirit and unites the soul to the body. Such are, in a fruit, the germ, the perisperm, and the husk… The perispirit is drawn from the surrounding environment, from the universal fluid; it partakes, at the same time, of electricity, of the magnetic fluid, and, to a certain extent, of inert matter… Do you understand?

— “Not much.

— “One might say it is the quintessence of matter.

— “However much you quintessence it, you will draw from it neither Spirit nor semi-Spirit; your perispirit is pure matter.

— “It is the principle of organic life, but not that of intellectual life.

— “In short, it is whatever you like; but your perispirit is so many things that I do not quite know what it is; it may very well be nothing at all.”

— It appears that the word perispirit dazzles you. If you had lived at the time when the word perisperm was invented, you would probably have found it ridiculous as well. Why do you not criticize those that are invented daily to express new ideas? It is not the word I criticize, you will say, it is the thing. So be it, since you have never seen it; but do you deny the soul, which you have likewise never seen? Do you deny God, whom you have equally never seen? And then? if one cannot see the soul or the Spirit, which is the same thing, one can see its fluidic envelope, or perispirit, when it is free, as one sees its carnal envelope when it is incarnated.

Mr. Deschanel strives to prove that the perispirit must be matter; but that is what we say in so many words. Could it be this that makes him say that Spiritism is a materialist doctrine? But the very citation he makes condemns him, for we say in fitting terms, without his witty pleasantries, that the perispirit is nothing but an envelope independent of the Spirit. Where did he hear us say that it is the perispirit that thinks? Very well, let him not want the perispirit; but let him tell us how he explains the action of the Spirit upon matter without an intermediary. We shall not speak of contemporary apparitions, in which he certainly does not believe; but since he is so attached to the Bible, whose defense he makes with such fervor, it is that he believes in the Bible and in what it says. Let him, then, explain to us the apparitions of the angels, of which it makes mention at every moment. According to theological doctrine, angels are pure Spirits; but when they become visible, will it be said that it is the Spirit that shows itself? Then it would be, this time, to materialize the Spirit itself, since only matter can affect our senses. We say that the Spirit is clothed in an envelope, which it can render visible and even tangible at will. The envelope alone is material, though very ethereal, which takes nothing away from the particular qualities of the Spirit. Thus we explain a fact hitherto unexplained, and we are certainly less materialist than those who claim that it is the Spirit itself that transforms into matter in order to make itself seen and to act. Those who did not believe in the apparition of the angels of the Bible may now believe, if they believe in the existence of angels, without its repugning their reason. For this very reason they can understand the possibility of the present manifestations, visible, tangible, and others, since the soul or Spirit possesses a fluidic envelope, that is, if they believe in the existence of the soul. Moreover, Mr. Deschanel forgot one thing: to set forth his theory of the soul or Spirit. As a judicious man, he should have said: You are mistaken for this or that reason; things are not such as you say; here is what they are. Only then would we have had something to discuss. But it is to be noted that none of the contradictors of Spiritism has yet done this: they merely deny, mock, or insult. We know no other logic in them, which is very little disquieting. Thus, we are not at all concerned, since, if they propose nothing, it is apparently because they have nothing better to propose. Only the sincere materialists have a definitive system: nothingness after death. We wish them much amusement, if this satisfies them. Unfortunately, those who admit the soul are unable to resolve the most vital questions, according to their theory alone. That is why they have no other recourse than to appeal to blind faith, a reason little conclusive for those who like reasons, and these are great in number in this century of enlightenment. Now, the spiritualists explain nothing in a satisfactory manner for the thinkers, which leads the latter to conclude that nothing exists and that the materialists are perhaps right. It is this that leads so many people to incredulity, whereas these same difficulties find a very simple and natural solution through the Spiritist theory. Materialism says: “There is nothing outside matter.” Spiritualism says: “There is something,” but does not prove it. Spiritism says: “There is something,” and proves it; and, aided by its lever, explains what was until then inexplicable. It is this that makes Spiritism lead so many unbelievers back to spiritualism. We ask of Mr. Deschanel only one thing: to set forth clearly his theory and to answer, no less clearly, the various questions we addressed to Mr. Figuier. In sum, the objections of Mr. Deschanel are puerile. Were he a serious man; had he criticized with knowledge of the matter and not exposed himself to the gross blunder of branding Spiritism a materialist doctrine, he would certainly have sought to go deeper into the subject. He would have come to find us, like so many others, to ask for clarifications, which we would gladly have given him; but he preferred to speak according to his own ideas, which he no doubt regards as the supreme regulator, as the metric unit of human reason. Now, as his personal opinion is indifferent to us, we are not at all concerned to change it, which is why we did not take a single step in that direction, nor did we invite him to any meeting, as to any demonstration. Had he wished to know, he would have come. Since he did not come, it is because he did not wish to, and we would not be the ones to wish it more than he. Another point to examine is this: Could so virulent and so long a criticism, well-founded or not, in a journal as important as the Débats, not harm the propagation of the new ideas? Let us see.

First of all, it must be observed that one does not treat a philosophical doctrine as one treats a piece of merchandise. If, supported by proofs, a journal were to assert that such-and-such a merchant sells damaged or adulterated merchandise, no one would be tempted to go and test whether it was true. But every metaphysical theory is an opinion which, were it from God Himself, would meet with contradictors. Have we not seen the best things, the most incontestable truths of today, held up to ridicule at their appearance by the most capable men? Did this prevent them from being true and from propagating themselves? Everyone knows it. This is why the opinion of a journalist on questions of this kind is only and always a personal opinion; and if so many learned men have been mistaken about positive things, Mr. Deschanel may very well be mistaken about an abstract thing. If only he has an idea, even a vague one, of Spiritism, his accusation of materialism is his own condemnation. From this it results that one wants to see and judge for oneself: that is all we ask. In this respect, even without wishing it, Mr. Deschanel has rendered a true service to our cause, for which we thank him, for he spares us advertising expenses; after all, we are not rich enough to pay for a feuilleton of 24 columns. Widespread as it is, Spiritism has not yet penetrated everywhere; there are many people who have never heard of it. An article of such importance attracts attention, makes it penetrate even into the enemy camp, where it causes desertions, because one naturally says that one does not attack a worthless thing in this way. Indeed, people do not amuse themselves by pointing formidable batteries against a stronghold that can be taken with a musket. One judges the resistance by the display of the forces of attack, and it is this that awakens attention to things that perhaps might have passed unnoticed. This is nothing but reasoning. Let us see whether the facts come to contradict it. One judges the credit of a journal, the sympathies it meets in public opinion, by the number of its readers. The same must hold for Spiritism, represented by some special works. We shall speak only of our own, because we know their exact number. Well then! The Spirits' Book, which is held to contain the most complete exposition of the doctrine, was published in 1857; the 2nd edition in April 1860; the 3rd in August 1860, that is, four months later; and in February 1861 the 4th edition was on sale. Thus, three editions in less than a year, proving that not everyone is of Mr. Deschanel's opinion. Our new work, The Mediums' Book, appeared on January 15, 1861, and it is already necessary to think of preparing a new edition. It has been requested from Russia, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, etc. The articles of the Journal des Débats appeared in November last. Had they exerted any influence on public opinion, it would have been precisely upon the Spiritist Review, which we publish, that such influence would have made itself felt. Now, on January 1, 1861, the date of the renewal of the annual subscriptions, there was a third more subscribers than at the same period of the preceding year, and daily it receives new ones who — a thing worthy of note — request all the collections of the previous years, so that it was necessary to reprint them. This proves, therefore, that it does not appear so very ridiculous. On all sides, in Paris, in the provinces, abroad, Spiritist meetings are forming. We know of more than a hundred of them in the Departments, and we are far from knowing them all, not counting all the persons who occupy themselves with it in isolation or within the family. What will Messrs. Deschanel, Figuier, and people of that sort say to this? That the number of madmen is increasing. Yes, it is increasing in such a way that before long the madmen will be more numerous than the sensible people. But what such gentlemen, so full of solicitude for human good sense, must deplore is to see that all they have done to halt the movement produces exactly the contrary result. Do they wish to know the cause? It is very simple. They claim to speak in the name of reason, and they offer nothing better; some give as a prospect nothingness; others, the eternal flames: two alternatives that please very few people. Between the two, one chooses the one that is more reassuring. After that, gentlemen, do you still marvel to see men throw themselves into the arms of Spiritism? You believed you were killing it, and we had to prove to them that the little man is still alive and will live for a long time.

Experience having demonstrated that the articles of Mr. Deschanel, far from harming the cause of Spiritism, served it, by exciting in those who had not yet heard of it the desire to know it, we deem it superfluous to discuss each of his assertions. All weapons have been employed against this doctrine: it has been attacked in the name of religion, which it serves rather than harms; in the name of Science, in the name of materialism; insult, threat, and calumny have been lavished upon it in succession, and it has resisted everything, even ridicule. Under the cloud of arrows hurled at it, it peacefully makes its way around the world and implants itself everywhere, in the very faces of its most relentless enemies. Is there not in this matter for serious reflection, and is it not proof that it finds an echo in the heart of man, while at the same time it stands under the safeguard of a force against which human efforts come to be annihilated? It is remarkable that at the moment when the articles of the Journal des Débats appeared, spontaneous communications occurred in several places, both in Paris and in the Departments. They all express the same thought. The following was given at the Society, on November 30 last:

— “Do not disquiet yourselves with what the world may write against Spiritism. It is not you whom the unbelievers attack, but God Himself; but God is more powerful than they. It is a new era, understand this well, that is opening before you; and those who seek to oppose the designs of Providence will soon be overthrown. As has been perfectly said, far from harming Spiritism, skepticism wounds its own hand and will kill itself. Since the world wishes to make death omnipotent through nothingness, let it speak; oppose to its bitter pedantry only indifference. For you, death will no longer be that atrocious goddess that the poets dreamed of: death will present itself to you as the rosy-fingered dawn of Homer.”

André Chénier. n On the same subject, Saint Louis had said before:

“Such articles do harm only to those who write them; they do no harm to Spiritism, contributing rather to spread it even among its enemies.”

Another Spirit replied to a physician of Nîmes, who asked him what he thought of the articles:

“You must be satisfied with this. If your enemies occupy themselves so much with you, it is because they recognize some value in you and fear you. Let them, then, say and do whatever they wish; the more they speak, the more they will make you known, and the time is not far off when they will be forced to fall silent. Their anger proves their weakness. Only true strength knows how to master itself: it has the calm of confidence. Weakness seeks to disturb by making a great deal of noise.”

Do you now want a sample of the use that certain learned men make of science to the profit of Spiritism? Let us cite an example.

One of our colleagues of the Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies, Mr. Indermuhle, of Bern, writes to us as follows:

“Mr. Schiff, professor of Anatomy (I do not know whether he is the same one who so ingeniously discovered the snapping muscle, of which Mr. Jobert de Lamballe became the responsible editor), n gave here a few weeks ago a public course on digestion.

The course was certainly interesting; however, after having spoken at length about cookery and Chemistry, with regard to foods, and proved that no matter is annihilated; that it can divide itself and transform itself, but that it is found in the composition of the air, of water, and of organic tissues, he came to the following conclusion: “Thus, then — he says — the soul, such as the common people understand it, is precisely in the sense that what we call the soul dissolves after the death of the body, just as the material body does. It decomposes so that the matters contained in it may again be joined together, whether in the air or in other bodies. It is only in this sense that the word immortality is justified: otherwise, no.”

It is thus that, in 1861, the learned men, charged with instructing and enlightening men, offer them a stone instead of bread. It must be said, to the praise of Humanity, that the majority of the listeners were very little edified and satisfied with this conclusion, drawn so abruptly; that many were scandalized. As for me, I had pity on this man. Had he attacked the government, he would have been interdicted and even punished. How can one tolerate the public teaching of materialism, that subversion of society?”

To these judicious reflections of our colleague, we will add that a materialist society, such as certain men strive to transform present society into, possessing no moral restraint, is the most dangerous for any kind of government. Perhaps materialism has never been professed with so much cynicism. Those who are held back by a little modesty compensate themselves by dragging through the mud what can destroy it. But, whatever they do, these are the convulsions of its death-agony. And, say what Mr. Deschanel may, it is Spiritism that will deal it the coup de grâce.

— We limit ourselves to sending the following letter to Mr. Deschanel:

Sir, You published two articles in the Journal des Débats of November 15 and 29 last, in which you appraise Spiritism, from your point of view. The ridicule you cast upon this doctrine and, consequently, upon me and upon all who profess it, authorized me to address a refutation, which I would have asked to be inserted in that journal. I did not do so because, however great an extent I might give it, it would always have been insufficient for persons strangers to this science and useless to those who know it. Conviction is acquired only through serious studies, made without prevention, without preconceived ideas, and through numerous observations, made with the patience and perseverance of one who truly wishes to know and understand. I would have needed to give your readers a veritable course, which would have exceeded the limits of an article. But as I believe you too honorable a man to attack without admitting defense, I will limit myself to telling them, in this simple letter, which I beg you to be so kind as to publish in the same journal, that they will find in The Spirits' Book or in The Mediums' Book, which I have just published through Messrs. Didier & Co., a sufficient reply, in my opinion. I leave to their judgment the care of comparing your arguments and mine. Those who wish, beforehand, to have a succinct idea at little expense, may read the small brochure entitled: What Is Spiritism? which costs only 60 centimes, as well as the Letter of a Catholic on Spiritism, by Dr. Grand, former vice-consul of France. They will also find some reflections on your article in the March issue of the Spiritist Review, which I publish. Nevertheless, there is one point I could not pass over in silence. It is the passage of your article where you say that Spiritism is based on the grossest materialism. I set aside the offensive and scarcely parliamentary expressions, to which I am in the habit of paying no attention, limiting myself to saying that this passage contains an error, I will not say gross, for the term would be uncivil, but capital, which it matters to me to highlight for the instruction of your readers. Indeed, Spiritism has for its essential basis, and without which it would have no reason to exist, the existence of God, of the soul, its immortality, and the future penalties and rewards. Now, these points are the most absolute negation of materialism, which admits none of them. The Spiritist Doctrine does not limit itself to affirming them; it does not admit them a priori: it is their patent demonstration. This is why it has already led back so great a number of unbelievers, who had already abjured all religious sentiment. It may not be spiritual, but it is most certainly essentially spiritualist, that is, contrary to materialism, since one could not conceive of a doctrine of the immortal soul founded upon the non-existence of the soul. What leads so many people to absolute incredulity is the manner in which the soul and its future are presented. I see daily people say: “If from childhood these things had been taught to me, as you teach them, I would never have been an unbeliever, because now I understand what before I did not understand.” Thus, daily I have the proof that it suffices to set forth this doctrine in order to win for it numerous partisans.

Accept, etc.

ONE MORE WORD ABOUT MR. DESCHANEL.

(FROM THE JOURNAL DES DÉBATS.)

[Review of April 1861.]

In the previous issue of the Spiritist Review, the readers were able to see, alongside our reflections on Mr. Deschanel's article, the personal letter we sent him. Very short, that letter, whose insertion we requested, had the aim of rectifying a grave error he had committed in his appraisal. To present the Spiritist Doctrine as based on the grossest materialism was to completely distort its spirit, for, on the contrary, it tends to destroy materialist ideas. There were in his article many other errors that we could have pointed out, but that one was too important to be left without a reply; it had a real gravity because it tended to cast a true discredit upon numerous adherents of Spiritism. Mr. Deschanel deemed that he need not accede to our request, and here is the reply he addressed to us:

“Sir, “I received the letter you did me the honor of writing, dated February 25. Mr. Didier, your publisher, has taken it upon himself to explain to you that it was at his reiterated request that I had consented to give notice, in the Débats, of your The Spirits' Book, on condition that I might criticize it as I saw fit; such was our arrangement. I thank you for having understood that, in these circumstances, to use your right of rebuttal would have been strictly legal, but, certainly, less delicate than the abstention you had agreed to, as Mr. Didier informed me this morning.

“Be so good as to accept, etc.

E. Deschanel.”

This letter sins by lack of exactitude on several points. It is true that Mr. Didier sent Mr. Deschanel a copy of The Spirits' Book, as is customary from publisher to journalist; but what is not exact is that Mr. Didier committed himself not to give us an explanation regarding his supposed reiterated entreaties that he make an appraisal of it. If Mr. Deschanel deemed it proper to devote twenty-four columns of mockery to it, he will permit us to suppose that it was not out of condescension nor out of deference to Mr. Didier. Besides, we have already said that it was not for this that we complained: criticism was a right of his; and, since he does not share our way of seeing, he was free to appraise the work according to his point of view, as happens daily. By some, a thing is raised to the clouds; by others, depreciated; but neither of these judgments is beyond appeal. The only judge in last instance is the public, above all the future public, which is foreign to the passions and intrigues of the moment. The obsequious praises of the cliques do not prevent it from burying forever what is truly bad, and what is truly good survives, in spite of the diatribes of envy and jealousy. “Of this truth two fables will bear witness, So abundantly does the thing overflow with proofs,” La Fontaine would have said. We shall not cite two fables, but two facts. At its appearance, Racine's Phèdre had against it the court and the population of the city, and was ridiculed. The author suffered so many vexations that at the age of 38 he renounced writing for the theater. Pradon's Phèdre, on the contrary, was exalted beyond measure. What is today the fate of these two works? Another, more modest book, Paul et Virginie, n was declared stillborn by the illustrious Buffon, who found it tedious and insipid; meanwhile, it is known that never was a book so popular. With these two examples, our aim is simply to prove that the opinion of a critic, whatever his merit, is nothing but a personal opinion, not always ratified by posterity. But let us return from Buffon to Mr. Deschanel, without comparison, because Buffon was thoroughly mistaken, whereas Mr. Deschanel believes, no doubt, that the same will not be said of him. In his letter, Mr. Deschanel acknowledges that our right of rebuttal would have been strictly legal, but he finds it more delicate on our part not to exercise it. He is again completely mistaken when he says that we agreed to an abstention, which would give the impression that we yielded to a solicitation, and even that Mr. Didier had been charged with informing us of it. Now, nothing is less exact. We did not deem it proper to demand the insertion of a contradictory exposition. He is free to find our doctrine bad, detestable, absurd, to shout it from the rooftops, but we expected of his loyalty the publication of our letter in order to rectify a false allegation, and one that could affect our reputation, in that it tended to accuse us of professing and propagating the very doctrines that we combat, as subversive of social order and of public morality. We did not ask of him a retraction, to which his self-love would have refused itself, but only that he insert our protest; we would certainly not have been abusing the right of reply, considering that in exchange for twenty-four columns, we asked of him no more than thirty to forty lines. Our readers will know how to appraise his refusal; if he chose to see delicacy in our conduct, we could not judge his in the same manner. When the Abbé Chesnel published in the journal Univers, in 1858, his article on Spiritism, he gave of the Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies an equally false idea, by presenting it as a religious sect with its worship and its priests. Such an allegation completely distorted its aim and its tendencies and could confuse public opinion. It was all the more erroneous in that the regulations of the Society propose to it that it occupy itself with religious matters. Indeed, one could not conceive of a religious Society that could not occupy itself with religion. We protested against this assertion, not by a few lines, but by an entire article, at length motivated, which, at our simple request, the Univers deemed it proper to publish. We regret that, in an identical circumstance, Mr. Deschanel, of the Journal des Débats, believes himself less morally obliged to reestablish the truth than the gentlemen of the Univers. If it were not a question of right, it would still be a question of loyalty. To reserve the right of attack without admitting the defense is an easy means of making one's readers believe that one is right. [1] Univers, May and July 1859; Mr. Oscar Comettant, December 1859; Gazette de Lyon, October 1860; Mr. Louis Figuier, September and December 1860; Bibliographie catholique, January 1861.

[2] [cf.

André Chénier.]

[3] See the Spiritist Review, June 1859.

[4] [Paul and Virginia is a novel written in 1787, by Bernardin de Saint-Pierre.]