Trial of the poisoners of Marseille.

— The name of Spiritism found itself involved by chance in this deplorable case. One of the accused, the herbalist Joye, said he had occupied himself with it, and that he questioned the Spirits. Does this prove that he was a Spiritist and that something may be inferred against the Doctrine? Doubtless those who wish to discredit it will not fail to seek therein a pretext to accuse it; but, if the diatribes of malevolence have to this day given no result, it is that they have always missed the mark, as is the case here. To know whether Spiritism incurs any responsibility whatever in this circumstance, the means is very simple: it is to inquire in good faith, not among the adversaries, but at the very source, what it prescribes and what it condemns. There is nothing secret; its teachings are before the eyes of all and each one can verify them. If, then, the books of the Doctrine contain nothing but instructions capable of leading to good; if they condemn in an explicit and formal manner all the acts of that man, the practices to which he gave himself, the ignoble and ridiculous role which he attributes to the Spirits, it is that he did not gather his inspirations from it. There is no impartial man who would not agree and would not declare Spiritism outside this question. Spiritism recognizes as adherents only those who put into practice its teachings, that is, who work at their own moral improvement, because that is the characteristic sign of the true Spiritist. It is no more responsible for the acts of those who please to call themselves Spiritists than true science is for the charlatanism of the conjurers, who entitle themselves professors of physics, nor sound religion for the abuses committed in its name.

The accusation says, concerning Joye: “There was found in his house a register which gives an idea of his character and of his occupations. According to him, each page would have been written according to the dictation of the Spirits, and it is full of ardent sighs for Jesus Christ. On each page God is spoken of and the saints are invoked. In the margin, so to speak, there are notes which can give an idea of the herbalist’s habitual operations:

“For spiritism, 4 fr. 25. — Sick, 6 fr. — Letters, 2 fr. — Spells, 10 fr. — Exorcisms, 4 fr. — Magic wand, 10 fr. — Spells by drawing of lots, 60 fr.” And many other designations, among which are found spells until satiated, and which end with this mention: “In January I made 226 francs. The other months were less fruitful.”

Has one ever seen in the works of the Spiritist Doctrine the apology for such practices, or anything whatever capable of provoking them? On the contrary, does one not see there that it repudiates all solidarity with magic, sorcery, sortilege, fortune-tellers, diviners, and all those who make a profession of commerce with the Spirits, claiming to have them at their orders for so much per session?

If Joye had been a Spiritist, from the very beginning he would have regarded as a profanation making the Spirits intervene in such circumstances; moreover, he would have known that the Spirits are not at anyone’s orders and do not come on command, nor through the influence of any cabalistic sign; that the Spirits are the souls of the men who have lived on Earth or in other worlds, our parents, our friends, our contemporaries or our ancestors; that they were men like us and that after our death we shall be Spirits like them; that gnomes, goblins, imps, and demons are creations of pure fantasy and exist only in the imagination; that the Spirits are free, freer than when they were incarnate, and that to claim to subject them to our caprices and to our will, to make them act and speak at our pleasure, for our amusement or our interest, is a chimerical idea; that they come when they wish, in the manner they wish, and to whom it suits them; that the providential aim of communications with the Spirits is our instruction and our moral improvement, and not to aid us in the material things of life, which we can do or find by ourselves and, still less, to serve cupidity; finally, that by reason of their very nature and of the respect due to the souls of those who have lived, it is as irrational as it is immoral to keep an office open for the consultation or exhibition of Spirits. To be ignorant of these things is to be ignorant of the ABC of Spiritism; and when criticism confuses it with cartomancy, chiromancy, exorcisms, the practices of sorcery, spells, enchantments, etc., it proves that it knows nothing about it. Now, to deny or condemn a doctrine which one does not know is to fail in the most elementary logic; to attribute to it or make it say precisely the contrary of what it says is calumny or partiality. Since Joye involved in his processes the name of God, of Jesus, and the invocation of the saints, he could also very well involve the name of Spiritism, which proves no more against the Doctrine than his pretense of devotion against sound religion. He was, then, no more a Spiritist because he questioned supposed Spirits, than the women Lamberte and Dye were truly pious, because they went to burn candles to the Good Mother, Our Lady of the Guard, for the success of their poisonings. Moreover, if he had been a Spiritist, it would not even have come into his thought to make serve the perpetuation of evil a doctrine whose first law is the love of one’s neighbor, and which has for its motto: Outside of charity there is no salvation. (G) If the incitement to such acts were imputed to Spiritism, one could, in the same manner, make its responsibility fall upon religion.

— On the subject, here are some reflections from the Opinion nationale, of December 8:

“The newspaper Le Monde accuses the newspaper Siècle, the bad newspapers, the bad meetings, the bad books of complicity in the case of the poisoners of Marseille.

“We read with painful curiosity the debates of this strange question; but we did not see anywhere that the sorcerer Joye or the sorceress Lamberte were subscribers of the Siècle, of the Avenir, or of the Opinion. Only one newspaper was found in Joye’s house: it was an issue of the Diable, journal de l’enfer. The widows who figure in this famous trial are very far from being freethinkers. They light candles to the good Virgin, to obtain from Our Lady the grace of poisoning their husbands tranquilly. One finds in this affair all the old paraphernalia of the Middle Ages: bones of the dead gathered in the cemeteries, disguises which are nothing but spells from the time of Queen Margot. All these ladies were educated, not in the schools of Élisa Lemonnier, but among the good sisters. Add to the Catholic superstitions the modern superstitions, Spiritism and other charlatanisms. It was the absurd that led these women to crime. It is thus that in Spain, near the mouth of the Ebro, one sees on the mountain a chapel dedicated to Our Lady of the Thieves. “Sow superstition and you will reap crime.” This is why we ask that Science be sown. “Enlighten the head of the people,” said Victor Hugo, “and you will no longer need to cut it off.” — J. Labée.

— The argument that the accused were not subscribers of certain newspapers has no value, for it is known that one need not be a subscriber of a newspaper to read it, above all in that class of individuals. The Opinion nationale could, then, find itself in the hands of some among them, without one having the right to draw therefrom any consequence against that newspaper. What would it have said if Joye had alleged that he was inspired by the doctrines of that periodical? It would have answered: read it and see whether you find in it a single word capable of over-exciting the bad passions. The priest Verger certainly had the Gospel in his house; still more: by his condition, he was obliged to study it. Can one say that it was the Gospel that impelled him to murder the archbishop of Paris? Was it the Gospel that armed the arm of Ravaillac and of Jacques Clément? that lit the pyres of the Inquisition? And yet, it was in the name of the Gospel that all these crimes were committed. The author of the article says: “Sow superstition, and you will reap crime.” He is right; but he errs when he confuses the abuse of a thing with the thing itself. If one wished to suppress everything that can be abused, very little would escape proscription, not excepting the press. Certain modern reformers resemble the men who wish to cut down a good tree, because it bears some spoiled fruit.

And he adds: “This is why we ask that Science be sown.” He is right again, because Science is an element of progress. But does it suffice for complete moralization? Does one not see men putting their knowledge at the service of their bad passions? Was Lapommeraie not an instructed man, a graduated physician, enjoying a certain credit and, besides, a man of the world? It was the same with Castaing and so many others. One can, then, abuse Science; must one, on that account, conclude that Science is a bad thing? Because a physician failed, must the fault fall upon the whole medical body? Why, then, impute to Spiritism that of a man who pleased to call himself a Spiritist, and was not one? The first thing, before making any judgment whatever, was to inquire whether he would have found in the Spiritist Doctrine maxims capable of justifying his acts. Why is medical science not in solidarity with the crime of Lapommeraie? Because the latter did not gather from the principles of that science the incitement to crime; he employed for evil the resources which it furnishes for good. Yet he was more a physician than Joye was a Spiritist. It is the case to apply the proverb: “When one wishes to kill one’s dog, one says it is rabid.” Instruction is indispensable, no one contests it; but, without moralization, it is but an instrument, often unproductive for him who does not know how to regulate its use with a view to good. To instruct the masses without moralizing them is to put into their hands a tool without teaching them to use it, for the moralization which addresses itself to the heart does not necessarily follow the instruction which addresses itself only to the intelligence. There is experience to prove it. But how to moralize the masses? It is what they have occupied themselves with least, and certainly it will not be by feeding them with the idea that there is no God, no soul, no hope, because not all the sophisms in the world will demonstrate that the man who believes that everything begins and ends with the body has stronger reasons to strive to improve himself than he who understands the solidarity existing between the past, the present, and the future. And yet, it is this belief in nihilism that a certain school of supposed reformers claims to impose upon Humanity as the element par excellence of moral progress. In citing Victor Hugo, the author forgets, or rather, does not even suspect that the latter has openly affirmed, on many occasions, his belief in the fundamental principles of Spiritism. It is true that it is not Spiritism after the manner of Joye; but when one does not know, one can confuse.

However lamentable may be the abuse practiced in the name of Spiritism in this question, no Spiritist was shaken by the consequences that might result for the Doctrine. It is that, in effect, its morality being unassailable, it could not be reached. On the contrary, experience proves that there is not a single one of the circumstances which have involved the name of Spiritism that has not redounded to its profit, by the increase in the number of its adherents, because the examination which the repercussion provokes can only be advantageous to it. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that, in this case, with few exceptions, the press abstained from any commentary regarding Spiritism. Some years ago it would have fed its columns for two months and would not have failed to present Joye as one of the high priests of the Doctrine. Likewise one could note that, in its requisition, neither the president of the court nor the procurator-general insisted upon the circumstance to draw from it any inference. Only Joye’s lawyer did his office of defender as he could. [1] [Edme-Samuel Castaing, was born in Alençon, in 1796 and was guillotined on December 6, 1823; he was a famous French poisoner.]