Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1865

Allan Kardec

Back to the menu
Extracted from the Journal from Saint-Jean D’Angély
March 5th, 1865

Saint-Jean D’Angely Society of Spiritist Studies
Spiritism and its Consequences at a Glance



“There is a secret continuous harmony between the visible world and the world of the Spirits. Such harmony and its possible manifestations is, without contradiction, one of the great themes of our time. That is what we propose to discuss in the columns of our journal. We address everybody, no doubt, but more particularly those whose day to day activities preclude them from dedicating to a continuous study in the great books of facts that, for being so touching and occurring all over the world, are proclaimed and attested by the most enlightened persons. Our objective is many fold: to demonstrate the possibility of those facts by the revelation of natural laws, unknown up until now; to remove from them the ironic label of pretense miracles that intend to see them diminished to the eyes of those that know nothing about it and to initiate them in the knowledge of the Doctrine that is the result of those facts and deduce from that Doctrine its very reassuring consequences.

They speak of miracles. If there is one that is incomprehensible to our eyes is that of the coldness and indifference, real or simulated, of intelligent and honorable persons before the manifestations that take place in all corners of the globe and that are plentifully published every day.

We would understand their disdain and inappropriate use of the language if the reproduction of what had been seen by so many would only lead to a childish curiosity or if their only useful result were the utilization of time in the absence of anything better to do. It can no longer be the case when we think that it is not only the most important objective of our existences, that is the solution, by a positive proof, of the issue of immortality of the soul and the for so long discussed issue of our future destinies, but also and above all the call, by the conviction of these truths, to those that stay away from their duties to God, their fellow human beings and themselves.

Notice this: you are the members of a grand jury. Witnesses that are unknown to you, that you have never seen before come to affirm the most unbelievable fact to you: the murder of a father by the son or the son by a father. You believe and condemn the miserable author of such a crime and you are right. But let us analyze the issue by touching our conscience.

Suppose that the unfortunate man had believed in a powerful and fair God; since long ago he had understood that such a horrible act would infallibly have punishment on another life. Would you believe that he would not have stepped back before the perpetration of that crime? No, you do not believe so. Like us, you say: yes, the belief, but a strong and unrestricted belief, the absolute belief in a fair God, in the penalties and rewards in another life where each will receive according to their work here, that is the brake that must be the most difficult to destroy and you are still right.

Such beliefs, unfortunately, and to the great majority of people, are the unknowns of the great problem of universal morality. Wait, screams the majority! We are no longer in agreement. Our intelligence and our studies have long ago given us the solution that you indicated. Your pretense new proofs are useless to us. We are and have always be believers.

It is precisely that language that connects us to every martyr. You say that you have always believed, at least that is what you state. Good for your, ladies and gentlemen. If it is necessary to confess it, we do not doubt. Our sincere congratulations. We would be really happy if we could affirm something more.

We frankly agree that despite the favor of all of the good conditions that have contributed to elevate our thoughts, there was still a long way to cover so that we could do as much as you did. How many of your brothers, with even more reason and for their social positions, fell behind for being precluded from the advantages of study and eventually from some good examples?

Yes, faith is dead. Every doctor of the law agrees and moans about it. Despite their efforts, disbelief has never been so profound and more general. For some time follow that long line of people that have just taken one of their own to the last dwelling, as they say, and in ninety five percent of the time you will hear they saying: one more at the end of penalties. Said words, said and at the same time a great proof of the insufficiency of the means employed today for the propagation of the only and true happiness that people could enjoy on Earth, for the propagation of faith.

Praise the Lord! A new light shines to all. Out with privileges! A place to those in good will! Without struggles of the mind, without expensive and difficult studies, the humblest, the least educated, as with all of his brothers, may contemplate, if so wished, the divine light. Only those that do not want to see will not see it. If that is the case, we repeat, the most honest and educated persons, whose names will be cited in phalanxes, give the most authentic testimony. If that is the case, we ask, why venture into placing the light below the lamp? Why, for the simple reason that we feel no need for ourselves, rejecting without examination the phenomena whose knowledge and understanding may, if not always, at least many times stop the person at the border of a fatal cliff, to which she was impelled by doubt and disbelief; if they always and for so little can reassure through hope and courage what is about to succumb to the weight of misery?

These are, for example, the benefits that we can so easily spread around us but whose progress and diffusion may be delayed by indifference as much as opposition.”


(To be continued.)

  • Chaigneau
D.M.P.



Observation: Our prediction given in the preceding article regarding the sermon of Montauban begins to become reality. Here we have a journal that is not an organ of Spiritism and that today accepts would certainly would not have been a year ago, and not the report of events but articles of substance that develop the principles of the Doctrine. And who author them? Someone unknown? An ignorant person? No. They are authored by a doctor that enjoys a deserved reputation of knowledge and consideration in the region for his renowned qualities.

We know more than one journal that would not have problem in speaking favorably about Spiritism; that would even speak out of good-will if not for the fear of displeasing certain readers thus compromising their own interests. Such a fear could have some foundation some time ago but not today. General opinion has changed a lot about Spiritism. It is no longer something unknown. It is talked about everywhere and people no longer laugh at it as much. The idea is so much spread out that if there is something surprising is the fact that the press is indifferent to an issue that concerns the masses and that counts on millions of followers in every country of the world and in the most educated layers of society; the surprise is above all in seeing intelligent people criticizing the idea without knowing its basics. Is it then a futile issue that raises the rage of an entire party? Would that party be touched if found in the idea just a myth without consequences? That party would laugh at it but considering that the party gets upset, that rages against it and that fires up its auto-da-fe in hopes of killing that idea, it means that there is something serious there. Ah! If all those that pretend to be the representatives of progress would have taken the burden of studying the issue and they would likely not treat it with disdain.

Nonetheless our objective here is not to make their apology. We just want to register as an attested fact that the Spiritist idea has taken position among the philosophical doctrines; that it constitutes an opinion whose representatives multiply in such a way that the adversaries are the first to acknowledge that. The natural consequence is that the journals that are openly sympathetic to this cause will be granted the sympathy of its followers and these are in number large enough to compensate for some desertion that could take place, if any.

From the point of view of the Spiritist idea the public is divided in three categories: the followers, the indifferent and the antagonists. It is obvious that the two first ones form the majority. The followers will seek it for their sympathy; the indifferent ones will be satisfied by finding an impartial discussion through which they have the means of learning about what they ignore. As for the adversaries, most will be happy for not reading the articles that are not of their interest but for that they will not renounce to a journal that pleases them in other aspects: its political tendencies, editorial, columns or a variety of multiple types of news. In fact the natural adversaries of Spiritism have their special journals. In short it is certain that in the current state of affairs they would gain more than lose.

People will certainly say, and with reason, that conviction is not imposed and that a journal, much like an individual, cannot embrace ideas that they do not share. This is very true but it does not hamper impartiality. Up until today and with very rare exceptions, the journals have opened up their columns to criticism, as broadly as possible, as well as to the attacks, to the defamation of a large class of citizens, without scruples casting ridicule and neglect onto people, pitilessly closing their ranks to any defense. How many times haven’t the courts granted the right of replica that was ignored before? Would it then be necessary to resource to the courts, filling law suits? These would have accounted for thousands over the last ten years. We ask if there is impartiality, justice from the part of journals that permanently proclaim the freedom of speech, equality of rights and fraternity. It is understandable the refutation of a doctrine that one does not share; the reasoned and in good faith discussion of its principles but what is not fair or loyal is to denature that doctrine and pretend to have it saying the opposite of what it does say with the objective of having it discredited. That is what the adversaries of Spiritism do on a daily basis.

The admission of a defense after the attack, or the rectification of inaccuracies is not the same as sharing the principles. It would only be impartiality and loyalty. A journal could even go further. Without renouncing to its convictions and with full reservation of its personal opinions, it could admit to discuss the pros and cons. It would, therefore, position its readers to be able to discuss an issue that is worthwhile given the repercussion that it finds every day.

We must then praise the journal that welcomes Mr. Chaigeau’s articles for its impartiality. We must also praise the author for being one of the first to enter the arena of official publicity, sustaining our cause there with the authority of a man of science. The article mentioned above is just the introduction to his work. The number 12, March issue, contains the introduction to the subject. It is a wisely founded historical of modern Spiritism. We are sorry for not being able to reproduce it here given its extension.

Related articles

Show related items