INTRODUCTION III

Like every new theory, the Spiritist Doctrine has its followers and its detractors. We will endeavor to respond to some of the latters’ objections by examining the validity of the reasons upon which such objections are based, without, however, intending to convince everybody – there are those who believe that the light was made solely for them. We will turn our attention to those of good faith, who are without preconceptions or set minds, but who sincerely desire to learn. We will prove to them that most of their objections to the Doctrine are the result of an incomplete observation of the factual events and a judgment formed too quickly and too rashly.
To start with, we will briefly recall the progressive series of phenomena that originated the Doctrine.
The first event to be observed was the movement of various objects, popularly called table-turning ⁴ or the dance of the tables.
This phenomenon appears to have been first observed in America (or rather, it recurred in that country, since history shows that it actually dates back to remote antiquity) and was produced and accompanied by other strange occurrences such as unusual noises and raps emitted without any obvious or known cause. From America, it rapidly spread throughout Europe and other parts of the world. It was met with much disbelief at first, but the multiplicity of the experiences soon left no doubt as to its reality.
If the phenomenon had been limited to the movement of physical objects, it might have been explained by some purely physical cause. After all, we are far from knowing about all the secret agents of nature, or even all the properties of those we do know about. Electricity, for example, offers to humankind resources that multiply daily, and it appears ready to illuminate science with a new light. Therefore, if electricity were modified by certain circumstances or some unknown agent, it is quite possible that it could have been the cause behind the movement.
The gathering of several persons in a group increased the strength of the action, which appeared to support this theory since such a group could be regarded as a kind of multi-cell battery whose power corresponded to the number of participants.
The circular movement of the objects was nothing extraordinary – it belongs to nature itself. All the heavenly bodies move in circles. Thus, we could have had before us nothing more than a small reflection of the general movement of the universe, or rather, under certain circumstances, an as-yet unknown cause fortuitously producing in small objects a current analogous to that which impels the worlds through space.
The movement, however, was not always circular. It was frequently brusque and disorderly. The object would be violently shaken, overturned, carried about in every direction, and contrary to all the laws of statics⁵, suspended and held in the air. Nevertheless, there was nothing in these events that might not be explainable by the force of some invisible physical agent. After all, do we not see electricity knock down buildings, uproot trees, attract or repel the heaviest bodies or hurl them to considerable distances?
Assuming that the unusual noises and raps were not the common effects of the wood expanding or some other fortuitous cause, then they might very well have been produced by an accumulation of some kind of concealed fluid. After all, does not electricity produce the most violent noises?
Up to this point, everything might have been considered as belonging to the domain of the purely physical and physiological.
Even within this narrow scope, however, one would think that the material at hand would surely be worthy of serious study and the attention of scholars. Why was that not the case? As hard as it is to admit, it is connected to reasons that prove, among a thousand other similar ones, the shallowness of the human mind.
First, the commonness of the main object that served as the basis for the earliest experiments – a plain table – was nothing out of the ordinary. How interesting is the influence of a simple word in the most serious matters! Without ever considering the fact that the movement could involve any object whatsoever, the focus on tables undoubtedly prevailed as the most convenient because they could accommodate more individuals around them than any other piece of furniture. However, “superior” minds were sometimes too narrow-minded and felt it too belittling to concern themselves with what was commonly called the dance of the tables. If the phenomenon observed by Galvani⁶ had likewise been observed by ordinary persons instead and given some burlesque nickname, it would probably have also been regarded as having the same credibility as a magic wand. What scholars would not have deemed it beneath them to concern themselves with the dance of the frogs?
A few individuals, however, were modest enough to admit that nature might not have given them its final word, and they wanted to observe the matter for themselves in order to set their minds at ease. But it just so happened that the phenomenon did not always correspond to their expectations, and since it was not produced consistently either according to their wishes or their method of experimentation, they came to a negative conclusion.
However, despite their verdict, the tables continued to turn, and we may state with Galileo, “Nevertheless, they move!” Furthermore, we can state that the occurrences have multiplied in such a way that nowadays⁷ they have earned the right of citizenship, and that we only need to find a rational explanation for them. Can anything be inferred against the reality of the phenomenon by the fact that it is not always produced in exactly the same way and according to the will and requirements of the observer? The phenomena of electricity and chemistry depend on certain conditions, but could we deny their existence because they cannot be produced apart from such conditions? Should we find it surprising that the phenomenon of the movement of objects by the human fluid also requires its own special conditions, and that it ceases when the observers – set in their point of view – try to produce it at their own whim or subject it to the law of ordinary phenomena, without considering the fact that for a new order of events there must also be new laws? In order to understand such laws, it is necessary to study the circumstances under which the phenomena are produced, and such a study cannot be but the result of persevering, careful and sometimes very prolonged observation.
People often object that there is frequently obvious fraud involved. We in turn would like to ask if they are quite sure that it is fraud, or instead, if it might be that they have attached the fraud label to things they were unable to understand, the same way uneducated persons might see in a physicist’s experiments only the tricks of a deft magician. And even assuming that fraud does sometimes occur, would that be a reason to deny the phenomenon itself? Must we deny physics simply because there are magicians who call themselves physicists? Moreover, it is necessary to consider the character of supposedly fraudulent persons and what interest they might have in deceiving us. Could it all be just a prank? A prank can hold our attention for a little while, but if it goes on too long it becomes as wearisome for the prankster as it is for the object of the prank. Furthermore, a prank perpetrated from one end of the world to the other and among the most serious, venerable and enlightened individuals would be something at least as extraordinary as the phenomenon itself.
⁴ Sometimes known as table-tipping. – Tr.
⁵ “The branch of mechanics that deals with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991) – Tr.
⁶Luigi Galvani was an Italian scientist who discovered “animal electricity” while dissecting a frog. He touched one of the frog’s nerves with his scalpel, causing the frog’s leg to twitch as though it were still alive; thus Kardec’s reference to the dance of the frogs analogy with the dance of the tables – Tr.
⁷ Kardec wrote this text in the mid 1850s – Tr.

Contents
Home