# Isis Unveiled, Volume 1 - Science *Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.* --- > Transcriber’s Notes > > Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations > in hyphenation have been standardised but all other spelling and > punctuation remains unchanged with the exception of Greek and Hebrew > which have been extensively corrected. The corrections are listed at > the end of the book. The index appears only in Volume 2 of this work. > A copy was added to this volume for the convenience of readers. > > Italics are represented thus _italic_, bold thus ~bold~ and > superscripts thus y^{en}. > > [Illustration: Head and shoulders drawing of the author] > > ISIS UNVEILED: > > A MASTER-KEY > > TO THE > > MYSTERIES OF ANCIENT AND MODERN > > SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY. > > BY > > H. P. BLAVATSKY, > > CORRESPONDING SECRETARY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > “Cecy est un livre de bonne Foy.”—MONTAIGNE. > > VOL. I.—_SCIENCE._ > > FOURTH EDITION. > > NEW YORK: > > J. W. BOUTON, 706 BROADWAY. > > LONDON: BERNARD QUARITCH. > > 1878. > > COPYRIGHT, BY > J. W. BOUTON. > 1877. > > TROW’S > PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING CO., > PRINTERS AND BOOKBINDERS, > _205-213 East 12th. St._, > NEW YORK. > > THE AUTHOR > > Dedicates these Volumes > > TO THE > > _THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY_, > > WHICH WAS FOUNDED AT NEW YORK, A.D. 1875, > > TO STUDY THE SUBJECTS ON WHICH THEY TREAT. > > TABLE OF CONTENTS > > PAGE > PREFACE v > > BEFORE THE VEIL > > Dogmatic assumptions of modern science and theology ix > > The Platonic philosophy affords the only middle ground xi > > Review of the ancient philosophical systems xv > > A Syriac manuscript on Simon Magus xxiii > > Glossary of terms used in this book xxiii > > Volume first. > > _THE “INFALLIBILITY” OF MODERN SCIENCE._ > > CHAPTER I. > > OLD THINGS WITH NEW NAMES. > > The Oriental Kabala 1 > > Ancient traditions supported by modern research 3 > > The progress of mankind marked by cycles 5 > > Ancient cryptic science 7 > > Priceless value of the Vedas 12 > > Mutilations of the Jewish sacred books in translation 13 > > Magic always regarded as a divine science 25 > > Achievements of its adepts and hypotheses of their modern > detractors 25 > > Man’s yearning for immortality 37 > > CHAPTER II. > > PHENOMENA AND FORCES. > > The servility of society 39 > > Prejudice and bigotry of men of science 40 > > They are chased by psychical phenomena 41 > > Lost arts 49 > > The human will the master-force of forces 57 > > Superficial generalizations of the French _savants_ 60 > > Mediumistic phenomena, to what attributable 67 > > Their relation to crime 71 > > CHAPTER III. > > BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND. > > Huxley’s derivation from the _Orohippus_ 74 > > Comte, his system and disciples 75 > > The London materialists 85 > > Borrowed robes 89 > > Emanation of the objective universe from the subjective 92 > > CHAPTER IV. > > THEORIES RESPECTING PSYCHIC PHENOMENA. > > Theory of de Gasparin 100 > > “ of Thury 100 > > “ of des Mousseaux, de Mirville 100 > > “ of Babinet 101 > > “ of Houdin 101 > > “ of MM. Royer and Jobart de Lamballe 102 > > The twins—“unconscious cerebration” and “unconscious > ventriloquism.” 105 > > Theory of Crookes 112 > > “ of Faraday 116 > > “ of Chevreuil 116 > > The Mendeleyeff commission of 1876 117 > > Soul blindness 121 > > CHAPTER V. > > THE ETHER, OR “ASTRAL LIGHT.” > > One primal force, but many correlations 126 > > Tyndall narrowly escapes a great discovery 127 > > The impossibility of miracle 128 > > Nature of the primordial substance 133 > > Interpretation of certain ancient myths 133 > > Experiments of the fakirs 139 > > Evolution in Hindu allegory 153 > > CHAPTER VI. > > PSYCHO-PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. > > The debt we owe to Paracelsus 163 > > Mesmerism—its parentage, reception, potentiality 165 > > “Psychometry” 183 > > Time, space, eternity 184 > > Transfer of energy from the visible to the invisible universe 186 > > The Crookes experiments and Cox theory 195 > > CHAPTER VII. > > THE ELEMENTS, ELEMENTALS, AND ELEMENTARIES. > > Attraction and repulsion universal in all the kingdoms of nature 206 > > Psychical phenomena depend on physical surroundings 211 > > Observations in Siam 214 > > Music in nervous disorders 215 > > The “world-soul” and its potentialities 216 > > Healing by touch, and healers 217 > > “Diakka” and Porphyry’s bad demons 219 > > The quenchless lamp 224 > > Modern ignorance of vital force 237 > > Antiquity of the theory of force-correlation 241 > > Universality of belief in magic 247 > > CHAPTER VIII. > > SOME MYSTERIES OF NATURE. > > Do the planets affect human destiny? 253 > > Very curious passage from Hermes 254 > > The restlessness of matter 257 > > Prophecy of Nostradamus fulfilled 260 > > Sympathies between planets and plants 264 > > Hindu knowledge of the properties of colors 265 > > “Coincidences” the panacea of modern science 268 > > The moon and the tides 273 > > Epidemic mental and moral disorders 274 > > The gods of the Pantheons only natural forces 280 > > Proofs of the magical powers of Pythagoras 283 > > The viewless races of ethereal space 284 > > The “four truths” of Buddhism 291 > > CHAPTER IX. > > CYCLIC PHENOMENA. > > Meaning of the expression “coats of skin” 293 > > Natural selection and its results 295 > > The Egyptian “circle of necessity” 296 > > Pre-Adamite races 299 > > Descent of spirit into matter 302 > > The triune nature of man 309 > > The lowest creatures in the scale of being 310 > > Elementals specifically described 311 > > Proclus on the beings of the air 312 > > Various names for elementals 313 > > Swedenborgian views on soul-death 317 > > Earth-bound human souls 319 > > Impure mediums and their “guides” 325 > > Psychometry an aid to scientific research 333 > > CHAPTER X. > > THE INNER AND OUTER MAN. > > Père Félix arraigns the scientists 338 > > The “Unknowable” 340 > > Danger of evocations by tyros 342 > > Lares and Lemures 345 > > Secrets of Hindu temples 350 > > Reïncarnation 351 > > Witchcraft and witches 353 > > The sacred soma trance 357 > > Vulnerability of certain “shadows” 363 > > Experiment of Clearchus on a sleeping boy 365 > > The author witnesses a trial of magic in India 369 > > Case of the Cevennois 371 > > CHAPTER XI. > > PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL MARVELS. > > Invulnerability attainable by man 379 > > Projecting the force of the will 380 > > Insensibility to snake-poison 381 > > Charming serpents by music 383 > > Teratological phenomena discussed 385 > > The psychological domain confessedly unexplored 407 > > Despairing regrets of Berzelius 411 > > Turning a river into blood a vegetable phenomenon 413 > > CHAPTER XII. > > THE “IMPASSABLE CHASM.” > > Confessions of ignorance by men of science 417 > > The Pantheon of nihilism 421 > > Triple composition of fire 423 > > Instinct and reason defined 425 > > Philosophy of the Hindu Jaïns 429 > > Deliberate misrepresentations of Lemprière 431 > > Man’s astral soul not immortal 432 > > The reïncarnation of Buddha 437 > > Magical sun and moon pictures of Thibet 441 > > Vampirism—its phenomena explained 449 > > Bengalese jugglery 457 > > CHAPTER XIII. > > REALITIES AND ILLUSION. > > The rationale of talismans 462 > > Unexplained mysteries 466 > > Magical experiment in Bengal 467 > > Chibh Chondor’s surprising feats 471 > > The Indian tape-climbing trick an illusion 473 > > Resuscitation of buried fakirs 477 > > Limits of suspended animation 481 > > Mediumship totally antagonistic to adeptship 487 > > What are “materialized spirits”? 493 > > The _Shudâla Mâdan_ 495 > > Philosophy of levitation 497 > > The elixir and alkahest 503 > > CHAPTER XIV. > > EGYPTIAN WISDOM. > > Origin of the Egyptians 515 > > Their mighty engineering works 517 > > The ancient land of the Pharaohs 521 > > Antiquity of the Nilotic monuments 529 > > Arts of war and peace 531 > > Mexican myths and ruins 545 > > Resemblances to the Egyptian 551 > > Moses a priest of Osiris 555 > > The lessons taught by the ruins of Siam 563 > > The Egyptian Tau at Palenque 573 > > CHAPTER XV. > > INDIA THE CRADLE OF THE RACE. > > Acquisition of the “secret doctrine” 575 > > Two relics owned by a Pali scholar 577 > > Jealous exclusiveness of the Hindus 581 > > Lydia Maria Child on Phallic symbolism 583 > > The age of the Vedas and Manu 587 > > Traditions of pre-diluvian races 589 > > Atlantis and its peoples 593 > > Peruvian relics 597 > > The Gobi desert and its secrets 599 > > Thibetan and Chinese legends 600 > > The magician aids, not impedes, nature 617 > > Philosophy, religion, arts and sciences bequeathed by Mother > India to posterity 618 > > PREFACE. {v} > > The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat > intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their science. > It is offered to such as are willing to accept truth wherever it may > be found, and to defend it, even looking popular prejudice straight > in the face. It is an attempt to aid the student to detect the vital > principles which underlie the philosophical systems of old. > > The book is written in all sincerity. It is meant to do even justice, > and to speak the truth alike without malice or prejudice. But it shows > neither mercy for enthroned error, nor reverence for usurped authority. > It demands for a spoliated past, that credit for its achievements which > has been too long withheld. It calls for a restitution of borrowed > robes, and the vindication of calumniated but glorious reputations. > Toward no form of worship, no religious faith, no scientific hypothesis > has its criticism been directed in any other spirit. Men and parties, > sects and schools are but the mere ephemera of the world’s day. TRUTH, > high-seated upon its rock of adamant, is alone eternal and supreme. > > We believe in no Magic which transcends the scope and capacity of > the human mind, nor in “miracle,” whether divine or diabolical, if > such imply a transgression of the laws of nature instituted from all > eternity. Nevertheless, we accept the saying of the gifted author > of _Festus_, that the human heart has not yet fully uttered itself, > and that we have never attained or even understood the extent of its > powers. Is it too much to believe that man should be developing new > sensibilities and a closer relation with nature? The logic of evolution > must teach as much, if carried to its legitimate conclusions. If, > somewhere, in the line of ascent from vegetable or ascidian to the > noblest man a soul was evolved, gifted with intellectual qualities, > it cannot be unreasonable to infer and believe that a faculty of > perception is also growing in man, enabling him to descry facts and > truths even beyond our ordinary ken. Yet we do not hesitate to accept > the assertion of Biffé, that “the essential is forever the same. > Whether we cut away the marble inward that hides the statue in the {vi} > block, or pile stone upon stone outward till the temple is completed, > our NEW result is only an _old idea_. The latest of all the eternities > will find its destined other half-soul in the earliest.” > > When, years ago, we first travelled over the East, exploring > the penetralia of its deserted sanctuaries, two saddening and > ever-recurring questions oppressed our thoughts: _Where_, WHO, WHAT > _is_ GOD? _Who ever saw the_ IMMORTAL SPIRIT _of man, so as to be able > to assure himself of man’s immortality_? > > It was while most anxious to solve these perplexing problems that > we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious > powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly designate them as > the sages of the Orient. To their instructions we lent a ready ear. > They showed us that by combining science with religion, the existence > of God and immortality of man’s spirit may be demonstrated like a > problem of Euclid. For the first time we received the assurance that > the Oriental philosophy has room for no other faith than an absolute > and immovable faith in the omnipotence of man’s own immortal self. > We were taught that this omnipotence comes from the kinship of man’s > spirit with the Universal Soul—God! The latter, they said, can never be > demonstrated but by the former. Man-spirit proves God-spirit, as the > one drop of water proves a source from which it must have come. Tell > one who had never seen water, that there is an ocean of water, and he > must accept it on faith or reject it altogether. But let one drop fall > upon his hand, and he then has the fact from which all the rest may be > inferred. After that he could by degrees understand that a boundless > and fathomless ocean of water existed. Blind faith would no longer be > necessary; he would have supplanted it with KNOWLEDGE. When one sees > mortal man displaying tremendous capabilities, controlling the forces > of nature and opening up to view the world of spirit, the reflective > mind is overwhelmed with the conviction that if one man’s spiritual > _Ego_ can do this much, the capabilities of the FATHER SPIRIT must be > relatively as much vaster as the whole ocean surpasses the single drop > in volume and potency. _Ex nihilo nihil fit_; prove the soul of man by > its wondrous powers—you have proved God! > > In our studies, mysteries were shown to be no mysteries. Names and > places that to the Western mind have only a significance derived from > Eastern fable, were shown to be realities. Reverently we stepped in > spirit within the temple of Isis; to lift aside the veil of “the > one that is and was and shall be” at Saïs; to look through the rent > curtain of the Sanctum Sanctorum at Jerusalem; and even to interrogate > within the crypts which once existed beneath the sacred edifice, the > mysterious Bath-Kol. The _Filia Vocis_—the daughter of the divine {vii} > voice—responded from the mercy-seat within the veil,[1] and science, > theology, every human hypothesis and conception born of imperfect > knowledge, lost forever their authoritative character in our sight. > The one-living God had spoken through his oracle—man, and we were > satisfied. Such knowledge is priceless; and it has been hidden only > from those who overlooked it, derided it, or denied its existence. > > From such as these we apprehend criticism, censure, and perhaps > hostility, although the obstacles in our way neither spring from the > validity of proof, the authenticated facts of history, nor the lack > of common sense among the public whom we address. The drift of modern > thought is palpably in the direction of liberalism in religion as well > as science. Each day brings the reactionists nearer to the point where > they must surrender the despotic authority over the public conscience, > which they have so long enjoyed and exercised. When the Pope can go > to the extreme of fulminating anathemas against all who maintain the > liberty of the Press and of speech, or who insist that in the conflict > of laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail, or > that any method of instruction solely secular, may be approved;[2] > and Mr. Tyndall, as the mouthpiece of nineteenth century science, > says, “... the impregnable position of science may be stated in a few > words: we claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire domain of > cosmological theory”[3]—the end is not difficult to foresee. > > Centuries of subjection have not quite congealed the life-blood of men > into crystals around the nucleus of blind faith; and the nineteenth is > witnessing the struggles of the giant as he shakes off the Liliputian > cordage and rises to his feet. Even the Protestant communion of England > and America, now engaged in the revision of the text of its _Oracles_, > will be compelled to show the origin and merits of the text itself. The > day of domineering over men with dogmas has reached its gloaming. > > Our work, then, is a plea for the recognition of the Hermetic > philosophy, the anciently universal Wisdom-Religion, as the only > possible key to the Absolute in science and theology. To show that we > do not at all conceal from ourselves the gravity of our undertaking, > we may say in advance that it would not be strange if the following > classes should array themselves against us: > > The Christians, who will see that we question the evidences of the {viii} > genuineness of their faith. > > The Scientists, who will find their pretensions placed in the same > bundle with those of the Roman Catholic Church for infallibility, and, > in certain particulars, the sages and philosophers of the ancient world > classed higher than they. > > Pseudo-Scientists will, of course, denounce us furiously. > > Broad Churchmen and Freethinkers will find that we do not accept what > they do, but demand the recognition of the whole truth. > > Men of letters and various _authorities_, who hide their real belief in > deference to popular prejudices. > > The mercenaries and parasites of the Press, who prostitute its more > than royal power, and dishonor a noble profession, will find it easy to > mock at things too wonderful for them to understand; for to them the > price of a paragraph is more than the value of sincerity. From many > will come honest criticism; from many—cant. But we look to the future. > > The contest now going on between the party of public conscience and the > party of reaction, has already developed a healthier tone of thought. > It will hardly fail to result ultimately in the overthrow of error and > the triumph of Truth. We repeat again—we are laboring for the brighter > morrow. > > And yet, when we consider the bitter opposition that we are called > upon to face, who is better entitled than we upon entering the arena > to write upon our shield the hail of the Roman gladiator to Cæsar: > MORITURUS TE SALUTAT! > > _New York, September, 1877._ > > BEFORE THE VEIL. {ix} > > _Joan._—Advance our waving colors on the walls! > —_King Henry VI._ Act IV. > > “My life has been devoted to the study of man, his destiny and his > happiness.”—J. R. BUCHANAN, M.D., _Outlines of Lectures on > Anthropology_. > > It is nineteen centuries since, as we are told, the night of Heathenism > and Paganism was first dispelled by the divine light of Christianity; > and two-and-a-half centuries since the bright lamp of Modern Science > began to shine on the darkness of the ignorance of the ages. Within > these respective epochs, we are required to believe, the true moral > and intellectual progress of the race has occurred. The ancient > philosophers were well enough for their respective generations, but > they were illiterate as compared with modern men of science. The > ethics of Paganism perhaps met the wants of the uncultivated people > of antiquity, but not until the advent of the luminous “Star of > Bethlehem,” was the true road to moral perfection and the way to > salvation made plain. Of old, brutishness was the rule, virtue and > spirituality the exception. Now, the dullest may read the will of God > in His revealed word; men have every incentive to be good, and are > constantly becoming better. > > This is the assumption; what are the facts? On the one hand an > unspiritual, dogmatic, too often debauched clergy; a host of sects, and > three warring great religions; discord instead of union, dogmas without > proofs, sensation-loving preachers, and wealth and pleasure-seeking > parishioners’ hypocrisy and bigotry, begotten by the tyrannical > exigencies of respectability, the rule of the day, sincerity and real > piety exceptional. On the other hand, scientific hypotheses built > on sand; no accord upon a single question; rancorous quarrels and > jealousy; a general drift into materialism. A death-grapple of Science > with Theology for infallibility—“a conflict of ages.” > > At Rome, the self-styled seat of Christianity, the putative successor > to the chair of Peter is undermining social order with his invisible > but omnipresent net-work of bigoted agents, and incites them to > revolutionize Europe for his temporal as well as spiritual supremacy. > We see him who calls himself the “Vicar of Christ,” fraternizing > with the anti-Christian Moslem against another Christian nation, > publicly invoking the blessing of God upon the arms of those who > have for centuries withstood, with fire and sword, the pretensions {x} > of his Christ to Godhood! At Berlin—one of the great seats of > learning—professors of modern _exact_ sciences, turning their backs on > the boasted results of enlightenment of the post-Galileonian period, > are quietly snuffing out the candle of the great Florentine; seeking, > in short, to prove the heliocentric system, and even the earth’s > rotation, but the dreams of deluded scientists, Newton a visionary, and > all past and present astronomers but clever calculators of unverifiable > problems.[4] > > Between these two conflicting Titans—Science and Theology—is > a bewildered public, fast losing all belief in man’s personal > immortality, in a deity of any kind, and rapidly descending to the > level of a mere animal existence. Such is the picture of the hour, > illumined by the bright noon-day sun of this Christian and scientific > era! > > Would it be strict justice to condemn to critical lapidation the most > humble and modest of authors for _entirely rejecting the authority > of both these combatants_? Are we not bound rather to take as the > true aphorism of this century, the declaration of Horace Greeley: “I > accept _unreservedly_ the views of no man, living or dead”?[5] Such, > at all events, will be our motto, and we mean that principle to be our > constant guide throughout this work. > > Among the many phenomenal outgrowths of our century, the strange creed > of the so-called Spiritualists has arisen amid the tottering ruins of > self-styled revealed religions and materialistic philosophies; and yet > it alone offers a possible last refuge of compromise between the two. > That this unexpected ghost of pre-Christian days finds poor welcome > from our sober and positive century, is not surprising. Times have > strangely changed; and it is but recently that a well-known Brooklyn > preacher pointedly remarked in a sermon, that could Jesus come back and > behave in the streets of New York, as he did in those of Jerusalem, he > would find himself confined in the prison of the Tombs.[6] What sort > of welcome, then, could Spiritualism ever expect? True enough, the > weird stranger seems neither attractive nor promising at first sight. > Shapeless and uncouth, like an infant attended by seven nurses, it is > coming out of its teens lame and mutilated. The name of its enemies is > legion; its friends and protectors are a handful. But what of that? > When was ever truth accepted _à priori_? Because the champions of > Spiritualism have in their fanaticism magnified its qualities, and > remained blind to its imperfections, that gives no excuse to doubt > its reality. A forgery is impossible when we have no model to forge > after. The fanaticism of Spiritualists is itself a proof of the {xi} > genuineness and possibility of their phenomena. They give us facts > that we may investigate, not assertions that we must believe without > proof. Millions of reasonable men and women do not so easily succumb to > collective hallucination. And so, while the clergy, following their own > interpretations of the _Bible_, and science its self-made _Codex_ of > possibilities in nature, refuse it a fair hearing, _real_ science and > _true_ religion are silent, and gravely wait further developments. > > The whole question of phenomena rests on the correct comprehension of > old philosophies. Whither, then, should we turn, in our perplexity, but > to the ancient sages, since, on the pretext of superstition, we are > refused an explanation by the modern? Let us ask them what they know of > genuine science and religion; not in the matter of mere details, but in > all the broad conception of these twin truths—so strong in their unity, > so weak when divided. Besides, we may find our profit in comparing this > boasted modern science with ancient ignorance; this improved modern > theology with the “Secret doctrines” of the ancient universal religion. > Perhaps we may thus discover a neutral ground whence we can reach and > profit by both. > > It is the Platonic philosophy, the most elaborate compend of the > abstruse systems of old India, that can alone afford us this middle > ground. Although twenty-two and a quarter centuries have elapsed since > the death of Plato, the great minds of the world are still occupied > with his writings. He was, in the fullest sense of the word, the > world’s interpreter. And the greatest philosopher of the pre-Christian > era mirrored faithfully in his works the spiritualism of the Vedic > philosophers who lived thousands of years before himself, and its > metaphysical expression. Vyasa, Djeminy, Kapila, Vrihaspati, Sumati, > and so many others, will be found to have transmitted their indelible > imprint through the intervening centuries upon Plato and his school. > Thus is warranted the inference that to Plato and the ancient Hindu > sages was alike revealed the same wisdom. So surviving the shock of > time, what can this wisdom be but divine and eternal? > > Plato taught justice as subsisting in the soul of its possessor and his > greatest good. “Men, in proportion to their intellect, have admitted > his transcendent claims.” Yet his commentators, almost with one > consent, shrink from every passage which implies that his metaphysics > are based on a solid foundation, and not on ideal conceptions. > > But Plato could not accept a philosophy destitute of spiritual > aspirations; the two were at one with him. For the old Grecian sage > there was a single object of attainment: REAL KNOWLEDGE. He considered > those only to be genuine philosophers, or students of truth, who > possess the knowledge of the really-existing, in opposition to the mere {xii} > seeing; of the _always-existing_, in opposition to the transitory; and > of that which exists _permanently_, in opposition to that which waxes, > wanes, and is developed and destroyed alternately. “Beyond all finite > existences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas, and principles, > there is an INTELLIGENCE or MIND [νοῦς, _nous_, the spirit], the first > principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas > are grounded; the Monarch and Lawgiver of the universe; the ultimate > substance from which all things derive their being and essence, the > first and efficient Cause of all the order, and harmony, and beauty, > and excellency, and goodness, which pervades the universe—who is > called, by way of preëminence and excellence, the Supreme Good, the > God (ὁ θεός) ‘the God over all’ (ὁ επι πασι θεός).”[7] He is not the > truth nor the intelligence, but “the father of it.” Though this eternal > essence of things may not be perceptible by our physical senses, it > may be apprehended by the mind of those who are not wilfully obtuse. > “To you,” said Jesus to his elect disciples, “it is given to know the > mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to them [the πολλοὶ] it is not > given; ... therefore speak I to them in parables [or allegories]; > because they seeing, see not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do > they understand.”[8] > > The philosophy of Plato, we are assured by Porphyry, of the > Neo-platonic School was taught and illustrated in the MYSTERIES. Many > have questioned and even denied this; and Lobeck, in his _Aglaophomus_, > has gone to the extreme of representing the sacred orgies as little > more than an empty show to captivate the imagination. As though Athens > and Greece would for twenty centuries and more have repaired every > fifth year to Eleusis to witness a solemn religious farce! Augustine, > the papa-bishop of Hippo, has resolved such assertions. He declares > that the doctrines of the Alexandrian Platonists were the original > esoteric doctrines of the first followers of Plato, and describes > Plotinus as a Plato resuscitated. He also explains the motives of the > great philosopher for veiling the interior sense of what he taught.[9] > > As to the _myths_, Plato declares in the _Gorgias_ and the _Phædon_ {xiii} > that they were the vehicles of great truths well worth the seeking. > But commentators are so little _en rapport_ with the great philosopher > as to be compelled to acknowledge that they are ignorant where “the > doctrinal ends, and the mythical begins.” Plato put to flight the > popular superstition concerning magic and dæmons, and developed > the exaggerated notions of the time into rational theories and > metaphysical conceptions. Perhaps these would not quite stand the > inductive method of reasoning established by Aristotle; nevertheless > they are satisfactory in the highest degree to those who apprehend the > existence of that higher faculty of insight or intuition, as affording > a criterion for ascertaining truth. > > Basing all his doctrines upon the presence of the Supreme Mind, > Plato taught that the _nous_, spirit, or rational soul of man, being > “generated by the Divine Father,” possessed a nature kindred, or > even homogeneous, with the Divinity, and was capable of beholding > the eternal realities. This faculty of contemplating reality in a > direct and immediate manner belongs to God alone; the aspiration for > this knowledge constitutes what is really meant by _philosophy_—the > love of wisdom. The love of truth is inherently the love of good; > and so predominating over every desire of the soul, purifying it > and assimilating it to the divine, thus governing every act of the > individual, it raises man to a participation and communion with > Divinity, and restores him to the likeness of God. “This flight,” says > Plato in the _Theætetus_, “consists in becoming like God, and this > assimilation is the becoming just and holy with wisdom.” > > The basis of this assimilation is always asserted to be the > preëxistence of the spirit or _nous_. In the allegory of the chariot > and winged steeds, given in the _Phædrus_, he represents the psychical > nature as composite and two-fold; the _thumos_, or _epithumetic_ > part, formed from the substances of the world of phenomena; and the > θυμοειδές, _thumoeides_, the essence of which is linked to the eternal > world. The present earth-life is a fall and punishment. The soul dwells > in “the grave which we call _the body_,” and in its incorporate state, > and previous to the discipline of education, the noëtic or spiritual > element is “asleep.” Life is thus a dream, rather than a reality. Like > the captives in the subterranean cave, described in _The Republic_, the > back is turned to the light, we perceive only the shadows of objects, > and think them the actual realities. Is not this the idea of _Maya_, {xiv} > or the illusion of the senses in physical life, which is so marked a > feature in Buddhistical philosophy? But these shadows, if we have not > given ourselves up absolutely to the sensuous nature, arouse in us the > reminiscence of that higher world that we once inhabited. “The interior > spirit has some dim and shadowy recollection of its antenatal state of > bliss, and some instinctive and proleptic yearnings for its return.” It > is the province of the discipline of philosophy to disinthrall it from > the bondage of sense, and raise it into the empyrean of pure thought, > to the vision of eternal truth, goodness, and beauty. “The soul,” says > Plato, in the _Theætetus_, “cannot come into the form of a man if > it has never seen the truth. This is a recollection of those things > which our soul formerly saw when journeying with Deity, despising the > things which we now say _are_, and looking up to that which REALLY IS. > Wherefore the _nous_, or spirit, of the philosopher (or student of the > higher truth) alone is furnished with wings; because he, to the best > of his ability, keeps these things in mind, of which the contemplation > renders even Deity itself divine. By making the right use of these > things remembered from the former life, by constantly perfecting > himself in the perfect mysteries, a man becomes truly perfect—an > initiate into the diviner wisdom.” > > Hence we may understand why the sublimer scenes in the Mysteries were > always in the night. The life of the interior spirit is the death > of the external nature; and the night of the physical world denotes > the day of the spiritual. Dionysus, the night-sun, is, therefore, > worshipped rather than Helios, orb of day. In the Mysteries were > symbolized the preëxistent condition of the spirit and soul, and the > lapse of the latter into earth-life and Hades, the miseries of that > life, the purification of the soul, and its restoration to divine > bliss, or reünion with spirit. Theon, of Smyrna, aptly compares the > philosophical discipline to the mystic rites: “Philosophy,” says he, > “may be called the initiation into the true arcana, and the instruction > in the genuine Mysteries. There are five parts of this initiation: > I., the previous purification; II., the admission to participation in > the arcane rites; III., the epoptic revelation; IV., the investiture > or enthroning; V.—the fifth, which is produced from all these, is > friendship and interior communion with God, and the enjoyment of that > felicity which arises from intimate converse with divine beings.... > Plato denominates the _epopteia_, or personal view, the perfect > contemplation of things which are apprehended intuitively, absolute > truths and ideas. He also considers the binding of the head and > crowning as analogous to the authority which any one receives from > his instructors, of leading others into the same contemplation. The > fifth gradation is the most perfect felicity arising from hence, and, {xv} > according to Plato, an assimilation to divinity as far as is possible > to human beings.”[10] > > Such is Platonism. “Out of Plato,” says Ralph Waldo Emerson, “come > all things that are still written and debated among men of thought.” > He absorbed the learning of his times—of Greece from Philolaus to > Socrates; then of Pythagoras in Italy; then what he could procure from > Egypt and the East. He was so broad that all philosophy, European and > Asiatic, was in his doctrines; and to culture and contemplation he > added the nature and qualities of the poet. > > The followers of Plato generally adhered strictly to his psychological > theories. Several, however, like Xenocrates, ventured into bolder > speculations. Speusippus, the nephew and successor of the great > philosopher, was the author of the _Numerical Analysis_, a treatise > on the Pythagorean numbers. Some of his speculations are not found in > the written _Dialogues_; but as he was a listener to the unwritten > lectures of Plato, the judgment of Enfield is doubtless correct, that > he did not differ from his master. He was evidently, though not named, > the antagonist whom Aristotle criticised, when professing to cite the > argument of Plato against the doctrine of Pythagoras, that all things > were in themselves numbers, or rather, inseparable from the idea of > numbers. He especially endeavored to show that the Platonic doctrine of > ideas differed essentially from the Pythagorean, in that it presupposed > numbers and magnitudes to exist apart from things. He also asserted > that Plato taught that there could be no _real_ knowledge, if the > object of that knowledge was not carried beyond or above the sensible. > > But Aristotle was no trustworthy witness. He misrepresented Plato, > and he almost caricatured the doctrines of Pythagoras. There is a > canon of interpretation, which should guide us in our examinations of > every philosophical opinion: “The human mind has, under the necessary > operation of its own laws, been compelled to entertain the same > fundamental ideas, and the human heart to cherish the same feelings > in all ages.” It is certain that Pythagoras awakened the deepest > intellectual sympathy of his age, and that his doctrines exerted a > powerful influence upon the mind of Plato. His cardinal idea was > that there existed a permanent principle of unity beneath the forms, > changes, and other phenomena of the universe. Aristotle asserted that > he taught that “numbers are the first principles of all entities.” > Ritter has expressed the opinion that the formula of Pythagoras should > be taken symbolically, which is doubtless correct. Aristotle goes on > to associate these _numbers_ with the “forms” and “ideas” of Plato. He > even declares that Plato said: “forms are numbers,” and that “ideas {xvi} > are substantial existences—real beings.” Yet Plato did not so teach. > He declared that the final cause was the Supreme Goodness—το ἀγαθόν. > “Ideas are objects of pure conception for the human reason, and they > are attributes of the Divine Reason.”[11] Nor did he ever say that > “forms are numbers.” What he did say may be found in the _Timæus_: “God > formed things as they first arose according to forms and numbers.” > > It is recognized by modern science that all the higher laws of nature > assume the form of quantitative statement. This is perhaps a fuller > elaboration or more explicit affirmation of the Pythagorean doctrine. > Numbers were regarded as the best representations of the laws of > harmony which pervade the cosmos. We know too that in chemistry the > doctrine of atoms and the laws of combination are actually and, as > it were, arbitrarily defined by numbers. As Mr. W. Archer Butler > has expressed it: “The world is, then, through all its departments, > a living arithmetic in its development, a realized geometry in its > repose.” > > The key to the Pythagorean dogmas is the general formula of unity in > multiplicity, the one evolving the many and pervading the many. This > is the ancient doctrine of emanation in few words. Even the apostle > Paul accepted it as true. “Εξ αυτοὺ, και δι᾽ αυτοῦ, και εις αυτὸν τὰ > πάντα”—Out of him and through him and in him all things are. This, as > we can see by the following quotation, is purely Hindu and Brahmanical: > > “When the dissolution—Pralaya—had arrived at its term, the great > Being—Para-Atma or Para-Purusha—the Lord existing through himself, > out of whom and through whom all things were, and are and will be ... > resolved to emanate from his own substance the various creatures” > (_Manava-Dharma-Sastra_, book i., slokas 6 and 7). > > The mystic Decad 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 is a way of expressing this idea. > The One is God, the Two, matter; the Three, combining Monad and Duad, > and partaking of the nature of both, is the phenomenal world; the > Tetrad, or form of perfection, expresses the emptiness of all; and the > Decad, or sum of all, involves the entire cosmos. The universe is the > combination of a thousand elements, and yet the expression of a single > spirit—a chaos to the sense, a cosmos to the reason. > > The whole of this combination of the progression of numbers in the idea > of creation is Hindu. The Being existing through himself, Swayambhu > or Swayambhuva, as he is called by some, is one. He emanates from > himself the _creative faculty_, Brahma or Purusha (the divine male), > and the one becomes _Two_; out of this Duad, union of the purely {xvii} > intellectual principle with the principle of matter, evolves a third, > which is Viradj, the phenomenal world. It is out of this invisible > and incomprehensible trinity, the Brahmanic Trimurty, that evolves > the second triad which represents the three faculties—the creative, > the conservative, and the transforming. These are typified by Brahma, > Vishnu, and Siva, but are again and ever blended into one. _Unity_, > Brahma, or as the _Vedas_ called him, Tridandi, is the god triply > manifested, which gave rise to the symbolical _Aum_ or the abbreviated > Trimurty. It is but under this trinity, ever active and tangible to all > our senses, that the invisible and unknown Monas can manifest itself > to the world of mortals. When he becomes _Sarira_, or he who puts on > a visible form, he typifies all the principles of matter, all the > germs of life, he is Purusha, the god of the three visages, or triple > power, the essence of the Vedic triad. “Let the Brahmas know the sacred > Syllable (Aum), the three words of the Savitri, and read the _Vedas_ > daily” (_Manu_, book iv., sloka 125). > > “After having produced the universe, He whose power is incomprehensible > vanished again, absorbed in the Supreme Soul.... Having retired into > the primitive darkness, the great Soul remains within the unknown, and > is void of all form.... > > “When having again reünited the subtile elementary principles, it > introduces itself into either a vegetable or animal seed, it assumes at > each a new form.” > > “It is thus that, by an alternative waking and rest, the Immutable > Being causes to revive and die eternally all the existing creatures, > active and inert” (_Manu_, book i., sloka 50, and others). > > He who has studied Pythagoras and his speculations on the Monad, which, > after having emanated the Duad retires into silence and darkness, and > thus creates the Triad can realize whence came the philosophy of the > great Samian Sage, and after him that of Socrates and Plato. > > Speusippus seems to have taught that the psychical or thumetic soul > was immortal as well as the spirit or rational soul, and further > on we will show his reasons. He also—like Philolaus and Aristotle, > in his disquisitions upon the soul—makes of æther an element; so > that there were five principal elements to correspond with the five > regular figures in Geometry. This became also a doctrine of the > Alexandrian school.[12] Indeed, there was much in the doctrines of > the _Philaletheans_ which did not appear in the works of the older > Platonists, but was doubtless taught in substance by the philosopher > himself, but with his usual reticence was not committed to writing as > being too arcane for promiscuous publication. Speusippus and Xenocrates > after him, held, like their great master, that the _anima mundi_, or {xviii} > world-soul, was not the Deity, but a manifestation. Those philosophers > never conceived of the One as an _animate nature_.[13] The original One > did not _exist_, as we understand the term. Not till he had united with > the many—emanated existence (the monad and duad) was a being produced. > The τίμιον, honored—the something manifested, dwells in the centre as > in the circumference, but it is only the reflection of the Deity—the > World-Soul.[14] In this doctrine we find the spirit of esoteric > Buddhism. > > A man’s idea of God, is that image of blinding light that he sees > reflected in the concave mirror of his own soul, and yet this is not, > in very truth, God, but only His reflection. His glory is there, but, > it is the light of his own Spirit that the man sees, and it is all he > can bear to look upon. _The clearer the mirror, the brighter will be > the divine image._ But the external world cannot be witnessed in it > at the same moment. In the ecstatic Yogin, in the illuminated Seer, > the spirit will shine like the noon-day sun; in the debased victim of > earthly attraction, the radiance has disappeared, for the mirror is > obscured with the stains of matter. Such men deny their God, and would > willingly deprive humanity of soul at one blow. > > NO GOD, NO SOUL? Dreadful, annihilating thought! The maddening > nightmare of a lunatic—Atheist; presenting before his fevered vision, > a hideous, ceaseless procession of sparks of cosmic matter created by > _no one_; self-appearing, self-existent, and self-developing; this > Self _no_ Self, for it is _nothing_ and _nobody_; floating onward > from _nowhence_, it is propelled by no Cause, for there is none, and > it rushes _nowhither_. And this in a circle of Eternity blind, inert, > and—CAUSELESS. What is even the erroneous conception of the Buddhistic > Nirvana in comparison! The Nirvana is preceded by numberless spiritual > transformations and metempsychoses, during which the entity loses not > for a second the sense of its own individuality, and which may last for > millions of ages before the Final _No_-thing is reached. > > Though some have considered Speusippus as inferior to Aristotle, the > world is nevertheless indebted to him for defining and expounding many > things that Plato had left obscure in his doctrine of the Sensible and > Ideal. His maxim was “The Immaterial is known by means of scientific > thought, the Material by scientific perception.”[15] > > Xenocrates expounded many of the unwritten theories and teachings of > his master. He too held the Pythagorean doctrine, and his system of > numerals and mathematics in the highest estimation. Recognizing but > three degrees of knowledge—_Thought_, _Perception_, and _Envisagement_ > (or knowledge by _Intuition_), he made the former busy itself with all {xix} > that which is _beyond_ the heavens; Perception with things in the > heavens; Intuition with the heavens themselves. > > We find again these theories, and nearly in the same language in the > _Manava-Dharma-Sastra_, when speaking of the creation of man: “He (the > Supreme) drew from his own essence the immortal breath which _perisheth > not in the being_, and to this soul of the being he gave the Ahancara > (conscience of the _ego_) sovereign guide. Then he gave to that soul of > the being (man) the intellect formed of _the three qualities_, and the > five organs of the outward perception.” > > These three qualities are Intelligence, Conscience, and Will; answering > to the Thought, Perception, and Envisagement of Xenocrates. The > relation of numbers to Ideas was developed by him further than by > Speusippus, and he surpassed Plato in his definition of the doctrine of > Invisible Magnitudes. Reducing them to their ideal primary elements, he > demonstrated that every figure and form originated out of the smallest > indivisible line. That Xenocrates held the same theories as Plato > in relation to the human soul (supposed to be a number) is evident, > though Aristotle contradicts this, like every other teaching of this > philosopher.[16] This is conclusive evidence that many of Plato’s > doctrines were delivered orally, even were it shown that Xenocrates > and not Plato was the first to originate the theory of indivisible > magnitudes. He derives the Soul from the first Duad, and calls it > a self-moved number.[17] Theophrastus remarks that he entered and > eliminated this Soul-theory more than any other Platonist. He built > upon it the cosmological doctrine, and proved the necessary existence > in every part of the universal space of a successive and progressive > series of animated and thinking though spiritual beings.[18] The > Human Soul with him is a compound of the most spiritual properties of > the Monad and the Duad, possessing the highest principles of both. > If, like Plato and Prodicus, he refers to the Elements as to Divine > Powers, and calls them gods, neither himself nor others connected > any anthropomorphic idea with the appellation. Krische remarks that > he called them gods only that these elementary powers should not be > confounded with the dæmons of the nether world[19] (the Elementary > Spirits). As the Soul of the World permeates the whole Cosmos, even > beasts must have in them something divine.[20] This, also, is the > doctrine of Buddhists and the Hermetists, and Manu endows with a living > soul even the plants and the tiniest blade of grass. > > The dæmons, according to this theory, are intermediate beings between {xx} > the divine perfection and human sinfulness,[21] and he divides them > into classes, each subdivided in many others. But he states expressly > that the individual or personal soul is the leading guardian dæmon > of every man, and that no dæmon has more power over us than our own. > Thus the _Daimonion_ of Socrates is the god or Divine Entity which > inspired him all his life. It depends on man either to open or close > his perceptions to the Divine voice. Like Speusippus he ascribed > immortality to the ψυχη, psychical body, or irrational soul. But > some Hermetic philosophers have taught that the soul has a separate > continued existence only so long as in its passage through the spheres > any material or earthly particles remain incorporated in it; and > that when absolutely purified, the latter are _annihilated_, and the > quintessence of the soul alone becomes blended with its _divine_ spirit > (the _Rational_), and the two are thenceforth one. > > Zeller states that Xenocrates forbade the eating of animal food, not > because he saw in beasts something akin to man, as he ascribed to > them a dim consciousness of God, but, “for the opposite reason, lest > the irrationality of animal souls might thereby obtain a certain > influence over us.”[22] But we believe that it was rather because, > like Pythagoras, he had had the Hindu sages for his masters and > models. Cicero depicted Xenocrates utterly despising everything > except the highest virtue;[23] and describes the stainlessness and > severe austerity of his character.[24] “To free ourselves from the > subjection of sensuous existence, to conquer the Titanic elements in > our terrestrial nature through the Divine one, is our problem.” Zeller > makes him say:[25] “Purity, even in the secret longings of our heart, > is the greatest duty, and only philosophy and the initiation into the > Mysteries help toward the attainment of this object.” > > Crantor, another philosopher associated with the earliest days of > Plato’s Academy, conceived the human soul as formed out of the primary > substance of all things, the Monad or _One_, and the Duad or the _Two_. > Plutarch speaks at length of this philosopher, who like his master > believed in souls being distributed in earthly bodies as an exile and > punishment. > > Herakleides, though some critics do not believe him to have strictly > adhered to Plato’s primal philosophy,[26] taught the same ethics. > Zeller presents him to us imparting, like Hicetas and Ecphantus, the > Pythagorean doctrine of the diurnal rotation of the earth and the > immobility of the fixed stars, but adds that he was ignorant of the {xxi} > annual revolution of the earth around the sun, and of the heliocentric > system.[27] But we have good evidence that the latter system was taught > in the Mysteries, and that Socrates died for _atheism_, _i. e._, > for divulging this sacred knowledge. Herakleides adopted fully the > Pythagorean and Platonic views of the human soul, its faculties and its > capabilities. He describes it as a luminous, highly ethereal essence. > He affirms that souls inhabit the milky way before descending “into > generation” or sublunary existence. His dæmons or spirits are airy and > vaporous bodies. > > In the _Epinomis_ is fully stated the doctrine of the Pythagorean > numbers in relation to created things. As a true Platonist, its author > maintains that wisdom can only be attained by a thorough inquiry into > the occult nature of the creation; it alone assures us an existence of > bliss after death. The immortality of the soul is greatly speculated > upon in this treatise; but its author adds that we can attain to this > knowledge only through a complete comprehension of the numbers; for > the man, unable to distinguish the straight line from a curved one > will never have wisdom enough to secure a mathematical demonstration > of the _invisible_, _i. e._, we must assure ourselves of the objective > existence of our soul (astral body) before we learn that we are in > possession of a divine and immortal spirit. Iamblichus says the same > thing; adding, moreover, that it is a secret belonging to the highest > initiation. The Divine Power, he says, always felt indignant with those > “who rendered manifest the composition of the _icostagonus_,” viz., who > delivered the method of inscribing in a sphere the dodecahedron.[28] > > The idea that “numbers” possessing the greatest virtue, produce always > what is good and never what is evil, refers to justice, equanimity > of temper, and everything that is harmonious. When the author speaks > of every star as an individual soul, he only means what the Hindu > initiates and the Hermetists taught before and after him, viz.: that > every star is an independent planet, which, like our earth, has a soul > of its own, every atom of matter being impregnated with the divine > influx of the soul of the world. It breathes and lives; it feels > and suffers as well as enjoys life in its way. What naturalist is > prepared to dispute it on good evidence? Therefore, we must consider > the celestial bodies as the images of gods; as partaking of the divine > powers in their substance; and though they are not immortal in their > soul-entity, their agency in the economy of the universe is entitled > to divine honors, such as we pay to minor gods. The idea is plain, and > one must be malevolent indeed to misrepresent it. If the author of > _Epinomis_ places these fiery gods higher than the animals, plants, > and even mankind, all of which, as earthly creatures, are assigned by {xxii} > him a lower place, who can prove him wholly wrong? One must needs go > deep indeed into the profundity of the abstract metaphysics of the old > philosophies, who would understand that their various embodiments of > their conceptions are, after all, based upon an identical apprehension > of the nature of the First Cause, its attributes and method. > > Again when the author of _Epinomis_ locates between these highest and > lowest gods (embodied souls) three classes of dæmons, and peoples the > universe with invisible beings, he is more rational than our modern > scientists, who make between the two extremes one vast hiatus of being, > the playground of blind forces. Of these three classes the first > two are invisible; their bodies are pure ether and fire (_planetary > spirits_); the dæmons of the third class are clothed with vapory > bodies; they are usually invisible, but sometimes making themselves > concrete become visible for a few seconds. These are the earthly > spirits, or our astral souls. > > It is these doctrines, which, studied analogically, and on the > principle of correspondence, led the ancient, and may now lead the > modern Philaletheian step by step toward the solution of the greatest > mysteries. On the brink of the dark chasm separating the spiritual from > the physical world stands modern science, with eyes closed and head > averted, pronouncing the gulf impassable and bottomless, though she > holds in her hand a torch which she need only lower into the depths to > show her her mistake. But across this chasm, the patient student of > Hermetic philosophy has constructed a bridge. > > In his _Fragments of Science_ Tyndall makes the following sad > confession: “If you ask me whether science has solved, or is likely in > our day to solve the problem of this universe, I must shake my head > in doubt.” If moved by an afterthought, he corrects himself later, > and assures his audience that experimental evidence has helped him to > discover, in the opprobrium-covered matter, the “promise and potency > of every quality of life,” he only jokes. It would be as difficult for > Professor Tyndall to offer any ultimate and irrefutable proofs of what > he asserts, as it was for Job to insert a hook into the nose of the > leviathan. > > To avoid confusion that might easily arise by the frequent employment > of certain terms in a sense different from that familiar to the reader, > a few explanations will be timely. We desire to leave no pretext > either for misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Magic may have one > signification to one class of readers and another to another class. We > shall give it the meaning which it has in the minds of its Oriental > students and practitioners. And so with the words _Hermetic Science_, > _Occultism_, _Hierophant_, _Adept_, _Sorcerer_, etc.; there has been > little agreement of late as to their meaning. Though the distinctions {xxiii} > between the terms are very often insignificant—merely ethnic—still, it > may be useful to the general reader to know just what that is. We give > a few alphabetically. > > ÆTHROBACY, is the Greek name for walking or being lifted in the air; > _levitation_, so called, among modern spiritualists. It may be either > conscious or unconscious; in the one case, it is magic; in the other, > either disease or a power which requires a few words of elucidation. > > A symbolical explanation of æthrobacy is given in an old Syriac > manuscript which was translated in the fifteenth century by one > Malchus, an alchemist. In connection with the case of Simon Magus, one > passage reads thus: > > “Simon, laying his face upon the ground, whispered in her ear, ‘O > mother Earth, give me, I pray thee, some of thy breath; and I will give > thee mine; _let me loose_, O mother, that I may carry thy words to the > stars, and I will return faithfully to thee after a while.’ And the > Earth strengthening her status, none to her detriment, sent her genius > to breathe of her _breath_ on Simon, _while he breathed on her_; and > the stars rejoiced to be visited by the mighty One.” > > The starting-point here is the recognized electro-chemical principle > that bodies similarly electrified repel each other, while those > differently electrified mutually attract. “The most elementary > knowledge of chemistry,” says Professor Cooke, “shows that, while > radicals of opposite natures combine most eagerly together, two metals, > or two closely-allied metalloids, show but little affinity for each > other.” > > The earth is a magnetic body; in fact, as some scientists have found, > it is one vast magnet, as Paracelsus affirmed some 300 years ago. It > is charged with one form of electricity—let us call it positive—which > it evolves continuously by spontaneous action, in its interior or > centre of motion. Human bodies, in common with all other forms of > matter, are charged with the opposite form of electricity—negative. > That is to say, organic or inorganic bodies, if left to themselves will > constantly and involuntarily charge themselves with, and evolve the > form of electricity opposed to that of the earth itself. Now, what is > weight? Simply the attraction of the earth. “Without the attractions of > the earth you would have no weight,” says Professor Stewart;[29] “and > if you had an earth twice as heavy as this, you would have double the > attraction.” How then, can we get rid of this attraction? According to > the electrical law above stated, there is an attraction between our > planet and the organisms upon it, which holds them upon the surface > of the ground. But the law of gravitation has been counteracted in > many instances, by levitations of persons and inanimate objects; how {xxiv} > account for this? The condition of our physical systems, say theurgic > philosophers, is largely dependent upon the action of our will. If > well-regulated, it can produce “miracles;” among others a change of > this electrical polarity from negative to positive; the man’s relations > with the earth-magnet would then become repellent, and “gravity” for > him would have ceased to exist. It would then be as natural for him to > rush into the air until the repellent force had exhausted itself, as, > before, it had been for him to remain upon the ground. The altitude > of his levitation would be measured by his ability, greater or less, > to charge his body with positive electricity. This control over the > physical forces once obtained, alteration of his levity or gravity > would be as easy as breathing. > > The study of nervous diseases has established that even in ordinary > somnambulism, as well as in mesmerized somnambulists, the weight > of the body seems to be diminished. Professor Perty mentions a > somnambulist, Koehler, who when in the water could not sink, but > floated. The seeress of Prevorst rose to the surface of the bath and > could not be kept seated in it. He speaks of Anna Fleisher, who being > subject to epileptic fits, was often seen by the Superintendent to > rise in the air; and was once, in the presence of two trustworthy > witnesses (two deans) and others, raised two and a half yards from > her bed in a horizontal position. The similar case of Margaret Rule > is cited by Upham in his _History of Salem Witchcraft_. “In ecstatic > subjects,” adds Professor Perty, “the rising in the air occurs much > more frequently than with somnambulists. We are so accustomed to > consider gravitation as being a something absolute and unalterable, > that the idea of a complete or partial rising in opposition to it seems > inadmissible; nevertheless, there are phenomena in which, by means > of material forces, gravitation is overcome. In several diseases—as, > for instance, nervous fever—the weight of the human body seems to be > increased, but in all ecstatic conditions to be diminished. And there > may, likewise, be other forces than material ones which can counteract > this power.” > > A Madrid journal, _El Criterio Espiritista_, of a recent date, reports > the case of a young peasant girl near Santiago, which possesses a > peculiar interest in this connection. “Two bars of magnetized iron held > over her horizontally, half a metre distant, was sufficient to suspend > her body in the air.” > > Were our physicians to experiment on such levitated subjects, it > would be found that they are strongly charged with a similar form > of electricity to that of the spot, which, according to the law > of gravitation, ought to _attract_ them, or rather prevent their > levitation. And, if some physical nervous disorder, as well as > spiritual ecstasy produce unconsciously to the subject the same {xxv} > effects, it proves that if this force in nature were properly studied, > it could be regulated at will. > > ALCHEMISTS.—From _Al_ and _Chemi_, fire, or the god and patriarch, > _Kham_, also, the name of Egypt. The Rosicrucians of the middle ages, > such as Robertus de Fluctibus (Robert Fludd), Paracelsus, Thomas > Vaughan (Eugenius Philalethes), Van Helmont, and others, were all > alchemists, who sought for the _hidden spirit_ in every inorganic > matter. Some people—nay, the great majority—have accused alchemists > of charlatanry and false pretending. Surely such men as Roger Bacon, > Agrippa, Henry Kunrath, and the Arabian Geber (the first to introduce > into Europe some of the secrets of chemistry), can hardly be treated > as impostors—least of all as fools. Scientists who are reforming the > science of physics upon the basis of the atomic theory of Demokritus, > as restated by John Dalton, conveniently forget that Demokritus, > of Abdera, was an alchemist, and that the mind that was capable > of penetrating so far into the secret operations of nature in one > direction must have had good reasons to study and become a Hermetic > philosopher. Olaus Borrichias says, that the cradle of alchemy is to be > sought in the most distant times. > > ASTRAL LIGHT.—The same as the _sidereal light_ of Paracelsus and other > Hermetic philosophers. Physically, it is the ether of modern science. > Metaphysically, and in its spiritual, or occult sense, ether is a great > deal more than is often imagined. In occult physics, and alchemy, it > is well demonstrated to enclose within its shoreless waves not only > Mr. Tyndall’s “_promise_ and potency of every quality of life,” but > also the _realization_ of the potency of every quality of spirit. > Alchemists and Hermetists believe that their astral, or sidereal ether, > besides the above properties of sulphur, and white and red magnesia, > or _magnes_, is the _anima mundi_, the workshop of Nature and of all > the cosmos, spiritually, as well as physically. The “grand magisterium” > asserts itself in the phenomenon of mesmerism, in the “levitation” of > human and inert objects; and may be called the ether from its spiritual > aspect. > > The designation _astral_ is ancient, and was used by some of the > Neo-platonists. Porphyry describes the celestial body which is always > joined with the soul as “immortal, luminous, and star-like.” The root > of this word may be found, perhaps, in the Scythic _aist-aer_—which > means star, or the Assyrian _Istar_, which, according to Burnouf has > the same sense. As the Rosicrucians regarded the real, as the direct > opposite of the apparent, and taught that what seems light to _matter_, > is darkness to _spirit_, they searched for the latter in the astral > ocean of invisible fire which encompasses the world; and claim to have > traced the equally invisible divine spirit, which overshadows every man > and is erroneously called _soul_, to the very throne of the Invisible {xxvi} > and Unknown God. As the great cause must always remain invisible and > imponderable, they could prove their assertions merely by demonstration > of its effects in this world of matter, by calling them forth from the > unknowable down into the knowable universe of effects. That this astral > light permeates the whole cosmos, lurking in its latent state even > in the minutest particle of rock, they demonstrate by the phenomenon > of the spark from flint and from every other stone, whose spirit > when forcibly disturbed springs to sight spark-like, and immediately > disappears in the realms of the unknowable. > > Paracelsus named it the _sidereal light_, taking the term from the > Latin. He regarded the starry host (our earth included) as the > _condensed_ portions of the astral light which “fell down into > generation and matter,” but whose magnetic or spiritual emanations kept > constantly a never-ceasing intercommunication between themselves and > the parent-fount of all—the astral light. “The stars attract from us to > themselves, and we again from them to us,” he says. The body is wood > and the life is fire, which comes like the light from the stars and > from heaven. “Magic is the philosophy of alchemy,” he says again.[30] > Everything pertaining to the spiritual world must come to us through > the stars, and if we are in friendship with them, we may attain the > greatest _magical_ effects. > > “As fire passes through an iron stove, so do the stars pass through > man with all their properties and go into him as the rain into the > earth, which gives fruit out of that same rain. Now observe that the > stars _surround_ the whole earth, _as a shell does the egg_; through > the shell comes the air, and penetrates to the centre of the world.” > The human body is subjected as well as the earth, and planets, and > stars, to a double law; it attracts and repels, for it is saturated > through with double magnetism, the influx of the astral light. > Everything is double in nature; magnetism is positive and negative, > active and passive, male and female. Night rests humanity from the > day’s activity, and restores the equilibrium of human as well as of > cosmic nature. When the mesmerizer will have learned the grand secret > of polarizing the action and endowing his fluid with a bi-sexual force > he will have become the greatest magician living. Thus the astral > light is androgyne, for equilibrium is the resultant of two opposing > forces eternally reacting upon each other. The result of this is LIFE. > _When the two forces are expanded and remain so long inactive, as to > equal one another and so come to a complete rest, the condition is_ > DEATH. A human being can blow either a hot or a cold breath; and can > absorb either cold or hot air. Every child knows how to regulate the {xxvii} > temperature of his breath; but how to protect one’s self from either > hot or cold air, no physiologist has yet learned with certainty. The > astral light alone, as the chief agent in magic, can discover to us > all secrets of nature. The astral light is identical with the Hindu > _akâsa_, a word which we will now explain. > > AKÂSA.—Literally the word means in Sanscrit _sky_, but in its mystic > sense it signifies the _invisible_ sky; or, as the Brahmans term it in > the Soma-sacrifice (the _Gyotishtoma Agnishtoma_), the god Akâsa, or > god Sky. The language of the _Vedas_ shows that the Hindus of fifty > centuries ago ascribed to it the same properties as do the Thibetan > lamas of the present day; that they regarded it as the source of > life, the reservoir of all energy, and the propeller of every change > of matter. In its latent state, it tallies exactly with our idea of > the universal ether; in its active state it became the Akâsa, the > all-directing and omnipotent god. In the Brahmanical sacrificial > mysteries it plays the part of Sadasya, or superintendent over the > magical effects of the religious performance, and it had its own > appointed Hotar (or priest), who took its name. In India, as in other > countries in ancient times, the priests are the representatives on > earth of different gods; each taking the name of the deity in whose > name he acts. > > The Akâsa is the indispensable agent of every Krityâ, (magical > performance) either religious or profane. The Brahmanical expression > “to stir up the Brahma” _Brahma jinvati_—means to stir up the power > which lies latent at the bottom of every such magical operation, for > the Vedic sacrifices are but ceremonial magic. This power is the Akâsa > or the _occult_ electricity; the alkahest of the alchemists in one > sense, or the universal solvent, the same _anima mundi_ as the astral > light. At the moment of the sacrifice, the latter becomes imbued with > the spirit of Brahma, and so for the time being is Brahma himself. This > is the evident origin of the Christian dogma of transubstantiation. As > to the most general effects of the Akâsa, the author of one of the most > modern works on the occult philosophy, _Art-Magic_, gives for the first > time to the world a most intelligible and interesting explanation of > the Akâsa in connection with the phenomena attributed to its influence > by the fakirs and lamas. > > ANTHROPOLOGY—the science of man; embracing among other things: > > _Physiology_, or that branch of natural science which discloses the > mysteries of the organs and their functions in men, animals, and > plants; and also, and especially, > > _Psychology_, or the great, and in our days, so neglected science {xxviii} > of the soul, both as an entity distinct from the spirit and in its > relations with the spirit and body. In modern science, psychology > relates only or principally to conditions of the nervous system, and > almost absolutely ignores the psychical essence and nature. Physicians > denominate the science of insanity _psychology_, and name the lunatic > chair in medical colleges by that designation. > > CHALDEANS, or Kasdim.—At first a tribe, then a caste of learned > kabalists. They were the savants, the magians of Babylonia, astrologers > and diviners. The famous Hillel, the precursor of Jesus in philosophy > and in ethics, was a Chaldean. Franck in his _Kabbala_ points to the > close resemblance of the “secret doctrine” found in the _Avesta_ and > the religious metaphysics of the Chaldees. > > DACTYLS (_daktulos_, a finger).—A name given to the priests attached to > the worship of _Kybelé_ (Cybelè). Some archæologists derive the name > from δάκτυλος, finger, because they were ten, the same in number as the > fingers of the hand. But we do not believe the latter hypothesis is the > correct one. > > DÆMONS.—A name given by the ancient people, and especially the > philosophers of the Alexandrian school, to all kinds of spirits, > whether good or bad, human or otherwise. The appellation is often > synonymous with that of gods or angels. But some philosophers tried, > with good reason, to make a just distinction between the many classes. > > DEMIURGOS, or Demiurge.—Artificer; the Supernal Power which built the > universe. Freemasons derive from this word their phrase of “Supreme > Architect.” The chief magistrates of certain Greek cities bore the > title. > > DERVISHES, or the “whirling charmers,” as they are called. Apart from > the austerities of life, prayer and contemplation, the Mahometan > devotee presents but little similarity with the Hindu fakir. The latter > may become a sannyasi, or saint and holy mendicant; the former will > never reach beyond his second class of occult manifestations. The > dervish may also be a strong mesmerizer, but he will never voluntarily > submit to the abominable and almost incredible self-punishment which > the fakir invents for himself with an ever-increasing avidity, until > nature succumbs and he dies in slow and excruciating tortures. The most > dreadful operations, such as flaying the limbs alive; cutting off the > toes, feet, and legs; tearing out the eyes; and causing one’s self to > be buried alive up to the chin in the earth, and passing whole months > in this posture, seem child’s play to them. One of the most common > tortures is that of Tshiddy-Parvâdy.[31] It consists in suspending the > fakir to one of the mobile arms of a kind of gallows to be seen in {xxix} > the vicinity of many of the temples. At the end of each of these arms > is fixed a pulley over which passes a rope terminated by an iron hook. > This hook is inserted into the bare back of the fakir, who inundating > the soil with blood is hoisted up in the air and then whirled round > the gallows. From the first moment of this cruel operation until he is > either unhooked or the flesh of his back tears out under the weight > of the body and the fakir is hurled down on the heads of the crowd, > not a muscle of his face will move. He remains calm and serious and as > composed as if taking a refreshing bath. The fakir will laugh to scorn > every imaginable torture, persuaded that the more his outer body is > mortified, the brighter and holier becomes his _inner_, spiritual body. > But the Dervish, neither in India, nor in other Mahometan lands, will > ever submit to such operations. > > DRUIDS.—A sacerdotal caste which flourished in Britain and Gaul. > > ELEMENTAL SPIRITS.—The creatures evolved in the four kingdoms of earth, > air, fire, and water, and called by the kabalists gnomes, sylphs, > salamanders, and undines. They may be termed the forces of nature, and > will either operate effects as the servile agents of general law, or > may be employed by the disembodied spirits—whether pure or impure—and > by living adepts of magic and sorcery, to produce desired phenomenal > results. Such beings never become men.[32] > > Under the general designation of fairies, and fays, these spirits of > the elements appear in the myth, fable, tradition, or poetry of all > nations, ancient and modern. Their names are legion—peris, devs, djins, > sylvans, satyrs, fauns, elves, dwarfs, trolls, norns, nisses, kobolds, > brownies, necks, stromkarls, undines, nixies, salamanders, goblins, > ponkes, banshees, kelpies, pixies, moss people, good people, good > neighbors, wild women, men of peace, white ladies—and many more. They > have been seen, feared, blessed, banned, and invoked in every quarter > of the globe and in every age. Shall we then concede that all who have > met them were hallucinated? > > These elementals are the principal agents of disembodied but _never {xxx} > visible_ spirits at seances, and the producers of all the phenomena > except the subjective. > > ELEMENTARY SPIRITS.—Properly, the disembodied _souls_ of the > depraved; these souls having at some time prior to death separated > from themselves their divine spirits, and so lost their chance for > immortality. Eliphas Levi and some other kabalists make little > distinction between elementary spirits who have been men, and those > beings which people the elements, and are the blind forces of nature. > Once divorced from their bodies, these souls (also called “astral > bodies”) of purely materialistic persons, are irresistibly attracted to > the earth, where they live a temporary and finite life amid elements > congenial to their gross natures. From having never, during their > natural lives, cultivated their spirituality, but subordinated it to > the material and gross, they are now unfitted for the lofty career > of the pure, disembodied being, for whom the atmosphere of earth is > stifling and mephitic, and whose attractions are all away from it. > After a more or less prolonged period of time these material souls > will begin to disintegrate, and finally, like a column of mist, be > dissolved, atom by atom, in the surrounding elements. > > ESSENES—from _Asa_, a healer. A sect of Jews said by Pliny to have > lived near the Dead Sea “_per millia sæculorum_” for thousands of ages. > Some have supposed them to be extreme Pharisees; and others—which > may be the true theory—the descendants of the _Benim nabim_ of the > _Bible_, and think they were “Kenites” and “_Nazarites_.” They had many > Buddhistic ideas and practices; and it is noteworthy that the priests > of the _Great Mother_ at Ephesus, Diana-Bhavani with many breasts, were > also so denominated. Eusebius, and after him De Quincey, declared them > to be the same as the early Christians, which is more than probable. > The title “brother,” used in the early Church, was Essenean: they were > a fraternity, or a _koinobion_ or community like the early converts. It > is noticeable that only the Sadducees, or Zadokites, the priest-caste > and their partisans, persecuted the Christians; the Pharisees were > generally scholastic and mild, and often sided with the latter. James > the Just was a Pharisee till his death; but Paul or _Aher_ was esteemed > a schismatic. > > EVOLUTION.—The development of higher orders of animals from the > lower. Modern, or so-called _exact_ science, holds but to a one-sided > physical evolution, prudently avoiding and ignoring the higher or > spiritual evolution, which would force our contemporaries to confess > the superiority of the ancient philosophers and psychologists over > themselves. The ancient sages, ascending to the UNKNOWABLE, made > their starting-point from the first manifestation of the unseen, the > unavoidable, and from a strict logical reasoning, the absolutely {xxxi} > necessary creative Being, the Demiurgos of the universe. Evolution > began with them from pure spirit, which descending lower and lower > down, assumed at last a visible and comprehensible form, and became > matter. Arrived at this point, they speculated in the Darwinian method, > but on a far more large and comprehensive basis. > > In the _Rig-Veda-Sanhita_, the oldest book of the World[33] (to which > even our most prudent Indiologists and Sanscrit scholars assign an > antiquity of between two and three thousand years B.C.), in the first > book, “Hymns to the Maruts,” it is said: > > “_Not-being_ and _Being_ are in the highest heaven, in the birthplace > of Daksha, in the lap of Aditi” (_Mandala_, i., Sûkta 166). > > “In the first age of the gods, Being (the comprehensible Deity) was > born from Not-being (whom no intellect can comprehend); after it were > born the Regions (the invisible), from them Uttânapada.” > > “From Uttânapad the Earth was born, the Regions (those that are > visible) were born from the Earth. Daksha was born of Aditi, and Aditi > from Daksha” (Ibid.). > > Aditi is the Infinite, and Daksha is _dáksha-pitarah_, literally > meaning _the father of gods_, but understood by Max Müller and > Roth to mean _the fathers of strength_, “preserving, possessing, > granting faculties.” Therefore, it is easy to see that “Daksha, born > of Aditi and Aditi from Daksha,” means what the moderns understand > by “correlation of forces;” the more so as we find in this passage > (translated by Prof. Müller): > > “I place Agni, the source of all beings, the father of strength” > (iii., 27, 2), a clear and identical idea which prevailed so much > in the doctrines of the Zoroastrians, the Magians, and the mediæval > fire-philosophers. Agni is god of fire, of the Spiritual Ether, the > very substance of the divine essence of the Invisible God present > in every atom of His creation and called by the Rosicrucians the > “Celestial Fire.” If we only carefully compare the verses from this > Mandala, one of which runs thus: “The Sky is your father, the Earth > your mother, Soma your brother, Aditi your sister” (i., 191, 6),[34] > with the inscription on the _Smaragdine Tablet_ of Hermes, we will find > the same substratum of metaphysical philosophy, the identical doctrines! > > “As all things were produced by the mediation of one being, so all > things were produced from this one thing by adaptation: ‘Its father > is the sun; its mother is the moon’ ... etc. Separate the earth from {xxxii} > the fire, the _subtile from the gross_.... What I had to say about the > operation of the _sun_ is completed” (_Smaragdine Tablet_).[35] > > Professor Max Müller sees in this _Mandala_ “at last, something like > a theogony, though full of contradictions.”[36] The alchemists, > kabalists, and students of mystic philosophy will find therein a > perfectly defined system of Evolution in the Cosmogony of a people who > lived a score of thousands of years before our era. They will find in > it, moreover, a perfect identity of thought and even doctrine with the > Hermetic philosophy, and also that of Pythagoras and Plato. > > In Evolution, as it is now beginning to be understood, there is > supposed to be in all matter an impulse to take on a higher form—a > supposition clearly expressed by Manu and other Hindu philosophers > of the highest antiquity. The philosopher’s tree illustrates it in > the case of the zinc solution. The controversy between the followers > of this school and the Emanationists may be briefly stated thus: The > Evolutionist stops all inquiry at the borders of “the Unknowable;” > the Emanationist believes that nothing can be evolved—or, as the > word means, unwombed or born—except it has first been involved, thus > indicating that life is from a spiritual potency above the whole. > > FAKIRS.—Religious devotees in East India. They are generally attached > to Brahmanical pagodas and follow the laws of Manu. A strictly > religious fakir will go absolutely naked, with the exception of a > small piece of linen called _dhoti_, around his loins. They wear their > hair long, and it serves them as a pocket, as they stick in it various > objects—such as a pipe, a small flute called _vagudah_, the sounds of > which throw the serpents into a cataleptic torpor, and sometimes their > bamboo-stick (about one foot long) with _the seven mystical knots_ on > it. This magical stick, or rather _rod_, the fakir receives from his > guru on the day of his initiation, together with the three _mantrams_, > which are communicated to him “mouth to ear.” No fakir will be seen > without this powerful adjunct of his calling. It is, as they all > claim, the divining rod, the cause of every occult phenomenon produced {xxxiii} > by them.[37] The Brahmanical fakir is entirely distinct from the > Mussulman mendicant of India, also called fakirs in some parts of the > British territory. > > HERMETIST.—From Hermes, the god of Wisdom, known in Egypt, Syria, and > Phœnicia as Thoth, Tat, Adad, Seth, and Sat-an (the latter _not to be > taken_ in the sense applied to it by Moslems and Christians), and in > Greece as Kadmus. The kabalists identify him with Adam _Kadmon_, the > first manifestation of the Divine Power, and with Enoch. There were two > Hermes: the elder was the Trismegistus, and the second an emanation, or > “permutation” of himself; the friend and instructor of Isis and Osiris. > Hermes is the god of the priestly wisdom, like Mazeus. > > HIEROPHANT.—Discloser of sacred learning. The Old Man, the Chief of > the Adepts at the initiations, who explained the arcane knowledge to > the neophytes, bore this title. In Hebrew and Chaldaic the term was > _Peter_, or opener, discloser; hence, the Pope, as the successor of > the hierophant of the ancient Mysteries, sits in the Pagan chair of > “St. Peter.” The vindictiveness of the Catholic Church toward the > alchemists, and to arcane and astronomical science, is explained by the > fact that such knowledge was the ancient prerogative of the hierophant, > or representative of Peter, who kept the mysteries of life and death. > Men like Bruno, Galileo, and Kepler, therefore, and even Cagliostro, > trespassed on the preserves of the Church, and were accordingly > murdered. > > Every nation had its Mysteries and hierophants. Even the Jews had > their Peter—Tanaïm or Rabbin, like Hillel, Akiba,[38] and other famous > kabalists, who alone could impart the awful knowledge contained in the > _Merkaba_. In India, there was in ancient times one, and now there > are several hierophants scattered about the country, attached to the > principal pagodas, who are known as the Brahma-âtmas. In Thibet the > chief hierophant is the Dalay, or Taley-Lama of Lha-ssa.[39] Among > Christian nations, the Catholics alone have preserved this “heathen” > custom, in the person of their Pope, albeit they have sadly disfigured > its majesty and the dignity of the sacred office. > > INITIATES.—In times of antiquity, those who had been initiated into the > arcane knowledge taught by the hierophants of the Mysteries; and in > our modern days those who have been initiated by the adepts of mystic > lore into the mysterious knowledge, which, notwithstanding the lapse of > ages, has yet a few real votaries on earth. > > KABALIST, from קבלה, KABALA; an unwritten or oral tradition. The {xxxiv} > kabalist is a student of “secret science,” one who interprets the > hidden meaning of the Scriptures with the help of the symbolical > _Kabala_, and explains the real one by these means. The Tanaïm were the > first kabalists among the Jews; they appeared at Jerusalem about the > beginning of the third century before the Christian era. The Books of > _Ezekiel_, _Daniel_, _Henoch_, and the _Revelation_ of St. John, are > purely kabalistical. This secret doctrine is identical with that of the > Chaldeans, and includes at the same time much of the Persian wisdom, or > “magic.” > > LAMAS.—Buddhist monks belonging to the Lamaic religion of Thibet, as, > for instance, friars are the monks belonging to the Popish or Roman > Catholic religion. Every lama is subject to the grand Taley-Lama, the > Buddhist pope of Thibet, who holds his residence at Lha-ssa, and is a > reïncarnation of Buddha. > > MAGE, or _Magian_; from _Mag_ or _Maha_. The word is the root of the > word magician. The Maha-âtma (the great Soul or Spirit) in India > had its priests in the pre-Vedic times. The Magians were priests of > the fire-god; we find them among the Assyrians and Babylonians, as > well as among the Persian fire-worshippers. The three magi, also > denominated kings, that are said to have made gifts of gold, incense, > and myrrh to the infant Jesus, were fire-worshippers like the rest, > and astrologers; for they saw his star. The high priest of the Parsis, > at Surat, is called _Mobed_, others derived the word from Megh; Meh-ab > signifying something grand and noble. Zoroaster’s disciples were called > _Meghestom_, according to Kleuker. > > MAGICIAN.—This term, once a title of renown and distinction, has come > to be wholly perverted from its true meaning. Once the synonym of > all that was honorable and reverent, of a possessor of learning and > wisdom, it has become degraded into an epithet to designate one who is > a pretender and a juggler; a charlatan, in short, or one who has “sold > his soul to the Evil One;” who misuses his knowledge, and employs it > for low and dangerous uses, according to the teachings of the clergy, > and a mass of superstitious fools who believe the magician a sorcerer > and an enchanter. But Christians forget, apparently, that Moses was > also a magician, and Daniel, “_Master_ of the magicians, astrologers, > Chaldeans, and soothsayers” (_Daniel_, v. 11). > > The word magician then, scientifically speaking, is derived from > _Magh_, _Mah_, Hindu or _Sanscrit_ Maha—great; a man well versed in the > secret or esoteric knowledge; properly a sacerdote. > > MANTICISM, or mantic frenzy. During this state was developed the > gift of prophecy. The two words are nearly synonymous. One was as > honored as the other. Pythagoras and Plato held it in high esteem, and {xxxv} > Socrates advised his disciples to study Manticism. The Church Fathers, > who condemned so severely the _mantic frenzy_ in Pagan priests and > Pythiæ, were not above applying it to their own uses. The Montanists, > who took their name from Montanus, a bishop of Phrygia, who was > considered divinely inspired, rivalled with the μάντεις (manteis) or > prophets. “Tertullian, Augustine, and the martyrs of Carthage, were > of the number,” says the author of _Prophecy, Ancient and Modern_. > “The Montanists seem to have resembled the _Bacchantes_ in the wild > enthusiasm that characterized their orgies,” he adds. There is a > diversity of opinion as to the origin of the word _Manticism_. There > was the famous Mantis the Seer, in the days of Melampus and Prœtus, > King of Argos; and there was Manto, the daughter of the prophet of > Thebes, herself a prophetess. Cicero describes prophecy and mantic > frenzy by saying that “in the inner recesses of the mind is divine > prophecy hidden and confined, a divine impulse, which when it burns > more vividly is called furor” (frenzy, madness). > > But there is still another etymology possible for the word _mantis_, > and to which we doubt if the attention of the philologists was ever > drawn. The mantic frenzy may, perchance, have a still earlier origin. > The two sacrificial cups of the Soma-mystery used during the religious > rites, and generally known as grahâs, are respectively called _Sukra_ > and _Manti_.[40] > > It is in the latter manti or manthi cup that Brahma is said to be > “stirred up.” While the initiate drinks (albeit sparingly) of this > sacred soma-juice, the Brahma, or rather his “spirit,” personified > by the god Soma, enters into the man and takes _possession_ of him. > Hence, ecstatic vision, clairvoyance, and the gift of prophecy. Both > kinds of divination—the natural and the artificial—are aroused by > the Soma. The _Sukra_-cup awakens that which is given to every man > by nature. It unites both spirit and soul, and these, from their own > nature and essence, which are divine, have a foreknowledge of future > things, as dreams, unexpected visions, and presentiments, well prove. > The contents of the other cup, the _manti_, which “stirs the Brahma,” > put there by the soul in communication not only with the minor gods—the > well-informed but not omniscient spirits—but actually with the highest > divine essence itself. The soul receives a direct illumination from the > presence of its “god;” but as it is not allowed to remember certain > things, well known only in heaven, the initiated person is generally > seized with a kind of sacred frenzy, and upon recovering from it, only > remembers that which is allowed to him. As to the other kind of seers {xxxvi} > and diviners—those who make a profession of and a living by it—they > are usually held to be possessed by a _gandharva_, a deity which is > nowhere so little honored as in India. > > MANTRA.—A _Sanskrit_ word conveying the same idea as the “Ineffable > Name.” Some mantras, when pronounced according to magical formula > taught in the _Atharva-Veda_, produce an instantaneous and wonderful > effect. In its general sense, though, a mantra is either simply a > prayer to the gods and powers of heaven, as taught by the Brahmanical > books, and especially Manu, or else a magical charm. In its esoteric > sense, the “word” of the mantra, or mystic speech, is called by the > Brahmans _Vâch_. It resides in the mantra, which literally means those > parts of the sacred books which are considered as the _Sruti_, or > direct divine revelation. > > MARABUT.—A Mahometan pilgrim who has been to Mekka; a saint, after > whose death his body is placed in an open sepulchre built on the > surface, like other buildings, but in the middle of the streets and > public places of populated cities. Placed inside the small and only > room of the tomb (and several such public sarcophagi of brick and > mortar may be seen to this day in the streets and squares of Cairo), > the devotion of the wayfarers keeps a lamp ever burning at his head. > The tombs of some of these marabuts have a great fame for the miracles > they are alleged to perform. > > MATERIALIZATION.—A word employed by spiritualists to indicate the > phenomenon of “a spirit clothing himself with a material form.” The > far less objectionable term, “form-manifestation,” has been recently > suggested by Mr. Stainton-Moses, of London. When the real nature of > these apparitions is better comprehended, a still more appropriate > name will doubtless be adopted. To call them materialized spirits is > inadmissible, for they are not spirits but animated portrait-statues. > > MAZDEANS, from (Ahura) Mazda. (See Spiegel’s _Yasna_, xl.) They were > the ancient Persian nobles who worshipped Ormazd, and, rejecting > images, inspired the Jews with the same horror for every concrete > representation of the Deity. “They seem in Herodotus’s time to have > been superseded by the Magian religionists. The Parsis and Ghebers > (גברים _geberim_, mighty men, of _Genesis_ vi. and x. 8) appear to be > Magian religionists.... By a curious muddling of ideas, Zoro-Aster > (_Zero_, a circle, a son or priest, Aster, Ishtar, or Astartè—in > Aryan dialect, a star), the title of the head of the Magians and > fire-worshippers, or Surya-ishtara, the sun-worshipper, is often > confounded in modern times with Zara-tustra, the reputed Mazdean > apostle” (Zoroaster). > > METEMPSYCHOSIS.—The progress of the soul from one stage of existence > to another. Symbolized and vulgarly believed to be rebirths in animal > bodies. A term generally misunderstood by every class of European and {xxxvii} > American society, including many scientists. The kabalistic axiom, > “A stone becomes a plant, a plant an animal, an animal a man, a man > a spirit, and a spirit a god,” receives an explanation in Manu’s > _Manava-Dharma-Sastra_, and other Brahmanical books. > > MYSTERIES.—Greek _teletai_, or finishings, as analogous to _teleuteia_ > or death. They were observances, generally kept secret from the profane > and uninitiated, in which were taught by dramatic representation > and other methods, the origin of things, the nature of the human > spirit, its relations to the body, and the method of its purification > and restoration to higher life. Physical science, medicine, the > laws of music, divination, were all taught in the same manner. The > Hippocratic oath was but a mystic obligation. Hippocrates was a priest > of Asklepios, some of whose writings chanced to become public. But > the Asklepiades were initiates of the Æsculapian serpent-worship, as > the Bacchantes were of the Dionysia; and both rites were eventually > incorporated with the Eleusinia. We will treat of the Mysteries fully > in the subsequent chapters. > > MYSTICS.—Those initiated. But in the mediæval and later periods the > term was applied to men like Bœhmén the Theosophist, Molinos the > Quietist, Nicholas of Basle, and others who believed in a direct > interior communion with God, analogous to the inspiration of the > prophets. > > NABIA.—Seership, soothsaying. This oldest and most respected of > mystic phenomena, is the name given to prophecy in the _Bible_, and > is correctly included among the spiritual powers, such as divination, > clairvoyant visions, trance-conditions, and oracles. But while > enchanters, diviners, and even astrologers are strictly condemned in > the Mosaic books, prophecy, seership, and nabia appear as the special > gifts of heaven. In early ages they were all termed _Epoptai_, the > Greek word for seers, clairvoyants; after which they were designated > as _Nebim_, “the plural of Nebo, the Babylonian god of wisdom.” The > kabalist distinguishes between the _seer_ and the _magician_; one is > passive, the other active; _Nebirah_, is one who looks into futurity > and a clairvoyant; _Nebi-poel_, he who possesses _magic powers_. We > notice that Elijah and Apollonius resorted to the same means to isolate > themselves from the disturbing influences of the outer world, viz.: > wrapping their heads entirely in a woolen mantle: from its being an > electric non-conductor we must suppose. > > OCCULTIST.—One who studies the various branches of occult science. > The term is used by the French kabalists (See Eliphas Levi’s works). > Occultism embraces the whole range of psychological, physiological, > cosmical, physical, and spiritual phenomena. From the word _occult_ > hidden or secret; applying therefore to the study of the _Kabala_, > astrology, alchemy, and all arcane sciences. > > PAGAN GODS.—This term gods is erroneously understood by most of the {xxxviii} > reading public, to mean idols. The idea attached to them is _not_ that > of something objective or anthropomorphical. With the exception of > occasions when “gods” mean either divine planetary entities (angels), > or disembodied spirits of pure men, the term simply conveys to the mind > of the mystic—whether Hindu Hotar, Mazdean Mage, Egyptian hierophant, > or disciple of the Greek philosophers—the idea of a visible or cognized > manifestation of an invisible potency of nature. And such occult > potencies are invoked under the appellation of various gods, who, for > the time being, are personating these powers. Thus every one of the > numberless deities of the Hindu, Greek, and Egyptian Pantheons, are > simply Powers of the “Unseen Universe.” When the officiating Brahman > invokes Aditya—who, in her cosmic character, is the goddess-sun—he > simply _commands_ that potency (personified in some god), which, as > he asserts, “resides in the Mantra, as the sacred _Vâch_.” These > god-powers are allegorically regarded as the divine _Hotars_ of > the Supreme One; while the priest (Brahman) is the human Hotar who > officiates on earth, and representing that particular Power becomes, > ambassador-like, invested with the very potency which he personates. > > PITRIS.—It is generally believed that the Hindu term _Pitris_ means > the spirits of our direct ancestors; of disembodied people. Hence > the argument of some spiritualists that fakirs, and other Eastern > wonder-workers, are _mediums_; that they themselves confess to being > unable to produce anything without the help of the _Pitris_, of whom > they are the obedient instruments. This is in more than one sense > erroneous. The _Pitris_ are not the ancestors of the present living > men, but those of the human kind or Adamic race; the spirits of _human_ > races which, on the great scale of descending evolution, preceded our > races of men, and were physically, as well as spiritually, far superior > to our modern pigmies. In _Manava-Dharma-Sastra_ they are called the > _Lunar_ ancestors. > > PYTHIA, or Pythoness.—Webster dismisses the word very briefly by saying > that it was the name of one who delivered the oracles at the Temple > of Delphi, and “any female supposed to have the spirit of divination > in her—_a witch_,” which is neither complimentary, exact, nor just. > A Pythia, upon the authority of Plutarch, Iamblichus, Lamprias, and > others, was a nervous sensitive; she was chosen from among the poorest > class, young and pure. Attached to the temple, within whose precincts > she had a room, secluded from every other, and to which no one but the > priest, or seer, had admittance, she had no communications with the > outside world, and her life was more strict and ascetic than that of a > Catholic nun. Sitting on a tripod of brass placed over a fissure in the > ground, through which arose intoxicating vapors, these subterranean {xxxix} > exhalations penetrating her whole system produced the prophetic mania. > In this abnormal state she delivered oracles. She was sometimes called > _ventriloqua vates_,[41] the ventriloquist-prophetess. > > The ancients placed the astral soul of man, ψυχη, or his > self-consciousness, in the pit of the stomach. The Brahmans shared this > belief with Plato and other philosophers. Thus we find in the fourth > verse of the second _Nâbhânedishtha Hymn_ it is said: “Hear, O sons > of the gods (spirits) one who speaks through his navel (nâbhâ) for he > hails you in your dwellings!” > > Many of the Sanscrit scholars agree that this belief is one of the most > ancient among the Hindus. The modern fakirs, as well as the ancient > gymnosophists, unite themselves with their Âtman and the Deity by > remaining motionless in contemplation and concentrating their whole > thought on their navel. As in modern somnambulic phenomena, the navel > was regarded as “the circle of the sun,” the seat of internal divine > light.[42] Is the fact of a number of modern somnambulists being > enabled to read letters, hear, smell, and see, through that part of > their body to be regarded again as a simple “coincidence,” or shall we > admit at last that the old sages knew something more of physiological > and psychological mysteries than our modern Academicians? In modern > Persia, when a “magician” (often simply a mesmerizer) is consulted > upon occasions of theft and other puzzling occurrences, he makes his > manipulations over the pit of his stomach, and so brings himself into > a state of clairvoyance. Among the modern Parsis, remarks a translator > of the _Rig-vedas_, there exists a belief up to the present day that > their adepts have a flame in their navel, which enlightens to them > all darkness and discloses the spiritual world, as well as all things > unseen, or at a distance. They call it the lamp of _the Deshtur_, or > high priest; the light of the Dikshita (the initiate), and otherwise > designate it by many other names. > > SAMOTHRACES.—A designation of the Fane-gods worshipped at Samothracia > in the Mysteries. They are considered as identical with the Kabeiri, > Dioskuri, and Korybantes. Their names were mystical—denoting Pluto, > Ceres or Proserpina, Bacchus, and Æsculapius or Hermes. > > SHAMANS, or Samaneans.—An order of Buddhists among the Tartars, > especially those of Siberia. They are possibly akin to the {xl} > philosophers anciently known as _Brachmanes_, mistaken sometimes for > Brahmans.[43] They are all _magicians_, or rather sensitives or mediums > artificially developed. At present those who act as priests among > the Tartars are generally very ignorant, and far below the fakirs in > knowledge and education. Both men and women may be Shamans. > > SOMA.—This Hindu sacred beverage answers to the Greek ambrosia or > nectar, drunk by the gods of Olympus. A cup of kykeon was also quaffed > by the mysta at the Eleusinian initiation. He who drinks it easily > reaches _Bradhna_, or place of splendor (Heaven). The soma-drink known > to Europeans is not the _genuine_ beverage, but its substitute; for > the initiated priests alone can taste of the real soma; and even kings > and rajas, when sacrificing, receive the substitute. Haug shows by his > own confession, in his _Aytareya Brahmanan_, that it was not the Soma > that he tasted and found nasty, but the juice from the roots of the > Nyagradha, a plant or bush which grows on the hills of Poona. We were > positively informed that the majority of the sacrificial priests of the > Dekkan have lost the secret of the true soma. It can be found neither > in the ritual books nor through oral information. The true followers > of the primitive Vedic religion are very few; these are the alleged > descendants from the _Rishis_, the real Agnihôtris, the initiates of > the great Mysteries. The soma-drink is also commemorated in the Hindu > Pantheon, for it is called the King-Soma. He who drinks of it is made > to participate in the heavenly king, because he becomes filled with it, > as the Christian apostles and their converts became filled with the > Holy Ghost, and purified of their sins. The soma makes a new man of > the initiate; he is reborn and transformed, and his spiritual nature > overcomes the physical; it gives the divine power of inspiration, > and develops the clairvoyant faculty to the utmost. According to the > exoteric explanation the soma is a plant, but, at the same time it is > an angel. It forcibly connects the _inner_, highest “spirit” of man, > which spirit is an angel like the mystical soma, with his “irrational > soul,” or astral body, and thus united by the power of the magic drink, > they soar together above physical nature, and participate during life > in the beatitude and ineffable glories of Heaven. > > Thus the Hindu soma is mystically, and in all respects the same that > the Eucharistic supper is to the Christian. The idea is similar. By {xli} > means of the sacrificial prayers—the mantras—this liquor is supposed > to be transformed on the spot into real soma—or the angel, and even > into Brahma himself. Some missionaries have expressed themselves very > indignantly about this ceremony, the more so that, generally speaking, > the Brahmans use a _kind of spirituous liquor_ as a substitute. But do > the Christians believe less fervently in the transubstantiation of the > communion-wine into the blood of Christ, because this wine happens to > be more or less spirituous? Is not the idea of the symbol attached to > it the same? But the missionaries say that this hour of soma-drinking > is the golden hour of Satan, who lurks at the bottom of the Hindu > sacrificial cup.[44] > > SPIRIT.—The lack of any mutual agreement between writers in the use > of this word has resulted in dire confusion. It is commonly made > synonymous with _soul_; and the lexicographers countenance the usage. > This is the natural result of our ignorance of the other word, and > repudiation of the classification adopted by the ancients. Elsewhere we > attempt to make clear the distinction between the terms “spirit” and > “soul.” There are no more important passages in this work. Meanwhile, > we will only add that “spirit” is the νοῦς of Plato, the immortal, > immaterial, and purely _divine_ principle in man—the crown of the human > _Triad_; whereas, > > SOUL is the ψυχη, or the _nephesh_ of the _Bible_; the vital principle, > or the breath of life, which every animal, down to the infusoria, > shares with man. In the translated _Bible_ it stands indifferently > for _life_, blood, and soul. “Let us _not kill_ his nephesh,” says > the original text: “let us not kill _him_,” translate the Christians > (_Genesis_ xxxvii. 21), and so on. > > THEOSOPHISTS.—In the mediæval ages it was the name by which were known > the disciples of Paracelsus of the sixteenth century, the so-called > fire-philosophers or _Philosophi per ignem_. As well as the Platonists > they regarded the soul (ψυχη) and the divine spirit, _nous_ (νοῦς), as > a particle of the great Archos—a fire taken from the eternal ocean of > light. > > The Theosophical Society, to which these volumes are dedicated by the > author as a mark of affectionate regard, was organized at New York > in 1875. The object of its founders was to experiment practically in > the occult powers of Nature, and to collect and disseminate among > Christians information about the Oriental religious philosophies. > Later, it has determined to spread among the “poor benighted heathen” {xlii} > such evidences as to the practical results of Christianity as will > at least give both sides of the story to the communities among which > missionaries are at work. With this view it has established relations > with associations and individuals throughout the East, to whom it > furnishes authenticated reports of the ecclesiastical crimes and > misdemeanors, schisms and heresies, controversies and litigations, > doctrinal differences and biblical criticisms and revisions, with > which the press of Christian Europe and America constantly teems. > Christendom has been long and minutely informed of the degradation > and brutishness into which Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Confucianism > have plunged their deluded votaries, and many millions have been > lavished upon foreign missions under such false representations. The > Theosophical Society, seeing daily exemplifications of this very > state of things as the sequence of Christian teaching and example—the > latter especially—thought it simple justice to make the facts known in > Palestine, India, Ceylon, Cashmere, Tartary, Thibet, China, and Japan, > in all which countries it has influential correspondents. It may also > in time have much to say about the conduct of the missionaries to those > who contribute to their support. > > THEURGIST.—From Θεος, god, and εργον, work. The first school of > practical theurgy in the Christian period was founded by Iamblichus > among the Alexandrian Platonists; but the priests attached to the > temples of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, and who took an active part > in the evocations of the gods during the Sacred Mysteries, were known > by this name from the earliest archaic period. The purpose of it was to > make spirits visible to the eyes of mortals. A theurgist was one expert > in the esoteric learning of the Sanctuaries of all the great countries. > The Neo-platonists of the school of Iamblichus were called theurgists, > for they performed the so-called “ceremonial magic,” and evoked the > “spirits” of the departed heroes, “gods,” and Daimonia (δαιμονια > divine, spiritual entities). In the rare cases when the presence of > a _tangible_ and _visible_ spirit was required, the theurgist had > to furnish the weird apparition with a portion of his own flesh and > blood—he had to perform the _theopæa_, or the “creation of gods,” by > a mysterious process well known to the modern fakirs and initiated > Brahmans of India. This is what is said in the _Book of Evocations_ > of the pagodas. It shows the perfect identity of rites and ceremonial > between the oldest Brahmanic theurgy and that of the Alexandrian > Platonists: > > “The Brahman Grihasta (the evocator) must be in a state of complete > purity before he ventures to call forth the Pitris.” > > After having prepared a lamp, some sandal, incense, etc., and having > traced the magic circles taught to him by the superior guru, in order > to keep away _bad_ spirits, he “ceases to breathe, and calls _the fire_ {xliii} > to his help to disperse his body.” He pronounces a certain number of > times the sacred word, and “his soul escapes from his body, and his > body disappears, and the soul of the evoked spirit descends into the > _double_ body and animates it.” Then “His (Grihasta’s) soul reënters > into his body, whose subtile particles have again been aggregating, > after having formed of their emanations an aërial body to the spirit he > evoked.” > > And now, that he has formed for the Pitri a body with the particles > the most essential and pure of his own, the grihasta is allowed, after > the ceremonial sacrifice is over, to “converse with the souls of the > ancestors and the Pitris, and offer them questions on the mysteries of > the _Being_ and the transformations of the _imperishable_.” > > “Then after having blown out his lamp he must light it again, and set > at liberty the bad spirits shut out from the place by the magical > circles, and leave the sanctuary of the Pitris.”[45] > > The school of Iamblichus was distinct from that of Plotinus and > Porphyry, who were strongly against ceremonial magic and practical > theurgy as dangerous, though these two eminent men firmly believed in > both. “The _theurgic_ or _benevolent_ magic, the Goëtic, or dark and > evil necromancy, were alike in preëminent repute _during the first > century_ of the Christian era.”[46] But never have any of the highly > moral and pious philosophers, whose fame has descended to us spotless > of any evil deed, practiced any other kind of magic than the theurgic, > or _benevolent_, as Bulwer-Lytton terms it. “Whoever is acquainted with > the nature _of divinely luminous appearances_ (φασματα) knows also on > what account it is requisite to abstain from all birds (animal food), > and especially for him who hastens to be liberated from terrestrial > concerns and to be established with the celestial gods,” says > Porphyry.[47] > > Though he refused to practice theurgy himself, Porphyry, in his _Life > of Plotinus_, mentions a priest of Egypt, who, “at the request of a > certain friend of Plotinus (which friend was perhaps Porphyry himself, > remarks T. Taylor), exhibited to Plotinus, in the temple of Isis at > Rome, the familiar daimon, or, in modern language, the _guardian angel_ > of that philosopher.”[48] > > The popular, prevailing idea was that the theurgists, as well as the > magicians, worked wonders, such as evoking the souls or shadows of the > heroes and gods, and doing other thaumaturgic works by supernatural > powers. > > YAJNA.—“The Yajna,” say the Brahmans, exists from eternity, for it {xliv} > proceeded forth from the Supreme One, the _Brahma-Prajapâti_, in whom > it lay dormant from “_no_ beginning.” It is the key to the TRAIVIDYA, > the thrice sacred science contained in the Rig verses, which teaches > the Yagus or sacrificial mysteries. “The Yajna” exists as an invisible > thing at all times; it is like the latent power of electricity in > an electrifying machine, requiring only the operation of a suitable > apparatus in order to be elicited. It is supposed to extend from the > _Ahavaniya_ or sacrificial fire to the heavens, forming a bridge or > ladder by means of which the sacrificer can communicate with the world > of gods and spirits, and even ascend when alive to their abodes.[49] > > This _Yajna_ is again one of the forms of the Akása, and the mystic > word calling it into existence and pronounced mentally by the initiated > Priest is the _Lost Word_ receiving impulse through WILL-POWER. > > To complete the list, we will now add that in the course of the > following chapters, whenever we use the term _Archaic_, we mean before > the time of Pythagoras; when _Ancient_, before the time of Mahomet; and > when _Mediæval_, the period between Mahomet and Martin Luther. It will > only be necessary to infringe the rule when from time to time we may > have to speak of nations of a pre-Pythagorean antiquity, and will adopt > the common custom of calling them “ancient.” > > * * * * * > > Before closing this initial chapter, we venture to say a few words in > explanation of the plan of this work. Its object is not to force upon > the public the personal views or theories of its author; nor has it the > pretensions of a scientific work, which aims at creating a revolution > in some department of thought. It is rather a brief summary of the > religions, philosophies, and universal traditions of human kind, and > the exegesis of the same, in the spirit of those secret doctrines, of > which none—thanks to prejudice and bigotry—have reached Christendom > in so unmutilated a form, as to secure it a fair judgment. Since the > days of the unlucky mediæval philosophers, the last to write upon these > secret doctrines of which they were the depositaries, few men have > dared to brave persecution and prejudice by placing their knowledge > upon record. And these few have never, as a rule, written for the > public, but only for those of their own and succeeding times who > possessed the key to their jargon. The multitude, not understanding > them or their doctrines, have been accustomed to regard them _en > masse_ as either charlatans or dreamers. Hence the unmerited contempt > into which the study of the noblest of sciences—that of the spiritual > man—has gradually fallen. > > In undertaking to inquire into the assumed infallibility of Modern {xlv} > Science and Theology, the author has been forced, even at the risk of > being thought discursive, to make constant comparison of the ideas, > achievements, and pretensions of their representatives, with those > of the ancient philosophers and religious teachers. Things the most > widely separated as to time, have thus been brought into immediate > juxtaposition, for only thus could the priority and parentage of > discoveries and dogmas be determined. In discussing the merits of > our scientific contemporaries, their own confessions of failure in > experimental research, of baffling mysteries, of missing links in > their chains of theory, of inability to comprehend natural phenomena, > of ignorance of the laws of the causal world, have furnished the > basis for the present study. Especially (since Psychology has been > so much neglected, and the East is so far away that few of our > investigators will ever get there to study that science where alone it > is understood), we will review the speculations and policy of noted > authorities in connection with those modern psychological phenomena > which began at Rochester and have now overspread the world. _We wish > to show how inevitable were their innumerable failures, and how they > must continue until these pretended authorities of the West go to the > Brahmans and Lamaists of the far Orient, and respectfully ask them to > impart the alphabet of true science._ We have laid no charge against > scientists that is not supported by their own published admissions, and > if our citations from the records of antiquity rob some of what they > have hitherto viewed as well-earned laurels, the fault is not ours but > Truth’s. No man worthy of the name of philosopher would care to wear > honors that rightfully belong to another. > > Deeply sensible of the Titanic struggle that is now in progress between > materialism and the spiritual aspirations of mankind, our constant > endeavor has been to gather into our several chapters, like weapons > into armories, every fact and argument that can be used to aid the > latter in defeating the former. Sickly and deformed child as it now is, > the materialism of To-Day is born of the brutal Yesterday. Unless its > growth is arrested, it may become our master. It is the bastard progeny > of the French Revolution and its reaction against ages of religious > bigotry and repression. To prevent the crushing of these spiritual > aspirations, the blighting of these hopes, and the deadening of that > intuition which teaches us of a God and a hereafter, we must show our > false theologies in their naked deformity, and distinguish between > divine religion and human dogmas. Our voice is raised for spiritual > freedom, and our plea made for enfranchisement from all tyranny, > whether of SCIENCE or THEOLOGY. > > THE VEIL OF ISIS. {1} > > _PART ONE.—SCIENCE._ > > CHAPTER I. > > “Ego sum qui sum.” > > —_An axiom of Hermetic Philosophy._ > > “We commenced research where modern conjecture closes its > faithless wings. And with us, these were the common elements of > science which the sages of to-day disdain as wild chimeras, or > despair of as unfathomable mysteries.“BULWER’S “ZANONI.” > > There exists somewhere in this wide world an old Book—so very old that > our modern antiquarians might ponder over its pages an indefinite time, > and still not quite agree as to the nature of the fabric upon which it > is written. It is the only original copy now in existence. The most > ancient Hebrew document on occult learning—the _Siphra Dzeniouta_—was > compiled from it, and that at a time when the former was already > considered in the light of a literary relic. One of its illustrations > represents the Divine Essence emanating from ADAM[50] like a luminous > arc proceeding to form a circle; and then, having attained the highest > point of its circumference, the ineffable Glory bends back again, and > returns to earth, bringing a higher type of humanity in its vortex. As > it approaches nearer and nearer to our planet, the Emanation becomes > more and more shadowy, until upon touching the ground it is as black as > night. > > A conviction, founded upon _seventy_ thousand years of experience,[51] > as they allege, has been entertained by hermetic philosophers of all > periods that matter has in time become, through sin, more gross and > dense than it was at man’s first formation; that, at the beginning, {2} > the human body was of a half-ethereal nature; and that, before the > fall, mankind communed freely with the now unseen universes. But since > that time matter has become the formidable barrier between us and the > world of spirits. The oldest esoteric traditions also teach that, > before the mystic Adam, many races of human beings lived and died > out, each giving place in its turn to another. Were these precedent > types more perfect? Did any of them belong to the _winged_ race of men > mentioned by Plato in _Phædrus_? It is the special province of science > to solve the problem. The caves of France and the relics of the stone > age afford a point at which to begin. > > As the cycle proceeded, man’s eyes were more and more opened, until > he came to know “good and evil” as well as the Elohim themselves. > Having reached its summit, the cycle began to go downward. When the arc > attained a certain point which brought it parallel with the fixed line > of our terrestrial plane, the man was furnished by nature with “coats > of _skin_,” and the Lord God “clothed them.” > > This same belief in the pre-existence of a far more spiritual race > than the one to which we now belong can be traced back to the earliest > traditions of nearly every people. In the ancient Quiché manuscript, > published by Brasseur de Bourbourg—the _Popol Vuh_—the first men are > mentioned as a race that could reason and speak, whose sight was > unlimited, and who knew all things at once. According to Philo Judæus, > the air is filled with an invisible host of spirits, some of whom are > free from evil and immortal, and others are pernicious and mortal. > “From the sons of EL we are descended, and sons of El must we become > again.” And the unequivocal statement of the anonymous Gnostic who > wrote _The Gospel according to John_, that “as many as received Him,” > _i.e._, who followed practically the esoteric doctrine of Jesus, would > “become the sons of God,” points to the same belief. (i., 12.) “Know ye > not, ye are _gods_?” exclaimed the Master. Plato describes admirably > in _Phædrus_ the state in which man once was, and what he will become > again: before, and after the “loss of his wings;” when “he lived among > the gods, a god himself in the airy world.” From the remotest periods > religious philosophies taught that the whole universe was filled with > divine and spiritual beings of divers races. From one of these evolved, > in the course of time, ADAM, the primitive man. > > The Kalmucks and some tribes of Siberia also describe in their legends > earlier creations than our present race. These beings, they say, were > possessed of almost boundless knowledge, and in their audacity even > threatened rebellion against the Great Chief Spirit. To punish their > presumption and humble them, he imprisoned them _in bodies_, and so {3} > shut in their senses. From these they can escape but through long > repentance, self-purification, and development. Their _Shamans_, they > think, occasionally enjoy the divine powers originally possessed by all > human beings. > > The Astor Library of New York has recently been enriched by a > fac-simile of an Egyptian Medical Treatise, written in the sixteenth > century B.C. (or, more precisely, 1552 B.C.), which, according to > the commonly received chronology, is the time when Moses was just > twenty-one years of age. The original is written upon the inner bark > of _Cyperus papyrus_, and has been pronounced by Professor Schenk, of > Leipsig, not only genuine, but also the most perfect ever seen. It > consists of a single sheet of yellow-brown papyrus of finest quality, > three-tenths of a metre wide, more than twenty metres long, and > forming one roll divided into one hundred and ten pages, all carefully > numbered. It was purchased in Egypt, in 1872-3, by the archæologist > Ebers, of “a well-to-do Arab from Luxor.” The New York _Tribune_, > commenting upon the circumstance, says: The papyrus “bears internal > evidence of being one of the six _Hermetic Books on Medicine_, named by > Clement of Alexandria.” > > The editor further says: “At the time of Iamblichus, A.D. 363, the > priests of Egypt showed forty-two books which they attributed to Hermes > (Thuti). Of these, according to that author, thirty-six contained the > history of all human knowledge; the last six treated of anatomy, of > pathology, of affections of the eye, instruments of surgery, and of > medicines.[52] The _Papyrus Ebers_ is indisputably one of these ancient > Hermetic works.” > > If so clear a ray of light has been thrown upon ancient Egyptian > science, by the accidental (?) encounter of the German archæologist > with one “well-to-do Arab” from Luxor, how can we know what sunshine > may be let in upon the dark crypts of history by an equally accidental > meeting between some other prosperous Egyptian and another enterprising > student of antiquity! > > _The discoveries of modern science do not disagree with the oldest > traditions which claim an incredible antiquity for our race._ Within > the last few years geology, which previously had only conceded that > man could be traced as far back as the tertiary period, has found > unanswerable proofs that human existence antedates the last glaciation > of Europe—over 250,000 years! A hard nut, this, for Patristic Theology > to crack; but an accepted fact with the ancient philosophers. > > Moreover, fossil implements have been exhumed together with human {4} > remains, which show that man hunted in those remote times, and knew how > to build a fire. But the forward step has not yet been taken in this > search for the origin of the race; science comes to a dead stop, and > waits for future proofs. Unfortunately, anthropology and psychology > possess no Cuvier; neither geologists nor archæologists are able to > construct, from the fragmentary bits hitherto discovered, the perfect > skeleton of the triple man—physical, intellectual, and spiritual. > Because the fossil implements of man are found to become more rough > and uncouth as geology penetrates deeper into the bowels of the earth, > it seems a proof to science that the closer we come to the origin of > man, the more savage and brute-like he must be. Strange logic! Does > the finding of the remains in the cave of Devon prove that there > were no contemporary races then who were highly civilized? When the > present population of the earth have disappeared, and some archæologist > belonging to the “coming race” of the distant future shall excavate the > domestic implements of one of our Indian or Andaman Island tribes, will > he be justified in concluding that mankind in the nineteenth century > was “just emerging from the Stone Age?” > > It has lately been the fashion to speak of “the untenable conceptions > of an uncultivated past.” _As though it were possible to hide behind > an epigram the intellectual quarries out of which the reputations of > so many modern philosophers have been carved!_ Just as Tyndall is > ever ready to disparage ancient philosophers—for a dressing-up of > whose ideas more than one distinguished scientist has derived honor > and credit—so the geologists seem more and more inclined to take for > granted that all of the archaic races were contemporaneously in a state > of dense barbarism. But not all of our best authorities agree in this > opinion. Some of the most eminent maintain exactly the reverse. Max > Müller, for instance, says: “Many things are still unintelligible to > us, and the hieroglyphic language of antiquity records but half of the > mind’s unconscious intentions. Yet more and more the image of man, in > whatever clime we meet him, rises before us, noble and pure from the > very beginning; even his errors we learn to understand, even his dreams > we begin to interpret. As far as we can trace back the footsteps of > man, even on the lowest strata of history, we see the divine gift of > a sound and sober intellect belonging to him from the very first, and > the idea of a humanity emerging slowly from the depths of an animal > brutality can never be maintained again.”[53] > > As it is claimed to be unphilosophical to inquire into first causes, {5} > scientists now occupy themselves with considering their physical > effects. The field of scientific investigation is therefore bounded by > physical nature. When once its limits are reached, enquiry must stop, > and their work be recommenced. With all due respect to our learned > men, they are like the squirrel upon its revolving wheel, for they > are doomed to turn their “matter” over and over again. Science is a > mighty potency, and it is not for us pigmies to question her. But the > “_scientists_” are not themselves science embodied any more than the > men of our planet are the planet itself. We have neither the right to > demand, nor power to compel our “modern-day philosopher” to accept > without challenge a geographical description of the dark side of the > moon. But, if in some lunar cataclysm one of her inhabitants should be > hurled thence into the attraction of our atmosphere, and land, safe and > sound, at Dr. Carpenter’s door, he would be indictable as recreant to > professional duty if he should fail to set the physical problem at rest. > > For a man of science to refuse an opportunity to investigate any new > phenomenon, whether it comes to him in the shape of a man from the > moon, or a ghost from the Eddy homestead, is alike reprehensible. > > Whether arrived at by the method of Aristotle, or that of Plato, we > need not stop to inquire; but it is a fact that both the inner and > outer natures of man are claimed to have been thoroughly understood by > the ancient andrologists. Notwithstanding the superficial hypotheses > of geologists, we are beginning to have almost daily proofs in > corroboration of the assertions of those philosophers. > > _They divided the interminable periods of human existence on this > planet into cycles, during each of which mankind gradually reached > the culminating point of highest civilization and gradually relapsed > into abject barbarism._ To what eminence the race in its progress had > several times arrived may be feebly surmised by the wonderful monuments > of old, still visible, and the descriptions given by Herodotus of > other marvels of which no traces now remain. Even in his days the > gigantic structures of many pyramids and world-famous temples were > but masses of ruins. Scattered by the unrelenting hand of time, they > are described by the Father of History as “these venerable witnesses > of the long bygone glory of departed ancestors.” He “shrinks from > speaking of divine things,” and gives to posterity but an imperfect > description from hearsay of some marvellous subterranean chambers of > the Labyrinth, where lay—and now lie—concealed, the sacred remains of > the King-Initiates. > > We can judge, moreover, of the lofty civilization reached in some {6} > periods of antiquity by the historical descriptions of the ages of the > Ptolemies, yet in that epoch the arts and sciences were considered to > be degenerating, and the secret of a number of the former had been > already lost. In the recent excavations of Mariette-Bey, at the foot of > the Pyramids, statues of wood and other relics have been exhumed, which > show that long before the period of the first dynasties the Egyptians > had attained to a refinement and perfection which is calculated to > excite the wonder of even the most ardent admirers of Grecian art. > Bayard Taylor describes these statues in one of his lectures, and tells > us that the beauty of the heads, ornamented with eyes of precious > stones and copper eyelids, is unsurpassed. Far below the stratum of > sand in which lay the remains gathered into the collections of Lepsius, > Abbott, and the British Museum, were found buried the tangible proofs > of the hermetic doctrine of cycles which has been already explained. > > Dr. Schliemann, the enthusiastic Hellenist, has recently found, in his > excavations in the Troad, abundant evidences of the same gradual change > from barbarism to civilization, and from civilization to barbarism > again. Why then should we feel so reluctant to admit the possibility > that, if the antediluvians were so much better versed than ourselves in > certain sciences as to have been perfectly acquainted with important > arts, which we now term _lost_, they might have equally excelled in > psychological knowledge? Such a hypothesis must be considered as > reasonable as any other until some countervailing evidence shall be > discovered to destroy it. > > Every true _savant_ admits that in many respects human knowledge is yet > in its infancy. Can it be that our cycle began in ages comparatively > recent? _These cycles_, according to the Chaldean philosophy, _do > not embrace all mankind at one and the same time_. Professor Draper > partially corroborates this view by saying that the periods into which > geology has “found it convenient to divide the progress of man in > civilization are not abrupt epochs which hold good simultaneously for > the whole human race;” giving as an instance the “wandering Indians of > America,” who “are only at the present moment emerging from the stone > age.” Thus more than once scientific men have unwittingly confirmed the > testimony of the ancients. > > Any Kabalist well acquainted with the Pythagorean system of numerals > and geometry can demonstrate that the metaphysical views of Plato were > based upon the strictest mathematical principles. “True mathematics,” > says the _Magicon_, “is something with which all higher sciences are > connected; common mathematics is but a deceitful phantasmagoria, whose > much-praised infallibility only arises from this—that materials, {7} > conditions, and references are made its foundation.” Scientists who > believe they have adopted the Aristotelian method only because they > creep when they do not run from demonstrated particulars to universals, > glorify this method of inductive philosophy, and reject that of Plato, > which they treat as unsubstantial. Professor Draper laments that > such speculative mystics as Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus should have > taken the place “of the severe geometers of the old museum.”[54] He > forgets that geometry, of all sciences the only one which proceeds from > universals to particulars, was precisely the method employed by Plato > in his philosophy. As long as exact science confines its observations > to physical conditions and proceeds Aristotle-like, it certainly cannot > fail. But notwithstanding that the world of matter is boundless for > us, it still is finite; and thus materialism will turn forever in > this vitiated circle, unable to soar higher than the circumference > will permit. The cosmological theory of numerals which Pythagoras > learned from the Egyptian hierophants, is alone able to reconcile the > two units, matter and spirit, and cause each to demonstrate the other > mathematically. > > The sacred numbers of the universe in their esoteric combination solve > the great problem and explain the theory of radiation and the cycle of > the emanations. The lower orders before they develop into higher ones > must emanate from the higher spiritual ones, and when arrived at the > turning-point, be reabsorbed again into the infinite. > > Physiology, like everything else in this world of constant evolution, > is subject to the cyclic revolution. As it now seems to be hardly > emerging from the shadows of the lower arc, so it may be one day proved > to have been at the highest point of the circumference of the circle > far earlier than the days of Pythagoras. > > Mochus, the Sidonian, the physiologist and teacher of the science of > anatomy, flourished long before the Sage of Samos; and the latter > received the sacred instructions from his disciples and descendants. > Pythagoras, the pure philosopher, the deeply-versed in the profounder > phenomena of nature, the noble inheritor of the ancient lore, whose > great aim was to free the soul from the fetters of sense and force it > to realize its powers, must live eternally in human memory. > > _The impenetrable veil of arcane secrecy was thrown over the sciences > taught in the sanctuary._ This is the cause of the modern depreciating > of the ancient philosophies. Even Plato and Philo Judæus have been > accused by many a commentator of absurd inconsistencies, whereas the {8} > design which underlies the maze of metaphysical contradictions so > perplexing to the reader of the _Timæus_, is but too evident. But has > Plato ever been read understandingly by one of the expounders of the > classics? This is a question warranted by the criticisms to be found in > such authors as Stalbaüm, Schleirmacher, Ficinus (Latin translation), > Heindorf, Sydenham, Buttmann, Taylor and Burges, to say nothing of > lesser authorities. The covert allusions of the Greek philosopher to > esoteric things have manifestly baffled these commentators to the last > degree. They not only with unblushing coolness suggest as to certain > difficult passages that another phraseology was evidently intended, but > they audaciously make the changes! The Orphic line: > > “Of the song, the order of the _sixth race_ close” > > which can only be interpreted as a reference to the _sixth_ race > evolved in the consecutive evolution of the spheres,[55] Burges says: “ > ... was evidently taken from a cosmogony _where man was feigned to be > created the last_.”[56]—Ought not one who undertakes to edit another’s > works at least understand what his author means? > > Indeed, the ancient philosophers seem to be generally held, even by the > least prejudiced of our modern critics, to have lacked that profundity > and thorough knowledge in the exact sciences of which our century is > so boastful. It is even questioned whether they understood that basic > scientific principle: _ex nihilo nihil fit_. If they suspected the > indestructibility of matter at all,—say these commentators—it was not > in consequence of a firmly-established formula but only through an > intuitional reasoning and by analogy. > > We hold to the contrary opinion. The speculations of these philosophers > upon matter were open to public criticism: but their teachings in > regard to spiritual things were profoundly esoteric. Being thus sworn > to secrecy and religious silence upon abstruse subjects involving the > relations of spirit and matter, they rivalled each other in their > ingenious methods for concealing their real opinions. > > The doctrine of _Metempsychosis_ has been abundantly ridiculed by men > of science and rejected by theologians, yet if it had been properly > understood in its application to the indestructibility of matter and > the immortality of spirit, it would have been perceived that it is > a sublime conception. Should we not first regard the subject from {9} > the standpoint of the ancients before venturing to disparage its > teachers? The solution of the great problem of _eternity_ belongs > neither to religious superstition nor to gross materialism. The harmony > and mathematical equiformity of the double evolution—spiritual and > physical—are elucidated only in the universal numerals of Pythagoras, > who built his system entirely upon the so-called “metrical speech” > of the Hindu _Vedas_. It is but lately that one of the most zealous > Sanskrit scholars, Martin Haug, undertook the translation of the > _Aitareya Brahmana_ of the _Rig-Veda_. It had been till that time > entirely unknown; these explanations indicate beyond dispute the > identity of the Pythagorean and Brahmanical systems. In both, the > esoteric significance is derived from the number: in the former, > from the mystic relation of every number to everything intelligible > to the human mind; in the latter, from the number of syllables > of which each verse in the _Mantras_ consists. Plato, the ardent > disciple of Pythagoras, realized it so fully as to maintain that the > Dodecahedron was the geometrical figure employed by the _Demiurgus_ > in constructing the universe. Some of these figures had a peculiarly > solemn significance. For instance _four_, of which the Dodecahedron > is the trine, was held sacred by the Pythagoreans. It is the perfect > square, and neither of the bounding lines exceeds the other in length, > by a single point. It is the emblem of moral justice and divine equity > geometrically expressed. All the powers and great symphonies of > physical and spiritual nature lie inscribed within the perfect square; > and the ineffable name of Him, which name otherwise, would remain > unutterable, was replaced by this sacred number ~4~ the most binding > and solemn oath with the ancient mystics—the _Tetractys_. > > If the Pythagorean metempsychosis should be thoroughly explained > and compared with the modern theory of evolution, it would be found > to supply every “missing link” in the chain of the latter. But who > of our scientists would consent to lose his precious time over the > vagaries of the ancients. Notwithstanding proofs to the contrary, they > not only deny that the nations of the archaic periods, but even the > ancient philosophers had any positive knowledge of the Heliocentric > system. The “Venerable Bedes,” the Augustines and Lactantii appear to > have smothered, with their dogmatic ignorance, all faith in the more > ancient theologists of the pre-Christian centuries. But now philology > and a closer acquaintance with Sanskrit literature have partially > enabled us to vindicate them from these unmerited imputations. In the > _Vedas_, for instance, we find positive proof that so long ago as 2000 > B.C., the Hindu sages and scholars must have been acquainted with the > rotundity of our globe and the Heliocentric system. Hence, Pythagoras > and Plato knew well this astronomical truth; for Pythagoras obtained {10} > his knowledge in India, or from men who had been there, and Plato > faithfully echoed his teachings. We will quote two passages from the > _Aitareya Brahmana_: > > In the “_Serpent-Mantra_,”[57] the _Brahmana_ declares as follows: > that this _Mantra_ is that one which was seen by the Queen of the > Serpents, _Sarpa-râjni_; because the earth (_iyam_) is the Queen of the > Serpents, as she is the mother and queen of all that moves (_sarpat_). > In the beginning she (the earth) was but one head (round), without > hair (_bald_), _i.e._, without vegetation. She then perceived this > _Mantra_ which confers upon him who knows it, the power of assuming > any form which he might desire. She “pronounced the _Mantra_,” _i.e._, > sacrificed to the gods; and, in consequence, immediately obtained a > motley appearance; she became variegated, and able to produce any form > she might like, _changing one form into another_. This _Mantra_ begins > with the words: “_Ayam gaûh pris’nir akramît_” (x., 189). > > The description of the earth in the shape of a _round_ and _bald_ head, > which was _soft_ at first, and became _hard_ only from being breathed > upon by the god Vâyu, the lord of the air, forcibly suggests the idea > that the authors of the sacred Vedic books knew the earth to be _round_ > or spherical; moreover, that it had been a _gelatinous_ mass at first, > which gradually cooled off under the influence of the air and time. So > much for their knowledge about our globe’s sphericity; and now we will > present the testimony upon which we base our assertion, that the Hindus > were perfectly acquainted with the Heliocentric system, at least 2000 > years B.C. > > In the same treatise the _Hotar_, (priest), is taught how the > _Shastras_ should be repeated, and how the phenomena of sunrise and > sunset are to be explained. It says: “The Agnishtoma is that one (that > god) who burns. The sun _never sets nor rises_. When people think the > sun is setting, it is _not so_; they are mistaken. For after having > arrived at the end of the day, it produces two opposite effects, making > night to what is below, and day to what is on the other side. When > they (the people) believe it rises in the morning, the sun only does > thus: having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two > opposite effects, making day to what is below, and night to what is on > the other side. In fact the sun never sets; nor does it set for him who > has such a knowledge....”[58] > > This sentence is so conclusive, that even the translator of the > _Rig-Veda_, Dr. Haug, was forced to remark it. He says this passage > contains “the _denial_ of the existence of sunrise and sunset,” > and that the author supposes the sun “to remain always in its high > position.”[59] > > In one of the earliest _Nivids_, Rishi Kutsa, a Hindu sage of the {11} > remotest antiquity, explains the allegory of the first laws given to > the celestial bodies. For doing “what she ought not to do,” Anâhit > (Anaïtis or Nana, the Persian Venus), representing the earth in > the legend, is sentenced to turn round the sun. The _Sattras_, or > sacrificial sessions[60] prove undoubtedly that so early as in the > eighteenth or twentieth century B.C., the Hindus had made considerable > progress in astronomical science. The _Sattras_ lasted one year, and > were “nothing but an imitation of the sun’s yearly course. They were > divided, says Haug, into two distinct parts, each consisting of six > months of thirty days each; in the midst of both was the _Vishuvan_ > (equator or central day), cutting the whole _Sattras_ into two halves, > etc.”[61] This scholar, although he ascribes the composition of the > bulk of the _Brahmanas_ to the period 1400-1200 B.C., is of opinion > that the oldest of the hymns may be placed at the very commencement of > Vedic literature, between the years 2400-2000, B.C. He finds no reason > for considering the _Vedas_ less ancient than the sacred books of the > Chinese. As the _Shu-King_ or _Book of History_, and the sacrificial > songs of the _Shi-King_, or _Book of Odes_, have been proved to have > an antiquity as early as 2200, B.C., our philologists may yet be > compelled before long to acknowledge, that in astronomical knowledge, > the antediluvian Hindus were their masters. > > At all events, there are facts which prove that certain astronomical > calculations were as correct with the Chaldeans in the days of Julius > Cæsar as they are now. When the calendar was reformed by the Conqueror, > the civil year was found to correspond so little with the seasons, that > summer had merged into the autumn months, and the autumn months into > full winter. It was Sosigenes, the Chaldean astronomer, who restored > order into the confusion, by putting back the 25th of March ninety > days, thus making it correspond with the vernal equinox; and it was > Sosigenes, again, who fixed the lengths of the months _as they now > remain_. > > In America, it was found by the Motezuman army, that the calendar of > the Aztecs gave an equal number of days and weeks to each month. The > extreme accuracy of their astronomical calculations was so great, > that _no error_ has been discovered in their reckoning by subsequent > verifications; while the Europeans, who landed in Mexico in 1519, were, > by the Julian calendar, nearly eleven days in advance of the exact time. > > It is to the priceless and accurate translations of the Vedic Books, > and to the personal researches of Dr. Haug, that we are indebted for {12} > the corroboration of the claims of the hermetic philosophers. That the > period of Zarathustra Spitama (Zoroaster) was of untold antiquity, can > be easily proved. The _Brahmanas_, to which Haug ascribes four thousand > years, describe the religious contest between the ancient Hindus, who > lived in the pre-Vedic period, and the Iranians. The battles between > the _Devas_ and the _Asuras_—the former representing the _Hindus_ and > the latter the Iranians—are described at length in the sacred books. > As the Iranian prophet was the first to raise himself against what > he called the “idolatry” of the Brahmans, and to designate them as > the _Devas_ (devils), how far back must then have been this religious > crisis? > > “This contest,” answers Dr. Haug, “must have appeared to the authors of > the _Brahmanas_ as old as the feats of King Arthur appear to English > writers of the nineteenth century.” > > There was not a philosopher of any notoriety who did not hold to this > doctrine of metempsychosis, as taught by the Brahmans, Buddhists, and > later by the Pythagoreans, in its esoteric sense, whether he expressed > it more or less intelligibly. Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, > Synesius and Chalcidius, all believed in it; and the Gnostics, who are > unhesitatingly proclaimed by history as a body of the most refined, > learned, and enlightened men,[62] were all believers in metempsychosis. > Socrates entertained opinions identical with those of Pythagoras; and > both, as the penalty of their divine philosophy, were put to a violent > death. The rabble has been the same in all ages. Materialism has been, > and will ever be blind to spiritual truths. These philosophers held, > with the Hindus, that God had infused into matter a portion of his own > Divine Spirit, which animates and moves every particle. They taught > that men have _two souls_, of separate and quite different natures: > the one perishable—the Astral Soul, or the inner, fluidic body—the > other incorruptible and immortal—the _Augoeides_, or portion of the > Divine Spirit; that the mortal or Astral Soul perishes at each gradual > change at the threshold of every new sphere, becoming with every > transmigration more purified. The astral man, intangible and invisible > as he might be to our mortal, earthly senses, is still constituted > of matter, though sublimated. Aristotle, notwithstanding that for > political reasons of his own he maintained a prudent silence as to > certain esoteric matters, expressed very clearly his opinion on the > subject. It was his belief that human souls are emanations of God, that > are finally reabsorbed into Divinity. Zeno, the founder of the Stoics, > taught that there are “two eternal qualities throughout nature: the > one active; or male, the other passive, or female: that the former {13} > is pure, subtile ether, or Divine Spirit; the other entirely inert in > itself till united with the active principle. That the Divine Spirit > acting upon matter produced fire, water, earth, and air; and that it is > the sole efficient principle by which all nature is moved. The Stoics, > like the Hindu sages, believed in the final absorption. St. Justin > believed in the emanation of these souls from Divinity, and Tatian, > the Assyrian, his disciple, declared that “man was as immortal as God > himself.”[63] > > That profoundly significant verse of the _Genesis_, “And to every beast > of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that > creepeth upon the earth, I gave _a living soul_, ...” should arrest the > attention of every Hebrew scholar capable of reading the Scripture in > its original, instead of following the erroneous translation, in which > the phrase reads, “wherein _there is life_.”[64] > > From the first to the last chapters, the translators of the Jewish > Sacred Books misconstrued this meaning. They have even changed the > spelling of the name of God, as Sir W. Drummond proves. Thus _El_, > if written correctly, would read _Al_, for it stands in the original > אל—Al, and, according to Higgins, this word means the god Mithra, the > _Sun_, the preserver and savior. Sir W. Drummond shows that _Beth-El_ > means the House of the _Sun_ in its literal translation, and not of > God. “_El_, in the composition of these Canaanite names, does not > signify _Deus_, but _Sol_.”[65] Thus Theology has disfigured ancient > Theosophy, and Science ancient Philosophy.[66] > > For lack of comprehension of this great philosophical principle, the > methods of modern science, however exact, must end in nullity. In > no one branch can it demonstrate the origin and ultimate of things. > Instead of tracing the effect from its primal source, its progress is > the reverse. Its higher types, as it teaches, are all evolved from > antecedent lower ones. It starts from the bottom of the cycle, led on > step by step in the great labyrinth of nature by a thread of matter. > As soon as this breaks and the clue is lost, it recoils in affright {14} > from the Incomprehensible, and confesses itself _powerless_. Not > so did Plato and his disciples. With him _the lower types were but > the concrete images of the higher abstract ones_. The soul, which > is immortal, has an arithmetical, as the body has a geometrical, > beginning. This beginning, as the reflection of the great universal > ARCHÆUS, is self-moving, and from the centre diffuses itself over the > whole body of the microcosm. > > It was the sad perception of this truth that made Tyndall confess > how powerless is science, even over the world of matter. “The first > marshalling of the atoms, on which all subsequent action depends, > baffles a keener power than that of the microscope.” “Through pure > excess of complexity, and long before observation can have any voice > in the matter, the most highly trained intellect, the most refined > and disciplined imagination, _retires in bewilderment from the > contemplation of the problem_. We are struck dumb by an astonishment > which no microscope can relieve, doubting not only the power of our > instrument, but even whether we ourselves possess the intellectual > elements which will ever enable us to grapple with the ultimate > structural energies of nature.” > > The fundamental geometrical figure of the Kabala—that figure which > tradition and the esoteric doctrines tell us was given by the Deity > itself to Moses on Mount Sinai[67]—contains in its grandiose, because > simple combination, the key to the universal problem. This figure > contains in itself all the others. For those who are able to master it, > there is no need to exercise imagination. No earthly microscope can be > compared with the keenness of the spiritual perception. > > And even for those who are unacquainted with the GREAT SCIENCE, the > description given by a well-trained child-psychometer of the genesis of > a grain, a fragment of crystal, or any other object—is worth all the > telescopes and microscopes of “exact science.” > > There may be more truth in the adventurous pangenesis of Darwin—whom > Tyndall calls a “soaring speculator” than in the cautious, line-bound > hypothesis of the latter; who, in common with other thinkers of his > class, surrounds his imagination “by the firm frontiers of reason.” The > theory of a microscopic germ which contains in itself “a world of minor > germs,” soars in one sense at least into the infinite. It oversteps the > world of matter, and begins unconsciously busying itself in the world > of spirit. > > If we accept Darwin’s theory of the development of species, we find > that his starting-point is placed in front of an open door. We are at > liberty with him, to either remain within, or cross the threshold, {15} > beyond which lies the limitless and the incomprehensible, or rather > the _Unutterable_. If our mortal language is inadequate to express what > our spirit dimly foresees in the great “_Beyond_” while on this earth—it > _must_ realize it at some point in the timeless Eternity. > > Not so with Professor Huxley’s theory of the “Physical Basis of > Life.” Regardless of the formidable majority of “nays” from his > German brother-scientists, he creates a universal _protoplasm_ and > appoints its cells to become henceforth the sacred founts of the > principle of all _life_. By making the latter identical in living man, > “dead mutton,” a nettle-sting, and a lobster; by shutting in, in the > molecular cell of the protoplasm, the life-principle, and by shutting > out from it the divine influx which comes with subsequent evolution, he > closes every door against any possible escape. Like an able tactician > he converts his “_laws_ and _facts_” into sentries whom he causes to > mount guard over every issue. The standard under which he rallies them > is inscribed with the word “necessity;” but hardly is it unfurled > when he mocks the legend and calls it “an empty shadow of my own > imagination.”[68] > > The fundamental doctrines of spiritualism, he says, “lie outside the > limits of philosophical inquiry.” We will be bold enough to contradict > this assertion, and say that they lie a great deal more within such > inquiry than Mr. Huxley’s protoplasm. Insomuch that they present > evident and palpable facts of the existence of _spirit_, and the > protoplasmic cells, _once dead_, present none whatever of being the > originators or the bases of life, as this one of the few “foremost > thinkers of the day” wants us to believe.[69] > > The ancient Kabalist rested upon no hypothesis till he could lay its > basis upon the firm rock of recorded experiment. > > But the too great dependence upon physical facts led to a growth of > materialism and a decadence of spirituality and faith. At the time of > Aristotle, this was the prevailing tendency of thought. And though the > Delphic commandment was not as yet completely eliminated from Grecian > thought; and some philosophers still held that “in order to know what > man _is_, we ought to know what man _was_”— still materialism had already > begun to gnaw at the root of faith. The Mysteries themselves had > degenerated in a very great degree into mere priestly speculations and > religious fraud. Few were the true adepts and initiates, the heirs and > descendants of those who had been dispersed by the conquering swords of > various invaders of Old Egypt. > > The time predicted by the great Hermes in his dialogue with Æsculapius {16} > had indeed come; the time when impious foreigners would accuse Egypt > of adoring monsters, and naught but the letters engraved in stone > upon her monuments would survive—enigmas incredible to posterity. > Their sacred scribes and hierophants were wanderers upon the face of > the earth. Obliged from fear of a profanation of the sacred mysteries > to seek refuge among the Hermetic fraternities—known later as the > _Essenes_—their esoteric knowledge was buried deeper than ever. The > triumphant brand of Aristotle’s pupil swept away from his path of > conquest every vestige of a once pure religion, and Aristotle himself, > the type and child of his epoch, though instructed in the secret > science of the Egyptians, knew but little of this crowning result of > millenniums of esoteric studies. > > As well as those who lived in the days of the Psammetics, our > present-day philosophers “lift the Veil of Isis”—for Isis is but the > symbol of nature. But, they see only her physical forms. The soul > within escapes their view; and the Divine Mother has no answer for > them. There are anatomists, who, uncovering to sight no indwelling > spirit under the layers of muscles, the net-work of nerves, or the > cineritious matter, which they lift with the point of the scalpel, > assert that man has no soul. Such are as purblind in sophistry as > the student, who, confining his research to the cold letter of the > Kabala, dares say it has no vivifying spirit. To see the true man who > once inhabited the subject which lies before him, on the dissecting > table, the surgeon must use other eyes than those of his body. So, > the glorious truth covered up in the hieratic writings of the ancient > papyri can be revealed only to him who possesses the faculty of > intuition—which, if we call reason the eye of the mind, may be defined > as the eye of the soul. > > Our modern science acknowledges a Supreme Power, an Invisible > Principle, but denies a Supreme Being, or Personal God.[70] Logically, > the difference between the two might be questioned; for in this case > _the Power and the Being are identical_. Human reason can hardly > imagine to itself an Intelligent Supreme Power without associating > it with the idea of an Intelligent Being. The masses can never be > expected to have a clear conception of the omnipotence and omnipresence > of a Supreme God, without investing with those attributes a gigantic > projection of their own personality. But the kabalists have never > looked upon the invisible EN-SOPH otherwise than as a _Power_. > > So far our modern positivists have been anticipated by thousands of > ages, in their cautious philosophy. What the hermetic adept claims to > demonstrate is, that simple common sense precludes the possibility {17} > that the universe is the result of mere chance. Such an idea appears > to him more absurd than to think that the problems of Euclid were > unconsciously formed by a monkey playing with geometrical figures. > > Very few Christians understand, if indeed they know anything at all, > of the Jewish Theology. The _Talmud_ is the darkest of enigmas even > for most Jews, while those Hebrew scholars who do comprehend it do > not boast of their knowledge. Their kabalistic books are still less > understood by them; for in our days more Christian than Jewish students > are engrossed in the elimination of their great truths. How much less > is definitely known of the Oriental, or the universal Kabala! Its > adepts are few; but these heirs elect of the sages who first discovered > “the starry truths which shone on the great Shemaïa of the Chaldean > lore”[71] have solved the “absolute” and are now resting from their > grand labor. They cannot go beyond that which is given to mortals of > this earth to know; and no one, not even these elect, can trespass > beyond the line drawn by the finger of the Divinity itself. Travellers > have met these adepts on the shores of the sacred Ganges, brushed > against them in the silent ruins of Thebes, and in the mysterious > deserted chambers of Luxor. Within the halls upon whose blue and golden > vaults the weird signs attract attention, but whose secret meaning is > never penetrated by the idle gazers, they have been seen but seldom > recognized. Historical memoirs have recorded their presence in the > brilliantly illuminated _salons_ of European aristocracy. They have > been encountered again on the arid and desolate plains of the Great > Sahara, as in the caves of Elephanta. They may be found everywhere, but > make themselves known only to those who have devoted their lives to > unselfish study, and are not likely to turn back. > > Maimonides, the great Jewish theologian and historian, who at one > time was almost deified by his countrymen and afterward treated as a > heretic, remarks, that the more absurd and void of sense the _Talmud_ > seems the more sublime is the secret meaning. This learned man has > successfully demonstrated that the Chaldean Magic, the science of Moses > and other learned thaumaturgists was wholly based on an extensive > knowledge of the various and now forgotten branches of natural science. > Thoroughly acquainted with all the resources of the vegetable, animal, > and mineral kingdoms, experts in occult chemistry and physics, > psychologists as well as physiologists, why wonder that the graduates > or adepts instructed in the mysterious sanctuaries of the temples, > could perform wonders, which even in our days of enlightenment would {18} > appear supernatural? It is an insult to human nature to brand magic > and the occult science with the name of imposture. To believe that for > so many thousands of years, one-half of mankind practiced deception and > fraud on the other half, is equivalent to saying that the human race > was composed only of knaves and incurable idiots. Where is the country > in which magic was not practiced? At what age was it wholly forgotten? > > In the oldest documents now in our possession—the _Vedas_ and the > older laws of Manu—we find many magical rites practiced and permitted > by the Brahmans.[72] Thibet, Japan and China teach in the present age > that which was taught by the oldest Chaldeans. The clergy of these > respective countries, prove moreover what they teach, namely: that the > practice of moral and physical purity, and of certain austerities, > developes the vital soul power of self-illumination. Affording to man > the control over his own immortal spirit, it gives him truly magical > powers over the elementary spirits inferior to himself. In the West we > find magic of as high an antiquity as in the East. The Druids of Great > Britain practiced it in the silent crypts of their deep caves; and > Pliny devotes many a chapter to the “wisdom”[73] of the leaders of the > Celts. The Semothees,—the Druids of the Gauls, expounded the physical > as well as the spiritual sciences. They taught the secrets of the > universe, the harmonious progress of the heavenly bodies, the formation > of the earth, and above all—the immortality of the soul.[74] Into their > sacred groves—natural academies built by the hand of the Invisible > Architect—the initiates assembled at the still hour of midnight to > learn about what man once was and what he will be.[75] They needed > no artificial illumination, nor life-drawing gas, to light up their > temples, for the chaste goddess of night beamed her most silvery rays > on their oak-crowned heads; and their white-robed sacred bards knew how > to converse with the solitary queen of the starry vault.[76] > > On the dead soil of the long bygone past stand their sacred oaks, > now dried up and stripped of their spiritual meaning by the venomous > breath of materialism. But for the student of occult learning, their > vegetation is still as verdant and luxuriant, and as full of deep > and sacred truths, as at that hour when the arch-druid performed his > magical cures, and waving the branch of misletoe, severed with his > golden sickle the green bough from its mother oak-tree. _Magic is as > old as man._ It is as impossible to name the time when it sprang {19} > into existence as to indicate on what day the first man himself was > born. Whenever a writer has started with the idea of connecting its > first foundation in a country with some historical character, further > research has proved his views groundless. Odin, the Scandinavian priest > and monarch, was thought by many to have originated the practice of > magic some seventy years B.C. But it was easily demonstrated that the > mysterious rites of the priestesses called _Voïlers_, _Valas_, were > greatly anterior to his age.[77] Some modern authors were bent on > proving that Zoroaster was the founder of magic, because he was the > founder of the Magian religion. Ammianus Marcellinus, Arnobius, Pliny, > and other ancient historians demonstrated conclusively that he was but > a reformer of Magic as practiced by the Chaldeans and Egyptians.[78] > > The greatest teachers of divinity agree that nearly all ancient books > were written symbolically and in a language intelligible only to the > initiated. The biographical sketch of Apollonius of Tyana affords an > example. As every Kabalist knows, it embraces the whole of the Hermetic > philosophy, being a counterpart in many respects of the traditions left > us of King Solomon. It reads like a fairy story, but, as in the case of > the latter, sometimes facts and historical events are presented to the > world under the colors of a fiction. The journey to India represents > allegorically the trials of a neophyte. His long discourses with the > Brahmans, their sage advice, and the dialogues with the Corinthian > Menippus would, if interpreted, give the esoteric catechism. His visit > to the empire of the wise men, and interview with their king Hiarchas, > the oracle of Amphiaraüs, explain symbolically many of the secret > dogmas of Hermes. They would disclose, if understood, some of the > most important secrets of nature. Eliphas Levi points out the great > resemblance which exists between King Hiarchas and the fabulous Hiram, > of whom Solomon procured the cedars of Lebanon and the gold of Ophir. > We would like to know whether modern Masons, even “Grand Lecturers” > and the most intelligent craftsmen belonging to important lodges, > understand who the _Hiram_ is whose death they combine together to > avenge? > > Putting aside the purely metaphysical teachings of the _Kabala_, if one > would devote himself but to physical occultism, to the so-called branch > of therapeutics, the results might benefit some of our modern sciences; > such as chemistry and medicine. Says Professor Draper: “Sometimes, {20} > not without surprise, we meet with ideas _which we flatter ourselves > originated in our own times_.” This remark, uttered in relation to the > scientific writings of the Saracens, would apply still better to the > more secret _Treatises_ of the ancients. Modern medicine, while it > has gained largely in anatomy, physiology, and pathology, and even in > therapeutics, has lost immensely by its narrowness of spirit, its rigid > materialism, its sectarian dogmatism. One school in its purblindness > sternly ignores whatever is developed by other schools; and all unite > in ignoring every grand conception of man or nature, developed by > Mesmerism, or by American experiments on the brain—every principle > which does not conform to a stolid materialism. It would require a > convocation of the hostile physicians of the several different schools > to bring together what is now known of medical science, and it too > often happens that after the best practitioners have vainly exhausted > their art upon a patient, a mesmerist or a “healing medium” will effect > a cure! The explorers of old medical literature, from the time of > Hippocrates to that of Paracelsus and Van Helmont, will find a vast > number of well-attested physiological and psychological facts and of > measures or medicines for healing the sick which modern physicians > superciliously refuse to employ.[79] Even with respect to surgery, > modern practitioners have humbly and publicly confessed the total > impossibility of their approximating to anything like the marvellous > skill displayed in the art of bandaging by ancient Egyptians. The many > hundred yards of ligature enveloping a mummy from its ears down to > every separate toe, were studied by the chief surgical operators in > Paris, and, notwithstanding that the models were before their eyes, > they were unable to accomplish anything like it. > > In the Abbott Egyptological collection, in New York City, may be seen > numerous evidences of the skill of the ancients in various handicrafts; > among others the art of lace-making; and, as it could hardly be > expected but that the signs of woman’s vanity should go side by side {21} > with those of man’s strength, there are also specimens of artificial > hair, and gold ornaments of different kinds. The New York _Tribune_, > reviewing the contents of the _Ebers Papyrus_, says:—“Verily, there > is no new thing under the sun.... Chapters 65, 66, 79, and 89 show > that hair-invigorators, hair dyes, pain-killers, and flea-powders were > desiderata 3,400 years ago.” > > How few of our recent alleged discoveries are in reality new, and how > many belong to the ancients, is again most fairly and eloquently though > but in part stated by our eminent philosophical writer, Professor John > W. Draper. His _Conflict between Religion and Science_—a great book > with a very bad title—swarms with such facts. At page 13, he cites a > few of the achievements of ancient philosophers, which excited the > admiration of Greece. In Babylon was a series of Chaldean astronomical > observations, ranging back through nineteen hundred and three > years, which Callisthenes sent to Aristotle. Ptolemy, the Egyptian > king-astronomer possessed a Babylonian record of eclipses going back > seven hundred and forty-seven years before our era. As Prof. Draper > truly remarks: “Long-continued and close observations were necessary > before some of these astronomical results that have reached our times > could have been ascertained. Thus, the Babylonians had fixed the length > of a tropical year within twenty-five seconds of the truth; their > estimate of the sidereal year was barely two minutes in excess. They > had detected the precession of the equinoxes. They knew the causes of > eclipses, and, by the aid of their cycle, called _saros_, could predict > them. Their estimate of the value of that cycle, which is more than > 6,585 days, was within nineteen and a half minutes of the truth.” > > “Such facts furnish incontrovertible proof of the patience and skill > with which astronomy had been cultivated in Mesopotamia, and that, with > very inadequate instrumental means, it had reached no inconsiderable > perfection. These old observers had made a catalogue of the stars, had > divided the zodiac into twelve signs; they had parted the day into > twelve hours, the night into twelve. They had, as Aristotle says, for > a long time devoted themselves to observations of star-occultations by > the moon. They had correct views of the structure of the solar system, > and knew the order of emplacement of the planets. They constructed > sundials, clepsydras, astrolabes, gnomons.” > > Speaking of the world of eternal truths that lies “within the world > of transient delusions and unrealities,” Professor Draper says: “That > world is not to be discovered through the vain traditions that have > brought down to us the opinion of men who lived in the morning of > civilization, nor in the _dreams of mystics_ who thought that they were > inspired. It is to be discovered by the investigations _of geometry, {22} > and by the practical interrogations of nature_.” > > Precisely. The issue could not be better stated. This eloquent writer > tells us a profound truth. He does not, however, tell us _the whole_ > truth, because he does not know it. He has not described the nature or > extent of the knowledge imparted in the Mysteries. No subsequent people > has been so proficient in geometry as the builders of the Pyramids and > other Titanic monuments, antediluvian and postdiluvian. On the other > hand, none has ever equalled them in the practical interrogation of > nature. > > An undeniable proof of this is the significance of their countless > symbols. _Every one of these symbols is an embodied idea,—combining the > conception of the Divine Invisible with the earthly and visible._ The > former is derived from the latter strictly through analogy according > to the hermetic formula—“as below, so it is above.” Their symbols show > great knowledge of natural sciences and a practical study of cosmical > power. > > As to practical results to be obtained by “the investigations of > geometry,” very fortunately for students who are coming upon the > stage of action, we are no longer forced to content ourselves with > mere conjectures. In our own times, an American, Mr. George H. Felt, > of New York, who, if he continues as he has begun, may one day be > recognized as the greatest geometer of the age, has been enabled, by > the sole help of the premises established by the ancient Egyptians, to > arrive at results which we will give in his own language. “Firstly,” > says Mr. Felt, “the fundamental diagram to which all science of > elementary geometry, both plane and solid, is referable; to produce > arithmetical systems of proportion in a geometrical manner; to identify > this figure with all the remains of architecture and sculpture, in > all which it had been followed in a marvellously exact manner; to > determine that the Egyptians had used it as the basis of all their > astronomical calculations, on which their religious symbolism was > almost entirely founded; to find its traces among all the remnants of > art and architecture of the Greeks; to discover its traces so strongly > among the Jewish sacred records, as to prove conclusively that it was > founded thereon; to find that the whole system had been discovered > by the Egyptians after researches of tens of thousands of years into > the laws of nature, and that it might truly be called the science of > the Universe.” Further it enabled him “to determine with precision > problems in physiology heretofore only surmised; to first develop such > a Masonic philosophy as showed it to be conclusively the first science > and religion, as it will be the last;” and we may add, lastly, to prove > by ocular demonstrations that the Egyptian sculptors and architects {23} > obtained the models for the quaint figures which adorn the façades > and vestibules of their temples, not in the disordered fantasies of > their own brains, but from the “viewless races of the air,” and other > kingdoms of nature, whom he, like them, _claims_ to make visible by > resort to their own chemical and kabalistical processes. > > Schweigger proves that the symbols of all the mythologies have a > scientific foundation and substance.[80] It is only through recent > discoveries of the physical electro-magnetical powers of nature > that such experts in Mesmerism as Ennemoser, Schweigger and Bart, > in Germany, Baron Du Potet and Regazzoni, in France and Italy, were > enabled to trace with almost faultless accuracy the true relation which > each _Theomythos_ bore to some one of these powers. The Idæic finger, > which had such importance in the magic art of healing, means an iron > finger, which is attracted and repulsed in turn by magnetic, natural > forces. It produced, in Samothrace, wonders of healing by restoring > affected organs to their normal condition. > > Bart goes deeper than Schweigger into the significations of the old > myths, and studies the subject from both its spiritual and physical > aspects. He treats at length of the Phrygian Dactyls, those “magicians > and exorcists of sickness,” and of the Cabeirian Theurgists. He says: > “While we treat of the close union of the Dactyls and magnetic forces, > we are not necessarily confined to the magnetic stone, and our views > of nature but take a glance at magnetism in its whole meaning. Then it > is clear how the initiated, who called themselves _Dactyls_, created > astonishment in the people through their magic arts, working as they > did, miracles of a healing nature. To this united themselves many > other things which the priesthood of antiquity was wont to practice; > the cultivation of the land and of morals, the advancement of art and > science, mysteries, and secret consecrations. All this was done by the > priestly Cabeirians, and _wherefore not guided and supported by the > mysterious spirits of nature_?”[81] Schweigger is of the same opinion, > and demonstrates that the phenomena of ancient Theurgy were produced by > magnetic powers “under the guidance of spirits.” > > Despite their apparent Polytheism, the ancients—those of the educated > class at all events—were entirely monotheistical; and this, too, ages > upon ages before the days of Moses. In the _Ebers Papyrus_ this fact is > shown conclusively in the following words, translated from the first > four lines of Plate I.: “I came from Heliopolis with the great ones {24} > from Het-aat, the Lords of Protection, the masters of eternity and > salvation. I came from Sais with the Mother-goddesses, who extended > to me protection. _The Lord of the Universe_ told me how to free the > gods from all murderous diseases.” _Eminent men were called gods by > the ancients._ The deification of mortal men and supposititious gods > is no more a proof against their monotheism than the monument-building > of modern Christians, who erect statues to their heroes, is proof of > their polytheism. Americans of the present century would consider > it absurd in their posterity 3,000 years hence to classify them as > idolaters for having built statues to their god Washington. So shrouded > in mystery was the Hermetic Philosophy that Volney asserted that the > ancient peoples worshipped their gross material symbols as divine in > themselves; whereas these were only considered as representing esoteric > principles. Dupuis, also, after devoting many years of study to the > problem, mistook the symbolic circle, and attributed their religion > solely to astronomy. Eberhart (_Berliner Monatschriff_) and many other > German writers of the last and present centuries, dispose of magic > most unceremoniously, and think it due to the Platonic mythos of the > _Timæus_. But how, without possessing a knowledge of the mysteries, > was it possible for these men or any others not endowed with the finer > intuition of a Champollion, to discover the esoteric half of that which > was concealed, behind the veil of Isis, from all except the adepts? > > The merit of Champollion as an Egyptologist none will question. He > declares that everything demonstrates the ancient Egyptians to have > been profoundly monotheistical. The accuracy of the writings of the > mysterious Hermes Trismegistus, whose antiquity runs back into the > night of time, is corroborated by him to their minutest details. > Ennemoser also says: “Into Egypt and the East went Herodotus, Thales, > Parmenides, Empedocles, Orpheus, and Pythagoras, to instruct themselves > in Natural Philosophy and Theology.” There, too, Moses acquired his > wisdom, and Jesus passed the earlier years of his life. > > Thither gathered the students of all countries before Alexandria was > founded. “How comes it,” Ennemoser goes on to say, “that so little has > become known of these mysteries? through so many ages and amongst so > many different times and people? The answer is that it is owing to the > universally strict silence of the initiated. Another cause may be found > in the destruction and total loss of all the written memorials of the > secret knowledge of the remotest antiquity.” Numa’s books, described by > Livy, consisting of treatises upon natural philosophy, were found in > his tomb; but they were not allowed to be made known, lest they should > reveal the most secret mysteries of the state religion. The senate and {25} > the tribune of the people determined that the books themselves should > be burned, which was done in public.[82] > > _Magic was considered a divine science which led to a participation > in the attributes of Divinity itself._ “It unveils the operations > of nature,” says Philo Judæus, “and leads to the contemplation of > celestial powers.”[83] In later periods its abuse and degeneration into > sorcery made it an object of general abhorrence. We must therefore > deal with it only as it was in the remote past, during those ages when > every true religion was based on a knowledge of the occult powers > of nature. It was not the sacerdotal class in ancient Persia that > established magic, as it is commonly thought, but the Magi, who derive > their name from it. The Mobeds, priests of the Parsis—the ancient > Ghebers—are named, even at the present day, _Magoï_, in the dialect of > the Pehlvi.[84] _Magic appeared in the world with the earlier races of > men._ Cassien mentions a treatise, well-known in the fourth and fifth > centuries, which was accredited to Ham, the son of Noah, who in his > turn was reputed to have received it from Jared, the fourth generation > from Seth, the son of Adam.[85] > > Moses was indebted for his knowledge to the mother of the Egyptian > princess, Thermuthis, who saved him from the waters of the Nile. The > wife of Pharaoh,[86] Batria, was an initiate herself, and the Jews owe > to her the possession of their prophet, “learned in all the wisdom > of the Egyptians, and mighty in words and deeds.”[87] Justin Martyr, > giving as his authority Trogus Pompeius, shows Joseph as having > acquired a great knowledge in magical arts with the high priests of > Egypt.[88] > > _The ancients knew more concerning certain sciences than our modern > savants have yet discovered._ Reluctant as many are to confess as > much, it has been acknowledged by more than one scientist. “The degree > of scientific knowledge existing in an early period of society was > much greater than the moderns are willing to admit;” says Dr. A. Todd > Thomson, the editor of _Occult Sciences_, by Salverte; “but,” he adds, > “it was confined to the temples, carefully veiled from the eyes of the > people and opposed only to the priesthood.” Speaking of the _Kabala_, > the learned Franz von Baader remarks that “not only our salvation and > wisdom, but our science itself came to us from the Jews.” But why not > complete the sentence and tell the reader from whom the Jews got their > wisdom? > > Origen, who had belonged to the Alexandrian school of Platonists, {26} > declares that Moses, besides the teachings of the covenant, > communicated some very important secrets “from the hidden depths of the > law” to the seventy elders. These he enjoined them to impart only to > persons whom they found worthy. > > St. Jerome names the Jews of Tiberias and Lydda as the only teachers of > the mystical manner of interpretation. Finally, Ennemoser expresses a > strong opinion that “the writings of Dionysius Areopagita have palpably > been grounded on the Jewish _Kabala_.” When we take in consideration > that the Gnostics, or early Christians, were but the followers of the > old Essenes under a new name, this fact is nothing to be wondered at. > Professor Molitor gives the _Kabala_ its just due. He says: > > “The age of inconsequence and shallowness, in theology as well as in > sciences, is past, and since that revolutionary rationalism has left > nothing behind but its own emptiness, after having destroyed everything > positive, it seems now to be the time to direct our attention anew > to that mysterious revelation which is the living spring whence our > salvation must come ... the Mysteries of ancient Israel, which contain > all secrets of modern Israel, would be particularly calculated to ... > found the fabric of theology upon its deepest theosophical principles, > and to gain _a firm basis_ to all ideal sciences. It would open a > new path ... to the obscure labyrinth of the myths, mysteries and > constitutions of primitive nations.... In these traditions alone are > contained the system of the schools of the prophets, which the prophet > Samuel did not found, _but only restored_, whose end was no other than > to lead the scholars to wisdom and the highest knowledge, and when they > had been found worthy, to induct them _into deeper mysteries_. Classed > with these mysteries was _magic_, which was of a double nature—divine > magic, and evil magic, or the black art. Each of these is again > divisible into two kinds, the active and seeing; in the first, man > endeavors to place himself _en rapport_ with the world to learn hidden > things; in the latter he endeavors to gain power over spirits; in the > former, to perform _good and beneficial_ acts; in the latter to do all > kinds of diabolical and unnatural deeds.”[89] > > The clergy of the three most prominent Christian bodies, the Greek, > Roman Catholic, and Protestant, discountenance every spiritual > phenomenon manifesting itself through the so-called “mediums.” A > very brief period, indeed, has elapsed since both the two latter > ecclesiastical corporations burned, hanged, and otherwise murdered > every helpless victim through whose organism spirits—and sometimes > blind and as yet unexplained forces of nature—manifested themselves. {27} > At the head of these three churches, pre-eminent stands the Church > of Rome. Her hands are scarlet with the innocent blood of countless > victims shed in the name of the Moloch-like divinity at the head of her > creed. She is ready and eager to begin again. But she is bound hand > and foot by that nineteenth century spirit of progress and religious > freedom which she reviles and blasphemes daily. The Græco-Russian > Church is the most amiable and Christ-like in her primitive, simple, > though blind faith. Despite the fact that there has been no practical > union between the Greek and Latin Churches, and that the two parted > company long centuries ago, the Roman Pontiffs seem to invariably > ignore the fact. They have in the most impudent manner possible > arrogated to themselves jurisdiction not only over the countries within > the Greek communion but also over all Protestants as well. “The Church > insists,” says Professor Draper, “that the state has no rights over any > thing which it declares to be within its domain, and that Protestantism > being a mere rebellion, has no rights at all; that even in Protestant > communities the Catholic bishop _is the only lawful_ spiritual > pastor.”[90] Decrees unheeded, encyclical letters unread, invitations > to ecumenical councils unnoticed, excommunications laughed at—all these > have seemed to make no difference. Their persistence has only been > matched by their effrontery. In 1864, the culmination of absurdity > was attained when Pius IX. excommunicated and fulminated publicly his > anathemas against the Russian Emperor, as a “_schismatic_ cast out from > the bosom of the Holy Mother Church.”[91] Neither he nor his ancestors, > nor Russia since it was Christianized, a thousand years ago, have ever > consented to join the Roman Catholics. Why not claim ecclesiastical > jurisdiction over the Buddhists of Thibet, or the shadows of the > ancient Hyk-Sos? > > The mediumistic phenomena have manifested themselves at all times in > Russia as well as in other countries. This force ignores religious > differences; it laughs at nationalities; and invades unasked any > individuality, whether of a crowned head or a poor beggar. > > Not even the present Vice-God, Pius IX., himself, could avoid the > unwelcome guest. For the last fifty years his Holiness has been known > to be subject to very extraordinary fits. Inside the Vatican they are > termed _Divine visions_; outside, physicians call them epileptic fits; > and popular rumor attributes them to an obsession by the ghosts of > Peruggia, Castelfidardo, and Mentana! > > “The lights burn blue: it is now dead midnight, {28} > Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh, > Methought the souls of all that I caused to be murdered > Came....”[92] > > The Prince of Hohenlohe, so famous during the first quarter of our > century for his healing powers, was himself a great medium. Indeed, > these phenomena and powers belong to no particular age or country. They > form a portion of the psychological attributes of man—the Microcosmos. > > For centuries have the _Klikouchy_,[93] the _Yourodevoÿ_,[94] and other > miserable creatures been afflicted with strange disorders, which the > Russian clergy and the populace attribute to possession by the devil. > They throng the entrances of the cathedrals, without daring to trust > themselves inside, lest their self-willed controlling demons might > fling them on the ground. Voroneg, Kiew, Kazan, and all cities which > possess the thaumaturgical relics of canonized saints, abound with such > unconscious mediums. One can always find numbers of them, congregating > in hideous groups, and hanging about the gates and porches. At certain > stages of the celebration of the mass by the officiating clergy, such > as the appearance of the sacraments, or the beginning of the prayer and > chorus, “_Ejey Cherouvim_,” these half-maniacs, half-mediums, begin > crowing like cocks, barking, bellowing and braying, and, finally, fall > down in fearful convulsions. “The _unclean one_ cannot bear the holy > prayer,” is the pious explanation. Moved by pity, some charitable souls > administer restoratives to the “afflicted ones,” and distribute alms > among them. Occasionally, a priest is invited to exorcise, in which > event he either performs the ceremony for the sake of love and charity, > or the alluring prospect of a twenty-copeck silver bit, according > to his Christian impulses. But these miserable creatures—who are > mediums, for they prophesy and see visions sometimes, when the fit is > genuine[95]—are never molested because of their misfortune. Why should > the clergy persecute them, or people hate and denounce them as damnable > witches or wizards? Common sense and justice surely suggest that if > any are to be punished it is certainly not the victims who cannot help > themselves, but the demon who is alleged to control their actions. The > worst that happens to the patient is, that the priest inundates him or > her with holy water, and causes the poor creature to catch cold. This > failing in efficacy, the _Klikoucha_ is left to the will of God, and {29} > taken care of in love and pity. Superstitious and blind as it is, a > faith conducted on such principles certainly deserves some respect, and > can never be offensive, either to man or the _true_ God. Not so with > that of the Roman Catholics; and hence, it is they, and secondarily, > the Protestant clergy—with the exception of some foremost thinkers > among them—that we purpose questioning in this work. We want to know > upon what grounds they base their right to treat Hindus and Chinese > spiritualists and kabalists in the way they do; denouncing them, in > company with the infidels—creatures of their own making—as so many > convicts sentenced to the inextinguishable fires of hell. > > Far from us be the thought of the slightest irreverence—let alone > blasphemy—toward the Divine Power which called into being all things, > visible and invisible. Of its majesty and boundless perfection we dare > not even think. It is enough for us to know that _It_ exists and that > _It_ is all wise. Enough that in common with our fellow creatures we > possess a spark of _Its_ essence. The supreme power whom we revere is > the boundless and endless one—the grand “CENTRAL SPIRITUAL SUN” by > whose attributes and the visible effects of whose inaudible WILL we > are surrounded—the God of the ancient and the God of modern seers. His > nature can be studied only in the worlds called forth by his mighty > FIAT. His revelation is traced with his own finger in imperishable > figures of universal harmony upon the face of the Cosmos. It is the > only INFALLIBLE gospel we recognize. > > Speaking of ancient geographers, Plutarch remarks in _Theseus_, that > they “crowd into the edges of their maps parts of the world which > they do not know about, adding notes in the margin to the effect that > beyond this lies nothing but sandy deserts _full of wild beasts_ and > _unapproachable bogs_.” Do not our theologians and scientists do the > same? While the former people the invisible world with either angels > or devils, our philosophers try to persuade their disciples that where > there is no _matter_ there is _nothing_. > > How many of our inveterate skeptics belong, notwithstanding their > materialism, to Masonic Lodges? The brothers of the Rosie-Cross, > mysterious practitioners of the mediæval ages, still live—but in name > only. They may “shed tears at the grave of their respectable Master, > Hiram Abiff;” but vainly will they search for the true locality, “where > the sprig of myrtle was placed.” The dead letter remains alone, the > spirit has fled. They are like the English or German chorus of the > Italian opera, who descend in the fourth act of _Ernani_ into the crypt > of Charlemagne, singing their conspiracy in a tongue utterly unknown > to them. So, our modern knights of the Sacred Arch may descend every {30} > night if they choose “through the nine arches into the bowels of the > earth,“they “will never discover the sacred Delta of Enoch.” The “Sir > Knights in the South Valley” and those in “the North Valley” may try > to assure themselves that “enlightenment dawns upon their minds,” and > that as they progress in Masonry “the veil of superstition, despotism, > tyranny” and so on, no longer obscures the visions of their minds. But > these are all empty words so long as they neglect their mother Magic, > and turn their backs upon its twin sister, Spiritualism. Verily, “Sir > Knights of the Orient,” you may “leave your stations and sit upon the > floor in attitudes of grief, with your heads resting upon your hands,” > for you have cause to bewail and mourn your fate. Since Phillipe le > Bel destroyed the Knights-Templars, not one has appeared to clear up > your doubts notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. Truly, you > are “wanderers from Jerusalem, seeking the lost treasure of the holy > place.” Have you found it? Alas, no! for the holy place is profaned; > the pillars of wisdom, strength and beauty are destroyed. Henceforth, > “you must wander in darkness,” and “travel in humility,” among the > woods and mountains in search of the “lost word.” “Pass on!“you will > never find it so long as you limit your journeys to _seven_ or even > seven times seven; because you are “travelling in darkness,” and this > darkness can only be dispelled by the light of the blazing torch of > truth which alone the right descendants of Ormazd carry. They alone can > teach you the true pronunciation of the name revealed to Enoch, Jacob > and Moses. “Pass on!” Till your R. S. W. shall learn to multiply 333, > and _strike_ instead 666—the number of the Apocalyptic Beast, you may > just as well observe prudence and act “_sub rosa_.” > > In order to demonstrate that the notions which the ancients entertained > about dividing human history into cycles were not utterly devoid of a > philosophical basis, we will close this chapter by introducing to the > reader one of the oldest traditions of antiquity as to the evolution of > our planet. > > At the close of each “great year,” called by Aristotle—according to > Censorinus—the _greatest_, and which consists of six _sars_[96] our > planet is subjected to a thorough physical revolution. The polar and > equatorial climates gradually exchange places; the former moving slowly > toward the Line, and the tropical zone, with its exuberant vegetation > and swarming animal life, replacing the forbidding wastes of the icy {31} > poles. This change of climate is necessarily attended by cataclysms, > earthquakes, and other cosmical throes.[97] As the beds of the ocean > are displaced, at the end of every decimillennium and about one neros, > a semi-universal deluge like the legendary Noachian flood is brought > about. This year was called the _Heliacal_ by the Greeks; but no one > outside the sanctuary knew anything certain either as to its duration > or particulars. The winter of this year was called the Cataclysm or the > Deluge,—the Summer, the Ecpyrosis. The popular traditions taught that > at these alternate seasons the world was in turn burned and deluged. > This is what we learn at least from the _Astronomical Fragments_ > of Censorinus and Seneca. So uncertain were the commentators about > the length of this year, that none except Herodotus and Linus, who > assigned to it, the former 10,800, and the latter 13,984, came near > the truth.[98] According to the claims of the Babylonian priests, > corroborated by Eupolemus,[99] “the city of Babylon, owes its > foundation to those who were saved from the catastrophe of the deluge; > _they were the giants_ and they built the tower which is noticed in > history.”[100] These giants who were great astrologers and had received > moreover from their fathers, “the sons of God,” every instruction > pertaining to secret matters, instructed the priests in their turn, and > left in the temples all the records of the periodical cataclysm that > they had witnessed themselves. This is how the high priests came by > the knowledge of the _great_ years. When we remember, moreover, that > Plato in the _Timæus_ cites the old Egyptian priest rebuking Solon for > his ignorance of the fact that there were several such deluges as the > great one of Ogyges, we can easily ascertain that this belief in the > _Heliakos_ was a doctrine held by the initiated priests the world over. > > The Neroses, the Vrihaspati, or the periods called yugas or kalpas, > are life-problems to solve. The Satya-yug and Buddhistic cycles of > chronology would make a mathematician stand aghast at the array of > ciphers. The Maha-kalpa embraces an untold number of periods far back {32} > in the antediluvian ages. Their system comprises a kalpa or grand > period of 4,320,000,000 years, which they divide into four lesser > yugas, running as follows: > > 1st.—Satya-yug 1,728,000 years. > 2d.—Trêtya yug 1,296,000 “ > 3d.—Dvâpa yug 864,000 “ > 4th.—Kali yug 432,000 “ > ——————— > Total 4,320,000 > > which make one divine age or Maha-yug; seventy-one Maha-yugs make > 306,720,000 years, to which is added a sandhi (or the time when day and > night border on each other, morning and evening twilight), equal to > a Satya-yug, 1,728,000, make a manwantara of 308,448,000 years;[101] > fourteen manwantaras make 4,318,272,000 years; to which must be added a > sandhi to begin the kalpa, 1,728,000 years, making the kalpa or grand > period of 4,320,000,000 of years. As we are now only in the Kali-yug of > the twenty-eighth age of the seventh manwantara of 308,448,000 years, > we have yet sufficient time before us to wait before we reach even half > of the time allotted to the world. > > These ciphers are not fanciful, but founded upon actual astronomical > calculations, as has been demonstrated by S. Davis.[102] Many a > scientist, Higgins among others, notwithstanding their researches, > has been utterly perplexed as to which of these was the _secret_ > cycle. Bunsen has demonstrated that the Egyptian priests, who made the > cyclic notations, kept them always in the profoundest mystery.[103] > Perhaps their difficulty arose from the fact that the calculations of > the ancients applied equally to the spiritual progress of humanity > as to the physical. It will not be difficult to understand the close > correspondence drawn by the ancients between the cycles of nature > and of mankind, if we keep in mind their belief in the constant and > all-potent influences of the planets upon the fortunes of humanity. > Higgins justly believed that the cycle of the Indian system, of > 432,000, is the true key of the secret cycle. But his failure in trying > to decipher it was made apparent; for as it pertained to the mystery > of the creation, this cycle was the most inviolable of all. It was > repeated in symbolic figures only in the Chaldean _Book of Numbers_, {33} > the original of which, if now extant, is certainly not to be found in > libraries, as it formed one of the most ancient Books of Hermes,[104] > the number of which is at present undetermined. > > Calculating by the secret period of the Great Neros and the Hindu > Kalpas, some kabalists, mathematicians and archæologists who knew > naught of the secret computations made the above number of 21,000 years > to be 24,000 years, for the length of the great year, as it was to the > renewal only of our globe that they thought the last period of 6,000 > years applied. Higgins gives as a reason for it, that it was anciently > thought that the equinoxes preceded only after the rate of 2,000, not > 2,160, years in a sign; for thus it would allow for the length of the > great year four times 6,000 or 24,000 years. “Hence,” he says, “might > arise their immensely-lengthened cycles; because, it would be the same > with this great year as with the common year, till it travelled round > an immensely-lengthened circle, when it would come to the old point > again.” He therefore accounts for the 24,000 in the following manner: > “If the angle which the plane of the ecliptic makes with the plane of > the equator had decreased gradually and regularly, as it was till very > lately supposed to do, the two planes would have coincided in about ten {34} > ages, 6,000 years; in ten ages, 6,000 years more, the sun would have > been situated relatively to the Southern Hemisphere as he is now to the > Northern; in ten ages, 6,000 years more, the two planes would coincide > again; and, in ten ages, 6,000 years more, he would be situated as he > is now, after a lapse of about twenty-four or twenty-five thousand > years in all. When the sun arrived at the equator, the ten ages or six > thousand years would end, and the world would be destroyed _by fire_; > when he arrived at the southern point, it would be destroyed by water. > And thus, it would be destroyed at the end of every 6,000 years, or ten > neroses.”[105] > > This method of calculating by the _neroses_, without allowing any > consideration for the secrecy in which the ancient philosophers, who > were exclusively of the sacerdotal order, held their knowledge, gave > rise to the greatest errors. It led the Jews, as well as some of the > Christian Platonists, to maintain that the world would be destroyed > at the end of six thousand years. Gale shows how firmly this belief > was rooted in the Jews. It has also led modern scientists to discredit > entirely the hypothesis of the ancients. It has given rise to the > formation of different religious sects, which, like the Adventists of > our century, are always living in the expectation of the approaching > destruction of the world. > > As our planet revolves once every year around the sun and at the same > time turns once in every twenty-four hours upon its own axis, thus > traversing minor circles within a larger one, so is the work of the > smaller cyclic periods accomplished and recommenced, within the Great > Saros. > > The revolution of the physical world, according to the ancient > doctrine, is attended by a like revolution in the world of > intellect—the spiritual evolution of the world proceeding in cycles, > like the physical one. > > Thus we see in history a regular alternation of ebb and flow in the > tide of human progress. The great kingdoms and empires of the world, > after reaching the culmination of their greatness, descend again, in > accordance with the same law by which they ascended; till, having > reached the lowest point, humanity reasserts itself and mounts up once > more, the height of its attainment being, by this law of ascending > progression by cycles, somewhat higher than the point from which it had > before descended. > > The division of the history of mankind into Golden, Silver, Copper and > Iron Ages, is not a fiction. We see the same thing in the literature of > peoples. An age of great inspiration and unconscious productiveness is > invariably followed by an age of criticism and consciousness. The one > affords material for the analyzing and critical intellect of the other. > > Thus, all those great characters who tower like giants in the history > of mankind, like Buddha-Siddârtha, and Jesus, in the realm of {35} > spiritual, and Alexander the Macedonian and Napoleon the Great, in > the realm of physical conquests, were but reflexed images of human > types which had existed ten thousand years before, in the preceding > decimillennium, reproduced by the mysterious powers controlling the > destinies of our world. There is no prominent character in all the > annals of sacred or profane history whose prototype we cannot find in > the half-fictitious and half-real traditions of bygone religions and > mythologies. As the star, glimmering at an immeasurable distance above > our heads, in the boundless immensity of the sky, reflects itself > in the smooth waters of a lake, so does the imagery of men of the > antediluvian ages reflect itself in the periods we can embrace in an > historical retrospect. > > “_As above, so it is below. That which has been, will return again. As > in heaven, so on earth._” > > The world is always ungrateful to its great men. Florence has built > a statue to Galileo, but hardly even mentions Pythagoras. The former > had a ready guide in the treatises of Copernicus, who had been obliged > to contend against the universally established Ptolemaic system. But > neither Galileo nor modern astronomy discovered the emplacement of the > planetary bodies. Thousands of ages before, it was taught by the sages > of Middle Asia, and brought thence by Pythagoras, not as a speculation, > but as a demonstrated science. “The numerals of Pythagoras,” says > Porphyry, “were hieroglyphical symbols, by means whereof he explained > _all_ ideas concerning the nature of all things.”[106] > > Verily, then, to antiquity alone have we to look for the origin of all > things. How well Hargrave Jennings expresses himself when speaking > of Pyramids, and how true are his words when he asks: “Is it at all > reasonable to conclude, at a period when knowledge was at the highest, > and when the human powers were, in comparison with ours at the present > time, prodigious, that all these indomitable, _scarcely believable_ > physical effects—that such achievements as those of the Egyptians—were > devoted to a mistake? that the myriads of the Nile were fools laboring > in the dark, and that all the magic of their great men was forgery, > and that we, in despising that which we call their superstition and > wasted power, are alone the wise? No! there is much more in these > old religions than probably—in the audacity of modern denial, in the > confidence of these superficial-science times, and in the derision > of these days without faith—is in the least degree supposed. We do > not understand the old time.... Thus we see how classic practice and > heathen teaching may be made to reconcile—how even the Gentile and the {36} > Hebrew, the mythological and the Christian doctrine harmonize in the > general faith founded on Magic. That Magic is indeed possible is the > moral of this book.”[107] > > It is possible. Thirty years ago, when the first rappings of Rochester > awakened slumbering attention to the reality of an invisible world; > when the gentle shower of raps gradually became a torrent which > overflowed the whole globe, spiritualists had to contend but against > two potencies—theology and science. But the theosophists have, in > addition to these, to meet the world at large and the spiritualists > first of all. > > “There is a _personal_ God, and there is a _personal_ Devil!” thunders > the Christian preacher. “Let him be anathema who dares say nay!” > “There is no personal God, except the gray matter in our brain,” > contemptuously replies the materialist. “And there is no Devil. Let him > be considered thrice an idiot who says aye.” Meanwhile the occultists > and _true_ philosophers heed neither of the two combatants, but keep > perseveringly at their work. None of them believe in the absurd, > passionate, and fickle God of superstition, but all of them believe > in good and evil. Our human reason, the emanation of our finite > mind, is certainly incapable of comprehending a divine intelligence, > an endless and infinite entity; and, according to strict logic, > that which transcends our understanding and would remain thoroughly > incomprehensible to our senses cannot exist for us; hence, it does > _not_ exist. So far finite reason agrees with science, and says: “There > is no God.” But, on the other hand, our _Ego_, that which lives and > thinks and feels independently of us in our mortal casket, does more > than believe. It _knows_ that there exists a God in nature, for the > sole and invincible Artificer of all lives in us as we live in Him. > No dogmatic faith or exact science is able to uproot that intuitional > feeling inherent in man, when he has once fully realized it in himself. > > _Human nature is like universal nature in its abhorrence of a vacuum._ > It feels an intuitional yearning for a Supreme Power. Without a God, > the cosmos would seem to it but like a soulless corpse. Being forbidden > to search for Him where alone His traces would be found, man filled > the aching void with the personal God whom his spiritual teachers > built up for him from the crumbling ruins of heathen myths and hoary > philosophies of old. How otherwise explain the mushroom growth of new > sects, some of them absurd beyond degree? Mankind have one innate, > irrepressible craving, that _must_ be satisfied in any religion > that would supplant the dogmatic, undemonstrated and undemonstrable > theology of our Christian ages. This is the yearning after the proofs > of immortality. As Sir Thomas Browne has expressed it: ... “it is the {37} > heaviest stone that melancholy can throw at a man, to tell him that > he is at the end of his nature, or that there is no future state to > come, unto which this seems progressive, and otherwise made in vain.” > Let any religion offer itself that can supply these proofs in the shape > of scientific facts, and the established system will be driven to the > alternative of fortifying its dogmas with such facts, or of passing out > of the reverence and affection of Christendom. Many a Christian divine > has been forced to acknowledge that there is _no authentic_ source > whence the assurance of a future state could have been derived by man. > How could then such a belief have stood for countless ages, were it not > that among all nations, whether civilized or savage, man _has been_ > allowed the demonstrative proof? Is not the very existence of such a > belief an evidence that thinking philosopher and unreasoning savage > have both been compelled to acknowledge the testimony of their senses? > That if, in isolated instances, spectral illusion may have resulted > from physical causes, on the other hand, in thousands of instances, > apparitions of persons have held converse with several individuals at > once, who saw and heard them collectively, and could not all have been > diseased in mind? > > The greatest thinkers of Greece and Rome regarded such matters as > demonstrated facts. They distinguished the apparitions by the names of > _manes_, _anima_ and _umbra_: the _manes_ descending after the decease > of the individual into the Underworld; the _anima_, or pure spirit, > ascending to heaven; and the restless _umbra_ (earth-bound spirit), > hovering about its tomb, because the attraction of matter and love of > its earthly body prevailed in it and prevented its ascension to higher > regions. > > “Terra legit _carnem_ tumulum circumvolet _umbra_, > Orcus habet _manes_, _spiritus_ astra petit,” > > says Ovid, speaking of the threefold constituents of souls. > > But all such definitions must be subjected to the careful analysis > of philosophy. Too many of our thinkers do not consider that the > numerous changes in language, the allegorical phraseology and evident > secretiveness of old Mystic writers, who were generally under an > obligation never to divulge the solemn secrets of the sanctuary, > might have sadly misled translators and commentators. The phrases > of the mediæval alchemist they read literally; and even the veiled > symbolology of Plato is commonly misunderstood by the modern scholar. > One day they may learn to know better, and so become aware that the > method of extreme necessarianism was practiced in ancient as well as > in modern philosophy; that from the first ages of man, the fundamental > truths of all that we are permitted to know on earth was in the safe > keeping of the adepts of the sanctuary; that the difference in creeds {38} > and religious practice was only external; and that those guardians of > the primitive divine revelation, who had solved every problem that is > within the grasp of human intellect, were bound together by a universal > freemasonry of science and philosophy, which formed one unbroken chain > around the globe. It is for philology and psychology to find the end of > the thread. That done, it will then be ascertained that, by relaxing > one single loop of the old religious systems, the chain of mystery may > be disentangled. > > The neglect and withholding of these proofs have driven such eminent > minds as Hare and Wallace, and other men of power, into the fold > of modern spiritualism. At the same time it has forced others, > congenitally devoid of spiritual intuitions, into a gross materialism > that figures under various names. > > But we see no utility in prosecuting the subject further. For, though > in the opinion of most of our contemporaries, there has been but one > day of learning, in whose twilight stood the older philosophers, and > whose noontide brightness is all our own; and though the testimony > of scores of ancient and mediæval thinkers has proved valueless to > modern experimenters, as though the world dated from A.D. 1, and all > knowledge were of recent growth, we will not lose hope or courage. The > moment is more opportune than ever for the review of old philosophies. > Archæologists, philologists, astronomers, chemists and physicists > are getting nearer and nearer to the point where they will be forced > to consider them. Physical science has already reached its limits of > exploration; dogmatic theology sees the springs of its inspiration > dry. Unless we mistake the signs, the day is approaching when the > world will receive the proofs that only ancient religions were in > harmony with nature, and ancient science embraced all that can be > known. Secrets long kept may be revealed; books long forgotten and > arts long time lost may be brought out to light again; papyri and > parchments of inestimable importance will turn up in the hands of men > who pretend to have unrolled them from mummies, or stumbled upon them > in buried crypts; tablets and pillars, whose sculptured revelations > will stagger theologians and confound scientists, may yet be excavated > and interpreted. Who knows the possibilities of the future? An era of > disenchantment and rebuilding will soon begin—nay, has already begun. > The cycle has almost run its course; a new one is about to begin, and > the future pages of history may contain full evidence, and convey full > proof that > > “If ancestry can be in aught believed, > Descending spirits have conversed with man, > And told him secrets of the world unknown.” > > CHAPTER II. {39} > > “Pride, where wit fails, steps in to our defence > And fills up all the mighty void of sense....” > —POPE. > > “But why should the operations of nature be changed? There > may be a deeper philosophy than we dream of—a philosophy that > discovers the secrets of nature, _but does not alter, by > penetrating them, its course_.”—BULWER. > > Is it enough for man to know that he exists? Is it enough to be formed > a human being to enable him to deserve the appellation of MAN? It > is our decided impression and conviction, that to become a genuine > spiritual entity, which that designation implies, man must first > _create_ himself anew, so to speak—_i.e._, thoroughly eliminate from > his mind and spirit, not only the dominating influence of selfishness > and other impurity, but also the infection of superstition and > prejudice. The latter is far different from what we commonly term > _antipathy_ or _sympathy_. We are at first irresistibly or unwittingly > drawn within its dark circle by that peculiar influence, that powerful > current of magnetism which emanates from ideas as well as from physical > bodies. By this we are surrounded, and finally prevented through moral > cowardice—fear of public opinion—from stepping out of it. It is rare > that men regard a thing in either its true or false light, accepting > the conclusion by the free action of their own judgment. Quite the > reverse. The conclusion is more commonly reached by blindly adopting > the opinion current at the hour among those with whom they associate. > A church member will not pay an absurdly high price for his pew any > more than a materialist will go twice to listen to Mr. Huxley’s talk > on evolution, because they think that it is right to do so; but merely > because Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so have done it, and these personages are > THE S—AND S—’S. > > The same holds good with everything else. If psychology had had its > Darwin, the descent of man as regards moral qualities might have been > found inseparably linked with that of his physical form. Society in > its servile condition suggests to the intelligent observer of its > mimicry a kinship between the Simia and human beings even more striking > than is exhibited in the external marks pointed out by the great {40} > anthropologist. The many varieties of the ape—“mocking presentments of > ourselves” appear to have been evolved on purpose to supply a certain > class of expensively-dressed persons with the material for genealogical > trees. > > Science is daily and rapidly moving toward the great discoveries in > chemistry and physics, organology, and anthropology. Learned men ought > to be free from preconceptions and prejudices of every kind; yet, > although thought and opinion are now free, scientists are still the > same men as of old. An Utopian dreamer is he who thinks that man ever > changes with the evolution and development of new ideas. The soil may > be well fertilized and made to yield with every year a greater and > better variety of fruit; but, dig a little deeper than the stratum > required for the crop, and the same earth will be found in the subsoil > as was there before the first furrow was turned. > > Not many years ago, the person who questioned the infallibility of some > theological dogma was branded at once an iconoclast and an infidel. _Væ > victis!_ ... Science has conquered. But in its turn the victor claims > the same infallibility, though it equally fails to prove its right. > “_Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis_,” the saying of the good > old Lotharius, applies to the case. Nevertheless, we feel as if we had > some right to question the high-priests of science. > > For many years we have watched the development and growth of that > apple of discord—MODERN SPIRITUALISM. Familiar with its literature > both in Europe and America, we have closely and eagerly witnessed its > interminable controversies and compared its contradictory hypotheses. > Many educated men and women—heterodox spiritualists, of course—have > tried to fathom the Protean phenomena. The only result was that they > came to the following conclusion: whatever may be the reason of these > constant failures—whether such are to be laid at the door of the > investigators themselves, or of the secret Force at work—it is at least > proved that, in proportion as the psychological manifestations increase > in frequency and variety, the darkness surrounding their origin becomes > more impenetrable. > > _That phenomena are actually witnessed, mysterious in their > nature—generally and perhaps wrongly termed spiritual—it is now idle > to deny._ Allowing a large discount for clever fraud, what remains is > quite serious enough to demand the careful scrutiny of science. “_E > pur se muove_,” the sentence spoken ages since, has passed into the > category of household words. The courage of Galileo is not now required > to fling it into the face of the Academy. Psychological phenomena are > already on the offensive. > > The position assumed by modern scientists is that even though the > occurrence of certain mysterious phenomena in the presence of the {41} > mediums be a fact, there is no proof that they are not due to some > abnormal nervous condition of those individuals. The possibility that > they may be produced by returning human spirits need not be considered > until the other question is decided. Little exception can be taken to > this position. Unquestionably, the burden of proof rests upon those > who assert the agency of spirits. If the scientists would grapple > with the subject in good faith, showing an earnest desire to solve > the perplexing mystery, instead of treating it with undignified and > unprofessional contempt, they would be open to no censure. True, the > great majority of “spiritual” communications are calculated to disgust > investigators of even moderate intelligence. Even when genuine they > are trivial, commonplace, and often vulgar. During the past twenty > years we have received through various mediums messages purporting > to be from Shakspere, Byron, Franklin, Peter the Great, Napoleon and > Josephine, and even from Voltaire. The general impression made upon us > was that the French conqueror and his consort seemed to have forgotten > how to spell words correctly; Shakspere and Byron had become chronic > inebriates; and Voltaire had turned an imbecile. Who can blame men > trained to habits of exactitude, or even simply well-educated persons, > for hastily concluding that when so much palpable fraud lies upon > the surface, there could hardly be truth if they should go to the > bottom? The huckstering about of pompous names attached to idiotic > communications has given the scientific stomach such an indigestion > that it cannot assimilate even the great truth which lies on the > telegraphic plateaux of this ocean of psychological phenomena. They > judge by its surface, covered with froth and scum. But they might with > equal propriety deny that there is any clear water in the depths of > the sea when an oily scum was floating upon the surface. Therefore, if > on one hand we cannot very well blame them for stepping back at the > first sight of what seems really repulsive, we do, and have a right to > censure them for their unwillingness to explore deeper. Neither pearls > nor cut diamonds are to be found lying loose on the ground; and these > persons act as unwisely as would a professional diver, who should > reject an oyster on account of its filthy and slimy appearance, when by > opening it he might find a precious pearl inside the shell. > > Even the just and severe rebukes of some of their leading men are of > no avail; and the fear on the part of men of science to investigate > such an unpopular subject, seems to have now become a general panic. > “_The phenomena chase the scientists, and the scientists run away from > the phenomena_,” very pointedly remarks M. A. N. Aksakof in an able > article on Mediumism and the St. Petersburg Scientific Committee. The {42} > attitude of this body of professors toward the subject which they had > pledged themselves to investigate was throughout simply disgraceful. > Their premature and _prearranged_ report was so evidently partial and > inconclusive as to call out a scornful protest even from unbelievers. > > The inconsistency of the logic of our learned gentlemen against the > philosophy of spiritualism proper is admirably pointed out by Professor > John Fisk—one of their own body. In a recent philosophical work, > _The Unseen World_, while showing that from the very definition of > the terms, _matter_ and _spirit_, the existence of spirit cannot be > demonstrated to the senses, and that thus no theory is amenable to > _scientific tests_, he deals a severe blow at his colleagues in the > following lines: > > “The testimony in such a case,” he says, “must, under the conditions > of the present life, be forever inaccessible. It lies wholly outside > the range of experience. However abundant it may be, we cannot expect > to meet it. And, accordingly, our failure to produce it does not raise > even the slightest presumption against our theory. When conceived in > this way, the belief in the future life is without scientific support, > but at the same time it is placed beyond the need of scientific > support and the range of scientific criticism. It is a belief which > no imaginable future advance of physical discovery can in any way > impugn. It is a belief which is in no sense irrational, and which may > be logically entertained without in the least affecting our scientific > habit of mind, or influencing our scientific conclusions.” “If now,” > he adds, “men of science will accept the position that spirit is > not matter, nor governed by the laws of matter, and refrain from > speculations concerning it restricted by their knowledge of material > things, they will withdraw what is to men of religion, at present, > their principal cause of irritation.” > > But, they will do no such thing. They feel incensed at the brave, > loyal, and highly commendable surrender of such superior men as > Wallace, and refuse to accept even the prudent and restrictive policy > of Mr. Crookes. > > _No other claim is advanced for a hearing of the opinions contained > in the present work than that they are based upon many years’ study > of both ancient magic and its modern form, Spiritualism._ The former, > even now, when phenomena of the same nature have become so familiar > to all, is commonly set down as clever jugglery. The latter, when > overwhelming evidence precludes the possibility of truthfully declaring > it charlatanry, is denominated an universal hallucination. > > Many years of wandering among “heathen” and “Christian” magicians, > occultists, mesmerisers and the _tutti quanti_ of white and black > art, ought to be sufficient, we think, to give us a certain right {43} > to feel competent to take a practical view of this doubted and very > complicated question. We have associated with the fakirs, the holy > men of India, and seen them when in intercourse with the _Pitris_. We > have watched the proceedings and _modus operandi_ of the howling and > dancing dervishes; held friendly communications with the marabouts > of European and Asiatic Turkey; and the serpent-charmers of Damascus > and Benares have but few secrets that we have not had the fortune to > study. Therefore, when scientists who have never had an opportunity > of living among these oriental jugglers and can judge at the best but > superficially, tell us that there is naught in their performances but > mere tricks of prestidigitation, we cannot help feeling a profound > regret for such hasty conclusions. That such pretentious claims should > be made to a thorough analysis of the powers of nature, and at the > same time such unpardonable neglect displayed of questions of purely > physiological and psychological character, and astounding phenomena > rejected without either examination or appeal, is an exhibition of > inconsistency, strongly savoring of timidity, if not of moral obliquity. > > If, therefore, we should ever receive from some contemporaneous > Faraday the same fling that that gentleman made years since, when, > with more sincerity than good breeding, he said that “many _dogs_ > have the power of coming to much more logical conclusions than some > spiritualists,”[108] we fear we must still persist. Abuse is not > argument, least of all, proof. Because such men as Huxley and Tyndall > denominate spiritualism “a degrading belief” and oriental magic > “jugglery,” they cannot thereby take from truth its verity. Skepticism, > whether it proceeds from a scientific or an ignorant brain, is unable > to overturn the immortality of our souls—if such immortality is a > fact—and plunge them into _post-mortem_ annihilation. “Reason is > subject to error,” says Aristotle; so is opinion; and the personal > views of the most learned philosopher are often more liable to be > proved erroneous, than the plain common sense of his own illiterate > cook. In the _Tales of the Impious Khalif_, Barrachias-Hassan-Oglu, > the Arabian sage holds a wise discourse: “Beware, O my son, of > self-incense,” he says. “It is the most dangerous, on account of its > agreeable intoxication. Profit by thy own wisdom, but learn to respect > the wisdom of thy fathers likewise. And remember, O my beloved, that > the light of Allah’s truth will often penetrate much easier an empty > head, than one that is so crammed with learning that many a silver > ray is crowded out for want of space; ... such is the case with our > over-wise Kadi.” > > These representatives of modern science in both hemispheres seem never {44} > to have exhibited more scorn, or to have felt more bitterly toward the > unsolvable mystery, than since Mr. Crookes began the investigation of > the phenomena, in London. This courageous gentleman was the first to > introduce to the public one of those alleged “materialized” sentries > that guard the forbidden gates. Following after him, several other > learned members of the scientific body had the rare integrity, combined > with a degree of courage, which, in view of the unpopularity of the > subject, may be deemed heroic, to take the phenomena in hand. > > But, alas! although the spirit, indeed, was willing, the mortal flesh > proved weak. Ridicule was more than the majority of them could bear; > and so, the heaviest burden was thrown upon the shoulders of Mr. > Crookes. An account of the benefit this gentleman reaped from his > disinterested investigations, and the thanks he received from his own > brother scientists, can be found in his three pamphlets, entitled, > _Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism_. > > After a while, the members appointed on the Committee of the > Dialectical society and Mr. Crookes, who had applied to his mediums > the most crucial tests, were forced by an impatient public to report > in so many plain words what they had seen. But what could they say, > except the truth? Thus, they were compelled to acknowledge: 1st. That > the phenomena which _they_, at least, had witnessed, were genuine, > and impossible to simulate; thus showing that manifestations produced > by some unknown force, could and did happen. 2d. That, whether the > phenomena were produced by disembodied spirits or other analogous > entities, they could not tell; but that manifestations, thoroughly > upsetting many preconceived theories as to natural laws, did happen > and were undeniable. Several of these occurred in their own families. > 3d. That, notwithstanding all their combined efforts to the contrary, > beyond the indisputable fact of the reality of the phenomena, “glimpses > of natural action not yet reduced to law,”[109] they, to borrow the > expression of the Count de Gabalis, “could make neither head nor tail > on’t.” > > Now this was precisely what a skeptical public had not bargained for. > The discomfiture of the believers in spiritualism had been impatiently > anticipated before the conclusions of Messrs. Crookes, Varley, and > the Dialectical Society were announced. Such a confession on the part > of their brother-scientists was too humiliating for the pride of even > those who had timorously abstained from investigation. It was regarded > as really too much, that such vulgar and repulsive manifestations of {45} > phenomena which had always, by common consent of educated people, been > regarded as nursery tales, fit only to amuse hysterical servant-girls > and afford revenue to professional somnambulists—that manifestations > which had been consigned by the Academy and Institute of Paris to > oblivion, should so impertinently elude detection at the hands of > experts in physical sciences. > > A tornado of indignation followed the confession. Mr. Crookes depicts > it in his pamphlet on _Psychic Force_. He heads it very pointedly > with the quotation from Galvani: “I am attacked by two very opposite > sects—the scientists and the _know-nothings_, yet I know that I have > discovered one of the greatest forces in nature....” He then proceeds: > > “It was taken for granted that the results of my experiments would > be in accordance with their preconceptions. What they really desired > was not _the truth_, but an additional witness in favor of their > own foregone conclusions. When they found the facts which that > investigation established could not be made to fit those opinions, why, > ... so much the worse for the facts. They try to creep out of their > own confident recommendations of the inquiry, by declaring ‘that Mr. > Home is a clever conjurer who has duped us all.’ ‘Mr. Crookes might, > with equal propriety, examine the performances of an Indian juggler.’ > ‘Mr. Crookes must get better witnesses before he can be believed.’ > ‘The thing is too absurd to be treated seriously.’ ‘It is impossible, > and therefore can’t be.’ ... (I never said it was impossible, I only > said it was true.) ‘The observers have all been biologized, and fancy > they saw things occur which really _never_ took place,’ etc., etc., > etc.”[110] > > After expending their energy on such puerile theories as “unconscious > cerebration,” “involuntary muscular contraction,” and the sublimely > ridiculous one of the “cracking knee-joints” (_le muscle craqueur_); > after meeting ignominious failures by the obstinate survival of the > new force, and finally, after every desperate effort to compass its > obliteration, these _filii diffidentiæ_—as St. Paul calls their > class—thought best to give up the whole thing in disgust. Sacrificing > their courageously persevering brethren as a holocaust on the altar > of public opinion, they withdrew in dignified silence. Leaving the > arena of investigation to more fearless champions, these unlucky > experimenters are not likely to ever enter it again.[111] It is > easier by far to deny the reality of such manifestations from a > secure distance, than find for them a proper place among the classes {46} > of natural phenomena accepted by exact science. And how can they, > since all such phenomena pertain to psychology, and the latter, with > its occult and mysterious powers, is a _terra incognita_ for modern > science. Thus, powerless to explain that which proceeds directly from > the nature of the human soul itself—the existence of which most of them > deny—unwilling at the same time to confess their ignorance, scientists > retaliate very unjustly on those who believe in the evidence of their > senses without any pretence to science. > > “A kick from thee, O Jupiter! is sweet,” says the poet Tretiakowsky, > in an old Russian tragedy. Rude as those Jupiters of science may be > occasionally toward us credulous mortals, their vast learning—in less > abstruse questions, we mean—if not their manners, entitles them to > public respect. But unfortunately it is not the gods who shout the > loudest. > > The eloquent Tertullian, speaking of Satan and his imps, whom he > accuses of ever mimicking the Creator’s works, denominates them the > “monkeys of God.” It is fortunate for the philosophicules that we have > no modern Tertullian to consign them to an immortality of contempt as > the “monkeys of science.” > > But to return to genuine scientists. “Phenomena of a merely > objective character,” says A. N. Aksakof, “force themselves upon the > representatives of exact sciences for investigation and explanation; > but the high-priests of science, in the face of apparently such a > simple question ... are totally disconcerted! This subject seems to > have the privilege of forcing them to betray, not only the highest code > of morality—truth, but also the supreme law of science—_experiment_!... > They feel that there is something too serious underlying it. The cases > of Hare, Crookes, de Morgan, Varley, Wallace, and Butleroff create a > panic! They fear that as soon as they concede one step, they will have > to yield the whole ground. Time-honored principles, the contemplative > speculations of a whole life, of a long line of generations, are all > staked on a single card!“[112] > > In the face of such experience as that of Crookes and the Dialectical > Society, of Wallace and the late Professor Hare, what can we > expect from our luminaries of erudition? Their attitude toward > the undeniable phenomena is in itself another phenomenon. It is > simply incomprehensible, unless we admit the possibility of another > psychological disease, as mysterious and contagious as hydrophobia. > Although we claim no honor for this new discovery, we nevertheless > propose to recognize it under the name of _scientific psychophobia_. > > They ought to have learned by this time, in the school of bitter {47} > experience, that they can rely on the self-sufficiency of the positive > sciences only to a certain point; and that, so long as there remains > one single unexplained mystery in nature, the word ”_impossible_” is a > dangerous word for them to pronounce. > > In the _Researches on the Phenomena of Spiritualism_, Mr. Crookes > submits to the option of the reader eight theories “to account for the > phenomena observed.” > > These theories run as follows: > > “_First Theory._—The phenomena are all the result of tricks, clever > mechanical arrangements, or legerdemain; the mediums are impostors, and > the rest of the company fools. > > “_Second Theory._—The persons at a seance are the victims of a sort of > mania, or delusion, and imagine phenomena to occur which have no real > objective existence. > > “_Third Theory._—The whole is the result of conscious or unconscious > cerebral action. > > “_Fourth Theory._—The result of the spirit of the medium, perhaps in > association with the spirits of some or all of the people present. > > “_Fifth Theory._—The actions of evil spirits, or devils, personifying > whom or what they please, in order to undermine Christianity, and ruin > men’s souls. (Theory of our theologians.) > > “_Sixth Theory._—The actions of a separate order of beings living > on this earth, but invisible and immaterial to us. Able, however, > occasionally to manifest their presence, known in almost all countries > and ages as demons (not necessarily bad), gnomes, fairies, kobolds, > elves, goblins, Puck, etc. (One of the claims of the kabalists.) > > “_Seventh Theory._—The actions of departed human beings. (The spiritual > theory par excellence.) > > “_Eighth Theory._—(The psychic force) ... an adjunct to the fourth, > fifth, sixth, and seventh theories.“ > > The first of these theories having been proved valid only in > exceptional, though unfortunately still too frequent cases, must be > ruled out as having no material bearing upon the phenomena themselves. > Theories the _second_ and the _third_ are the last crumbling > entrenchments of the guerilla of skeptics and materialists, and remain, > as lawyers say, ”_Adhuc sub judice lis est_.” Thus, we can deal in this > work but with the four remaining ones, the last, eighth, theory being > according to Mr. Crookes’s opinion, but “a necessary adjunct” of the > others. > > How subject even a scientific opinion is to error, we may see, if we > only compare the several articles on spiritual phenomena from the able {48} > pen of that gentleman, which appeared from 1870 to 1875. In one of the > first we read: ... “the increased employment of scientific methods will > promote exact observations and greater love of truths among inquirers, > and will produce a race of observers _who will drive the worthless > residuum of spiritualism hence into the unknown limbo of magic and > necromancy_.” And in 1875, we read, over his own signature, minute > and most interesting descriptions of the materialized spirit—Katie > King![113] > > It is hardly possible to suppose that Mr. Crookes could be under > electro-biological influence or hallucination for two or three > consecutive years. The “spirit” appeared in his own house, in his > library, under the most crucial tests, and was seen, felt, and heard by > hundreds of persons. > > But Mr. Crookes denies that he ever took Katie King for a disembodied > spirit. What was it then? If it was not Miss Florence Cook, and his > word is our sufficient guarantee for it—then it was either the spirit > of one who had lived on earth, or one of those that come directly under > the sixth theory of the eight the eminent scientist offers to the > public choice. It must have been one of the classes named: “Fairies, > Kobolds, Gnomes, Elves, Goblins, or a Puck.”[114] > > Yes; Katie King must have been a fairy—a Titania. For to a fairy only > could be applied with propriety the following poetic effusion which Mr. > Crookes quotes in describing this wonderful spirit: > > “Round her she made an atmosphere of life; > The very air seemed lighter from her eyes; > They were so soft and beautiful and rife > With all we can imagine of the skies; > Her overpowering presence makes you feel > It would _not be idolatry to kneel_!”[115] > > And thus, after having written, in 1870, his severe sentence against > spiritualism and magic; after saying that even at that moment he > believed “the whole affair a superstition, or, at least, an unexplained > trick—a delusion of the senses;”[116] Mr. Crookes, in 1875, closes > his letter with the following memorable words:—“To imagine, I say, > the Katie King of the last three years to be the result of imposture > does more violence to one’s reason and common sense than to believe > her to be what she herself affirms.”[117] This last remark, moreover, {49} > conclusively proves that: 1. Notwithstanding Mr. Crookes’s full > convictions that the somebody calling herself Katie King was neither > the medium nor some confederate, but on the contrary an unknown > force in nature, which—like love—“laughs at locksmiths;” 2. That > that hitherto unrecognized form of Force, albeit it had become with > him “not a matter of opinion, but of absolute knowledge,“the eminent > investigator still did not abandon to the last his skeptical attitude > toward the question. In short, he firmly believes in the phenomenon, > but cannot accept the idea of its being the human spirit of a departed > _somebody_. > > It seems to us, that, as far as _public prejudice goes_, Mr. Crookes > solves one mystery by creating a still deeper one: the _obscurum per > obscurius_. In other words, rejecting “_the worthless residuum of > spiritualism_,” the courageous scientist fearlessly plunges into his > own “_unknown limbo of magic_ and _necromancy_!” > > The recognized laws of physical science account for but a few of the > more objective of the so-called spiritual phenomena. While proving the > reality of certain visible effects of an unknown force, they have not > thus far enabled scientists to control at will even this portion of the > phenomena. The truth is that the professors have not yet discovered the > necessary conditions of their occurrence. They must go as deeply into > the study of the triple nature of man—physiological, psychological, > and _divine_—as did their predecessors, the magicians, theurgists, > and thaumaturgists of old. Until the present moment, even those who > have investigated the phenomena as thoroughly and impartially as Mr. > Crookes, have set aside the cause as something not to be discovered > now, if ever. They have troubled themselves no more about that than > about the first cause of the cosmic phenomena of the correlation of > forces, whose endless effects they are at such pains to observe and > classify. Their course has been as unwise as that of a man who should > attempt to discover the sources of a river by exploring toward its > mouth. It has so narrowed their views of the possibilities of natural > law that very simple forms of occult phenomena have necessitated > their denial that they can occur unless miracles were possible; and > this being a scientific absurdity the result has been that physical > science has latterly been losing prestige. If scientists had studied > the so-called “miracles” instead of denying them, many secret laws of > nature comprehended by the ancients would have been again discovered. > “Conviction,” says Bacon, “comes not through arguments but through > experiments.” > > The ancients were always distinguished—especially the Chaldean > astrologers and Magians—for their ardent love and pursuit of knowledge > in every branch of science. They tried to penetrate the secrets of {50} > nature in the same way as our modern naturalists, and by the only > method by which this object can be obtained, namely: by experimental > researches and reason. If our modern philosophers cannot apprehend the > fact that they penetrated deeper than themselves into the mysteries of > the universe, this does not constitute a valid reason why the credit > of possessing this knowledge should be denied them or the imputation > of superstition laid at their door. Nothing warrants the charge; and > every new archæological discovery militates against the assumption. > As chemists they were unequalled, and in his famous lecture on _The > Lost Arts_, Wendell Phillips says: “The chemistry of the most ancient > period had reached a point which _we have never even approached_.” The > secret of the malleable glass, which, “if supported by one end by its > own weight, in twenty hours dwindles down to a fine line that you can > curve around your wrist,” would be as difficult to rediscover in our > civilized countries as to fly to the moon. > > The fabrication of a cup of glass which was brought by an exile to > Rome in the reign of Tiberius,—a cup “which he dashed upon the marble > pavement, and it was not crushed nor broken by the fall,” and which, as > it got “dented some” was easily brought into shape again with a hammer, > is a historic fact. If it is doubted now it is merely because the > moderns cannot do the same. And yet, in Samarkand and some monasteries > of Thibet such cups and glassware may be found to this day; nay, > there are persons who claim that they can make the same by virtue of > their knowledge of the much-ridiculed and ever-doubted _alkahest_—the > universal solvent. This agent that Paracelsus and Van Helmont maintain > to be a certain fluid in nature, “capable of reducing all sublunary > bodies, as well homogeneous as mixed, into their _ens primum_, or > the original matter of which they are composed; or into an uniform, > equable, and potable liquor, that will unite with water, and the > juices of all bodies, and yet retain its own radical virtues; and, if > again mixed with itself will thereby be converted into pure elementary > water: “what impossibilities prevent our crediting the statement? Why > should it not exist and why the idea be considered Utopian? Is it > again because our modern chemists are unable to produce it? But surely > it may be conceived without any great effort of imagination that all > bodies must have originally come from some first matter, and that this > matter, according to the lessons of astronomy, geology and physics, > must have been a fluid. Why should not gold—of whose genesis our > scientists know so little—have been originally a primitive or _basic > matter of gold_, a ponderous fluid which, as says Van Helmont, “from > its own nature or a strong cohesion between its particles, acquired {51} > afterward a solid form?” There seems to be very little absurdity to > believe in a “universal _ens_ that resolves all bodies into their _ens > genitale_.” Van Helmont calls it “the highest and most successful of > all salts; which having obtained the supreme degree of simplicity, > purity, subtilty, enjoys alone the faculty of remaining unchanged > and unimpaired by the subjects it works upon, and of dissolving the > most stubborn and untractable bodies; as stones, gems, glass, earth, > sulphur, metals, etc., into red salt, equal in weight to the matter > dissolved; and this with as much ease as hot water melts down snow.” > > It is into this fluid that the makers of malleable glass claimed, > and now claim, that they immersed common glass for several hours, to > acquire the property of malleability. > > We have a ready and palpable proof of such possibilities. A foreign > correspondent of the Theosophical Society, a well-known medical > practitioner, and one who has studied the occult sciences for upward > of thirty years, has succeeded in obtaining what he terms the “true > oil of gold,” _i.e._, the primal element. Chemists and physicists have > seen and examined it, and were driven to confess that they neither knew > _how_ it was obtained nor could they do the same. That he desires his > name to remain unknown is not to be wondered at; ridicule and public > prejudice are more dangerous sometimes than the inquisition of old. > This “Adamic earth” is next-door neighbor to the alkahest, and one of > the most important secrets of the alchemists. No Kabalist will reveal > it to the world, for, as he expresses it in the well-known jargon: > “it would explain _the eagles_ of the alchemists, and how the eagles’ > wings are clipped,” a secret that it took Thomas Vaughan (Eugenius > Philalethes) twenty years to learn. > > As the dawn of physical science broke into a glaring daylight, the > spiritual sciences merged deeper and deeper into night, and in their > turn they were denied. So, now, these greatest masters in psychology > are looked upon as “ignorant and superstitious ancestors;” as > mountebanks and jugglers, because, forsooth, the sun of modern learning > shines to-day so bright, it has become an axiom that the philosophers > and men of science of the olden time knew nothing, and lived in a night > of superstition. But their traducers forget that the sun of to-day will > seem dark by comparison with the luminary of to-morrow, whether justly > or not; and as the men of our century think their ancestors ignorant, > so will perhaps their descendants count them for _know-nothings_. The > world moves in cycles. The coming races will be but the reproductions > of races long bygone; as we, perhaps, are the images of those who > lived a hundred centuries ago. The time will come when those who {52} > now in public slander the hermetists, but ponder in secret their > dust-covered volumes; who plagiarize their ideas, assimilate and give > them out as their own—will receive their dues. “Who,” honestly exclaims > Pfaff—“what man has ever taken more comprehensive views of nature than > Paracelsus? He was the bold creator of chemical medicines; the founder > of courageous parties; victorious in controversy, belonging to those > spirits who have created amongst us a new mode of thinking on the > natural existence of things. What he scattered through his writings on > the philosopher’s stone, on pigmies and spirits of the mines; on signs, > on homunculi, and the elixir of life, and which are employed by many to > lower his estimation, cannot extinguish our grateful remembrance of his > general works, nor our admiration of his free, bold exertions, and his > noble, intellectual life.”[118] > > More than one pathologist, chemist, homoeopathist, and magnetist has > quenched his thirst for knowledge in the books of Paracelsus. Frederick > Hufeland got his theoretical doctrines on infection from this mediæval > “quack,” as Sprengel delights in calling one who was immeasurably > higher than himself. Hemman, who endeavors to vindicate this great > philosopher, and nobly tries to redress his slandered memory, speaks > of him as the “_greatest_ chemist of his time.”[119] So do Professor > Molitor,[120] and Dr. Ennemoser, the eminent German psychologist.[121] > According to their criticisms on the labors of this Hermetist, > Paracelsus is the most “wondrous intellect of his age,” a “noble > genius.” But our modern lights assume to know better, and the ideas > of the Rosicrucians about the elementary spirits, the goblins and the > elves, have sunk into the “limbo of magic” and fairy tales for early > childhood.[122] > > We are quite ready to concede to skeptics that one-half, and even > more, of seeming phenomena, are but more or less clever fraud. Recent > exposures, especially of “materializing” mediums, but too well prove > the fact. Unquestionably numerous others are still in store, and this {53} > will continue until tests have become so perfect and spiritualists so > reasonable as no longer to furnish opportunity to mediums or weapons to > adversaries. > > What should sensible spiritualists think of the character of _angel_ > guides, who after monopolizing, perhaps for years, a poor medium’s > time, health and means, suddenly abandon him when he most needs > their help? None but creatures _without soul or conscience_ would be > guilty of such injustice. Conditions?—Mere sophistry. What sort of > spirits must they be who would not summon if necessary an army of > spirit-friends (if such there be) to snatch the innocent medium from > the pit dug for his feet? Such things happened in the olden time, such > may happen now. _There were apparitions before modern spiritualism, and > phenomena like ours in every previous age._ If modern manifestations > are a reality and palpable facts, so must have been the so-called > “miracles” and thaumaturgic exploits of old; or if the latter are but > fictions of superstition so must be the former, for they rest on no > better testimony. > > But, in this daily-increasing torrent of occult phenomena that rushes > from one end of the globe to the other, though two-thirds of the > manifestations are proved spurious, what of those which are proved > genuine beyond doubt or cavil? Among these may be found communications > coming through non-professional as well as professional mediums, which > are sublime and divinely grand. Often, through young children, and > simple-minded ignorant persons, we receive philosophical teachings and > precepts, poetry and inspirational orations, music and paintings that > are fully worthy of the reputations of their alleged authors. Their > prophecies are often verified and their moral disquisitions beneficent, > though the latter is of rarer occurrence. Who are those spirits, what > those powers or intelligences which are evidently _outside_ of the > medium proper and entities _per se_? These _intelligences_ deserve the > appellation; and they differ as widely from the generality of spooks > and goblins that hover around the cabinets for physical manifestations, > as day from night. > > We must confess that the situation appears to be very grave. The > control of mediums by such unprincipled and lying “spirits” is > constantly becoming more and more general; and the pernicious effects > of _seeming_ diabolism constantly multiply. Some of the best mediums > are abandoning the public rostrum and retiring from this influence; > and the movement is drifting churchward. We venture the prediction > that unless spiritualists set about the study, of ancient philosophy > so as to learn to discriminate between spirits and to guard themselves > against the baser sort, twenty-five years more will not elapse > before they will have to fly to the Romish communion to escape these > “guides” and “controls” that they have fondled so long. The signs of > this catastrophe already exhibit themselves. At a recent convention {54} > at Philadelphia, it was seriously proposed to organize a sect of > _Christian_ Spiritualists! This is because, having withdrawn from > the church and learned nothing of the philosophy of the phenomena, > or the nature of their spirits, they are drifting about on a sea of > uncertainty like a ship without compass or rudder. They cannot escape > the dilemma; they must choose between Porphyry and Pio Nono. > > While men of genuine science, such as Wallace, Crookes, Wagner, > Butlerof, Varley, Buchanan, Hare, Reichenbach, Thury, Perty, de Morgan, > Hoffmann, Goldschmidt, W. Gregory, Flammarion, Sergeant Cox and many > others, firmly believe in the current phenomena, many of the above > named reject the theory of departed spirits. Therefore, it seems but > logical to think that if the London “Katie King,” the only materialized > _something_ which the public is obliged more or less to credit out > of respect to science,—is not the spirit of an ex-mortal, then it > must be the astral solidified shadow of either one of the Rosicrucian > spooks—“fantasies of superstition” or of some as yet unexplained force > in nature. Be it however a “spirit of health or goblin damn’d” it is > of little consequence; for if it be once proved that its organism is > not solid matter, then it must be and is a “spirit,” an apparition, > a _breath_. It is an intelligence which acts outside our organisms > and therefore must belong to some existing even though unseen race > of beings. But what is it? What is this something which thinks and > even speaks but yet is not human; that is impalpable and yet not > a disembodied spirit; that simulates affection, passion, remorse, > fear, joy, but yet feels neither? What is this canting creature which > rejoices in cheating the truthful inquirer and mocking at sacred human > feeling? For, if not Mr. Crookes’s Katie King, other similar creatures > have done all these. Who can fathom the mystery? The true psychologist > alone. And where should he go for his text-books but to the neglected > alcoves of libraries where the works of despised hermetists and > theurgists have been gathering dust these many years. > > Says Henry More, the revered English Platonist, in his answer to an > attack on the believers of spiritual and magic phenomena by a skeptic > of that age, named Webster:[123] “As for that other opinion, that the {55} > greater part of the reformed divines hold, that it was the Devil that > appeared in Samuel’s shape, it is beneath contempt; for though I do > not doubt but that in many of these necromantic apparitions, they are > _ludicrous spirits, not the souls of the deceased that appear_, yet I > am clear for the appearing of the soul of Samuel, and as clear that > in other necromancies, it may be such kinds of spirits, as Porphyrius > above describes, ‘that change themselves into omnifarious forms and > shapes, and one while act the parts of dæmons, another while of angels > or gods, and another while _of the souls of the departed_.’ And I > confess such a spirit as this might _personate_ Samuel here, for > anything Webster alleged to the contrary, for his arguments indeed are > wonderfully weak and wooden.” > > When such a metaphysician and philosopher as Henry More gives such > testimony as this, we may well assume our point to have been well > taken. Learned investigators, all very skeptical as to spirits in > general and “departed human spirits” in particular, during the last > twenty years have taxed their brains to invent new names for an old > thing. Thus, with Mr. Crookes and Sergeant Cox, it is the “psychic > force.” Professor Thury of Geneva calls it the “psychode” or _ectenic_ > force; Professor Balfour Stewart, the “electro-biological power;” > Faraday, the “great master of experimental philosophy in physics,” > but apparently a novice in psychology, superciliously termed it an > “unconscious muscular action,” an “unconscious cerebration,” and what > not? Sir William Hamilton, a “latent thought;” Dr. Carpenter, “the > ideo-motor principle,” etc., etc. So many scientists—so many names. > > Years ago the old German philosopher, Schopenhauer, disposed of this > force and matter at the same time; and since the conversion of Mr. > Wallace, the great anthropologist has evidently adopted his ideas. > Schopenhauer’s doctrine is that the universe is but the manifestation > of the will. Every force in nature is also an effect of will, > representing a higher or lower degree of its objectiveness. It is the > teaching of Plato, who stated distinctly that everything visible was > created or evolved out of the invisible and eternal WILL, and after > its fashion. Our Heaven—he says—was produced according to the eternal > pattern of the “Ideal World,” contained, as everything else, in the > dodecahedron, the geometrical model used by the Deity.[124] With Plato, > the Primal Being is an emanation of the Demiurgic Mind (_Nous_), which > contains from the eternity the “_idea_” of the “to be created world” > within itself, and which idea he produces out of himself.[125] The laws > of nature are the established relations of this _idea_ to the forms {56} > of its manifestations; “these forms,” says Schopenhauer, “are time, > space, and causality. Through time and space the idea varies in its > numberless manifestations.” > > These ideas are far from being new, and even with Plato they were not > original. This is what we read in the _Chaldean Oracles_:[126] “The > works of nature co-exist with the intellectual [νοέρῳ], spiritual Light > of the Father. For it is the soul [ψυχη] which adorned the great > heaven, and which adorns it after the Father.” > > “The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in > the Divine Reason,” says Philo,[127] who is erroneously accused of > deriving his philosophy from Plato’s. > > In the _Theogony_ of Mochus, we find Æther first, and then the air; > the two principles from which Ulom, the _intelligible_ [νοήτος] God (the > visible universe of matter) is born.[128] > > In the Orphic hymns, the Eros-Phanes evolves from the Spiritual Egg, > which the Æthereal winds impregnate, Wind[129] being “the spirit of > God,” who is said to move in Æther, “brooding over the Chaos” the Divine > “Idea.” In the Hindu _Katakopanisâd_, Purusha, the Divine Spirit, > already stands before the original matter, from whose union springs the > great Soul of the World, “Maha=Atma, Brahm, the Spirit of Life;”[130] > these latter appellations are identical with the Universal Soul, or > _Anima Mundi_, and the Astral Light of the theurgists and kabalists. > > Pythagoras brought his doctrines from the eastern sanctuaries, and > Plato compiled them into a form more intelligible than the mysterious > numerals of the sage—whose doctrines he had fully embraced—to the > uninitiated mind. Thus, the _Cosmos_ is “the Son” with Plato, having > for his father and mother the Divine Thought and Matter.[131] > > “The Egyptians,” says Dunlap,[132] “distinguish between an older and > younger Horus, the former the _brother_ of Osiris, the latter the _son_ > of Osiris and Isis.” The first is the _Idea_ of the world remaining > in the Demiurgic Mind, “born in darkness before the creation of the > world.” The second Horus is this “Idea” going forth from the _Logos_, > becoming clothed with matter, and assuming an actual existence.[133] > > “The mundane God, eternal, boundless, young and old, of winding > form,”[134] say the _Chaldean oracles_. > > This “winding form” is a figure to express the vibratory motion of > the Astral Light, with which the ancient priests were perfectly well {57} > acquainted, though they may have differed in views of ether, with > modern scientists; for in the Æther they placed the Eternal Idea > pervading the Universe, or the _Will_ which becomes _Force_, and > creates or organizes _matter_. > > “The will,” says Van Helmont, “is the first of all powers. For through > the will of the Creator all things were made and put in motion.... > The will is the property of all spiritual beings, and displays itself > in them the more actively the more they are freed from matter.” And > Paracelsus, “the divine,” as he was called, adds in the same strain: > “_Faith_ must confirm the imagination, for faith establishes the > _will_.... Determined will is a beginning of all magical operations.... > Because men do not perfectly imagine and believe the result, is that > the arts are uncertain, while they might be perfectly certain.” > > The opposing power alone of unbelief and skepticism, if projected in a > current of equal force, can check the other, and sometimes completely > neutralize it. Why should spiritualists wonder that the presence of > some strong skeptics, or of those who, feeling bitterly opposed to the > phenomenon, unconsciously exercise their will-power in opposition, > hinders and often stops altogether the manifestations? If there is no > _conscious_ power on earth but sometimes finds another to interfere > with or even counterbalance it, why wonder when the _unconscious_, > passive power of a medium is suddenly paralyzed in its effects by > another opposing one, though it also be as unconsciously exercised? > Professors Faraday and Tyndall boasted that their presence at a circle > would stop at once every manifestation. This fact alone ought to have > proved to the eminent scientists that there was some force in these > phenomena worthy to arrest their attention. As a scientist, Prof. > Tyndall was perhaps pre-eminent in the circle of those who were present > at the seance; as a shrewd observer, one not easily deceived by a > tricking medium, he was perhaps no better, if as clever, as others in > the room, and if the manifestations were but a fraud so ingenious as to > deceive the others, they would not have stopped, even on _his_ account. > What medium can ever boast of such phenomena as were produced by Jesus, > and the apostle Paul after him? Yet even Jesus met with cases where the > unconscious force of resistance overpowered even his so well directed > current of will. “And he did not many mighty works there, because of > their unbelief.” > > There is a reflection of every one of these views in Schopenhauer’s > philosophy. Our “investigating” scientists might consult his works > with profit. They will find therein many a strange hypothesis founded > on old ideas, speculations on the “new” phenomena, which may prove > as reasonable as any, and be saved the useless trouble of inventing {58} > new theories. The psychic and ectenic forces, the “ideo-motor” and > “electro-biological powers;” “latent thought” and even “unconscious > cerebration” theories, can be condensed in two words: the kabalistic > ASTRAL LIGHT. > > The bold theories and opinions expressed in Schopenhauer’s works > differ widely with those of the majority of our orthodox scientists. > “In reality,” remarks this daring speculator, “there is neither > _matter_ nor _spirit_. The tendency to gravitation in a stone is as > unexplainable as thought in human brain.... If matter can—no one knows > why—fall to the ground, then it can also—no one knows why—think.... As > soon, even in mechanics, as we trespass beyond the purely mathematical, > as soon as we reach the inscrutable, adhesion, gravitation, and so on, > we are faced by phenomena which are to our senses as mysterious as the > WILL and THOUGHT in man—we find ourselves facing the incomprehensible, > for such is every force in nature. Where is then that _matter_ which > you all pretend to know so well; and from which—being so familiar with > it—you draw all your conclusions and explanations, and attribute to > it all things?... That, which can be fully realized by our reason and > senses, is but the superficial: they can never reach the true inner > substance of things. Such was the opinion of Kant. If you consider that > there is in a human head some sort of a _spirit_, then you are obliged > to concede the same to a stone. If your dead and utterly passive matter > can manifest a tendency toward gravitation, or, like electricity, > attract and repel, and send out sparks—then, as well as the brain, it > can also think. In short, every particle of the so-called spirit, we > can replace with an equivalent of matter, and every particle of matter > replace with spirit.... Thus, it is not the Cartesian division of all > things into matter and spirit that can ever be found philosophically > exact; but only if we divide them into _will_ and _manifestation_, > which form of division has naught to do with the former, for it > spiritualizes every thing: all that, which is in the first instance > real and objective—body and matter—it transforms into a representation, > and every manifestation into will.”[135] > > These views corroborate what we have expressed about the various names > given to the same thing. The disputants are battling about mere words. > Call the phenomena force, energy, electricity or magnetism, will, or > spirit-power, it will ever be the partial manifestation of the _soul_, > whether disembodied or imprisoned for a while in its body—of a portion > of that intelligent, omnipotent, and individual WILL, pervading all > nature, and known, through the insufficiency of human language to > express correctly psychological images, as—GOD. > > The ideas of some of our schoolmen about matter are, from the {59} > kabalistic standing-point, in many a way erroneous. Hartmann calls > their views “an _instinctual_ prejudice.” Furthermore, he demonstrates > that no experimenter can have anything to do with matter properly > termed, but only with the forces into which he divides it. The visible > effects of matter are but the effects of force. He concludes thereby, > that that which is now called matter is nothing but the aggregation of > atomic forces, to express which the word _matter_ is used: outside of > that, for science matter is but a word void of sense. Notwithstanding > many an honest confession on the part of our specialists—physicists, > physiologists and chemists—that they know nothing whatever of > matter,[136] _they deify it_. Every new phenomenon which they find > themselves unable to explain, is triturated, compounded into incense, > and burned on the altar of the goddess who patronizes modern scientists. > > No one can better treat his subject than does Schopenhauer in his > _Parerga_. In this work he discusses at length animal magnetism, > clairvoyance, sympathetic cures, seership, magic, omens, ghost-seeing, > and other spiritual matters. “All these manifestations,” he says, “are > branches of one and the same tree, and furnish us with irrefutable > proofs of the existence of a chain of beings which is based on > quite a different order of things than that nature which has at its > foundation laws of space, time and adaptability. This other order of > things is far deeper, for it is the original and the direct one; in > its presence the common laws of nature, which are simply formal, are > unavailing; therefore, under its immediate action neither time nor > space can separate any longer the individuals, and the separation > impendent on these forms presents no more insurmountable barriers for > the intercourse of thoughts and the immediate action of the will. In > this manner changes may be wrought by quite a different course than > the course of physical causality, _i.e._, through an action of the > manifestation of the will exhibited in a peculiar way and outside > the individual himself. Therefore the peculiar character of all the > aforesaid manifestations is the _visioin distante et actio in distante_ > (vision and action at a distance) in its relation to time as well as > in its relation to space. Such an action at a distance is just what > constitutes the fundamental character of what is called _magical_; for > such is the immediate action of our will, an action liberated from the > causal conditions of physical action, viz., contact.” > > “Besides that,” continues Schopenhauer, “these manifestations present > to us a substantial and perfectly logical contradiction to materialism, > and even to naturalism, because in the light of such manifestations, {60} > that order of things in nature which both these philosophies seek to > present as absolute and the only genuine, appears before us on the > contrary purely phenomenal and superficial, and containing at the > bottom of it a substance of things _à parte_ and perfectly independent > of its own laws. That is why these manifestations—at least from a > purely philosophical point of view—among all the facts which are > presented to us in the domain of experiment, are beyond any comparison > the most important. Therefore, it is the duty of every scientist to > acquaint himself with them.”[137] > > To pass from the philosophical speculations of a man like Schopenhauer > to the superficial generalizations of some of the French Academicians, > would be profitless but for the fact that it enables us to estimate > the intellectual grasp of the two schools of learning. What the German > makes of profound psychological questions, we have seen. Compare with > it the best that the astronomer Babinet and the chemist Boussingault > can offer by way of explaining an important spiritualistic phenomenon. > In 1854-5 these distinguished specialists presented to the Academy > a _memoire_, or monograph, whose evident object was to corroborate > and at the same time make clearer Dr. Chevreuil’s too complicated > theory in explanation of the turning-tables, of the commission for the > investigation of which he was a member. > > Here it is _verbatim_: “As to the movements and oscillations _alleged_ > to happen with certain tables, they can have no cause other than the > _invisible_ and involuntary vibrations of the experimenter’s muscular > system; the extended contraction of the muscles manifesting itself > at such time by a series of vibrations, and becoming thus a _visible > tremor_ which communicates to the object a circumrotary motion. This > rotation is thus enabled to manifest itself with a considerable > energy, by a gradually quickening motion, or by a strong resistance, > whenever it is required to stop. Hence the physical explanation > of the phenomenon becomes clear and does not offer the slightest > difficulty.”[138] > > None whatever. This scientific hypothesis—or demonstration shall we > say?—is as clear as one of M. Babinet’s nebulæ examined on a foggy > night. > > And still, clear as it may be, it lacks an important feature, _i.e._, > common sense. We are at a loss to decide whether or not Babinet accepts > _en desespoir de cause_ Hartmann’s proposition that “the visible > _effects of matter_ are nothing but the _effects of a force_,” and, > that in order to form a clear conception of matter, one must first form > one of force. The philosophy to the school of which belongs Hartmann, {61} > and which is partly accepted by several of the greatest German > scientists, teaches that the problem of matter can only be solved by > that invisible Force, acquaintance with which Schopenhauer terms the > “magical knowledge,” and “magical effect or action of Will.” Thus, > we must first ascertain whether the “involuntary vibrations of the > experimenter’s muscular system,” which are but “actions of matter,” are > influenced by a will _within_ the experimenter or _without_. In the > former case Babinet makes of him an unconscious epileptic; the latter, > as we will further see, he rejects altogether, and attributes all > intelligent answers of the tipping or rapping tables to “unconscious > ventriloquism.” > > We know that every exertion of will results in _force_, and that, > according to the above-named German school, the manifestations > of atomic forces are individual actions of will, resulting in > the unconscious rushing of atoms into the concrete image already > subjectively created by the will. Democritus taught, after his > instructor Leucippus, that the first principles of all things contained > in the universe were atoms and a _vacuum_. In its kabalistic sense, the > _vacuum_ means in this instance the _latent_ Deity, or latent force, > which at its first manifestation became WILL, and thus communicated > the first impulse to these atoms—whose agglomeration, is matter. This > vacuum was but another name for chaos, and an unsatisfactory one, for, > according to the Peripatetics “nature abhors a vacuum.” > > That before Democritus the ancients were familiar with the idea of > the indestructibility of matter is proved by their allegories and > numerous other facts. Movers gives a definition of the Phœnician idea > of the ideal sunlight as a spiritual influence issuing from the highest > God, IAO, “the light conceivable only by intellect—the physical and > spiritual Principle of all things; out of which the soul emanates.” It > was the male Essence, or Wisdom, while the primitive matter or _Chaos_ > was the female. Thus the two first principles—co-eternal and infinite, > were already with the primitive Phœnicians, spirit and matter. > Therefore the theory is as old as the world; for Democritus was not the > first philosopher who taught it; and intuition existed in man before > the ultimate development of his reason. But it is in the denial of the > boundless and endless Entity, possessor of that invisible Will which > we for lack of a better term call GOD, that lies the powerlessness > of every materialistic science to explain the occult phenomena. It > is in the rejection _a priori_ of everything which might force them > to cross the boundary of exact science and step into the domain of > psychological, or, if we prefer, metaphysical physiology, that we find > the secret cause of their discomfiture by the manifestations, and their > absurd theories to account for them. The ancient philosophy affirmed > that it is in consequence of the manifestation of that Will—termed by > Plato _the Divine Idea_—that everything visible and invisible sprung {62} > into existence. As that Intelligent Idea, which, by directing its > sole will-power toward a centre of localized forces called objective > forms into being, so can man, the microcosm of the great Macrocosm, > do the same in proportion with the development of his will-power. > The imaginary atoms—a figure of speech employed by Democritus, and > gratefully seized upon by the materialists—are like automatic workmen > moved inwardly by the influx of that Universal Will directed upon > them, and which, manifesting itself as force, sets them into activity. > The plan of the structure to be erected is in the brain of the > Architect, and reflects his will; abstract as yet, from the instant of > the conception it becomes concrete through these atoms which follow > faithfully every line, point and figure traced in the imagination of > the Divine Geometer. > > As God creates, so man can create. Given a certain intensity of will, > and the shapes created by the mind become subjective. Hallucinations, > they are called, although to their creator they are real as any visible > object is to any one else. Given a more intense and intelligent > concentration of this will, and the form becomes concrete, visible, > objective; the man has learned the secret of secrets; he is a MAGICIAN. > > The materialist should not object to this logic, for he regards thought > as matter. Conceding it to be so, the cunning mechanism contrived by > the inventor; the fairy scenes born in the poet’s brain; the gorgeous > painting limned by the artist’s fancy; the peerless statue chiselled > in ether by the sculptor; the palaces and castles built in air by the > architect—all these, though invisible and subjective, must exist, for > they are matter, shaped and moulded. Who shall say, then, that there > are not some men of such imperial will as to be able to drag these > air-drawn fancies into view, enveloped in the hard casing of gross > substance to make them tangible? > > If the French scientists reaped no laurels in the new field of > investigation, what more was done in England, until the day when Mr. > Crookes offered himself in atonement for the sins of the learned > body? Why, Mr. Faraday, some twenty years ago, actually condescended > to be spoken to once or twice upon the subject. Faraday, whose name > is pronounced by the anti-spiritualists in every discussion upon > the phenomena, as a sort of scientific charm against the evil-eye > of Spiritualism, Faraday, who “blushed” for having published his > researches upon such a degrading belief, is now proved on good > authority to have never sat at a tipping table himself at all! We > have but to open a few stray numbers of the _Journal des Debats_, > published while a noted Scotch medium was in England, to recall > the past events in all their primitive freshness. In one of these > numbers, Dr. Foucault, of Paris, comes out as a champion for the > eminent English experimenter. “Pray, do not imagine,” says he, “that {63} > the grand physicist had ever himself condescended so far as to sit > prosaically at a jumping table.” Whence, then, came the “blushes” > which suffused the cheeks of the “Father of Experimental Philosophy?” > Remembering this fact, we will now examine the nature of Faraday’s > beautiful “Indicator,” the extraordinary “Medium-Catcher,” invented by > him for the detection of mediumistic fraud. That complicated machine, > the memory of which haunts like a nightmare the dreams of dishonest > mediums, is carefully described in Comte de Mirville’s _Question des > Esprits_. > > The better to prove to the experimenters the reality of their own > impulsion, Professor Faraday placed several card-board disks, united to > each other and stuck to the table by a half-soft glue, which, making > the whole adhere for a time together, would, nevertheless, yield to > a continuous pressure. Now, the table having turned—yes, actually > _having dared to turn before Mr. Faraday_, which fact is of some value, > at least—the disks were examined; and, as they were found to have > gradually displaced themselves by slipping in the same direction as the > table, it thus became an unquestionable proof that the experimenters > had _pushed_ the tables themselves. > > Another of the so called scientific tests, so useful in a phenomenon > alleged to be either spiritual or psychical, consisted of a small > instrument which immediately warned the witnesses of the slightest > personal impulsion on their part, or rather, according to Mr. Faraday’s > own expression, “it warned them when they changed from the passive to > the active state.” This needle which betrayed the active motion proved > but one thing, viz.: the action of a force which either emanated from > the sitters or controlled them. And who has ever said that there is > no such force? Every one admits so much, whether this force passes > through the operator, as it is generally shown, or acts independently > of him, as is so often the case. “The whole mystery consisted in the > disproportion of the force employed by the operators, who pushed > because they were forced to push, with certain effects of rotation, or > rather, of a really marvellous race. In the presence of such prodigious > effects, how could any one imagine that the Lilliputian experiments > of that kind could have any value in this newly discovered Land of > Giants?”[139] > > Professor Agassiz, who occupied in America nearly the same eminent > position as a scientist which Mr. Faraday did in England, acted with a > still greater unfairness. Professor J. R. Buchanan, the distinguished > anthropologist, who has treated Spiritualism in some respects more > scientifically than any one else in America, speaks of Agassiz, in a {64} > recent article, with a very just indignation. For, of all other men, > Professor Agassiz ought to believe in a phenomenon to which he had been > a subject himself. But now that both Faraday and Agassiz are themselves > _disembodied_, we can do better by questioning the living than the dead. > > Thus a force whose secret powers were thoroughly familiar to the > ancient theurgists, is denied by modern skeptics. The antediluvian > children—who perhaps played with it, using it as the boys in > Bulwer-Lytton’s _Coming Race_, use the tremendous “_vril_” called it the > “Water of Phtha;” their descendants named it the _Anima Mundi_, the > soul of the universe; and still later the mediæval hermetists termed it > “sidereal light,” or the “Milk of the Celestial Virgin,” the “Magnes,” > and many other names. But our modern learned men will neither accept > nor recognize it under such appellations; for it pertains to _magic_, > and magic is, in their conception, a disgraceful superstition. > > Apollonius and Iamblichus held that it was not “in the knowledge of > things _without_, but in the perfection of the soul _within_, that lies > the empire of man, aspiring to be more than men.”[140] Thus they had > arrived at a perfect cognizance of their godlike souls, the powers of > which they used with all the wisdom, outgrowth of esoteric study of > the hermetic lore, inherited by them from their forefathers. But our > philosophers, tightly shutting themselves up in their shells of flesh, > cannot or dare not carry their timid gaze beyond the _comprehensible_. > For them there is no future life; there are no godlike dreams, they > scorn them as unscientific; for them the men of old are but “ignorant > ancestors,” as they express it; and whenever they meet during their > physiological researches with an author who believes that this > mysterious yearning after spiritual knowledge is inherent in every > human being, and cannot have been given us utterly in vain, they regard > him with contemptuous pity. > > Says a Persian proverb: “The darker the sky is, the brighter the stars > will shine.” Thus, on the dark firmament of the mediæval ages began > appearing the mysterious Brothers of the Rosie Cross. They formed no > associations, they built no colleges; for, hunted up and down like > so many wild beasts, when caught by the Christian Church, they were > unceremoniously roasted. “As religion forbids it,” says Bayle, “to > spill blood,” therefore, “to elude the maxim, _Ecclesia non novit > sanguinem_, they burned human beings, as burning a man does not _shed > his blood_!” > > Many of these mystics, by following what they were taught by some > treatises, secretly preserved from one generation to another, achieved > discoveries which would not be despised even in our modern days of > exact sciences. Roger Bacon, the friar, was laughed at as a quack, {65} > and is now generally numbered among “pretenders” to magic art; but > his discoveries were nevertheless accepted, and are now used by those > who ridicule him the most. Roger Bacon belonged by right if not by > fact to that Brotherhood which includes all those who study the occult > sciences. Living in the thirteenth century, almost a contemporary, > therefore, of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, his discoveries—such > as gunpowder and optical glasses, and his mechanical achievements—were > considered by every one as so many miracles. He was accused of having > made a compact with the Evil One. > > In the legendary history of Friar Bacon, as “well as in an old play > written by Robert Green, a dramatist in the days of Queen Elizabeth, > it is recounted, that, having been summoned before the king, the friar > was induced to show” some of his skill before her majesty the queen. > So he waved his hand (_his wand_, says the text), and “presently was > heard such excellent music, that they all said they had never heard the > like.” Then there was heard a still louder music and four apparitions > suddenly presented themselves and danced until they vanished and > disappeared in the air. Then he waved his wand again, and suddenly > there was such a smell “as if all the rich perfumes in the whole world > had been there prepared in the best manner that art could set them > out.” Then Roger Bacon having promised a gentleman to show him his > sweetheart, he pulled a hanging in the king’s apartment aside and every > one in the room saw “a kitchen-maid with a basting-ladle in her hand.” > The proud gentleman, although he recognized the maiden who disappeared > as suddenly as she had appeared, was enraged at the humiliating > spectacle, and threatened the friar with his revenge. What does the > magician do? He simply answers: “Threaten not, lest I do you more > shame; and do you take heed how you give _scholars_ the lie again!” > > As a commentary on this, the modern historian[141] remarks: “This may > be taken as a sort of exemplification of the class of exhibitions > which were probably the result of a _superior knowledge_ of natural > sciences.” No one ever doubted that it was the result of precisely such > a knowledge, and the hermetists, magicians, astrologers and alchemists > never claimed anything else. It certainly was not their fault that the > ignorant masses, under the influence of an unscrupulous and fanatical > clergy, should have attributed all such works to the agency of the > devil. In view of the atrocious tortures provided by the Inquisition > for all suspected of either black or white magic, it is not strange > that these philosophers neither boasted nor even acknowledged the fact > of such an intercourse. On the contrary, their own writings prove that {66} > they held that magic is “no more than the application of natural > active causes to passive things or subjects; by means thereof, many > tremendously surprising but yet natural effects are produced.” > > The phenomena of the mystic odors and music, exhibited by Roger Bacon, > have been often observed in our own time. To say nothing of our > personal experience, we are informed by English correspondents of the > Theosophical Society that they have heard strains of the most ravishing > music, coming from no visible instrument, and inhaled a succession of > delightful odors produced, as they believed, by spirit-agency. One > correspondent tells us that so powerful was one of these familiar > odors—that of sandal-wood—that the house would be impregnated with > it for weeks after the seance. The medium in this case was a member > of a private family, and the experiments were all made within the > domestic circle. Another describes what he calls a “_musical_ rap.” > The potencies that are now capable of producing these phenomena must > have existed and been equally efficacious in the days of Roger Bacon. > As to the apparitions, it suffices to say that they are evoked now > in spiritualistic circles, and guarantied by scientists, and their > evocation by Roger Bacon is thus made more probable than ever. > > Baptista Porta, in his treatise on _Natural Magic_, enumerates a > whole catalogue of secret formulæ for producing extraordinary effects > by employing the occult powers of nature. Although the “magicians” > believed as firmly as our spiritualists in a world of invisible > spirits, none of them claimed to produce his effects under their > control or through their sole help. They knew too well how difficult > it is to keep away the elementary creatures when they have once found > the door wide open. Even the magic of the ancient Chaldeans was but > a profound knowledge of the powers of simples and minerals. It was > only when the theurgist desired _divine_ help in spiritual and earthly > matters that he sought direct communication through religious rites, > with pure spiritual beings. With them, even, those spirits who remain > invisible and communicate with mortals through their awakened inner > senses, as in clairvoyance, clairaudience and trance, could only be > evoked _subjectively_ and as a result of purity of life and prayer. But > all physical phenomena were produced simply by applying a knowledge of > natural forces, although certainly not by the method of legerdemain, > practiced in our days by conjurers. > > Men possessed of such knowledge and exercising such powers patiently > toiled for something better than the vain glory of a passing fame. > Seeking it not, they became immortal, as do all who labor for the > good of the race, forgetful of mean self. Illuminated with the light > of eternal truth, these rich-poor alchemists fixed their attention > upon the things that lie beyond the common ken, recognizing nothing > inscrutable but the First Cause, and finding no question unsolvable. {67} > To dare, to know, to will, and REMAIN SILENT, was their constant > rule; to be beneficent, unselfish, and unpretending, were, with them, > spontaneous impulses. Disdaining the rewards of petty traffic, spurning > wealth, luxury, pomp, and worldly power, they aspired to knowledge as > the most satisfying of all acquisitions. They esteemed poverty, hunger, > toil, and the evil report of men, as none too great a price to pay for > its achievement. They, who might have lain on downy, velvet-covered > beds, suffered themselves to die in hospitals and by the wayside, > rather than debase their souls and allow the profane cupidity of those > who tempted them to triumph over their sacred vows. The lives of > Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, and Philalethes are too well known to > repeat the old, sad story. > > If spiritualists are anxious to keep strictly dogmatic in their notions > of the “spirit-world,” they must not set _scientists_ to investigate > their phenomena in the true experimental spirit. The attempt would > most surely result in a partial re-discovery of the magic of old—that > of Moses and Paracelsus. Under the deceptive beauty of some of their > apparitions, they might find some day the sylphs and fair Undines of > the Rosicrucians playing in the currents of _psychic_ and _odic_ force. > > Already Mr. Crookes, who fully credits the _being_, feels that under > the fair skin of Katie, covering a simulacrum of heart borrowed > partially from the medium and the circle, there is _no soul_! And > the learned authors of _The Unseen Universe_, abandoning their > “electro-biological” theory, begin to perceive in the universal ether > the _possibility_ that it is a photographic album of EN-SOPH—the > Boundless. > > We are far from believing that all the spirits that communicate at > circles are of the classes called “Elemental,” and “Elementary.” > Many—especially among those who control the medium subjectively to > speak, write, and otherwise act in various ways—are human, disembodied > spirits. Whether the majority of such spirits are good or _bad_, > largely depends on the private morality of the medium, much on the > circle present, and a great deal on the intensity and object of their > purpose. If this object is merely to gratify curiosity and to pass > the time, it is useless to expect anything serious. But, in any case, > human spirits can _never_ materialize themselves in _propria personâ_. > These can never appear to the investigator clothed with warm, solid > flesh, sweating hands and faces, and grossly-material bodies. The most > they can do is to project their æthereal reflection on the atmospheric > waves, and if the touch of their hands and clothing can become upon > rare occasions objective to the senses of a living mortal, it will > be felt as a passing breeze gently sweeping over the touched spot, > not as a human hand or material body. It is useless to plead that the > “materialized spirits” that have exhibited themselves with beating {68} > hearts and loud voices (with or without a trumpet) are _human_ spirits. > The voices—if such sound can be termed a voice at all—of a spiritual > apparition once heard can hardly be forgotten. That of a pure spirit is > like the tremulous murmur of an Æolian harp echoed from a distance; the > voice of a suffering, hence impure, if not utterly bad spirit, may be > assimilated to a human voice issuing from an empty barrel. > > This is not _our_ philosophy, but that of the numberless generations > of theurgists and magicians, and based upon their practical > experience. The testimony of antiquity is positive on this subject: > “Δαιμονιῶν φωναὶ ἄναρθροι εἰσί....”[142] The voices of spirits are not > articulated. The spirit-voice consists of a series of sounds which > conveys the impression of a column of compressed air ascending from > beneath upward, and spreading around the living interlocutor. The > many eye-witnesses who testified in the case of Elizabeth Eslinger, > namely:[143] the deputy-governor of the prison of Weinsberg, Mayer, > Eckhart, Theurer, and Knorr (sworn evidence), Düttenhöfer, and Kapff, > the mathematician, testified that they saw the apparition _like a > pillar of clouds_. For the space of eleven weeks, Doctor Kerner and > his sons, several Lutheran ministers, the advocate Fraas, the engraver > Düttenhöfer, two physicians, Siefer and Sicherer, the judge Heyd, and > the Baron von Hugel, with many others, followed this manifestation > daily. During the time it lasted, the prisoner Elizabeth prayed with > a loud voice uninterruptedly; therefore, as the “spirit” was talking > at the same time, it could be no ventriloquism; and that voice, they > say,“had nothing _human_ in it; no one could imitate its sounds.” > > Further on we will give abundant proofs from ancient authors concerning > this neglected truism. We will now only again assert that no spirit > claimed by the spiritualists to be human was ever proved to be such > on sufficient testimony. The influence of the _disembodied_ ones > can be felt, and communicated _subjectively_ by them to sensitives. > They can produce _objective_ manifestations, but they cannot produce > _themselves_ otherwise than as described above. They can control the > body of a medium, and express their desires and ideas in various modes > well known to spiritualists; but not _materialize_ what is matterless > and purely spiritual—their _divine essence_. Thus every so-called > “materialization” when genuine—is either produced (_perhaps_) by the > will of that spirit whom the “appearance” is claimed to be but can > only personate at best, or by the elementary goblins themselves, which > are generally too stupid to deserve the honor of being called devils. > Upon rare occasions the spirits are able to subdue and control these {69} > soulless beings, which are ever ready to assume pompous names if left > to themselves, in such a way that the mischievous spirit “of the air,” > shaped in the real image of the _human_ spirit, will be moved by the > latter like a marionette, and unable to either act or utter other words > than those imposed on him by the “immortal soul.” But this requires > many conditions generally unknown to the circles of even spiritualists > most in the habit of regularly attending seances. Not every one can > attract _human_ spirits who likes. One of the most powerful attractions > of our departed ones is their strong affection for those whom they have > left on earth. It draws them irresistibly, by degrees, into the current > of the Astral Light vibrating between the person sympathetic to them > and the Universal Soul. Another very important condition is harmony, > and the magnetic purity of the persons present. > > If this philosophy is wrong, if all the “materialized” forms emerging > in _darkened_ rooms from still _darker_ cabinets, are spirits of men > who once lived upon this earth, why such a difference between them > and the _ghosts_ that appear unexpectedly—_ex abrupto_—without either > cabinet or medium? Who ever heard of the apparitions, unrestful > “souls,” hovering about the spots where they were murdered, or coming > back for some other mysterious reasons of their own, with “warm hands” > feeling _like living flesh_, and but that they are known to be dead and > buried, not distinguishable from living mortals? We have well-attested > facts of such apparitions making themselves suddenly visible, but > never, until the beginning of the era of the “materializations,” did > we see anything like them. In the _Medium and Day Break_, of September > 8, 1876, we read a letter from “a lady travelling on the continent,” > narrating a circumstance that happened in a haunted house. She says: “ > ... A strange sound proceeded from a darkened corner of the library ... > on looking up she perceived a _cloud or column of luminous vapor_; ... > the earth-bound spirit was hovering about the spot rendered accursed by > his evil deed....” As this spirit was doubtless a _genuine_ elementary > apparition, which made itself visible of its own free will—in short, > an _umbra_—it was, as every respectable shadow should be, visible but > impalpable, or if palpable at all, communicating to the feeling of > touch the sensation of a mass of water suddenly clasped in the hand, or > of condensed but cold steam. It was _luminous_ and _vapory_; for aught > we can tell it might have been the real personal umbra of the “spirit,” > persecuted, and earth-bound, either by its own remorse and crimes or > those of another person or spirit. The mysteries of after-death are > many, and modern “materializations” only make them cheap and ridiculous > in the eyes of the indifferent. > > To these assertions may be opposed a fact well known among > spiritualists: _The writer has publicly certified to having seen such > materialized forms_. We have most assuredly done so, and are ready to {70} > repeat the testimony. We have recognized such figures as the visible > representations of acquaintances, friends, and even relatives. We have, > in company with many other spectators, heard them pronounce words in > languages unfamiliar not only to the medium and to every one else > in the room, except ourselves, but, in some cases, to almost if not > quite every medium in America and Europe, for they were the tongues > of Eastern tribes and peoples. At the time, these instances were > justly regarded as conclusive proofs of the genuine mediumship of the > uneducated Vermont farmer who sat in the “cabinet.” But, nevertheless, > these figures were _not_ the forms of the persons they appeared to be. > They were simply their portrait statues, constructed, animated and > operated by the elementaries. If we have not previously elucidated this > point, it was because the spiritualistic public was not then ready to > even listen to the fundamental proposition that there are elemental and > elementary spirits. Since that time this subject has been broached and > more or less widely discussed. There is less hazard now in attempting > to launch upon the restless sea of criticism the hoary philosophy of > the ancient sages, for there has been some preparation of the public > mind to consider it with impartiality and deliberation. Two years of > agitation have effected a marked change for the better. > > Pausanias writes that four hundred years after the battle of Marathon, > there were still heard in the place where it was fought, the _neighing > of horses_ and the shouts of shadowy soldiers. Supposing that the > spectres of the slaughtered soldiers were their genuine spirits, they > looked like “shadows,” not materialized men. Who, then, or what, > produced the neighing of horses? _Equine_ “spirits?” And if it be > pronounced untrue that horses have spirits—which assuredly no one among > zoölogists, physiologists or psychologists, or even spiritualists, can > either prove or disprove—then must we take it for granted that it was > the “immortal souls” of men which produced the neighing at Marathon to > make the historical battle scene more vivid and dramatic? The phantoms > of dogs, cats, and various other animals have been repeatedly seen, > and the world-wide testimony is as trustworthy upon this point as > that with respect to human apparitions. Who or _what_ personates, if > we are allowed such an expression, the ghosts of departed animals? Is > it, again, human spirits? As the matter now stands, there is no side > issue; we have either to admit that animals have surviving spirits and > souls as well as ourselves, or hold with Porphyry that there are in the > _invisible_ world a kind of tricky and malicious demons, intermediary > beings between living men and “gods,” spirits that delight in appearing > under every imaginable shape, beginning with the human form, and ending > with those of multifarious animals.[144] > > Before venturing to decide the question whether the spectral animal {71} > forms so frequently seen and attested are the returning spirits of dead > beasts, we must carefully consider their reported behavior. Do these > spectres act according to the habits and display the same instincts, as > the animals during life? Do the spectral beasts of prey lie in wait for > victims, and timid animals flee before the presence of man; or do the > latter show a malevolence and disposition to annoy, quite foreign to > their natures? Many victims of these obsessions—notably, the afflicted > persons of Salem and other historical witchcrafts—testify to having > seen dogs, cats, pigs, and other animals, entering their rooms, biting > them, trampling upon their sleeping bodies, and _talking_ to them; > _often inciting them to suicide and other crimes_. In the well-attested > case of Elizabeth Eslinger, mentioned by Dr. Kerner, the apparition of > the ancient priest of Wimmenthal[145] was accompanied by a large black > dog, which he called _his father_, and which dog in the presence of > numerous witnesses jumped on all the beds of the prisoners. At another > time the priest appeared with a lamb, and sometimes with two lambs. > Most of those accused at Salem were charged by the seeresses with > consulting and plotting mischief with yellow birds, which would sit on > their shoulder or on the beams overhead.[146] And unless we discredit > the testimony of thousands of witnesses, in all parts of the world, > and in all ages, and allow a monopoly of seership to modern mediums, > spectre-animals do appear and manifest all the worst traits of depraved > human nature, without themselves being human. What, then, can they be > but elementals? > > Descartes was one of the few who believed and dared say that to occult > medicine we shall owe discoveries “destined to extend the domain of > philosophy;” and Brierre de Boismont not only shared in these hopes but > openly avowed his sympathy with “supernaturalism,” which he considered > the universal “grand creed” “ ... We think with Guizot,” he says, > “that the existence of society is bound up in it. It _is in vain_ that > modern reason, which, notwithstanding its _positivism_, cannot explain > the intimate cause of any phenomena, _rejects the supernatural_; it is > universal, and at the root of all hearts. The most elevated minds are > frequently its most ardent disciples.”[147] > > Christopher Columbus discovered America, and Americus Vespucius reaped > the glory and usurped his dues. Theophrastus Paracelsus rediscovered > the occult properties of the magnet—“the bone of Horus” which, twelve > centuries before his time, had played such an important part in the > theurgic mysteries—and he very naturally became the founder of the {72} > school of magnetism and of mediæval magico-theurgy. But Mesmer, who > lived nearly three hundred years after him, and as a disciple of his > school brought the magnetic wonders before the public, reaped the glory > that was due to the fire-philosopher, while the great master died in a > hospital! > > So goes the world: new discoveries, evolving from old sciences; new > men—the same old nature! > > CHAPTER III. {73} > > “The mirror of the soul cannot reflect both earth and heaven; > and the one vanishes from its surface, as the other is glassed > upon its deep.” > > ZANONI. > > “Qui, donc, t’a donné la mission d’annoncer au peuple que la > Divinité n’existe pas—quel avantage trouves tu à persuader à > l’homme qu’une force aveugle préside à ses destinées et frappe > au hazard le crime et la vertu?” > > ROBESPIERRE (Discours), May 7, 1794. > > We believe that few of those physical phenomena which are genuine > are caused by disembodied human spirits. Still, even those that > are produced by occult forces of nature, such as happen through a > few genuine mediums, and are consciously employed by the so-called > “jugglers” of India and Egypt, deserve a careful and serious > investigation by science; especially now that a number of respected > authorities have testified that in many cases the hypothesis of > fraud does not hold. No doubt, there are professed “conjurors” who > can perform cleverer tricks than all the American and English “John > Kings” together. Robert Houdin unquestionably could, but this did not > prevent his laughing outright in the face of the academicians, when > they desired him to assert in the newspapers, that he could make a > table move, or rap answers to questions, _without contact of hands_, > unless the table was a prepared one.[148] The fact alone, that a now > notorious London juggler refused to accept a challenge for £1,000 > offered him by Mr. Algernon Joy,[149] to produce such manifestations > as are usually obtained through mediums, unless he was left _unbound_ > and _free_ from the hands of a committee, negatives his _exposé_ of > the occult phenomena. Clever as he may be, we defy and challenge him > to reproduce, under the _same conditions_, the “tricks” exhibited > even by a common Indian _juggler_. For instance, the spot to be > chosen by the investigators at the moment of the performance, and the > juggler to know nothing of the choice; the experiment to be made in > broad daylight, without the least preparations for it; without any > confederate but a boy absolutely naked, and the juggler to be in a > condition of semi-nudity. After that, we should select out of a variety > three _tricks_, the most common among such public jugglers, and that > were recently exhibited to some gentlemen belonging to the suite of {74} > the Prince of Wales: I. To transform a rupee—firmly clasped in the > hand of a skeptic—into a living cobra, the bite of which would prove > fatal, as an examination of its fangs would show. 2. To cause a seed > chosen at random by the spectators, and planted in the first semblance > of a flower-pot, furnished by the same skeptics, to grow, mature, and > bear fruit in less than a quarter of an hour. 3. To stretch himself > on three swords, stuck perpendicularly in the ground at their hilts, > the sharp points upward; after that, to have removed first one of the > swords, then the other, and, after an interval of a few seconds, the > last one, the juggler remaining, finally, lying on _nothing_—on the > air, miraculously suspended at about one yard from the ground. When any > prestidigitateur, to begin with Houdin and end with the last trickster > who has secured gratuitous advertisement by attacking spiritualism, > does _the same_, then—but only then—we will train ourselves to believe > that mankind has been evolved out of the hind-toe of Mr. Huxley’s > Eocene _Orohippus_. > > We assert again, in full confidence, that there does not exist a > professional wizard, either of the North, South or West, who can > compete with anything approaching success, with these untutored, > naked sons of the East. These require no Egyptian Hall for their > performances, nor any preparations or rehearsals; but are ever ready, > at a moment’s notice, to evoke to their help the hidden powers > of nature, which, for European prestidigitateurs as well as for > scientists, are a closed book. Verily, as Elihu puts it, “great men > are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment.”[150] > To repeat the remark of the English divine, Dr. Henry More, we may > well say: “ ... indeed, if there were any modesty left in mankind, the > histories of the Bible might abundantly assure men of the existence > of angels and spirits.” The same eminent man adds, “I look upon it as > a special piece of Providence that ... fresh examples of apparitions > may awaken our benumbed and lethargic minds into an assurance that > there are other intelligent beings besides those that are clothed in > heavy earth or clay ... for this evidence, showing that there are bad > spirits, will necessarily open a door to the belief that there are > good ones, and lastly, that there is a God.” The instance above given > carries a moral with it, not only to scientists, but theologians. Men > who have made their mark in the pulpit and in professors’ chairs, are > continually showing the lay public that they really know so little of > psychology, as to take up with any plausible schemer who comes their > way, and so make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the thoughtful > student. Public opinion upon this subject has been manufactured by > jugglers and self-styled savants, unworthy of respectful consideration. > > The development of psychological science has been retarded far more {75} > by the ridicule of this class of pretenders, than by the inherent > difficulties of its study. The empty laugh of the scientific nursling > or of the fools of fashion, has done more to keep man ignorant of his > imperial psychical powers, than the obscurities, the obstacles and the > dangers that cluster about the subject. This is especially the case > with spiritualistic phenomena. That their investigation has been so > largely confined to incapables, is due to the fact that men of science, > who might and would have studied them, have been frightened off by the > boasted exposures, the paltry jokes, and the impertinent clamor of > those who are not worthy to tie their shoes. There are moral cowards > even in university chairs. The inherent vitality of modern spiritualism > is proven in its survival of the neglect of the scientific body, and > of the obstreperous boasting of its pretended exposers. If we begin > with the contemptuous sneers of the patriarchs of science, such as > Faraday and Brewster, and end with the professional (?) _exposés_ of > the successful mimicker of the phenomena,——, of London, we will not > find them furnishing one single, well-established argument against > the occurrence of spiritual manifestations. “My theory is,” says this > individual, in his recent _soi-disant “exposé,”_ “that Mr. Williams > dressed up and personified John King and Peter. Nobody can prove that > it wasn’t so.” Thus it appears that, notwithstanding the bold tone of > assertion, it is but a theory after all, and spiritualists might well > retort upon the exposer, and demand that he should prove that it is so. > > But the most inveterate, uncompromising enemies of Spiritualism are a > class very fortunately composed of but few members, who, nevertheless, > declaim the louder and assert their views with a clamorousness worthy > of a better cause. These are the _pretenders_ to science of young > America—a mongrel class of pseudo-philosophers, mentioned at the > opening of this chapter, with sometimes no better right to be regarded > as scholars than the possession of an electrical machine, or the > delivery of a puerile lecture on insanity and mediomania. Such men > are—if you believe them—profound thinkers and physiologists; there is > none of your metaphysical nonsense about them; they are Positivists—the > mental sucklings of Auguste Comte, whose bosoms swell at the thought > of plucking deluded humanity from the dark abyss of superstition, and > rebuilding the cosmos on improved principles. Irascible psychophobists, > no more cutting insult can be offered them than to suggest that they > may be endowed with immortal spirits. To hear them, one would fancy > that there can be no other souls in men and women than “scientific” or > “unscientific souls;” whatever that kind of soul may be.[151] > > Some thirty or forty years ago, in France, Auguste Comte—a pupil {76} > of the _Ecole Polytechnique_, who had remained for years at that > establishment as a _repetiteur_ of Transcendant Analysis and > Rationalistic Mechanics—awoke one fine morning with the very irrational > idea of becoming a prophet. In America, prophets can be met with at > every street-corner; in Europe, they are as rare as black swans. But > France is the land of novelties. Auguste Comte became a prophet; and > so infectious is fashion, sometimes, that even in sober England he was > considered, for a certain time, the Newton of the nineteenth century. > > The epidemic extended, and for the time being, it spread like wildfire > over Germany, England, and America. It found adepts in France, but the > excitement did not last long with these. The prophet needed money: the > disciples were unwilling to furnish it. The fever of admiration for a > religion without a God cooled off as quickly as it had come on; of all > the enthusiastic apostles of the prophet, there remained but one worthy > any attention. It was the famous philologist Littré, a member of the > French Institute, and a _would-be_ member of the Imperial Academy of > Sciences, but whom the archbishop of Orleans maliciously prevented from > becoming one of the “Immortals.”[152] > > The philosopher-mathematician—the high-priest of the “religion of the > future” taught his doctrine as do all his brother-prophets of our modern > days. He deified “woman,” and furnished her with an altar; but the > goddess had to pay for its use. The rationalists had laughed at the > mental aberration of Fourier; they had laughed at the St. Simonists; > and their scorn for Spiritualism knew no bounds. The same rationalists > and materialists were caught, like so many empty-headed sparrows, by > the bird-lime of the new prophet’s rhetoric. A longing for some kind of > divinity, a craving for the “unknown,” is a feeling congenital in man; > hence the worst atheists seem not to be exempt from it. Deceived by the > outward brilliancy of this _ignus fatuus_, the disciples followed it > until they found themselves floundering in a bottomless morass. > > Covering themselves with the mask of a pretended erudition, the > Positivists of this country have organized themselves into clubs and > committees with the design of uprooting Spiritualism, while pretending > to impartially investigate it. > > Too timid to openly challenge the churches and the Christian doctrine, > they endeavor to sap that upon which all religion is based—man’s faith > in God and his own immortality. Their policy is to ridicule that which > affords an unusual basis for such a faith—phenomenal Spiritualism. {77} > Attacking it at its weakest side, they make the most of its lack of > an inductive method, and of the exaggerations that are to be found in > the transcendental doctrines of its propagandists. Taking advantage > of its unpopularity, and displaying a courage as furious and out of > place as that of the errant knight of La Mancha, they claim recognition > as philanthropists and benefactors who would crush out a monstrous > superstition. > > Let us see in what degree Comte’s boasted religion of the future is > superior to Spiritualism, and how much less likely its advocates are > to need the refuge of those lunatic asylums which they officiously > recommend for the mediums whom they have been so solicitous > about. Before beginning, let us call attention to the fact that > three-fourths of the disgraceful features exhibited in modern > Spiritualism are directly traceable to the materialistic adventurers > pretending to be spiritualists. Comte has fulsomely depicted the > “artificially-fecundated” woman of the future. She is but elder sister > to the Cyprian ideal of the free-lovers. The immunity against the > future offered by the teachings of his moon-struck disciples, has > inoculated some pseudo-spiritualists to such an extent as to lead > them to form communistic associations. None, however, have proved > long-lived. Their leading feature being generally a materialistic > animalism, gilded over with a thin leaf of Dutch-metal philosophy and > tricked out with a combination of hard Greek names, the community could > not prove anything else than a failure. > > Plato, in the fifth book of the _Republic_, suggests a method for > improving the human race by the elimination of the unhealthy or > deformed individuals, and by coupling the better specimens of both > sexes. It was not to be expected that the “genius of our century,” even > were he a prophet, would squeeze out of his brain anything entirely new. > > Comte was a mathematician. Cleverly combining several old utopias, he > colored the whole, and, improving on Plato’s idea, materialized it, and > presented the world with the greatest monstrosity that ever emanated > from a human mind! > > We beg the reader to keep in view, that we do not attack Comte as a > philosopher, but as a professed reformer. In the irremediable darkness > of his political, philosophical and religious views, we often meet > with isolated observations and remarks in which profound logic and > judiciousness of thought rival the brilliancy of their interpretation. > But then, these dazzle you like flashes of lightning on a gloomy > night, to leave you, the next moment, more in the dark than ever. If > condensed and repunctuated, his several works might produce, on the > whole, a volume of very original aphorisms, giving a very clear and > really clever definition of most of our social evils; but it would be > vain to seek, either through the tedious circumlocution of the six > volumes of his _Cours de Philosophie Positive_, or in that parody on {78} > priesthood, in the form of a dialogue—_The Catechism of the Religion > of Positivism_—any idea suggestive of even provisional remedies for > such evils. His disciples suggest that the sublime doctrines of their > prophet were not intended _for the vulgar_. Comparing the dogmas > preached by Positivism with their practical exemplifications by its > apostles, we must confess the possibility of some very achromatic > doctrine being at the bottom of it. While the “high-priest” preaches > that “woman must cease to be the _female_ of the man;”[153] while > the theory of the positivist legislators on marriage and the family, > chiefly consists in making the woman the “mere companion of man by > ridding her of every maternal function;”[154] and while they are > preparing against the future a substitute for that function by applying > “to the _chaste_ woman” “a _latent force_,”[155] some of its lay > priests openly preach polygamy, and others affirm that their doctrines > are the quintessence of spiritual philosophy. > > In the opinion of the Romish clergy, who labor under a chronic > nightmare of the devil, Comte offers his “woman of the future” to > the possession of the “incubi.”[156] In the opinion of more prosaic > persons, the _Divinity_ of Positivism, must henceforth be regarded as a > biped broodmare. Even Littré made prudent restrictions while accepting > the apostleship of this marvellous religion. This is what he wrote in > 1859: > > “M. Comte not only thought that he found the principles, traced the > outlines, and furnished the method, but that he had deduced the > consequences and constructed the social and religious edifice of the > future. It is in this _second_ division that we make our reservations, > declaring, at the same time, that we accept as an inheritance, the > whole of the first.”[157] > > Further, he says: “M. Comte, in a grand work entitled the _System > of the Positive Philosophy_, established the basis of a philosophy > [?] which must finally supplant every theology and the whole of > metaphysics. Such a work necessarily contains a direct application > to the government of societies; as it _has nothing arbitrary in it_ > [?] and as we find therein a _real science_ [?], my adhesion to the > principles involves my adhesion to the essential consequences.” > > M. Littré has shown himself in the light of a true son of his prophet. > Indeed the whole system of Comte appears to us to have been built on > a play of words. When they say “_Positivism_” read _Nihilism_; when > you hear the word _chastity_, know that it means _impudicity_; and so {79} > on. Being a religion based on a theory of negation, its adherents can > hardly carry it out practically without saying white when meaning black! > > “Positive Philosophy,” continues Littré, “does not accept atheism, for > the atheist is not a really-emancipated mind, but is, in his own way, a > theologian still; he gives his explanation about the essence of things; > _he knows_ how they begun!... Atheism is Pantheism; this system is > quite theological yet, and thus belongs to the ancient party.”[158] > > It really would be losing time to quote any more of these paradoxical > dissertations. Comte attained to the apotheosis of absurdity and > inconsistency when, after inventing his philosophy, he named it a > “Religion.” And, as is usually the case, the disciples have surpassed > the reformer—in absurdity. Supposititious philosophers, who shine in > the American academies of Comte, like a _lampyris noctiluca_ beside a > planet, leave us in no doubt as to their belief, and contrast “that > system of thought and life” elaborated by the French apostle with the > “idiocy” of Spiritualism; of course to the advantage of the former. > “To destroy, you must replace;” exclaims the author of the _Cathechism > of the Religion of Positivism_, quoting Cassaudiere, by the way, > without crediting him with the thought; and his disciples proceed to > show by what sort of a loathsome system they are anxious to replace > Christianity, Spiritualism, and even Science. > > “Positivism,” perorates one of them, “is an _integral_ doctrine. It > rejects completely all forms of theological and metaphysical belief; > all forms of supernaturalism, and thus—Spiritualism. The true positive > spirit consists in substituting the study of the invariable laws of > phenomena for that of their so-called causes, whether proximate or > primary. On this ground it equally rejects atheism; _for the atheist is > at bottom a theologian_,” he adds, plagiarizing sentences from Littré’s > works: “the atheist does not reject the problems of theology, only the > solution of these, and so he is illogical. We _Positivists_ reject the > problem in our turn on the ground that it is utterly inaccessible to > the intellect, and we would only waste our strength in a vain search > for first and final causes. As you see, Positivism gives a complete > explanation [?] of the world, of man, his duty and destiny....”![159] > > Very brilliant this; and now, by way of contrast, we will quote what a > really great scientist, Professor Hare, thinks of this system. “Comte’s > positive philosophy,” he says, “after all, is merely negative. It is > admitted by Comte, that he knows nothing of _the sources_ and _causes_ > of nature’s laws; that their origination is so perfectly inscrutable as {80} > to make it idle to take up time in any scrutiny for that purpose.... > Of course his doctrine makes him avowedly a thorough ignoramus, as to > the causes of laws, or the means by which they are established, and can > have no basis but the _negative_ argument above stated, in objecting > to the facts ascertained in relation to the spiritual creation. Thus, > while allowing the atheist his material dominion, Spiritualism will > erect within and above the same space a dominion of an importance as > much greater as eternity is to the average duration of human life, and > as the boundless regions of the fixed stars are to the habitable area > of this globe.”[160] > > In short, Positivism proposes to itself to destroy Theology, > Metaphysics, Spiritualism, Atheism, Materialism, Pantheism, and > Science, and it must finally end in destroying itself. De Mirville > thinks that according to Positivism, “order will begin to reign in > the human mind only on the day when psychology will become a sort of > _cerebral physics_, and history a kind of social physics.” The modern > Mohammed first disburdens man and woman of God and their own soul, and > then unwittingly disembowels his own doctrine with the too sharp sword > of metaphysics, which all the time he thought he was avoiding, thus > letting out every vestige of philosophy. > > In 1864, M. Paul Janet, a member of the Institute, pronounced a > discourse upon Positivism, in which occur the following remarkable > words: > > “There are some minds which were brought up and fed on exact and > positive sciences, but which feel nevertheless, a sort of instinctive > impulse for philosophy. They can satisfy this instinct but with > elements that they have already on hand. Ignorant in psychological > sciences, having studied only the rudiments of metaphysics, they > nevertheless are determined to fight these same metaphysics as well as > psychology, of which they know as little as of the other. After this is > done, they will imagine themselves to have founded a Positive Science, > while the truth is that they have only built up a new mutilated and > incomplete metaphysical theory. They arrogate to themselves the > authority and infallibility properly belonging alone to the true > sciences, those which are based on experience and calculations; but > they lack such an authority, for their ideas, defective as they may be, > nevertheless belong to the same class as those which they attack. Hence > the weakness of their situation, the final ruin of their ideas, which > are soon scattered to the four winds.”[161] > > The Positivists of America have joined hands in their untiring efforts > to overthrow Spiritualism. To show their impartiality, though, they > propound such novel queries as follows: “ ... how much rationality {81} > is there in the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Trinity > and Transubstantiation, if submitted to the tests of physiology, > mathematics, and chemistry?” and they “undertake to say, that the > vagaries of Spiritualism do not surpass in absurdity these eminently > respectable beliefs.” Very well. But there is neither theological > absurdity nor spiritualistic delusion that can match in depravity > and imbecility that positivist notion of “artificial fecundation.” > Denying to themselves all thought on primal and final causes, they > apply their insane theories to the construction of an impossible woman > for the worship of future generations; the living, immortal companion > of man they would replace with the Indian female fetich of the Obeah, > the wooden idol that is stuffed every day with serpents’ eggs, to be > hatched by the heat of the sun! > > And now, if we are permitted to ask in the name of common-sense, why > should Christian mystics be taxed with credulity or the spiritualists > be consigned to Bedlam, when a _religion_ embodying such revolting > absurdity finds disciples even among Academicians?—when such insane > rhapsodies as the following can be uttered by the mouth of Comte and > admired by his followers: “My eyes are dazzled;—they open each day more > and more to the increasing coincidence between the social advent of > the _feminine mystery_, and the mental decadence of the eucharistical > sacrament. Already the Virgin has dethroned God in the minds of > Southern Catholics! Positivism realizes the Utopia of the mediæval > ages, by representing all the members of the great family as the issue > of a _virgin mother without a husband_....” And again, after giving > the _modus operandi_: “The development of the _new process_ would soon > cause to spring up a caste without heredity, better adapted than vulgar > procreation to the recruitment of spiritual chiefs, or even temporal > ones, whose authority would then rest upon an origin truly superior, > which would not _shrink from an investigation_.”[162] > > To this we might inquire with propriety, whether there has ever > been found in the “vagaries of Spiritualism,” or the mysteries of > Christianity, anything more preposterous than this ideal “coming race.” > If the tendency of materialism is not grossly belied by the behavior > of some of its advocates, those who publicly preach polygamy, we fancy > that whether or not there will ever be a sacerdotal stirp so begotten, > we shall see no end of progeny,—the offspring of “mothers without > husbands.” > > How natural that a philosophy which could engender such a caste of > didactic incubi, should express through the pen of one of its most > garrulous essayists, the following sentiments: “This is a sad, a very {82} > sad age,[163] full of dead and dying faiths; full of idle prayers sent > out in vain search for the departing gods. But oh! it is a glorious > age, full of the golden light which streams from the ascending sun > of science! What shall we do for those who are shipwrecked in faith, > _bankrupt in intellect_, but ... who seek comfort in the _mirage of > spiritualism_, the delusions of transcendentalism, or the _will o’ the > wisp_ of mesmerism?...” > > The _ignis fatuus_, now so favorite an image with many dwarf > philosophers, had itself to struggle for recognition. It is not so long > since the now familiar phenomenon was stoutly denied by a correspondent > of the London _Times_, whose assertions carried weight, till the work > of Dr. Phipson, supported by the testimony of Beccaria, Humboldt, and > other naturalists, set the question at rest.[164] The Positivists > should choose some happier expression, and follow the discoveries of > science at the same time. As to mesmerism, it has been adopted in many > parts of Germany, and is publicly used with undeniable success in more > than one hospital; its occult properties have been proved and are > believed in by physicians, whose eminence, learning, and merited fame, > the self-complacent lecturer on mediums and insanity cannot well hope > to equal. > > We have to add but a few more words before we drop this unpleasant > subject. We have found Positivists particularly happy in the delusion > that the _greatest scientists_ of Europe were Comtists. How far their > claims may be just, as regards other _savants_, we do not know, but > Huxley, whom all Europe considers one of her greatest scientists, > most decidedly declines that honor, and Dr. Maudsley, of London, > follows suit. In a lecture delivered by the former gentleman in 1868, > in Edinburg, on _The Physical Basis of Life_, he even appears to be > very much shocked at the liberty taken by the Archbishop of York, in > identifying him with Comte’s philosophy. “So far as I am concerned,” > says Mr. Huxley, “the most reverend prelate might dialectically hew > Mr. Comte in pieces, as a modern Agag, and I would not attempt to stay > his hand. In so far as my study of what specially characterizes the > positive philosophy has led me, I find, therein, little or nothing > of any scientific value, and a great deal which is _as thoroughly > antagonistic to the very essence of science as anything in ultramontane > Catholicism_. In fact, Comte’s philosophy in practice might be > compendiously described as _Catholicism minus Christianity_.” Further, > Huxley even becomes wrathful, and falls to accusing Scotchmen of > ingratitude for having allowed the Bishop to mistake Comte for the > founder of a philosophy which belonged by right to Hume. “It was {83} > enough,” exclaims the professor, “to make David Hume turn in his > grave, that here, almost within earshot of his house, an interested > audience should have listened, without a murmur, whilst his most > characteristic doctrines were attributed to a French writer of fifty > years later date, in whose _dreary and verbose pages we miss alike the > vigor of thought and the clearness of style_....”[165] > > Poor Comte! It appears that the highest representatives of his > philosophy are now reduced, at least in this country, to “one > physicist, one physician who has made a specialty of nervous diseases, > and one lawyer.” A very witty critic nicknamed this desperate trio, > “_an anomalistic triad_, which, amid its arduous labors, finds no time > to acquaint itself with the principles and laws of their language.”[166] > > To close the question, the Positivists neglect no means to overthrow > Spiritualism in favor of their _religion_. Their high priests are > made to blow their trumpets untiringly; and though the walls of no > modern Jericho are ever likely to tumble down in dust before their > blast, still they neglect no means to attain the desired object. Their > paradoxes are unique, and their accusations against spiritualists > irresistible in logic. In a recent lecture, for instance, it was > remarked that: “The exclusive exercise of _religious_ instinct is > productive of sexual immorality. Priests, monks, nuns, saints, _media_, > ecstatics, and devotees are famous for their impurities.”[167] > > We are happy to remark that, while Positivism loudly proclaims itself > a religion, Spiritualism has never pretended to be anything more than > a science, a growing philosophy, or rather a research in hidden and > as yet unexplained forces in nature. The objectiveness of its various > phenomena has been demonstrated by more than one genuine representative > of science, and as ineffectually denied by her “monkeys.” > > Finally, it may be remarked of our Positivists who deal so > unceremoniously with every psychological phenomenon, that they are like > Samuel Butler’s rhetorician, who > > “ ... could not ope > His mouth, but out there flew a _trope_.” > > We would there were no occasion to extend the critic’s glance beyond > the circle of triflers and pedants who improperly wear the title of {84} > men of science. But it is also undeniable that the treatment of new > subjects by those whose rank is high in the scientific world but > too often passes unchallenged, when it is amenable to censure. The > cautiousness bred of a fixed habit of experimental research, the > tentative advance from opinion to opinion, the weight accorded to > recognized authorities—all foster a conservatism of thought which > naturally runs into dogmatism. The price of scientific progress is too > commonly the martyrdom or ostracism of the innovator. The reformer > of the laboratory must, so to speak, carry the citadel of custom > and prejudice at the point of the bayonet. It is rare that even a > postern-door is left ajar by a friendly hand. The noisy protests and > impertinent criticisms of the little people of the antechamber of > science, he can afford to let pass unnoticed; the hostility of the > other class is a real peril that the innovator must face and overcome. > Knowledge does increase apace, but the great body of scientists are not > entitled to the credit. In every instance they have done their best to > shipwreck the new discovery, together with the discoverer. The palm > is to him who has won it by individual courage, intuitiveness, and > persistency. Few are the forces in nature which, when first announced, > were not laughed at, and then set aside as absurd and unscientific. > Humbling the pride of those who had not discovered anything, the just > claims of those who have been denied a hearing until negation was no > longer prudent, and then—alas for poor, selfish humanity! these very > discoverers too often became the opponents and oppressors, in their > turn, of still more recent explorers in the domain of natural law! > So, step by step, mankind move around their circumscribed circle of > knowledge, science constantly correcting its mistakes, and readjusting > on the following day the erroneous theories of the preceding one. This > has been the case, not merely with questions pertaining to psychology, > such as mesmerism, in its dual sense of a physical and spiritual > phenomenon, but even with such discoveries as directly related to exact > sciences, and have been easy to demonstrate. > > What can we do? Shall we recall the disagreeable past? Shall we point > to mediæval scholars conniving with the clergy to deny the Heliocentric > theory, for fear of hurting an ecclesiastical dogma? Must we recall > how learned conchologists once denied that the fossil shells, found > scattered over the face of the earth, were ever inhabited by living > animals at all? How the naturalists of the eighteenth century declared > these but mere _fac-similes_ of animals? And how these naturalists > fought and quarrelled and battled and called each other names, over > these venerable mummies of the ancient ages for nearly a century, > until Buffon settled the question by proving to the negators that they > were mistaken? Surely an oyster-shell is anything but transcendental, > and ought to be quite a palpable subject for any exact study; and if {85} > the scientists could not agree on that, we can hardly expect them to > believe at all that evanescent forms,—of hands, faces, and whole bodies > sometimes—appear at the seances of spiritual mediums, when the latter > are honest. > > There exists a certain work which might afford very profitable reading > for the leisure hours of skeptical men of science. It is a book > published by Flourens, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy, > called _Histoire des Recherches de Buffon_. The author shows in it how > the great naturalist combated and finally conquered the advocates of > the _fac-simile_ theory; and how they still went on denying everything > under the sun, until at times the learned body fell into a fury, an > epidemic of negation. It denied Franklin and his refined electricity; > laughed at Fulton and his concentrated steam; voted the engineer > Perdonnet a strait-jacket for his offer to build railroads; stared > Harvey out of countenance; and proclaimed Bernard de Palissy “as stupid > as one of his own pots!” > > In his oft-quoted work, _Conflict between Religion and Science_, > Professor Draper shows a decided propensity to kick the beam of the > scales of justice, and lay all such impediments to the progress > of science at the door of the clergy alone. With all respect and > admiration due to this eloquent writer and scientist, we must protest > and give every one his just due. Many of the above-enumerated > discoveries are mentioned by the author of the _Conflict_. In every > case he denounces the bitter resistance on the part of the clergy, and > keeps silent on the like opposition invariably experienced by every new > discoverer at the hands of science. His claim on behalf of science that > “knowledge is power” is undoubtedly just. But abuse of power, whether > it proceeds from excess of wisdom or ignorance is alike obnoxious in > its effects. Besides, the clergy are silenced now. Their protests > would at this day be scarcely noticed in the world of science. But > while theology is kept in the background, the scientists have seized > the sceptre of despotism with both hands, and they use it, like the > cherubim and flaming sword of Eden, to keep the people away from the > tree of immortal life and within this world of perishable matter. > > The editor of the London _Spiritualist_, in answer to Dr. Gully’s > criticism of Mr. Tyndall’s fire-mist theory, remarks that if the entire > body of spiritualists are not roasting alive at Smithfield in the > present century, it is to science alone that we are indebted for this > crowning mercy. Well, let us admit that the scientists are indirectly > public benefactors in this case, to the extent that the burning of > erudite scholars is no longer fashionable. But is it unfair to ask > whether the disposition manifested toward the spiritualistic doctrine > by Faraday, Tyndall, Huxley, Agassiz, and others, does not warrant the > suspicion that if these learned gentlemen and their following had the {86} > unlimited power once held by the Inquisition, spiritualists would not > have reason to feel as easy as they do now? Even supposing that they > should not roast believers in the existence of a spirit-world—it being > unlawful to cremate people alive—would they not send every spiritualist > they could to Bedlam? Do they not call us “incurable monomaniacs,” > “hallucinated fools,” “fetich-worshippers,” and like characteristic > names? Really, we cannot see what should have stimulated to such extent > the gratitude of the editor of the London _Spiritualist_, for the > benevolent tutelage of the men of science. We believe that the recent > Lankester-Donkin-Slade prosecution in London ought at last to open the > eyes of hopeful spiritualists, and show them that stubborn materialism > is often more stupidly bigoted than religious fanaticism itself. > > One of the cleverest productions of Professor Tyndall’s pen is his > caustic essay upon _Martineau and Materialism_. At the same time it > is one which in future years the author will doubtless be only too > ready to trim of certain unpardonable grossnesses of expression. For > the moment, however, we will not deal with these, but consider what he > has to say of the phenomenon of consciousness. He quotes this question > from Mr. Martineau: “A man can say ‘I feel, I think, I love;’ but how > does consciousness infuse itself into the problem?” And thus answers: > “The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts > of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a > molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess > the intellectual organ nor apparently any rudiments of the organ, which > would enable us to pass by a process of reasoning from one to the > other. They appear together, but _we do not know why_. Were our minds > and senses so expanded, strengthened and illuminated, as to enable us > to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of > following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric > discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately acquainted with > the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far > as ever from the solution of the problem, ‘How are these physical > processes connected with the facts of consciousness?’ The chasm > between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually > impassable.”[168] > > This chasm, as impassable to Professor Tyndall as the fire-mist where > the scientist is confronted with his unknowable cause, is a barrier > only to men without spiritual intuitions. Professor Buchanan’s > _Outlines of Lectures on the Neurological System of Anthropology_, > a work written so far back as 1854, contains suggestions that, if {87} > the sciolists would only heed them, would show how a bridge can be > thrown across this dreadful abyss. It is one of the bins in which the > thought-seed of future harvests is stored up by a frugal present. > But the edifice of materialism is based entirely upon that gross > sub-structure—the reason. _When they have stretched its capabilities > to their utmost limits, its teachers can at best only disclose to > us an universe of molecules animated by an occult impulse._ What > better diagnosis of the ailment of our scientists could be asked > than can be derived from Professor Tyndall’s analysis of the mental > state of the Ultramontane clergy by a very slight change of names. > For “spiritual guides” read “scientists,” for “prescientific past” > substitute “materialistic present,” say “spirit” for “science,” and in > the following paragraph we have a life portrait of the modern man of > science drawn by the hand of a master: > > “ ... Their spiritual guides live so exclusively in the prescientific > past, that even the really strong intellects among them are reduced to > atrophy as regards scientific truth. Eyes they have and see not; ears > they have and hear not; for both eyes and ears are taken possession > of by the sights and sounds of another age. In relation to science, > the Ultramontane brain, through lack of exercise, is virtually the > undeveloped brain of the child. And thus it is that as children in > scientific knowledge, but as potent wielders of spiritual power among > the ignorant, they countenance and enforce practices sufficient to > bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of the more intelligent among > themselves.”[169] The Occultist holds this mirror up to science that it > may see how it looks itself. > > Since history recorded the first laws established by man, there never > was yet a people, whose code did not hang the issues of the life and > death of its citizens upon the testimony of two or three credible > witnesses. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall > he that is worthy of death be put to death,”[170] says Moses, the > first legislator we meet in ancient history. “The laws which put to > death a man on the deposition of one witness are fatal to freedom” says > Montesquieu. “Reason claims there should be two witnesses.”[171] > > Thus the value of evidence has been tacitly agreed upon and accepted > in every country. But the scientists will not accept the evidence > of the million against one. In vain do hundreds of thousands of men > testify to facts. _Oculos habent et non vident!_ They are determined > to remain blind and deaf. Thirty years of practical demonstrations and > the testimony of some millions of believers in America and Europe are > certainly entitled to some degree of respect and attention. Especially {88} > so, when the verdict of twelve spiritualists, influenced by the > evidence testified to by any two others, is competent to send even > a scientist to swing on the gallows for a crime, perhaps committed > under the impulse supplied by a commotion among the cerebral molecules > unrestrained by a consciousness of future moral RETRIBUTION. > > Toward science as a whole, as a divine goal, the whole civilized world > ought to look with respect and veneration; for science alone can enable > man to understand the Deity by the true appreciation of his works. > “Science _is the understanding of truth or facts_,” says Webster; “it > is an investigation of truth _for its own sake_ and a pursuit of pure > knowledge.” If the definition be correct, then the majority of our > modern scholars have proved false to their goddess. “Truth for its own > sake!” And where should the keys to every truth in nature be searched > for, unless in the hitherto unexplored mystery of psychology? Alas! > that in questioning nature so many men of science should daintily sort > over her facts and choose only such for study as best bolster their > prejudices. > > Psychology has no worse enemies than the medical school denominated > _allopathists_. It is in vain to remind them that of the so-called > exact sciences, medicine, confessedly, least deserves the name. > Although of all branches of medical knowledge, psychology ought more > than any other to be studied by physicians, since without its help > their practice degenerates into mere guess-work and chance-intuitions, > they almost wholly neglect it. The least dissent from their promulgated > doctrines is resented as a heresy, and though an unpopular and > unrecognized curative method should be shown to save thousands, > they seem, as a body, disposed to cling to accepted hypotheses and > prescriptions, and decry both innovator and innovation until they get > the mint-stamp of _regularity_. Thousands of unlucky patients may die > meanwhile, but so long as professional honor is vindicated, this is a > matter of secondary importance. > > Theoretically the most benignant, at the same time no other school of > science exhibits so many instances of petty prejudice, materialism, > atheism, and malicious stubbornness as medicine. The predilections > and patronage of the leading physicians are scarcely ever measured > by the usefulness of a discovery. Bleeding, by leeching, cupping, > and the lancet, had its epidemic of popularity, but at last fell > into merited disgrace; water, now freely given to fevered patients, > was once denied them, warm baths were superseded by cold water, and > for a while hydropathy was a mania. Peruvian bark—which a modern > defender of biblical authority seriously endeavors to identify with > the paradisiacal “Tree of Life,”[172] and which was brought to Spain {89} > in 1632—was neglected for years. The Church, for once, showed more > discrimination than science. At the request of Cardinal de Lugo, > Innocent X. gave it the prestige of his powerful name. > > In an old book entitled _Demonologia_, the author cites many instances > of important remedies which being neglected at first afterward rose > into notice through mere accident. He also shows that most of the new > discoveries in medicine have turned out to be no more than “the revival > and reädoption of very ancient practices.” During the last century, > the root of the male fern was sold and widely advertised as a secret > nostrum by a Madame Nouffleur, a female quack, for the effective cure > of the tapeworm. The secret was bought by Louis XV. for a large sum of > money; after which the physicians discovered that it was recommended > and administered in that disease by Galen. The famous powder of the > Duke of Portland for the gout, was the _diacentaureon_ of Cælius > Aurelianus. Later it was ascertained that it had been used by the > earliest medical writers, who had found it in the writings of the old > Greek philosophers. So with the _eau medicinale_ of Dr. Husson, whose > name it bears. This famous remedy for the gout was recognized under > its new mask to be the _Colchicum autumnale_, or meadow saffron, which > is identical with a plant called _Hermodactylus_, whose merits as a > certain antidote to gout were recognized and defended by Oribasius, > a great physician of the fourth century, and Ætius Amidenus, another > eminent physician of Alexandria (fifth century). Subsequently it was > abandoned and fell into disfavor only because it was _too old_ to be > considered good by the members of the medical faculties that flourished > toward the end of the last century! > > Even the great Magendie, the wise physiologist, was not above > discovering that which had already been discovered and found good > by the oldest physicians. His proposed remedy against consumption, > namely, the use of prussic acid, may be found in the works of Lumæus, > _Amenitates Academicæ_, vol. iv., in which he shows distilled laurel > water to have been used with great profit in pulmonary consumption. > Pliny also assures us that the extract of almonds and cherry-pits had > cured the most obstinate coughs. As the author of _Demonologia_ well > remarks, it may be asserted with perfect safety that “all the various > secret preparations of opium which have been lauded as the discovery of > modern times, may be recognized in the works of ancient authors,” who > see themselves so discredited in our days. > > It is admitted on all hands that from time immemorial the distant > East was the land of knowledge. Not even in Egypt were botany and > mineralogy so extensively studied as by the savants of archaic Middle > Asia. Sprengel, unjust and prejudiced as he shows himself in everything > else, confesses this much in his _Histoire de la Médecine_. And yet, {90} > notwithstanding this, whenever the subject of magic is discussed, that > of India has rarely suggested itself to any one, for of its general > practice in that country less is known than among any other ancient > people. With the Hindus it was and is more esoteric, if possible, > than it was even among the Egyptian priests. So sacred was it deemed > that its existence was only half admitted, and it was only practiced > in public emergencies. _It was more than a religious matter, for it > was considered divine._ The Egyptian hierophants, notwithstanding the > practice of a stern and pure morality, could not be compared for one > moment with the ascetical Gymnosophists, either in holiness of life > or miraculous powers developed in them by the supernatural adjuration > of everything earthly. By those who knew them well they were held in > still greater reverence than the magians of Chaldea. Denying themselves > the simplest comforts of life, they dwelt in woods, and led the life > of the most secluded hermits,[173] while their Egyptian brothers at > least congregated together. Notwithstanding the slur thrown by history > on all who practiced magic and divination, it has proclaimed them as > possessing the greatest secrets in medical knowledge and unsurpassed > skill in its practice. Numerous are the volumes preserved in Hindu > convents, in which are recorded the proofs of their learning. To > attempt to say whether these Gymnosophists were the real founders of > magic in India, or whether they only practiced what had passed to them > as an inheritance from the earliest Rishis[174]—the seven primeval > sages—would be regarded as a mere speculation by exact scholars. “The > care which they took in educating youth, in familiarizing it with > generous and virtuous sentiments, did them peculiar honor, and their > maxims and discourses, as recorded by historians, prove that they were > expert in matters of philosophy, metaphysics, astronomy, morality, and > religion,” says a modern writer. They preserved their dignity under the > sway of the most powerful princes, whom they would _not_ condescend to > visit, or to trouble for the slightest favor. If the latter desired > the advice or the prayers of the holy men, they were either obliged > to go themselves, or to send messengers. To these men no secret power > of either plant or mineral was unknown. They had fathomed nature to > its depths, while psychology and physiology were to them open books, > and the result was that science or machagiotia that is now termed, so > superciliously, _magic_. > > While the miracles recorded in the Bible have become accepted facts {91} > with the Christians, to disbelieve which is regarded as infidelity, the > narratives of wonders and prodigies found in the _Atharva-Veda_,[175] > either provoke their contempt or are viewed as evidences of > diabolism. And yet, in more than one respect, and notwithstanding the > unwillingness of certain Sanscrit scholars, we can show the identity > between the two. Moreover, as the Vedas have now been proved by > scholars to antedate the Jewish _Bible_ by many ages, the inference is > an easy one that if one of them has borrowed from the other, the Hindu > sacred books are not to be charged with plagiarism. > > First of all, their cosmogony shows how erroneous has been the opinion > prevalent among the civilized nations that Brahma was ever considered > by the Hindus their chief or Supreme God. Brahma is a secondary deity, > and like Jehovah is “a _mover of the waters_.” He is the _creating_ > god, and has in his allegorical representations four heads, answering > to the four cardinal points. He is the demiurgos, the _architect_ of > the world. “In the primordiate state of the creation,” says Polier’s > _Mythologie des Indous_, “the rudimental universe, submerged in water, > reposed in the bosom of the Eternal. Sprang from this chaos and > darkness, Brahma, the architect of the world, poised on a lotus-leaf > floated (moved?) upon the waters, unable to discern anything but water > and darkness.” This is as identical as possible with the Egyptian > cosmogony, which shows in its opening sentences Athtor[176] or Mother > Night (which represents illimitable darkness) as the primeval element > which covered the infinite abyss, animated by water and the universal > spirit of the Eternal, dwelling alone in Chaos. As in the Jewish > Scriptures, the history of the creation opens with the spirit of God > and his creative emanation—another Deity.[177] Perceiving such a > dismal state of things, Brahma soliloquizes in consternation: “Who > am I? Whence came I?” Then he hears a voice: “Direct your prayer to > Bhagavant—the Eternal, known, also, as Parabrahma.” Brahma, rising from > his natatory position, seats himself upon the lotus in an attitude > of contemplation, and reflects upon the Eternal, who, pleased with > this evidence of piety, disperses the primeval darkness and opens > his understanding. “After this Brahma issues from the universal > egg—(infinite chaos) as _light_, for his understanding is now opened, > and he sets himself to work; he _moves_ on the eternal waters, with the > spirit of God within himself; in his capacity of _mover_ of the waters > he is _Narayana_.” > > The lotus, the sacred flower of the Egyptians, as well as the Hindus, > is the symbol of Horus as it is that of Brahma. No temples in Thibet {92} > or Nepaul are found without it; and the meaning of this symbol is > extremely suggestive. The sprig of _lilies_ placed in the hand of the > archangel, who offers them to the Virgin Mary, in the pictures of > the “Annunciation,” have in their esoteric symbolism precisely the > same meaning. We refer the reader to Sir William Jones.[178] With the > Hindus, the lotus is the emblem of the productive power of nature, > through the agency of fire and water (spirit and matter). “Eternal!” > says a verse in the _Bhagaveda Gita_, “I see Brahma the creator > enthroned in _thee_ above the lotus!” and Sir W. Jones shows that the > seeds of the lotus contain—even before they germinate—perfectly-formed > leaves, the miniature shapes of what one day, as perfected plants, > they will become; or, as the author of _The Heathen Religion_, > has it—“nature thus giving us a specimen of _preformation_ of its > productions;” adding further that “the seed of all _phœnogamous_ > plants bearing _proper_ flowers, contain _an embryo plantlet ready > formed_.”[179] > > With the Buddhists, it has the same signification. Maha-Maya, or > Maha-Deva, the mother of Gautama Bhudda, had the birth of her son > announced to her by Bhôdisât (the spirit of Buddha), who appeared > beside her couch with a _lotus_ in his hand. Thus, also, Osiris and > Horus are represented by the Egyptians constantly in association with > the lotus-flower. > > These facts all go to show the identical parentage of this idea in > the three religious systems, Hindu, Egyptian and Judaico-Christian. > Wherever the mystic water-lily (lotus) is employed, it signifies the > emanation of the objective from the concealed, or subjective—the > eternal thought of the ever-invisible Deity passing from the abstract > into the concrete or visible form. For as soon as darkness was > dispersed and “there was light,” Brahma’s understanding was opened, and > he saw in the ideal world (which had hitherto lain eternally concealed > in the Divine thought) the archetypal forms of all the infinite future > things that would be called into existence, and hence become visible. > At this first stage of action, Brahma had not yet become the architect, > the builder of the universe, for he had, like the architect, to first > acquaint himself with the plan, and realize the ideal forms which were > buried in the bosom of the Eternal One, as the future lotus-leaves > are concealed within the seed of that plant. And it is in this idea > that we must look for the origin and explanation of the verse in the > Jewish cosmogony, which reads: “And God said, Let the earth bring > forth ... the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, _whose seed is > in itself_.” In all the primitive religions, the “Son of the Father” > is the creative God—_i.e._, His thought made visible; and before the > Christian era, from the Trimurti of the Hindus down to the three {93} > kabalistic heads of the Jewish-explained scriptures, the triune godhead > of each nation was fully defined and substantiated in its allegories. > In the Christian creed we see but the artificial engrafting of a new > branch upon the old trunk; and the adoption by the Greek and Roman > churches of the lily-symbol held by the archangel at the moment of > the Annunciation, shows a thought of precisely the same metaphysical > significance. > > The lotus is the product of fire (heat) and water, hence the dual > symbol of spirit and matter. The God Brahma is the second person of the > Trinity, as are Jehovah (Adam-Kadmon) and Osiris, or rather Pimander, > or the Power of the Thought Divine, of Hermes; for it is Pimander who > represents the root of all the Egyptian Sun-gods. The Eternal is the > Spirit of Fire, which stirs up and fructifies and develops into a > concrete form everything that is born of water or the primordial earth, > evolved out of Brahma; but the universe is itself Brahma, and he is the > universe. This is the philosophy of Spinoza, which he derived from that > of Pythagoras; and it is the same for which Bruno died a martyr. How > much Christian theology has gone astray from its point of departure, > is demonstrated in this historical fact. Bruno was slaughtered for the > exegesis of a symbol that was adopted by the earliest Christians, and > expounded by the apostles! The sprig of water-lilies of Bhôdisât, and > later of Gabriel, typifying fire and water, or the idea of creation > and generation, is worked into the earliest dogma of the baptismal > sacrament. > > Bruno’s and Spinoza’s doctrines are nearly identical, though the words > of the latter are more veiled, and far more cautiously chosen than > those to be found in the theories of the author of the _Causa Principio > et Uno_, or the _Infinito Universo e Mondi_. Both Bruno, who confesses > that the source of his information was Pythagoras, and Spinoza, who, > without acknowledging it as frankly, allows his philosophy to betray > the secret, view the First Cause from the same standpoint. With them, > God is an Entity totally _per se_, an Infinite Spirit, and the only > Being utterly free and independent of either effects or other causes; > who, through that same Will which produced all things and gave the > first impulse to every cosmic law, perpetually keeps in existence and > order everything in the universe. As well as the Hindu Swâbhávikas, > erroneously called Atheists, who assume that all things, men as well as > gods and spirits, were born from Swabhâva, or their own nature,[180] {94} > both Spinoza and Bruno were led to the conclusion that _God is to > be sought for within nature and not without_. For, creation being > proportional to the power of the Creator, the universe as well as its > Creator must be infinite and eternal, one form emanating from its own > essence, and creating in its turn another. The modern commentators > affirm that Bruno, “_unsustained by the hope of another and better > world_, still surrendered his life rather than his convictions;” > thereby allowing it to be inferred that Giordano Bruno had no belief in > the continued existence of man after death. Professor Draper asserts > most positively that Bruno did not believe in the immortality of the > soul. Speaking of the countless victims of the religious intolerance > of the Popish Church, he remarks: “The passage from this life to the > next, though through a hard trial, was the passage from a transient > trouble to eternal happiness.... On his way through the dark valley, > the martyr believed that there was an invisible hand that would > lead him.... For Bruno there was no such support. The philosophical > opinions, for the sake of which he surrendered his life, could give him > no consolation.”[181] > > But Professor Draper seems to have a very superficial knowledge of > the true belief of the philosophers. We can leave Spinoza out of the > question, and even allow him to remain in the eyes of his critics an > utter atheist and materialist; for the cautious reserve which he placed > upon himself in his writings makes it extremely difficult for one who > does not read him between the lines, and is not thoroughly acquainted > with the hidden meaning of the Pythagorean metaphysics, to ascertain > what his real sentiments were. But as for Giordano Bruno, if he adhered > to the doctrines of Pythagoras he must have believed in another life, > hence, he could not have been an atheist whose philosophy offered him > no such “consolation.” His accusation and subsequent confession, as > given by Professor Domenico Berti, in his _Life of Bruno_, and compiled > from original documents recently published, prove beyond doubt what > were his _real_ philosophy, creed and doctrines. In common with the > Alexandrian Platonists, and the later Kabalists, he held that Jesus > was a magician in the sense given to this appellation by Porphyry and > Cicero, who call it the _divina sapientia_ (divine knowledge), and by > Philo Judæus, who described the Magi as the most wonderful inquirers > into the hidden mysteries of nature, not in the degrading sense given > to the word magic in our century. In his noble conception, _the Magi > were holy men, who, setting themselves apart from everything else on > this earth, contemplated the divine virtues and understood the divine > nature of the gods and spirits, the more clearly; and so, initiated {95} > others into the same mysteries, which consist in one holding an > uninterrupted intercourse with these invisible beings during life_. But > we will show Bruno’s inmost philosophical convictions better by quoting > fragments from the _accusation_ and his _own confession_. > > The charges in the denunciation of Mocenigo, his accuser, are expressed > in the following terms: > > “I, Zuane Mocenigo, son of the most illustrious Ser Marcantonio, > denounce to your very reverend fathership, by constraint of my > conscience and by order of my confessor, that I have heard say by > Giordano Bruno, several times when he discoursed with me in my > house, that it is great blasphemy in Catholics to say that the bread > transubstantiates itself into flesh; that he is opposed to the Mass; > that no religion pleases him; that Christ was a wretch (_un tristo_), > and that if he did wicked works to seduce the people he might well > predict that He ought to be impaled; that there is no distinction of > persons in God, and that it would be imperfection in God; that the > world is eternal, and that there are infinite worlds, and that God > makes them continually, because, he says, He desires all He can; that > Christ did apparent miracles and was _a magician_, and so were the > apostles, and that he had a mind to do as much and more than they did; > that Christ showed an unwillingness to die, and shunned death all He > could; that there is no punishment of sin, and that souls created by > the operation of nature pass from one animal to another, and that as > the brute animals are born of corruption, so also are men when after > dissolution they come to be born again.” > > Perfidious as they are, the above words plainly indicate the belief of > Bruno in the Pythagorean metempsychosis, which, misunderstood as it is, > still shows a belief in the _survival_ of man in one shape or another. > Further, the accuser says: > > “He has shown indications of wishing to make himself the author of a > new sect, under the name of ‘_New Philosophy_.’ He has said that the > Virgin could not have brought forth, and that our Catholic faith is all > full of blasphemies against the majesty of God; that the monks ought > to be deprived of the right of disputation and their revenues, because > they pollute the world; that they are all asses, and that our opinions > are doctrines of asses; that we have no proof that our faith has merit > with God, and that not to do to others what we would not have done to > ourselves suffices for a good life, and that he laughs at all other > sins, and wonders how God can endure so many heresies in Catholics. He > says that he means to apply himself to the art of divination, and make > all the world run after him; that St. Thomas and all the Doctors knew > nothing to compare with him, and that he could ask questions of all the > first theologians of the world that they could not answer.” > > To this, the accused philosopher answered by the following profession {96} > of faith, which is that of every disciple of the ancient masters: > > “I hold, in brief, to an infinite universe, that is, an effect of > infinite divine power, because I esteemed it a thing unworthy of divine > goodness and power, that, being able to produce besides this world > another and infinite others, it should produce a finite world. Thus I > have declared that there are infinite particular worlds similar to this > of the earth, which, with Pythagoras, I understand to be a star similar > in nature with the moon, the other planets, and the other stars, which > are infinite; and that all those bodies are worlds, and without number, > which thus constitute the infinite universality in an infinite space, > and this is called the infinite universe, in which are innumerable > worlds, so that there is a double kind of infinite greatness in the > universe, and of a multitude of worlds. Indirectly, this may be > understood to be repugnant to the truth according to the true faith. > > “Moreover, I place in this universe a universal Providence, by virtue > of which everything lives, vegetates and moves, and stands in its > perfection, and I understand it in two ways; one, in the mode in which > the whole soul is present in the whole and every part of the body, and > this I call nature, the shadow and footprint of divinity; the other, > the ineffable mode in which God, by essence, presence, and power, is in > all and above all, not as part, not as soul, but in mode inexplicable. > > “Moreover, I understand all the attributes in divinity to be one and > the same thing. Together with the theologians and great philosophers, > I apprehend three attributes, power, wisdom, and goodness, or, rather, > mind, intellect, love, with which things have first, being, through > the mind; next, ordered and distinct being, through the intellect; and > third, concord and symmetry, through love. Thus I understand being in > all and over all, as there is nothing without participation in being, > and there is no being without essence, just as nothing is beautiful > without beauty being present; thus nothing can be free from the divine > presence, and thus by way of reason, and not by way of substantial > truth, do I understand distinction in divinity. > > “Assuming then the world caused and produced, I understand that, > according to all its being, it is dependent upon the first cause, so > that it did not reject the name of creation, which I understand that > Aristotle also has expressed, saying, ‘God is that upon whom the world > and all nature depends,’ so that according to the explanation of St. > Thomas, whether it be eternal or in time, it is, according to all its > being, dependent on the first cause, and nothing in it is independent. > > “Next, in regard to what belongs to the true faith, not speaking > philosophically, to come to individuality about the divine persons, {97} > the wisdom and the son of the mind, called by philosophers intellect, > and by theologians the word, which ought to be believed to have taken > on human flesh. But I, abiding in the phrases of philosophy, have not > understood it, but have doubted and held it with inconstant faith, not > that I remember to have shown marks of it in writing nor in speech, > except indirectly from other things, something of it may be gathered as > by way of ingenuity and profession in regard to what may be proved by > reason and concluded from natural light. Thus, in regard to the Holy > Spirit in a third person, I have not been able to comprehend, as ought > to be believed, but, according to the Pythagoric manner, in conformity > to the manner shown by Solomon, I have understood it as the soul of > the universe, or adjoined to the universe according to the saying of > the wisdom of Solomon: ‘The spirit of God filled all the earth, and > that which contains all things,’ all which conforms equally to the > Pythagoric doctrine explained by Virgil in the text of the _Æneid_”: > > Principio cœlum ac terras camposque liquentes, > Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque astra > Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus > Mens agitat molem; > > and the lines following. > > “From this spirit, then, which is called the life of the universe, I > understand, in my philosophy, proceeds life and soul to everything > which has life and soul, which, moreover, I understand to be immortal, > as also to bodies, which, as to their substance, are all immortal, > there being no other death than division and congregation, which > doctrine seems expressed in _Ecclesiastes_, where it is said that > ‘there is nothing new under the sun; that which is is that which was.’” > > Furthermore, Bruno confesses his inability to comprehend the doctrine > of three persons in the godhead, and his doubts of the incarnation > of God in Jesus, but firmly pronounces his belief in the _miracles_ > of Christ. How could he, being a Pythagorean philosopher, discredit > them? If, under the merciless constraint of the Inquisition, he, like > Galileo, subsequently recanted, and threw himself upon the clemency of > his ecclesiastical persecutors, we must remember that he spoke like a > man standing between the rack and the fagot, and human nature cannot > always be heroic when the corporeal frame is debilitated by torture and > imprisonment. > > But for the opportune appearance of Berti’s authoritative work, we > would have continued to revere Bruno as a martyr, whose bust was > deservedly set high in the Pantheon of Exact Science, crowned with > laurel by the hand of Draper. But now we see that their hero of an {98} > hour is neither atheist, materialist, nor positivist, but simply > a Pythagorean who taught the philosophy of Upper Asia, and claimed > to possess the powers of the magicians, so despised by Draper’s own > school! Nothing more amusing than this _contretemps_ has happened > since the supposed statue of St. Peter was discovered by irreverent > archæologists to be nothing else than the Jupiter of the Capitol, and > Buddha’s identity with the Catholic St. Josaphat was satisfactorily > proven. > > Thus, search where we may through the archives of history, we find that > there is no fragment of modern philosophy—whether Newtonian, Cartesian, > Huxleyian or any other—but has been dug from the Oriental mines. Even > Positivism and Nihilism find their prototype in the exoteric portion > of Kapila’s philosophy, as is well remarked by Max Müller. It was the > inspiration of the Hindu sages that penetrated the mysteries of Praguâ > Pâramitâ (perfect wisdom); their hands that rocked the cradle of the > first ancestor of that feeble but noisy child that we have christened > MODERN SCIENCE. > > CHAPTER IV. {99} > > “I choose the nobler part of Emerson, when, after various > disenchantments, he exclaimed, ‘I covet Truth.’ The gladness of > true heroism visits the heart of him who is really competent to > say this.” > —TYNDALL. > > “A testimony is sufficient when it rests on: > > 1st. A great number of very sensible witnesses who agree in having > seen well. > 2d. Who are sane, bodily and mentally. > 3d. Who are impartial and disinterested. > 4th. Who unanimously agree. > 5th. Who solemnly certify to the fact.”​—VOLTAIRE, _Dictionnaire > Philosophique_. > > The Count Agenor de Gasparin is a devoted Protestant. His battle with > des Mousseaux, de Mirville and other fanatics who laid the whole of > the spiritual phenomena at the door of Satan, was long and fierce. > Two volumes of over fifteen hundred pages are the result, proving the > _effects_, denying the _cause_, and employing superhuman efforts to > invent every other possible explanation that could be suggested rather > than the true one. > > The severe rebuke received by the _Journal des Débats_ from M. de > Gasparin, was read by all civilized Europe.[182] After that gentleman > had minutely described numerous manifestations that he had witnessed > himself, this journal very impertinently proposed to the authorities > in France to send all those who, after having read the _fine_ analysis > of the “spiritual hallucinations” published by Faraday, should insist > on crediting this delusion, to the lunatic asylum for _Incurables_. > “Take care,” wrote de Gasparin in answer, “the representatives of the > exact sciences are on their way to become ... the _Inquisitors_ of our > days.... Facts are stronger than Academies. Rejected, denied, mocked, > they nevertheless are facts, and _do_ exist.”[183] > > The following affirmations of physical phenomena, as witnessed by > himself and Professor Thury, may be found in de Gasparin’s voluminous > work. > > “The experimenters have often seen the legs of the table _glued_, so > to say, to the floor, and, notwithstanding the excitement of those > present, refuse to be moved from their place. On other occasions > they have seen the tables levitated in quite an energetic way. They {100} > heard, with their own ears, loud as well as gentle raps, the former > threatening to shatter the table to pieces on account of their > violence, the latter so soft as to become hardly perceptible.... As to > LEVITATIONS WITHOUT CONTACT, we found means to produce them easily, > and with success.... And such levitations do not pertain to isolated > results. We have reproduced them over THIRTY times.[184] ... One day > the table will turn, and lift its legs successively, its weight being > augmented by a man weighing eighty-seven _kilogrammes_ seated on it; > another time it will remain motionless and _immovable_, notwithstanding > that the person placed on it weighs but sixty.[185] ... On one occasion > we willed it to turn upside down, and it turned over, with its legs in > the air, notwithstanding that our fingers _never touched it once_.”[186] > > “It is certain,” remarks de Mirville, “that a man who had repeatedly > witnessed such a phenomenon, could not accept the _fine_ analysis of > the English physicist.”[187] > > Since 1850, des Mousseaux and de Mirville, uncompromising Roman > Catholics, have published many volumes whose titles are cleverly > contrived to attract public attention. They betray on the part of the > authors a very serious alarm, which, moreover, they take no pains to > conceal. Were it possible to consider the phenomena spurious, the > church of Rome would never have gone so much out of her way to repress > them. > > Both sides having agreed upon the facts, leaving skeptics out of the > question, people could divide themselves into but two parties: the > believers in the direct agency of the devil, and the believers in > disembodied and other spirits. The fact alone, that theology dreaded > a great deal more the revelations which might come through this > mysterious agency than all the threatening “conflicts” with Science > and the categorical denials of the latter, ought to have opened the > eyes of the most skeptical. The church of Rome has never been either > credulous or cowardly, as is abundantly proved by the Machiavellism > which marks her policy. Moreover, she has never troubled herself much > about the clever prestidigitateurs whom she _knew_ to be simply adepts > in juggling. Robert Houdin, Comte, Hamilton and Bosco, slept secure in > their beds, while she persecuted such men as Paracelsus, Cagliostro, > and Mesmer, the Hermetic philosophers and mystics—and effectually > stopped every genuine manifestation of an occult nature by killing the > mediums. > > Those who are unable to believe in a personal devil and the dogmas of > the church must nevertheless accord to the clergy enough of shrewdness {101} > to prevent the compromising of her reputation for infallibility by > making so much of manifestations which, if fraudulent, must inevitably > be some day exposed. > > But the best testimony to the reality of this force was given by Robert > Houdin himself, the king of jugglers, who, upon being called as an > expert by the Academy to witness the wonderful _clairvoyant_ powers and > occasional mistakes of a table, said: “We jugglers never make mistakes, > and my second-sight never failed me yet.” > > The learned astronomer Babinet was not more fortunate in his selection > of Comte, the celebrated ventriloquist, as an expert to testify > against the phenomena of direct voices and the rappings. Comte, if > we may believe the witnesses, laughed in the face of Babinet at > the bare suggestion that the raps were produced by “_unconscious > ventriloquism_!” The latter theory, worthy twin-sister of “_unconscious > cerebration_,” caused many of the most skeptical academicians to blush. > Its absurdity was too apparent. > > “The problem of the supernatural,” says de Gasparin, “such as it was > presented by the middle ages, and as it stands now, is not among the > number of those which we are permitted to despise; its breadth and > grandeur escape the notice of no one.... Everything is profoundly > serious in it, both the evil and the remedy, the superstitious > recrudescency, and the physical fact which is destined to conquer the > latter.”[188] > > Further, he pronounces the following decisive opinion, to which he > came, conquered by the various manifestations, as he says himself—“The > number of facts which claim their place in the broad daylight of > truth, has so much increased of late, that of two consequences one > is henceforth inevitable: either the domain of natural sciences must > consent to expand itself, or the domain of the supernatural will become > so enlarged as to have no bounds.”[189] > > Among the multitude of books against spiritualism emanating from > Catholic and Protestant sources, none have produced a more appalling > effect than the works of de Mirville and des Mousseaux: _La Magie > au XIXme Siecle_—_Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons_—_Hauts Phénomènes > de la Magie_—_Les Mediateurs de la Magie_—_Des Esprits et de leurs > Manifestations_, etc. They comprise the most cyclopædic biography of > the devil and his imps that has appeared for the private delectation of > good Catholics since the middle ages. > > According to the authors, _he_ who was “a liar and murderer from the > beginning,” was also the principal motor of spiritual phenomena. He had > been for thousands of years at the head of pagan theurgy; and it was {102} > he, again, who, encouraged by the increase of heresies, infidelity, and > atheism, had reappeared in our century. The French Academy lifted up > its voice in a general outcry of indignation, and M. de Gasparin even > took it for a personal insult. “This is a declaration of war, a ‘levée > of shields’”—wrote he in his voluminous book of refutations. “The work > of M. de Mirville is a real _manifesto_.... I would be glad to see in > it the expression of a strictly individual opinion, but, in truth, it > is _impossible_. The success of the work, these solemn adhesions, the > faithful reproduction of its theses by the journals and writers of > the party, the solidarity established throughout between them and the > whole body of catholicity ... everything goes to show a work which _is > essentially an act, and has the value of a collective labor_. As it is, > I felt that I had a duty to perform.... I felt obliged to pick up the > glove, ... and lift high the Protestant flag against the Ultramontane > banner.”[190] > > The medical faculties, as might have been expected, assuming the part > of the Greek chorus, echoed the various expostulations against the > demonological authors. The _Medico-Psychological Annals_, edited by > Drs. Brierre de Boismont and Cerise, published the following: “Outside > these controversies of antagonistical parties, never in our country > did a writer dare to face, with a more aggressive serenity, ... the > sarcasms, the scorn of what we term common sense; and, as if to defy > and challenge at the same time thundering peals of laughter and > shrugging of shoulders, the author strikes an attitude, and placing > himself with effrontery before the members of the Academy ... addresses > to them what he modestly terms his _Mémoire on the Devil_!”[191] > > That was a cutting insult to the Academicians, to be sure; but ever > since 1850 they seem to have been doomed to suffer in their pride > more than most of them can bear. The idea of asking the attention of > the forty “Immortals” to the pranks of the Devil! They vowed revenge, > and, leaguing themselves together, propounded a theory which exceeded > in absurdity even de Mirville’s demonolatry! Dr. Royer and Jobart de > Lamballe—both celebrities in their way—formed an alliance and presented > to the Institute a German whose cleverness afforded, according to > his statement, the key to all the knockings and rappings of both > hemispheres. “We blush” remarks the Marquis de Mirville—“to say that > the whole of the trick consisted simply in the reiterated displacement > of one of the muscular tendons of the legs. Great demonstration of the > system in full sitting of the Institute—and on the spot ... expressions > of Academical gratitude for this _interesting_ communication, and, a > few days later, a full assurance given to the public by a professor of {103} > the medical faculty, that, scientists having pronounced their opinion, > the mystery was at last unravelled!“[192] > > But such _scientific_ explanations neither prevented the phenomenon > from quietly following its course, nor the two writers on demonology > from proceeding to expound their strictly orthodox theories. > > Denying that the Church had anything to do with his books, des > Mousseaux gravely gave the Academy, in addition to his _Mémoire_, the > following interesting and profoundly philosophical thoughts on Satan: > > “_The Devil is the chief pillar of Faith._ He is one of the grand > personages whose life is closely allied to that of the church; and > without his speech which issued out so triumphantly from the mouth of > the Serpent, _his medium_, the fall of man could not have taken place. > Thus, if it was not for him, the Saviour, the Crucified, the Redeemer, > would be but the most ridiculous of supernumeraries, and the Cross an > insult to good sense!”[193] > > This writer, be it remembered, is only the faithful echo of the church, > which anathematizes equally the one who denies God and him who doubts > the objective existence of Satan. > > But the Marquis de Mirville carries this idea of God’s partnership with > the Devil still further. According to him it is a regular commercial > affair, in which the senior “silent partner” suffers the active > business of the firm to be transacted as it may please his junior > associate, by whose audacity and industry he profits. Who could be of > any other opinion, upon reading the following? > > “At the moment of this spiritual invasion of 1853, so slightingly > regarded, we had dared to pronounce the word of a ‘threatening > catastrophe.’ The world was nevertheless at peace, but history showing > us the same symptoms at all disastrous epochs, we had a presentiment of > the sad effects of a law which Goërres has formulated thus: [vol. v., > p. 356.] ‘These mysterious apparitions have invariably indicated the > chastening hand of God on earth.’”[194] > > These guerilla-skirmishes between the champions of the clergy and the > materialistic Academy of Science, prove abundantly how little the > latter has done toward uprooting blind fanaticism from the minds of > even very educated persons. _Evidently science has neither completely > conquered nor muzzled theology._ She will master her only on that day > when she will condescend to see in the spiritual phenomenon something > besides mere hallucination and charlatanry. But how can she do it > without investigating it thoroughly? Let us suppose that before the {104} > time when electro-magnetism was publicly acknowledged, the Copenhagen > Professor Oersted, its discoverer, had been suffering from an attack > of what we call _psychophobia_, or _pneumatophobia_. He notices that > the wire along which a voltaic current is passing shows a tendency to > turn the magnetic needle from its natural position to one perpendicular > to the direction of the current. Suppose, moreover, that the professor > had heard much of certain superstitious people who used that kind of > magnetized needles to converse with unseen intelligences. That they > received signals and even held correct conversations with them by means > of the tippings of such a needle, and that in consequence he suddenly > felt a scientific horror and disgust for such an ignorant belief, and > refused, point-blank, to have anything to do with such a needle. What > would have been the result? Electro-magnetism might not have been > discovered till now, and our experimentalists would have been the > principal losers thereby. > > Babinet, Royer, and Jobert de Lamballe, all three members of the > Institute, particularly distinguished themselves in this struggle > between skepticism and supernaturalism, and most assuredly have reaped > no laurels. The famous astronomer had imprudently risked himself on the > battlefield of the phenomenon. He had _explained_ scientifically the > manifestations. But, emboldened by the fond belief among scientists > that the new epidemic could not stand close investigation nor outlive > the year, he had the still greater imprudence to publish two articles > on them. As M. de Mirville very wittily remarks, if both of the > articles had but a poor success in the scientific press, they had, on > the other hand, none at all in the daily one. > > M. Babinet began by accepting _a priori_, the rotation and movements of > the furniture, which fact he declared to be ”_hors de doute_.” “This > rotation,” he said, “being able to manifest itself with a considerable > energy, either by a very great speed, or by a strong resistance when it > is desired that it should stop.”[195] > > Now comes the explanation of the eminent scientist. “Gently pushed > by little concordant impulsions of the hands laid upon it, the table > begins to oscillate from right to left.... At the moment when, after > more or less delay, a nervous trepidation is established in the hands > and the little individual impulsions of all the experimenters have > become harmonized, the table is set in motion.”[196] > > He finds it very simple, for “all muscular movements are determined > over bodies by levers of the third order, in which the fulcrum is > very near to the point where the force acts. This, consequently, {105} > communicates a great speed to the mobile parts for the very > little distance which the motor force has to run.... Some persons > are astonished to see a table subjected to the action of several > well-disposed individuals in a fair way to _conquer powerful > obstacles_, even break its legs, when suddenly stopped; but that is > _very simple_ if we consider the power of the _little concordant > actions_.... Once more, the physical explanation offers no > difficulty.”[197] > > In this dissertation, two results are clearly shown: the reality of the > phenomena proved, and the scientific explanation made ridiculous. But > M. Babinet can well afford to be laughed at a little; he knows, as an > astronomer, that dark spots are to be found even in the sun. > > There is one thing, though, that Babinet has always stoutly denied, > viz.: the levitation of furniture without contact. De Mirville > catches him proclaiming that such levitation is impossible: “simply > _impossible_,” he says, “as impossible as perpetual motion.”[198] > > Who can take upon himself, after such a declaration, to maintain that > the word _impossible_ pronounced by science is infallible? > > But the tables, after having waltzed, oscillated and turned, > began tipping and rapping. The raps were sometimes as powerful > as pistol-detonations. What of this? Listen: “The witnesses and > investigators are _ventriloquists_!” > > De Mirville refers us to the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, in which is > published a very interesting dialogue, invented by M. Babinet speaking > of himself to himself, like the Chaldean En-Soph of the Kabalists: > “What can we finally say of all these facts brought under our > observation? Are there such raps produced? Yes. Do such raps answer > questions? Yes. Who produces these sounds? The mediums. By what means? > _By the ordinary acoustic method of the ventriloquists._ But we were > given to suppose that these sounds might result from the _cracking of > the toes and fingers_? No; for then they would always proceed from the > same point, and such is not the fact.”[199] > > “Now,” asks de Mirville, “what are we to believe of the Americans, and > their _thousands of mediums_ who produce the same raps before millions > of witnesses?” “_Ventriloquism_, to be sure,” answers Babinet. “But how > can you explain such an impossibility?” The easiest thing in the world; > listen only: “All that was necessary to produce the first manifestation > in the _first house_ in America was, a street-boy knocking at the door > of a mystified citizen, perhaps with a leaden ball attached to a {106} > string, and if Mr. Weekman (the first believer in America) (?)[200] > when he watched for the third time, heard no shouts of laughter in the > street, it is because of the essential difference which exists between > a French street-Arab, and an English or Trans-Atlantic one, the latter > being amply provided with what we call a _sad merriment_, ”_gaité > triste_.”[201] > > Truly says de Mirville in his famous reply to the attacks of de > Gasparin, Babinet, and other scientists: “and thus according to our > great physicist, _the tables turn_ very quickly, very energetically, > resist likewise, and, as M. de Gasparin has proved, they _levitate > without contact_. Said a minister: ‘With three words of a man’s > handwriting, I take upon myself to have him hung.’ With the above three > lines, we take upon ourselves, in our turn, to throw into the greatest > confusion the physicists of all the globe, or rather to revolutionize > the world—if at least, M. de Babinet had taken the precaution of > suggesting, like M. de Gasparin, some yet unknown law or force. For > this would cover the whole ground.”[C] > > But it is in the notes embracing the “facts and physical theories,” > that we find the acme of the consistency and logic of Babinet as an > expert investigator on the field of Spiritualism. > > It would appear, that M. de Mirville in his narrative of the wonders > manifested at the _Presbytere de Cideville_,[202] was much struck > by the marvellousness of some facts. Though authenticated before > the inquest and magistrates, they were of so miraculous a nature > as to force the demonological author himself to shrink from the > responsibility of publishing them. > > These facts were as follows: “At the precise moment _predicted_ by > a _sorcerer_” a case of revenge—“a violent clap of thunder was heard > above one of the chimneys of the presbytery, after which the _fluid_ > descended with a formidable noise through that passage, threw down > believers as well as skeptics (as to the power of the sorcerer) who > were warming themselves by the fire; and, having filled the room with a > multitude of _fantastic animals_, returned to the chimney, and having > reascended it, disappeared, after producing the same terrible noise.” > “As,” adds de Mirville, “we were already but too rich in facts, we > recoiled before this new enormity added to so many others.”[203] > > But Babinet, who in common with his learned colleagues had made such > fun of the two writers on demonology, and who was determined, moreover, > to prove the absurdity of all like stories, felt himself obliged to {107} > discredit the above-mentioned fact of the Cideville phenomena, by > presenting one still more incredible. We yield the floor to M. Babinet, > himself. > > The following circumstance which he gave to the Academy of Sciences, on > July 5, 1852, can be found _without further commentary_, and merely as > an instance of a _sphere-like lightning_, in the “Œuvres de F. Arago,” > vol. i. p. 52. We offer it _verbatim_. > > “After a strong clap of thunder,” says M. Babinet, “but not immediately > following it, a tailor apprentice, living in the Rue St. Jacques, was > just finishing his dinner, when he saw the paper-screen which shut > the fireplace fall down as if pushed out of its place by a moderate > gust of wind. Immediately after that he perceived a globe of fire, as > large as the head of a child, come out _quietly_ and _softly_ from > within the grate and slowly move about the room, without touching the > bricks of the floor. The aspect of this fire-globe was that of a _young > cat_, of middle size ... moving itself without the use of its paws. > The fire-globe was rather brilliant and luminous than hot or inflamed, > and the tailor had no sensation of warmth. This globe approached his > feet like a young cat which wishes to play and rub itself against the > legs, as is habitual to these animals; but the apprentice withdrew > his feet from it, and moving with great caution, avoided contact with > the _meteor_. The latter remained for a few seconds moving about his > legs, the tailor examining it with great curiosity and bending over > it. After having tried several excursions in opposite directions, but > without leaving the centre of the room, the fire-globe elevated itself > vertically to the level of the man’s head, who to avoid its contact > with his face, threw himself backward on his chair. Arrived at about a > yard from the floor the fire-globe slightly lengthened, took an oblique > direction toward a hole in the wall over the fireplace, at about the > height of a _metre_ above the mantelpiece.” This hole had been made for > the purpose of admitting the pipe of a stove in winter; but, according > to the expression of the tailor, “_the thunder could not see it_, for > it was papered over like the rest of the wall. The fire-globe went > directly to that hole, _unglued the paper without damaging it_, and > reascended the chimney ... when it arrived at the top, which it did > very slowly ... at least sixty feet above ground ... it produced a most > frightful explosion, which partly destroyed the chimney, ...” etc. > > “It seems,” remarks de Mirville in his review, “that we could apply to > M. Babinet the following remark made by a very witty woman to Raynal, > ‘If you are not a Christian, it is not for lack of faith.’”[204] > > It was not alone believers who wondered at the credulity displayed by {108} > M. Babinet, in persisting to call the manifestation a _meteor_; for Dr. > Boudin mentions it very seriously in a work on _lightning_ he was just > then publishing. “If these details are exact,” says the doctor, “as > they seem to be, since they are admitted by MM. Babinet and Arago, it > appears very difficult for the phenomenon to retain its appellation of > _sphere-shaped lightning_. However, we leave it to others to explain, > if they can, the _essence of a fire-globe emitting no sensation of > heat, having the aspect of a cat, slowly promenading in a room, which > finds means to escape by reascending the chimney through an aperture in > the wall covered over with a paper which it unglues without damaging > it_!”[205] > > “We are of the same opinion,” adds the marquis, “as the learned doctor, > on the difficulty of an exact definition, and we do not see why we > should not have in future lightning in the shape of a dog, of a monkey, > etc., etc. One shudders at the bare idea of a whole meteorological > _menagerie_, which, thanks to _thunder_, might come down to our rooms > to promenade themselves at will.” > > Says de Gasparin, in his monster volume of refutations: “In questions > of testimony, certitude must absolutely cease the moment we cross the > borders of the supernatural.”[206] > > The line of demarcation not being sufficiently fixed and determined, > which of the opponents is best fitted to take upon himself the > difficult task? Which of the two is better entitled to become the > public arbiter? Is it the party of superstition, which is supported > in its testimony by the evidence of many thousands of people? For > nearly two years they crowded the country where were daily manifested > the unprecedented miracles of Cideville, now nearly forgotten among > other countless spiritual phenomena; shall we believe them, or shall > we bow to science, represented by Babinet, who, on the testimony of > _one_ man (the tailor), accepts the manifestation of the fire-globe, > or the _meteor-cat_, and henceforth claims for it a place among the > established facts of _natural_ phenomena? > > Mr. Crookes, in his first article in the _Quarterly Journal of > Science_, October 1, 1871, mentions de Gasparin and his work _Science_ > v. _Spiritualism_. He remarks that “the author finally arrived at > the conclusion that all these phenomena are to be accounted for by > the action of natural causes, and do not require the supposition of > miracles, nor the intervention of spirits and diabolical influences! > Gasparin considers it as a fact fully established by his experiments, > that _the will, in certain states of organism, can act at a distance {109} > on inert matter_, and most of his work is devoted to ascertaining the > laws and conditions under which this action manifests itself.”[207] > > Precisely; but as the work of de Gasparin called forth numberless > _Answers_, _Defenses_, and _Memoirs_, it was then demonstrated by his > own work that as he was a Protestant, in point of religious fanaticism, > he was as little to be relied upon as des Mousseaux and de Mirville. > The former is a profoundly pious Calvinist, while the two latter are > fanatical Roman Catholics. Moreover, the very words of de Gasparin > betray the spirit of partisanship:—“I feel I have a duty to perform.... > I lift high the Protestant flag against the Ultramontane banner!” > etc.[208] In such matters as the nature of the so-called spiritual > phenomena, no evidence can be relied upon, except the disinterested > testimony of cold _unprejudiced_ witnesses and science. Truth is one, > and Legion is the name for religious sects; every one of which claims > to have found the unadulterated truth; as “the Devil is the chief > pillar of the (Catholic) Church,” so all supernaturalism and miracles > ceased, in de Gasparin’s opinion, “with apostleship.” > > But Mr. Crookes mentioned another eminent scholar, Thury, of Geneva, > professor of natural history, who was a brother-investigator with > Gasparin in the phenomena of Valleyres. This professor contradicts > point-blank the assertions of his colleague. “The first and > most necessary condition,” says Gasparin, “is the _will_ of the > experimenter; without the will, one would obtain nothing; you can form > the chain (the circle) for twenty-four hours consecutively, without > obtaining the least movement.”[209] > > The above proves only that de Gasparin makes no difference between > phenomena purely magnetic, produced by the persevering will of the > sitters among whom there may be not even a single medium, developed > or undeveloped, and the so-called spiritual ones. While the first can > be produced _consciously_ by nearly every person, who has a firm and > determined will, the latter overpowers the sensitive very often against > his own consent, and always acts independently of him. _The mesmerizer > wills a thing, and if he is powerful enough, that thing is done. The > medium_, even if he had an honest purpose to succeed, _may get no > manifestations at all; the less he exercises his will, the better the > phenomena: the more he feels anxious, the less he is likely to get > anything_; to mesmerize requires a positive nature, to be a medium a > perfectly passive one. This is the Alphabet of Spiritualism, and no > medium is ignorant of it. > > The opinion of Thury, as we have said, disagrees entirely with {110} > Gasparin’s theories of will-power. He states it in so many plain words, > in a letter, in answer to the invitation of the count to modify the > last article of his _mémoire_. As the book of Thury is not at hand, we > translate the letter as it is found in the _résumé_ of de Mirville’s > _Defense_. Thury’s article which so shocked his religious friend, > related to the possibility of the existence and intervention in those > manifestations “of _wills_ other than those of men and animals.” > > “I feel, sir, the justness of your observations in relation to > the last pages of this _mémoire_: they may provoke a very bad > feeling for me on the part of scientists in general. I regret > it the more as my determination seems _to affect you so much_; > nevertheless, I persist in my resolution, because I think it a > duty, to shirk which would be a kind of treason. > > “If, _against all expectations_, there were some truth in > Spiritualism, by abstaining from saying on the part of science, > as I conceive it to be, _that the absurdity of the belief > in the intervention of spirits is not as yet demonstrated > scientifically_ (for such is the _résumé_, and the thesis of > the past pages of my _mémoire_), by abstaining from saying it > to those who, after having read my work, will feel inclined > to experiment with the phenomena, I might risk to entice such > persons on a path many issues of which are very _equivocal_. > > ”_Without leaving the domain of science_, as I esteem it, I > will pursue my duty to the end, without any reticence to the > profit of my own glory, and, to use your own words, ‘as the > great scandal lies there,’ I do not wish to assume the shame > of it. I, moreover, insist that ‘_this is as scientific as > anything else_.’ If I wanted to sustain now the theory of the > intervention of disembodied spirits, I would have no power > for it, for the facts which are made known are not sufficient > for the demonstration of such a hypothesis. As it is, and in > the position I have assumed, I feel I am strong against every > one. Willingly or not, all the scientists must learn, through > experience and their own errors, to suspend their judgment as > to things which they have not sufficiently examined. The lesson > you gave them in this direction cannot be lost. > > “GENEVA, _21 December, 1854_.” > > Let us analyze the above letter, and try to discover what the writer > thinks, or rather what he does not think of this new force. One thing > is certain, at least: Professor Thury, a distinguished physicist > and naturalist, admits, and even scientifically proves that various > manifestations take place. Like Mr. Crookes, he does not believe that > they are produced by the interference of spirits or disembodied men who {111} > have lived and died on earth; for he says in his letter that nothing > has demonstrated this theory. He certainly believes no more in the > Catholic devils or demons, for de Mirville, who quotes this letter as > a triumphant proof against de Gasparin’s naturalistic theory, once > arrived at the above sentence, hastens to emphasize it by a foot-note, > which runs thus: “At Valleyres—_perhaps_, but everywhere else!”[210] > showing himself anxious to convey the idea that the professor only > meant the manifestations of Valleyres, when denying their being > produced by demons. > > The contradictions, and we are sorry to say, the absurdities in > which de Gasparin allows himself to be caught, are numerous. While > bitterly criticizing the pretensions of the learned Faradaysiacs, he > attributes things which he declares _magical_, to causes perfectly > natural. “If,” he says, “we had to deal but with such phenomena (as > witnessed and explained (?) by the great physicist), we might as well > hold our tongues; but we have passed _beyond_, and what good can > they do now, I would ask, these apparatus which demonstrate that an > _unconscious pressure_ explains the whole? It explains _all_, and the > table resists pressure and guidance! It explains _all_, and a piece of > furniture which _nobody touches_ follows the fingers pointed at it; it > _levitates_ (without contact), and it turns itself _upside down_!”[211] > > But for all that, he takes upon himself to _explain_ the phenomena. > > “People will be advocating miracles, you say—magic! Every new law > appears to them as a prodigy. Calm yourselves; I take upon myself the > task to quiet those who are alarmed. In the face of such phenomena, we > do not cross at all the boundaries of natural law.”[212] > > Most assuredly, we do not. But can the scientists assert that they have > in their possession the keys to such law? M. de Gasparin thinks he has. > Let us see. > > “I do not risk myself to explain anything; _it is no business of > mine_.(?) To authenticate simple facts, and maintain a truth which > science desires to smother, is all I pretend to do. Nevertheless, I > cannot resist the temptation to point out to those who would treat > us as so many _illuminati_ or sorcerers, that the manifestation in > question affords an interpretation which agrees with _the ordinary laws > of science_. > > “Suppose a fluid, emanating from the experimenters, and chiefly from > _some of them_; suppose that the will determined the direction taken by > the fluid, and you will readily understand the rotation and levitation > of that one of the legs of the table toward which is ejected with every > action of the will an excess of fluid. Suppose that the glass causes {112} > the fluid to escape, and you will understand how a tumbler placed on > the table can interrupt its rotation, and that the tumbler, placed on > one of its sides, causes the accumulation of the fluid in the opposite > side, which, in consequence of that, _is lifted_!” > > If every one of the experimenters were clever mesmerizers, the > explanation, _minus_ certain important details, might be acceptable. So > much for the power of _human will_ on inanimate matter, according to > the learned minister of Louis Philippe. But how about the intelligence > exhibited by the table? What explanation does he give as to answers > obtained through the agency of this table to questions? answers which > could not possibly have been the “reflections of the brain” of those > present (one of the favorite theories of de Gasparin), for their own > ideas were quite the reverse of the very _liberal_ philosophy given by > this wonderful table? On this he is silent. Anything but _spirits_, > whether human, satanic, or elemental. > > Thus, the “simultaneous concentration of thought,” and the > “accumulation of fluid,” will be found no better than “the unconscious > cerebration” and “psychic force” of other scientists. We must try > again; and we may predict beforehand that the thousand and one theories > of science will prove of no avail until they will confess that this > force, far from being a projection of the accumulated wills of the > circle, is, on the contrary, a force which is abnormal, foreign to > themselves, and _supra-intelligent_. > > Professor Thury, who denies the theory of departed human spirits, > rejects the Christian devil-doctrine, and shows himself unwilling > to pronounce in favor of Crookes’s theory (the 6th), that of the > hermetists and ancient theurgists, adopts the one, which, he says in > his letter, is “_the most prudent_, and makes him feel strong against > every one.” Moreover, he accepts as little of de Gasparin’s hypothesis > of “unconscious will-power.” This is what he says in his work: > > “As to the announced phenomena, such as the _levitation without > contact_, and the displacement of furniture by invisible hands—unable > to demonstrate their impossibility, _a priori_, no one has the right to > treat as absurd the serious evidences which affirm their occurrence” > (p. 9). > > As to the theory proposed by M. de Gasparin, Thury judges it very > severely. “While admitting that in the experiments of Valleyres,” > says de Mirville, “the seat of the _force_ might have been in the > _individual_—and we say that it was intrinsic and extrinsic at the > same time—and that the will might be generally necessary (p. 20), he > repeats but what he had said in his preface, to wit: ‘M. de Gasparin > presents us with crude facts, and the explanations following he offers > for what they are worth. _Breathe on them_, and not many will be found {113} > standing after this. No, very little, if anything, will remain of his > explanations. As to facts, they are _henceforth demonstrated_’” (p. 10). > > As Mr. Crookes tells us, Professor Thury refutes “all these > explanations, and considers the effects due to a peculiar substance, > fluid, or agent, pervading in a manner similar to the luminiferous > ether of the scientists, all matter, nervous, organic or inorganic, > which he terms _psychode_. He enters into full discussion as to the > properties of this state, or form, or matter, and proposes the term > _ectenic_ force ... for the power exerted when the mind acts at a > distance through the influence of the psychode.”[213] > > Mr. Crookes remarks further, that “Professor Thury’s _ectenic_ force, > and his own ‘psychic force’ are evidently equivalent terms.” > > We certainly could very easily demonstrate that the two forces are > identical, moreover, the astral or _sidereal_ light as explained by > the alchemists and Eliphas Levi, in his _Dogme et Rituel de la Haute > Magie_; and that, under the name of AKASA, or life-principle, this > all-pervading force was known to the gymnosophists, Hindu magicians, > and adepts of all countries, thousands of years ago; and, that it is > still known to them, and used at present by the Thibetan lamas, fakirs, > thaumaturgists of all nationalities, and even by many of the Hindu > “jugglers.” > > In many cases of trance, artificially induced by mesmerization, it > is also quite possible, even quite probable, that it is the “spirit” > of the subject which acts under the guidance of the operator’s will. > But, if the medium remains conscious, and psycho-physical phenomena > occur which indicate a directing intelligence, then, unless it be > conceded that he is a “magician,” and can project his double, physical > exhaustion can signify nothing more than nervous prostration. The > proof that he is the passive instrument of unseen entities controlling > occult potencies, seems conclusive. Even if Thury’s _ectenic_ and > Crookes’s _psychic_ force are substantially of the same derivation, > the respective discoverers seem to differ widely as to the properties > and potencies of this force; while Professor Thury candidly admits > that the phenomena are often produced by “wills _not_ human,” and so, > of course, gives a qualified endorsement to Mr. Crookes’s theory No. > 6, the latter, admitting the genuineness of the phenomena, has as yet > pronounced no definite opinion as to their cause. > > Thus, we find that neither M. Thury, who investigated these > manifestations with de Gasparin in 1854, nor Mr. Crookes, who conceded > their undeniable genuineness in 1874, have reached anything definite. > Both are chemists, physicists, and very learned men. Both have given > all their attention to the puzzling question; and besides these two {114} > scientists there were many others who, while coming to the same > conclusion, have hitherto been as unable to furnish the world with > a final solution. It follows then, that in twenty years none of the > scientists have made a single step toward the unravelling of the > mystery, which remains as immovable and impregnable as the walls of an > enchanted castle in a fairy tale. > > Would it be too impertinent to surmise that perhaps our modern > scientists have got in what the French term _un cercle vicieux_? That, > hampered by the weight of their materialism, and the insufficiency of > what they name “the exact sciences” to demonstrate to them tangibly the > existence of a spiritual universe, peopled and inhabited much more than > our visible one, they are doomed forever to creep around _inside_ that > circle, unwilling rather than unable to penetrate beyond its enchanted > ring, and explore it in its length and breadth? It is but prejudice > which keeps them from making a compromise with well-established facts > and seek alliance with such expert magnetists and mesmerizers as were > Du Potet and Regazzoni. > > “What, then, is produced from death?” inquired Socrates of Cebes. > “_Life_,” was the reply.[214] ... Can the soul, since it is immortal, > be anything else than imperishable?[215] The “seed cannot develop > unless it is in part consumed,” says Prof. Lecomte; “it is not > quickened unless it die,” says St. Paul. > > A flower blossoms; then withers and dies. It leaves a fragrance behind, > which, long after its delicate petals are but a little dust, still > lingers in the air. Our material sense may not be cognizant of it, but > it nevertheless exists. Let a note be struck on an instrument, and the > faintest sound produces an eternal echo. A disturbance is created on > the invisible waves of the shoreless ocean of space, and the vibration > is never wholly lost. Its energy being once carried from the world of > matter into the immaterial world will live for ever. And man, we are > asked to believe, man, the living, thinking, reasoning entity, the > indwelling deity of our nature’s crowning masterpiece, will evacuate > his casket and be no more! Would the principle of continuity which > exists even for the so-called _inorganic_ matter, for a floating atom, > be denied to the spirit, whose attributes are consciousness, memory, > mind, LOVE! Really, the very idea is preposterous. The more we think > and the more we learn, the more difficult it becomes for us to account > for the atheism of the scientist. We may readily understand that a > man ignorant of the laws of nature, unlearned in either chemistry > or physics, may be fatally drawn into materialism through his very {115} > ignorance; his incapacity of understanding the philosophy of the exact > sciences, or drawing any inference by analogy from the _visible_ to > the _invisible_. A natural-born metaphysician, an ignorant dreamer, > may awake abruptly and say to himself: “I dreamed it; I have no > tangible proof of that which I imagined; it is all illusion,” etc. > But for a man of science, acquainted with the characteristics of the > universal energy, to maintain that _life_ is merely a phenomenon of > matter, a species of energy, amounts simply to a confession of his own > incapability of analyzing and properly understanding the alpha and the > omega even of that—matter. > > Sincere skepticism as to the immortality of man’s soul is a malady; a > malformation of the physical brain, and has existed in every age. As > there are infants born with a caul upon their heads, so there are men > who are incapable to their last hour of ridding themselves of that > kind of caul evidently enveloping their organs of spirituality. But > it is quite another feeling which makes them reject the possibility > of spiritual and magical phenomena. The true name for that feeling > is—_vanity_. “We can neither produce nor explain it—hence, it _does > not_ exist, and moreover, could _never_ have existed.” Such is the > irrefutable argument of our present-day philosophers. Some thirty years > ago, E. Salverte startled the world of the “credulous” by his work, > _The Philosophy of Magic_. The book claimed to unveil the whole of the > miracles of the Bible as well as those of the Pagan sanctuaries. Its > _resumé_ ran thus: Long ages of observation; a great knowledge (for > those days of ignorance) of natural sciences and philosophy; imposture; > legerdemain; optics; phantasmagoria; exaggeration. Final and logical > conclusion: Thaumaturgists, prophets, magicians, rascals, and knaves; > the rest of the world, fools. > > Among many other conclusive proofs, the reader can find him offering > the following: “The enthusiastic disciples of Iamblichus affirmed that > when he prayed, he was raised to the height of ten cubits from the > ground; and _dupes_ to the same metaphor, although Christians, have had > the simplicity to attribute a similar miracle to St. Clare, and St. > Francis of Assisi.”[216] > > Hundreds of travellers claimed to have seen fakirs produce the same > phenomena, and they were all thought either liars or hallucinated. > But it was but yesterday that the same phenomenon was witnessed > and endorsed by a well-known scientist; it was produced under test > conditions; declared by Mr. Crookes to be genuine, and to be _beyond_ > the possibility of an illusion or a trick. And so was it manifested > many a time before and attested by numerous witnesses, though the > latter are now invariably disbelieved. > > Peace to thy scientific ashes, O credulous Eusebe Salverte! Who knows {116} > but before the close of the present century popular wisdom will have > invented a new proverb: “As incredibly credulous as a scientist.” > > Why should it appear so impossible that when the spirit is once > separated from its body, it may have the power to animate some > evanescent form, created out of that magical “psychic” or “ectenic” or > “ethereal” force, with the help of the elementaries who furnish it with > the sublimated matter of their own bodies? The only difficulty is, to > realize the fact that surrounding space is not an empty void, but a > reservoir filled to repletion with the models of all things that ever > were, that are, and that will be; and with beings of countless races, > unlike our own. Seemingly supernatural facts—supernatural in that they > openly contradict the demonstrated natural laws of gravitation, as > in the above-mentioned instance of levitation—are recognized by many > scientists. Every one who has dared to investigate with thoroughness > has found himself compelled to admit their existence; only in their > unsuccessful efforts to account for the phenomena on theories based > on the laws of such forces as were already known, some of the highest > representatives of science have involved themselves in inextricable > difficulties! > > In his _Resumé_ de Mirville describes the argumentation of these > adversaries of spiritualism as consisting of five paradoxes, which he > terms _distractions_. > > _First distraction_: that of Faraday, who explains the table > phenomenon, by the table which _pushes_ you “in consequence of the > resistance which _pushes it back_.” > > _Second distraction_: that of Babinet, explaining all the > communications (by raps) which are produced, as he says, “in good faith > and with perfect conscientiousness, correct in every way and sense—by > _ventriloquism_,” the use of which faculty implies of necessity—_bad > faith_. > > _Third distraction_: That of Dr. Chevreuil, explaining the faculty of > moving furniture _without_ contact, by the preliminary acquisition of > that faculty. > > _Fourth distraction_: that of the French Institute and its members, who > consent to accept the miracles, on condition that the latter will not > contradict in any way those natural laws with which they are acquainted. > > _Fifth distraction_: that of M. de Gasparin, introducing as a very > _simple_ and perfectly _elementary_ phenomenon that which every one > rejects, precisely because no one ever saw the like of it.[217] > > While the great, world-known scientists indulge in such fantastic > theories, some less known neurologists find an explanation for occult {117} > phenomena of every kind in an abnormal effluvium resulting from > epilepsy.[218] Another would treat mediums—and poets, too, we may > infer—with assafœtida and ammonia,[219] and declare every one of the > believers in spiritual manifestations lunatics and hallucinated mystics. > > To the latter lecturer and professed pathologist is commended that > sensible bit of advice to be found in the New Testament: “Physician, > heal thyself.” Truly, no sane man would so sweepingly charge insanity > upon four hundred and forty-six millions of people in various parts of > the world, who believe in the intercourse of spirits with ourselves! > > Considering all this, it remains to us but to wonder at the > preposterous presumption of these men, who claim to be regarded > by right of learning as the high priests of science, to classify > a phenomenon they know nothing about. Surely, several millions of > their countrymen and women, if deluded, deserve at least as much > attention as potato-bugs or grasshoppers! But, instead of that, what > do we find? The Congress of the United States, at the demand of the > American Association for the Advancement of Science, enacts statutes > for organization of National Insect Commissions; chemists are busying > themselves in boiling frogs and bugs; geologists amuse their leisure > by osteological surveys of armor-plated _ganoids_, and discuss the > odontology of the various species of _dinichtys_; and entomologists > suffer their enthusiasm to carry them to the length of supping on > grasshoppers boiled, fried, and in soup.[220] Meanwhile, millions > of Americans are either losing themselves in the maze of “crazy > delusions,” according to the opinion of some of these very learned > encyclopædists, or perishing physically from “nervous disorders,” > brought on or brought out by mediumistic diathesis. > > At one time, there was reason to hope that Russian scientists would > have undertaken the task of giving the phenomena a careful and > impartial study. A commission was appointed by the Imperial University > of St. Petersburg, with Professor Mendeleyeff, the great physicist, > at its head. The advertised programme provided for a series of > forty seances to test mediums, and invitations were extended to all > of this class who chose to come to the Russian capital and submit > their powers to examination. As a rule they refused—doubtless from > a prevision of the trap that had been laid for them. After _eight_ > sittings, upon a shallow pretext, and just when the manifestations > were becoming interesting, the commission prejudged the case, and > published a decision adverse to the claims of mediumism. Instead of > pursuing dignified, scientific methods, they set spies to peep through {118} > key-holes. Professor Mendeleyeff declared in a public lecture that > spiritualism, or any such belief in our souls’ immortality, was a > mixture of _superstition_, _delusion_, and _fraud_; adding that every > “manifestation” of such nature—including mind-reading, trance, and > other psychological phenomena, we must suppose—could be, and _was_ > produced by means of clever apparatus and machinery concealed under the > clothing of mediums! > > After such a public exhibition of ignorance and prejudice, Mr. > Butlerof, Professor of Chemistry at the St. Petersburg University, and > Mr. Aksakof, Counsellor of State in the same city, who had been invited > to assist on the committee for mediums, became so disgusted that they > withdrew. Having published their protests in the Russian papers, they > were supported by the majority of the press, who did not spare either > Mendeleyeff or his officious committee with their sarcasms. The public > acted fairly in that case. One hundred and thirty names, of the most > influential persons of the best society of St. Petersburg, many of > them no spiritualists at all, but simply investigators, added their > signatures to the well-deserved protest. > > The inevitable result of such a procedure followed; universal attention > was drawn to the question of spiritualism; private circles were > organized throughout the empire; some of the most liberal journals > began to discuss the subject; and, as we write, a new commission is > being organized to finish the interrupted task. > > But now—as a matter of course—they will do their duty less than ever. > They have a better pretext than they ever had in the pretended _exposé_ > of the medium Slade, by Professor Lankester, of London. True, to > the evidence of one scientist and his friend,—Messrs. Lankester and > Donkin—the accused opposed the testimony of Wallace, Crookes, and a > host of others, which totally nullifies an accusation based merely on > circumstantial evidence and prejudice. As the _London Spectator_ very > pertinently observes: > > “It is really a pure superstition and nothing else to assume that we > are so fully acquainted with the laws of nature, that even carefully > examined facts, attested by an experienced observer, ought to be cast > aside as utterly unworthy of credit, only because they do not, at > first sight, seem to be in keeping with what is most clearly known > already. To assume, as Professor Lankester appears to do, that because > there are fraud and credulity in plenty to be found in connection with > these facts—as there is, no doubt, in connection with all nervous > diseases—fraud and credulity will account for all the carefully > attested statements of accurate and conscientious observers, is to saw > away at the very branch of the tree of knowledge on which inductive > science necessarily rests, and to bring the whole structure toppling to > the ground.” > > But what matters all this to scientists? The torrent of superstition, {119} > which, according to them, sweeps away millions of bright intellects > in its impetuous course, cannot reach them. The modern deluge called > spiritualism is unable to affect their strong minds; and the muddy > waves of the flood must expend their raging fury without wetting > even the soles of their boots. Surely it must be but traditional > stubbornness on the part of the Creator that prevents him from > confessing what a poor chance his miracles have in our day in blinding > professed scientists. By this time even He ought to know and take > notice that long ago they decided to write on the porticoes of their > universities and colleges: > > Science commands that God shall not > Do miracles upon this spot![221] > > Both the infidel spiritualists and the orthodox Roman Catholics > seem to have leagued themselves this year against the iconoclastic > pretensions of materialism. Increase of skepticism has developed of > late a like increase of credulity. The champions of the Bible “divine” > miracles rival the panegyrist’s mediumistic phenomena, and the middle > ages revive in the nineteenth century. Once more we see the Virgin > Mary resume her epistolary correspondence with the faithful children > of her church; and while the “angel friends” scribble messages to > spiritualists through their mediums, the “mother of God” drops letters > direct from heaven to earth. The shrine of Notre Dame de Lourdes has > turned into a spiritualistic cabinet for “materializations,” while > the cabinets of popular American mediums are transformed into sacred > shrines, into which Mohammed, Bishop Polk, Joan of Arc and other > aristocratic spirits from over the “dark river,” having descended, > “materialize” in full light. And if the Virgin Mary is seen taking > her daily walk in the woods about Lourdes in full human form, why > not the Apostle of Islam, and the late Bishop of Louisiana? Either > both “miracles” are possible, or both kinds of these manifestations, > the “divine” as well as the “spiritual,” are arrant impostures. Time > alone will prove which; but meanwhile, as science refuses the loan of > her magic lamp to illuminate these mysteries, common people must go > stumbling on whether they be mired or not. > > The recent “miracles” at Lourdes having been unfavorably discussed in > the London papers, Monsignor Capel communicates to the _Times_ the > views of the Roman Church in the following terms: > > “As to the miraculous cures which are effected, I would refer your {120} > readers to the calm, judicious work, _La Grotte de Lourdes_, written > by Dr. Dozous, an eminent resident practitioner, inspector of epidemic > diseases for the district, and medical assistant of the Court of > Justice. He prefaces a number of detailed cases of miraculous cures, > which he says he has studied with great care and perseverance, with > these words: ‘I declare that these cures effected at the Sanctuary of > Lourdes by means of the water of the fountain, have established their > supernatural character in the eyes of men of good faith. I ought to > confess that without these cures, my mind, little prone to listen to > miraculous explanations of any kind, would have had great difficulty > in accepting even this fact (the apparition), remarkable as it is from > so many points of view. But the cures, of which I have been so often > an ocular witness, have given to my mind a light which does not permit > me to ignore the importance of the visits of Bernadette to the Grotto, > and the reality of the apparitions with which she was favored.’ The > testimony of a distinguished medical man, who has carefully watched > from the beginning Bernadette, and the miraculous cures at the Grotto, > is at least worthy of respectful consideration. I may add, that the > vast number of those who come to the Grotto do so to repent of their > sins, to increase their piety, to pray for the regeneration of their > country, to profess publicly their belief in the Son of God and his > Immaculate Mother. Many come to be cured of bodily ailments; and on > the testimony of eye-witnesses several return home freed from their > sickness. To upbraid with non-belief, as does your article, those who > use also the waters of the Pyrenees, is as reasonable as to charge > with unbelief the magistrates who inflict punishment on the peculiar > people for neglecting to have medical aid. Health obliged me to pass > the winters of 1860 to 1867 at Pau. This gave me the opportunity of > making the most minute inquiry into the apparition at Lourdes. After > frequent and lengthened examinations of Bernadette and of some of the > miracles effected, I am convinced that, _if facts are to be received > on human testimony, then has the apparition at Lourdes every claim to > be received as an undeniable fact_. It is, however, no part of the > Catholic faith, and may be accepted or rejected by any Catholic without > the least praise or condemnation.” > > Let the reader observe the sentence we have italicized. This makes > it clear that the Catholic Church, despite her infallibility and her > liberal postage convention with the Kingdom of Heaven, is content to > accept even the validity of _divine_ miracles upon human testimony. Now > when we turn to the report of Mr. Huxley’s recent New York lectures > on evolution, we find him saying that it is upon “human historical > evidence that we depend for the greater part of our knowledge for the {121} > doings of the past.” In a lecture on Biology, he has said “ ... every > man who has the interest of truth at heart must earnestly desire that > every well-founded and just criticism that can be made should be made; > but it is essential ... that the critic should know what he is talking > about.” An aphorism that its author should recall when he undertakes > to pronounce upon psychological subjects. Add this to his views, as > expressed above, and who could ask a better platform upon which to meet > him? > > Here we have a representative materialist, and a representative > Catholic prelate, enunciating an identical view of the sufficiency > of _human testimony_ to prove facts that it suits the prejudices of > each to believe. After this, what need for either the student of > occultism, or even the spiritualist, to hunt about for endorsements > of the argument they have so long and so persistently advanced, that > the psychological phenomena of ancient and modern thaumaturgists being > superabundantly proven upon human testimony must be accepted as facts? > Church and College having appealed to the tribunal of human evidence, > they cannot deny the rest of mankind an equal privilege. One of the > fruits of the recent agitation in London of the subject of mediumistic > phenomena, is the expression of some remarkably liberal views on > the part of the secular press. “In any case, we are for admitting > spiritualism to a place among tolerated beliefs, and letting it alone > accordingly,” says the London _Daily News_, in 1876. “It has many > votaries who are as intelligent as most of us, and to whom any obvious > and palpable defect in the evidence meant to convince must have been > obvious and palpable long ago. Some of _the wisest men in the world > believed in ghosts_, and would have continued to do so even though > half-a-dozen persons in succession had been convicted of frightening > people with sham goblins.” > > It is not for the first time in the history of the world, that the > invisible world has to contend against the materialistic skepticism of > soul-blind Sadducees. Plato deplores such an unbelief, and refers to > this pernicious tendency more than once in his works. > > From Kapila, the Hindu philosopher, who many centuries before Christ > demurred to the claim of the mystic Yogins, that in ecstasy a man > has the power of seeing Deity face to face and conversing with the > “highest” beings, down to the Voltaireans of the eighteenth century, > who laughed at everything that was held sacred by other people, each > age had its unbelieving Thomases. Did they ever succeed in checking the > progress of truth? No more than the ignorant bigots who sat in judgment > over Galileo checked the progress of the earth’s rotation. No exposures > whatever are able to vitally affect the stability or instability of a > belief which humanity inherited from the first races of men, those, {122} > who—if we can believe in the evolution of spiritual man as in that of > the physical one—had the great truth from the lips of their ancestors, > the _gods of their fathers_, “that were on the other side of the > flood.” The identity of the Bible with the legends of the Hindu sacred > books and the cosmogonies of other nations, must be demonstrated at > some future day. _The fables of the mythopœic ages will be found to > have but allegorized the greatest truths of geology and anthropology._ > It is in these ridiculously expressed fables that science will have to > look for her “missing links.” > > Otherwise, whence such strange “coincidences” in the respective > histories of nations and peoples so widely thrown apart? Whence > that identity of primitive conceptions which, fables and legends > though they are termed now, contain in them nevertheless the kernel > of historical facts, of a truth thickly overgrown with the husks of > popular embellishment, but still a truth? Compare only this verse of > _Genesis_ vi.: “And it came to pass, when _men began to multiply_ on > the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the > sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they > took them wives of all which they chose.... There were _giants in the > earth in those days_,” etc., with this part of the Hindu cosmogony, in > the _Vedas_, which speaks of the descent of the Brahmans. The first > Brahman complains of being _alone_ among all his brethren without a > wife. Notwithstanding that the Eternal advises him to devote his days > solely to the study of the Sacred Knowledge (_Veda_), the _first-born_ > of mankind insists. Provoked at such ingratitude, the eternal gave > Brahman a wife of the race of the _Daints_, or _giants_, from whom > all the Brahmans maternally descend. Thus the entire Hindu priesthood > is descended, on the one hand, from the _superior_ spirits (the sons > of God), and from _Daintany_, a daughter of the earthly giants, the > primitive men.[222] “And they bare children to them; the same became > mighty men which were of old; men of renown.”[223] > > The same is found in the Scandinavian cosmogonical fragment. In > the _Edda_ is given the description to Gangler by Har, one of the > three informants (Har, Jafuhar, and Tredi) of the first man, called > Bur, “the father of Bör, who took for wife Besla, a daughter of the > giant Bölthara, of the race of the primitive giants.” The full and > interesting narrative may be found in the _Prose Edda_, sects. 4-8, in > Mallett’s _Northern Antiquities_.[224] > > The same groundwork underlies the Grecian fables about the Titans; and > may be found in the legend of the Mexicans—the four successive races > of _Popol-Vuh_. It constitutes one of the many ends to be found in {123} > the entangled and seemingly inextricable skein of mankind, viewed as a > psychological phenomenon. Belief in supernaturalism would be otherwise > inexplicable. To say that it sprang up, and grew and developed > throughout the countless ages, without either cause or the least firm > basis to rest upon, but merely as an empty fancy, would be to utter as > great an absurdity as the theological doctrine that the universe sprang > into creation out of nothing. > > It is too late now to kick against an evidence which manifests itself > as in the full glare of noon. Liberal, as well as Christian papers, > and the organs of the most advanced scientific authorities, begin to > protest unanimously against the dogmatism and narrow prejudices of > sciolism. The _Christian World_, a religious paper, adds its voice to > that of the unbelieving London press. Following is a good specimen of > its common sense: > > “If a medium,” it says,[225] “can be shown ever so conclusively to > be an impostor, we shall still object to the disposition manifested > by persons of some authority in scientific matters, to pooh-pooh and > knock on the head all careful inquiry into those subjects of which Mr. > Barrett took note in his paper before the British Association. Because > spiritualists have committed themselves to many absurdities, that is > no reason why the phenomena to which they appeal should be scouted > as unworthy of examination. They may be mesmeric, or clairvoyant, or > something else. But let our wise men tell us what they are, and not > snub us, as ignorant people too often snub inquiring youth, by the easy > but unsatisfactory apothegm, “Little children should not ask questions.” > > Thus the time has come when the scientists have lost all right to be > addressed with the Miltonian verse, “O thou who, for the testimony > of truth, hast borne universal reproach!” Sad degeneration, and one > that recalls the exclamation of that “doctor of physic” mentioned one > hundred and eighty years ago by Dr. Henry More, and who, upon hearing > the story told of the drummer of Tedworth and of Ann Walker, “_cryed_ > out presently, _If this be true, I have been in a wrong box all this > time, and must begin my account anew_.”[226] > > But in our century, notwithstanding Huxley’s endorsement of the value > of “human testimony,” even Dr. Henry More has become “an enthusiast and > a visionary, both of which, united in the same person, constitute a > _canting madman_.”[227] > > What psychology has long lacked to make its mysterious laws better {124} > understood and applied to the ordinary as well as extraordinary affairs > of life, is not facts. These it has had in abundance. The need has > been for their recording and classification—for trained observers and > competent analysts. From the scientific body these ought to have been > supplied. If error has prevailed and superstition run riot these many > centuries throughout Christendom, it is the misfortune of the common > people, the reproach of science. The generations have come and gone, > each furnishing its quota of martyrs to conscience and moral courage, > and psychology is little better understood in our day than it was when > the heavy hand of the Vatican sent those brave unfortunates to their > untimely doom and branded their memories with the stigma of heresy and > sorcery. > > CHAPTER V. {125} > > “Ich bin der geist der stets verneint.” > (I am the spirit which still denies.) > —(_Mephisto_ in FAUST.) > > “The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it > seeth Him not; neither knoweth Him.”—_Gospel according to John_, > xiv. 17. > > “Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth > Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep.” > —MILTON. > > “Mere intellectual enlightenment cannot recognize the > spiritual. As the sun puts out a fire, so spirit puts out the > eyes of mere intellect.”—W. HOWITT. > > There has been an infinite confusion of names to express one and the > same thing. > > The chaos of the ancients; the Zoroastrian sacred fire, or the > _Antusbyrum_ of the Parsees; the Hermes-fire; the Elmes-fire of > the ancient Germans; the lightning of Cybelè; the burning torch of > Apollo; the flame on the altar of Pan; the inextinguishable fire in > the temple on the Acropolis, and in that of Vesta; the fire-flame of > Pluto’s helm; the brilliant sparks on the hats of the Dioscuri, on the > Gorgon head, the helm of Pallas, and the staff of Mercury; the πύρ > ἄσβεστος; the Egyptian Phtha, or Ra; the Grecian _Zeus Cataibates_ > (the descending);[228] the pentacostal fire-tongues; the burning > bush of Moses; the pillar of fire of the _Exodus_, and the “burning > lamp” of Abram; the eternal fire of the “bottomless pit;” the Delphic > oracular vapors; the Sidereal light of the Rosicrucians; the AKASA of > the Hindu adepts; the Astral light of Eliphas Levi; the nerve-aura and > the fluid of the magnetists; the _od_ of Reichenbach; the fire-globe, > or meteor-_cat_ of Babinet; the _Psychod_ and ectenic force of Thury; > the psychic force of Sergeant Cox and Mr. Crookes; the atmospheric > magnetism of some naturalists; galvanism; and finally, electricity, are > but various names for many different manifestations, or effects of the > same mysterious, all-pervading cause—the Greek _Archeus_, or Αρχαῖος. > > Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton, in his _Coming Race_, describes it as the > VRIL,[229] used by the subterranean populations, and allowed his {126} > readers to take it for a fiction. “These people,” he says, “consider > that in the vril they had arrived at the unity in natural energic > agencies;” and proceeds to show that Faraday intimated them “under the > more cautious term of correlation,” thus: > > “I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to a conviction, in > common, I believe, with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that > the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest, > HAVE ONE COMMON ORIGIN; or, in other words, are so directly related and > naturally dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, into one > another, and possess equivalents of power in their action.” > > Absurd and unscientific as may appear our comparison of a fictitious > _vril_ invented by the great novelist, and the primal force of the > equally great experimentalist, with the kabalistic astral light, it > is nevertheless the true definition of this force. Discoveries are > constantly being made to corroborate the statement thus boldly put > forth. Since we began to write this part of our book, an announcement > has been made in a number of papers of the supposed discovery of a new > force by Mr. Edison, the electrician, of Newark, New Jersey, which > force seems to have little in common with electricity, or galvanism, > except the principle of conductivity. If demonstrated, it may remain > for a long time under some pseudonymous scientific name; but, > nevertheless, it will be but one of the numerous family of children > brought forth from the commencement of time by our kabalistic mother, > the _Astral Virgin_. In fact, the discoverer says that, “it is as > distinct, and has as regular laws as heat, magnetism, or electricity.” > The journal which contains the first account of the discovery adds > that, “Mr. Edison thinks that it exists in connection with heat, and > that it can also be generated by independent and _as yet undiscovered > means_.” > > Another of the most startling of recent discoveries, is the possibility > of annihilating distance between human voices—by means of the > _telephone_ (distance-sounder), an instrument invented by Professor A. > Graham Bell. This possibility, first suggested by the little “lovers’ > telegraph,” consisting of small tin cups with vellum and drug-twine > apparatus, by which a conversation can be carried on at a distance of > two hundred feet, has developed into the telephone, which will become > the wonder of this age. A long conversation has taken place between > Boston and Cambridgeport by telegraph; “every word being distinctly > heard and perfectly understood, and the modulations of voices being > quite distinguishable,” according to the official report. _The voice > is seized upon_, so to say, _and held in form by a magnet, and the > sound-wave transmitted by electricity acting in unison and co-operating > with the magnet_. The whole success depends upon a perfect control of {127} > the electric currents and the power of the magnets used, with which > the former must co-operate. “The invention,” reports the paper, “may > be rudely described as a sort of trumpet, over the bell-mouth of which > is drawn a delicate membrane, which, when the voice is thrown into the > tube, swells outward in proportion to the force of the sound-wave. To > the outer side of the membrane is attached a piece of metal, which, as > the membrane swells outward, connects with a magnet, and this, with the > electric circuit, is controlled by the operator. By some principle, not > yet fully understood, the electric current transmits the sound-wave > just as delivered by the voice in the trumpet, and the listener at the > other end of the line, with a twin or fac-simile trumpet at his ear, > hears every word distinctly, and readily detects the modulations of the > speaker’s voice.” > > Thus, in the presence of such wonderful discoveries of our age, and > the further magical possibilities lying latent and yet undiscovered > in the boundless realm of nature, and further, in view of the great > probability that Edison’s Force and Professor Graham Bell’s Telephone > may unsettle, if not utterly upset all our ideas of the imponderable > fluids, would it not be well for such persons as may be tempted > to traverse our statements, to wait and see whether they will be > corroborated or refuted by further discoveries. > > Only in connection with these _discoveries_, we may, perhaps, well > remind our readers of the many hints to be found in the ancient > histories as to a certain secret in the possession of the Egyptian > priesthood, who could instantly communicate, during the celebration of > the Mysteries, from one temple to another, even though the former were > at Thebes and the latter at the other end of the country; the legends > attributing it, as a matter of course, to the “invisible tribes” of > the air, which carry messages for mortals. The author of _Pre-Adamite > Man_ quotes an instance, which being given merely on his own authority, > and he seeming uncertain whether the story comes from Macrinus or > some other writer, may be taken for what it is worth. He found > good evidence, he says, during his stay in Egypt, that “one of the > Cleopatras (?) sent news by a wire to all the cities, from Heliopolis > to Elephantine, on the Upper Nile.”[230] > > It is not so long since Professor Tyndall ushered us into a new world, > peopled with airy shapes of the most ravishing beauty. > > “The discovery consists,” he says, “in subjecting the vapors of > volatile liquids to the action of concentrated sunlight, or to the > concentrated beam of the electric light.” The vapors of certain > nitrites, iodides, and acids are subjected to the action of the light > in an _experimental tube_, lying horizontally, and so arranged that {128} > the axis of the tube and that of the parallel beams issuing from the > lamp are coincident. The vapors form clouds of gorgeous tints, and > arrange themselves into the shapes of vases, of bottles and cones, in > nests of six or more; of shells, of tulips, roses, sunflowers, leaves, > and of involved scrolls. “In one case,” he tells us, “the cloud-bud > grew rapidly into a serpent’s head; a mouth was formed, and from the > cloud, a cord of cloud resembling a tongue was discharged.” Finally, to > cap the climax of marvels, “once it positively assumed the form of a > fish, with eyes, gills, and feelers. The twoness of the animal form was > displayed throughout, and no _disk, coil, or speck existed on one side > that did not exist on the other_.” > > These phenomena may possibly be explained in part by the mechanical > action of a beam of light, which Mr. Crookes has recently demonstrated. > For instance, it is a supposable case, that the beams of light may have > constituted a horizontal axis, about which the disturbed molecules > of the vapors gathered into the forms of globes and spindles. But > how account for the fish, the serpent’s head, the vases, the flowers > of different varieties, the shells? This seems to offer a dilemma to > science as baffling as the meteor-cat of Babinet. We do not learn > that Tyndall ventured as absurd an explanation of his extraordinary > phenomena as that of the Frenchman about his. > > Those who have not given attention to the subject may be surprised to > find how much was known in former days of that all-pervading, subtile > principle which has recently been baptized THE UNIVERSAL ETHER. > > Before proceeding, we desire once more to enunciate in two categorical > propositions, what was hinted at before. These propositions were > demonstrated laws with the ancient theurgists. > > I. The so-called miracles, to begin with Moses and end with Cagliostro, > when genuine, were as de Gasparin very justly insinuates in his > work on the phenomena, “perfectly in accordance with natural law;” > hence—no miracles. Electricity and magnetism were unquestionably > used in the production of some of the prodigies; but now, the same > as then, they are put in requisition by every sensitive, who is made > to use _unconsciously_ these powers by the peculiar nature of his > or her organization, which serves as a conductor for some of these > imponderable fluids, as yet so imperfectly known to science. This force > is the prolific parent of numberless attributes and properties, many, > or rather, most of which, are as yet unknown to modern physics. > > II. The phenomena of natural magic to be witnessed in Siam, India, > Egypt, and other Oriental countries, bear no relationship whatever to > sleight of hand; the one being an absolute physical effect, due to the > action of occult natural forces, the other, a mere deceptive result {129} > obtained by dexterous manipulations supplemented with confederacy.[231] > > The thaumaturgists of all periods, schools, and countries, produced > their wonders, because they were perfectly familiar with the > imponderable—in their effects—but otherwise perfectly tangible waves > of the astral light. They controlled the currents by guiding them with > their will-power. The wonders were both of physical and psychological > character; the former embracing effects produced upon material objects, > the latter the mental phenomena of Mesmer and his successors. This > class has been represented in our time by two illustrious men, Du Potet > and Regazzoni, whose wonderful powers were well attested in France and > other countries. Mesmerism is the most important branch of magic; and > its phenomena are the effects of the universal agent which underlies > all magic and has produced at all ages the so-called miracles. > > The ancients called it _Chaos_; Plato and the Pythagoreans named > it _the Soul of the World_. According to the Hindus, the Deity in > the shape of Æther pervades all things. It is the invisible, but, > as we have said before, too tangible Fluid. Among other names this > universal Proteus—or “the nebulous Almighty,” as de Mirville calls > it in derision—was termed by the theurgists “the living fire,”[232] > the “Spirit of Light,” and _Magnes_. This last appellation indicates > its magnetic properties and shows its magical nature. For, as truly > expressed by one of its enemies—μάγος and μάγνης are two branches > growing from the same trunk, and shooting forth the same resultants. > > Magnetism is a word for the derivation of which we have to look to an > incredibly early epoch. The stone called _magnet_ is believed by many > to owe its name to Magnesia, a city or district in Thessaly, where > these stones were found in quantity. We believe, however, the opinion > of the Hermetists to be the correct one. The word _Magh_, _magus_, > is derived from the Sanskrit _Mahaji_, the _great_ or _wise_ (the > anointed by the divine wisdom). “Eumolpus is the _mythic_ founder {130} > of the Eumolpidæ (priests); the priests traced their own wisdom to > the Divine Intelligence.”[233] The various cosmogonies show that the > Archæal Universal Soul was held by every nation as the “mind” of the > Demiurgic Creator, the _Sophia_ of the Gnostics, or _the Holy Ghost as > a female principle_. As the Magi derived their name from it, so the > Magnesian stone or Magnet was called in their honor, for they were > the first to discover its wonderful properties. Their temples dotted > the country in all directions, and among these were some temples of > Hercules,[234]—hence the stone, when it once became known that the > priests used it for their curative and magical purposes, received > the name of the Magnesian or Heraclean stone. Socrates, speaking of > it, remarks: “Euripides calls it the Magnesian stone, but the common > people, the Heraclean.[235]” It was the country and stone which were > called after the Magi, not the Magi after one or the other. Pliny > informs us that the wedding-ring among the Romans was magnetized by the > priests before the ceremony. The old Pagan historians are careful to > keep silent on certain Mysteries of the “wise” (Magi) and Pausanias was > warned in a dream, he says, not to unveil the holy rites of the temple > of Demeter and Persephoneia at Athens.[236] > > Modern science, after having ineffectually denied _animal magnetism_, > has found herself forced to accept it as a fact. It is now a recognized > property of human and animal organization; as to its psychological, > occult influence, the Academies battle with it, in our century, more > ferociously than ever. It is the more to be regretted and even wondered > at, as the representatives of “exact science” are unable to either > explain or even offer us anything like a reasonable hypothesis for the > undeniable mysterious potency contained in a simple magnet. We begin to > have daily proofs that these potencies underlie the theurgic mysteries, > and therefore might perhaps explain the occult faculties possessed by > ancient and modern thaumaturgists as well as a good many of their most > astounding achievements. Such were the gifts transmitted by Jesus to {131} > some of his disciples. At the moment of his miraculous cures, the > Nazarene felt a _power_ issuing from him. Socrates, in his dialogue > with Theages,[237] telling him of his familiar god (demon), and his > power of either imparting his (Socrates’) wisdom to his disciples or > preventing it from benefiting those he associates with, brings the > following instance in corroboration of his words: “I will tell you, > Socrates,” says Aristides, “a thing incredible, indeed, by the gods, > but true. I made a proficiency when I associated with you, even if > I was only in the same house, though not in the same room; but more > so, when I _was in the same room_ ... and much more when I _looked at > you_.... But I made by far the greatest proficiency when I sat near you > and _touched you_.” > > This is the modern magnetism and mesmerism of Du Potet and other > masters, who, when they have subjected a person to their _fluidic_ > influence, can impart to them all their thoughts even at a distance, > and with an irresistible power force their subject to obey their > _mental_ orders. But how far better was this psychic force known > to the ancient philosophers! We can glean some information on that > subject from the earliest sources. Pythagoras taught his disciples > that God is the universal _mind_ diffused through all things, and > that this mind by the sole virtue of its universal sameness could be > communicated from one object to another and be made to create all > things by the sole will-power of man. With the ancient Greeks, _Kurios_ > was the god-Mind (_Nous_). “Now Koros (Kurios) signifies the pure > and unmixed nature of intellect—wisdom,” says Plato.[238] Kurios is > Mercury, the Divine Wisdom, and “Mercury is the Sol” (Sun),[239] from > whom Thaut—Hermes—received this divine wisdom, which, in his turn, > he imparted to the world in his books. Hercules is also the Sun—the > celestial storehouse of the universal magnetism;[240] or rather > Hercules is the magnetic light which, when having made its way through > the “opened eye of heaven,” enters into the regions of our planet and > thus becomes the Creator. Hercules passes through the twelve labors, > the valiant Titan! He is called “Father of All” and “self-born” {132} > “(_autophues_).”[241] Hercules, the Sun, is killed by the Devil, > Typhon,[242] and so is Osiris, who is the father and brother of Horus, > and at the same time is identical with him; and we must not forget > that the magnet was called the “bone of Horus,” and iron the “bone of > Typhon.” He is called “Hercules _Invictus_,” only when he descends to > Hades (the subterranean garden), and plucking the “golden apples” from > the “tree of life,” slays the dragon.[243] The rough Titanic power, the > “lining” of every sun-god, opposes its force of blind matter to the > divine magnetic spirit, which tries to harmonize everything in nature. > > All the sun-gods, with their symbol, the visible sun, are the > creators of _physical_ nature only. The _spiritual_ is the work of > the Highest God—the Concealed, the Central, Spiritual SUN, and of his > Demiurge—the Divine Mind of Plato, and the Divine Wisdom of Hermes > Trismegistus[244]—the wisdom effused from Oulom or Kronos. > > “After the distribution of pure Fire, in the Samothracian Mysteries, > a new life began.”[245] This was the “new birth,” that is alluded to > by Jesus, in his nocturnal conversation with Nicodemus. “Initiated > into the most blessed of all Mysteries, being ourselves pure ... we > become just and holy with wisdom.”[246] “He _breathed_ on them and > saith unto them, ‘Take the Holy Pneuma.’”[247] And this simple act of > will-power was sufficient to impart vaticination in its nobler and most > perfect form if both the initiator and the initiated were worthy of > it. To deride this gift, even in its present aspect, “as the corrupt > offspring and lingering remains of an ignorant age of superstition, > and hastily to condemn it as unworthy of sober investigation, would > be as unphilosophical as it is wrong,” remarks the Rev. J. B. Gross. > “To remove the veil which hides our vision from the future, has been > attempted—in all ages of the world; and therefore the propensity to pry > into the lap of time, contemplated as one of the faculties of human > mind, comes recommended to us under the sanction of God.... Zuinglius, > the Swiss reformer, attested the comprehensiveness of his faith in the > providence of the Supreme Being, in the cosmopolitan doctrine that the > Holy Ghost was not entirely excluded from the more worthy portion of {133} > the heathen world. Admitting its truth, we cannot easily conceive a > valid reason why a heathen, thus favored, should not be capable of true > prophecy.”[248] > > Now, what is this mystic, primordial substance? In the book of > _Genesis_, at the beginning of the first chapter, it is termed the > “face of the waters,” said to have been incubated by the “Spirit of > God.” Job mentions, in chap. xxvi., 5, that “dead things are formed > from under the waters, and inhabitants thereof.” In the original text, > instead of “dead things,” it is written dead _Rephaim_ (giants, or > mighty primitive men), from whom “Evolution” may one day trace our > present race. In the Egyptian mythology, Kneph the Eternal _unrevealed_ > God is represented by a snake-emblem of eternity encircling a > water-urn, with his head hovering over the waters, which it incubates > with his breath. In this case the serpent is the Agathodaimon, the > good spirit; in its opposite aspect it is the Kakothodaimon—the bad > one. In the Scandinavian _Eddas_, the honey-dew—the food of the gods > and of the creative, busy Yggdrasill—bees—falls during the hours of > night, when the atmosphere is impregnated with humidity; and in the > Northern mythologies, as the passive principle of creation, it typifies > the creation of the universe _out of water_; this dew is the astral > light in one of its combinations and possesses creative as well as > destructive properties. In the Chaldean legend of Berosus, Oännes or > Dagon, the man-fish, instructing the people, shows the infant world > created out of _water_ and all beings originating from this _prima > materia_. Moses teaches that only earth and _water_ can bring a living > soul; and we read in the Scriptures that herbs could not grow until > the Eternal caused it to _rain_ upon earth. In the Mexican _Popol-Vuh_ > man is created out of _mud_ or clay (_terre glaise_), taken from under > the water. Brahma creates Lomus, the great Muni (or first man), seated > on his lotus, only after having called into being, _spirits_, who > thus enjoyed among mortals a priority of existence, and he creates > him out of water, air, and earth. Alchemists claim that primordial > or pre-Adamic earth when reduced to its first substance is in its > _second_ stage of transformation like clear-water, the first being the > _alkahest_[249] proper. This primordial substance is said to contain > within itself the essence of all that goes to make up man; it has not > only all the elements of his physical being, but even the “breath of > life” itself in a latent state, ready to be awakened. This it derives > from the “incubation” of the Spirit of God upon the face of the > waters—chaos; in fact, this substance is chaos itself. From this it was > that Paracelsus claimed to be able to make his “homunculi;” and this {134} > is why Thales, the great natural philosopher, maintained that _water_ > was the principle of all things in nature. > > What is the primordial Chaos but Æther? The _modern_ Ether; not such > as is recognized by our scientists, but such as it _was_ known to the > ancient philosophers, long before the time of Moses; Ether, with all > its mysterious and occult properties, containing in itself the germs > of universal creation; Ether, the celestial virgin, the spiritual > mother of every existing form and being, from whose bosom as soon as > “incubated” by the Divine Spirit, are called into existence Matter > and Life, Force and Action. Electricity, magnetism, heat, light, and > chemical action are so little understood even now that fresh facts > are constantly widening the range of our knowledge. Who knows where > ends the power of this protean giant—Ether; or whence its mysterious > origin?—Who, we mean, that denies the spirit that works in it and > evolves out of it all visible forms? > > It is an easy task to show that the cosmogonical legends all over > the world are based on a knowledge by the ancients of those sciences > which have allied themselves in our days to support the doctrine of > evolution; and that further research may demonstrate that they were > far better acquainted with the fact of evolution itself, embracing > both its physical and spiritual aspects, than we are now. With the > old philosophers, evolution was a universal theorem, a doctrine > embracing the _whole_, and an established principle; while our modern > evolutionists are enabled to present us merely with speculative > theoretics; with _particular_, if not wholly _negative_ theorems. It is > idle for the representatives of our modern wisdom to close the debate > and pretend that the question is settled, merely because the obscure > phraseology of the Mosaic account clashes with the definite exegesis of > “exact science.” > > One fact at least is proved: there is not a cosmogonical fragment, to > whatever nation it may belong, but proves by this universal allegory > of water and the spirit brooding over it, that no more than our modern > physicists did any of them hold the universe to have sprung into > existence out of nothing; for all their legends begin with that period > when nascent vapors and Cimmerian darkness lay brooding over a fluid > mass ready to start on its journey of activity at the first flutter > of the breath of Him, who is the Unrevealed One. Him they felt, if > they saw Him not. Their spiritual intuitions were not so darkened by > the subtile sophistry of the forecoming ages as ours are now. If they > talked less of the Silurian age slowly developing into the Mammalian, > and if the Cenozoic time was only recorded by various allegories of the > primitive man—the Adam of _our_ race—it is but a negative proof after > all that their “wise men” and leaders did not know of these successive {135} > periods as well as we do now. In the days of Democritus and Aristotle, > the cycle had already begun to enter on its downward path of progress. > And if these two philosophers could discuss so well the atomic theory > and trace the atom to its material or physical _point_, their ancestors > may have gone further still and followed its genesis far beyond that > limit where Mr. Tyndall and others seem rooted to the spot, not daring > to cross the line of the “Incomprehensible.” The _lost arts_ are a > sufficient proof that if even their achievements in physiography are > now doubted, because of the unsatisfactory writings of their physicists > and naturalists,—on the other hand their practical knowledge in > phytochemistry and mineralogy far exceeded our own. Furthermore, they > might have been perfectly acquainted with the physical history of our > globe without publishing their knowledge to the ignorant masses in > those ages of religious Mysteries. > > [Illustration: Possibly a _fac-simile_ of some amulets ] > > Therefore, it is not only from the Mosaic books that we mean to adduce > proof for our further arguments. The ancient Jews got all their > knowledge—religious as well as profane—from the nations with which > we see them mixed up from the earliest periods. Even the oldest of > all sciences, their kabalistic “secret doctrine,” may be traced in > each detail to its primeval source, Upper India, or Turkestan, far > before the time of a distinct separation between the Aryan and Semitic > nations. The King Solomon so celebrated by posterity, as Josephus the > historian says,[250] for his magical skill, got his secret learning > from India through Hiram, the king of Ophir, and perhaps Sheba. His > ring, commonly known as “Solomon’s seal,” so celebrated for the potency > of its sway over the various kinds of genii and demons, in all the > popular legends, is equally of Hindu origin. Writing on the pretentious > and abominable skill of the “devil-worshippers” of Travancore, the Rev. > Samuel Mateer, of the London Missionary Society, claims at the same > time to be in possession of a very old manuscript volume of magical > incantations and spells in the Malayâlim language, giving directions > for effecting a great variety of purposes. Of course he adds, that > “many of these are _fearful_ in their malignity and obscenity,” > and gives in his work the _fac-simile_ of some amulets bearing the > magical figures and designs on them. We find among them one with > the following legend: “To remove trembling arising from demoniacal {136} > possession—write this figure on a plant that has milky juice, and drive > a nail through it; the trembling will cease.”[251] The figure is the > identical Solomon’s _seal_, or double triangle of the Kabalists. Did > the Hindu get it from the Jewish kabalist, or the latter from India, by > inheritance from their great king-kabalist, the wise Solomon?[252] But > we will leave this trifling dispute to continue the more interesting > question of the astral light, and its unknown properties. > > Admitting, then, that this mythical agent is Ether, we will proceed to > see what and how much of it is known to science. > > With respect to the various effects of the different solar rays, Robert > Hunt, F.R.S., remarks, in his _Researches on Light in its Chemical > Relations_, that: > > “Those rays which give the _most_ light—the yellow and the orange > rays—will not produce change of color in the chloride of silver;” while > “those rays which have the _least_ illuminating power—the blue and > violet—produce the greatest change, and in exceedingly short time.... {137} > The yellow glasses obstruct scarcely any light; the blue glasses may > be so dark as to admit of the permeation of a very small quantity.” > > And still we see that under the _blue_ ray both vegetable and animal > life manifest an inordinate development, while under the yellow ray it > is proportionately arrested. How is it possible to account for this > satisfactorily upon any other hypothesis than that both animal and > vegetable life are differently modified electrico-magnetic phenomena, > as yet unknown in their fundamental principles? > > Mr. Hunt finds that the undulatory theory does not account for the > results of his experiments. Sir David Brewster, in his _Treatise on > Optics_, showing that “the colors of vegetable life arise ... from a > specific attraction which the particles of these bodies exercise over > the differently-colored rays of light,” and that “it is by the light > of the sun that the colored juices of plants are elaborated, that the > colors of bodies are changed, etc....” remarks that it is not easy > to allow “that such effects can be produced by the mere vibration of > an ethereal medium.” And he is _forced_, he says, “by this class of > facts, to reason as if light was _material_(?).” Professor Josiah P. > Cooke, of Harvard University, says that he “cannot agree ... with those > who regard the wave-theory of light as an established principle of > science.”[253] Herschel’s doctrine, that the intensity of light, in > effect of each undulation, “is inversely as the square of the distance > from the luminous body,” if correct, damages a good deal if it does not > kill the undulatory theory. That he is right, was proved repeatedly by > experiments with photometers; and, though it begins to be much doubted, > the undulatory theory is still alive. > > As General Pleasanton, of Philadelphia, has undertaken to combat this > anti-Pythagorean hypothesis, and has devoted to it a whole volume, we > cannot do any better than refer the reader to his recent work on the > _Blue Ray_, etc. We leave the theory of Thomas Young, who, according to > Tyndall, “placed on an immovable basis the undulatory theory of light,” > to hold its own if it can, with the Philadelphia experimenter. > > Eliphas Levi, the modern magician, describes the astral light in the > following sentence: “We have said that to acquire magical power, two > things are necessary: to disengage the will from all servitude, and to > exercise it in control.” > > “The sovereign will is represented in our symbols by the woman who > crushes the serpent’s head, and by the resplendent angel who represses > the dragon, and holds him under his foot and spear; the great magical > agent, the dual current of light, the living and astral _fire_ of the > earth, has been represented in the ancient theogonies by the serpent {138} > with the head of a bull, a ram, or a dog. It is the double serpent of > the _caduceus_, it is the Old Serpent of the _Genesis_, but it is also > the _brazen serpent of Moses_ entwined around the _tau_, that is to > say, the generative _lingha_. It is also the goat of the witch-sabbath, > and the Baphomet of the Templars; it is the _Hylé_ of the Gnostics; it > is the double-tail of serpent which forms the legs of the solar cock of > the Abraxas; finally, it is the Devil of M. Eudes de Mirville. But in > very fact it is the blind force which souls have to conquer to liberate > themselves from the bonds of the earth; for if their will does not > free “them from this _fatal attraction_, they will be absorbed in the > current by the force which has produced them, and _will return to the > central and eternal fire_.” > > This last kabalistic figure of speech, notwithstanding its strange > phraseology, is precisely the one used by Jesus; and in his mind it > could have had no other significance than the one attributed to it > by the Gnostics and the Kabalists. Later the Christian theologians > interpreted it differently, and with them it became the doctrine of > Hell. Literally, though, it simply means what it says—the astral light, > or the generator and destroyer of all forms. > > “All the magical operations,” continues Levi, “consist in freeing one’s > self from the coils of the Ancient Serpent; then to place the foot on > its head, and lead it according to the operator’s will. ‘I will give > unto thee,’ says the Serpent, in the Gospel myth, ‘all the kingdoms > of the earth, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.’ The initiate > should reply to him, ‘I will not fall down, but thou shalt crouch at > my feet; thou wilt give me nothing, but I will make use of thee and > take whatever I wish. For _I am thy Lord and Master_!’ This is the real > meaning of the ambiguous response made by Jesus to the tempter.... > Thus, the Devil is not an Entity. It is an errant force, as the name > signifies. An _odic or magnetic current_ formed by a chain (a circle) > of pernicious wills must create this evil spirit which the Gospel > calls _legion_, and which forces into the sea a herd of swine—another > evangelical allegory showing how base natures can be driven headlong by > the blind forces set in motion by error and sin.”[254] > > In his extensive work on the mystical manifestations of human nature, > the German naturalist and philosopher, Maximilian Perty, has devoted > a whole chapter to the _Modern forms of Magic_. “The manifestations > of magical life,” he says in his Preface, “partially repose on quite > another order of things than the nature in which we are acquainted with > time, space, and causality; these manifestations can be experimented > with but little; they cannot be called out at our bidding, but may be {139} > observed and carefully followed whenever they occur in our presence; > we can only group them by analogy under certain divisions, and deduce > from them general principles and laws.” Thus, for Professor Perty, > who evidently belongs to the school of Schopenhauer, the possibility > and _naturalness_ of the phenomena which took place in the presence > of Kavindasami, the fakir, and are described by Louis Jacolliot, the > Orientalist, are fully demonstrated on that principle. The fakir was a > man who, through the entire subjugation of the matter of his corporeal > system has attained to that state of purification at which the spirit > becomes nearly freed from its prison,[255] and can produce wonders. > His _will_, nay, a simple desire of his has become creative force, > and he can command the elements and powers of nature. His body is no > more an impediment to him; hence he can converse “spirit to spirit, > breath to breath.” Under his extended palms, a seed, unknown to him > (for Jacolliot has chosen it at random among a variety of seeds, from a > bag, and planted it himself, after _marking_ it, in a flower pot), will > germinate instantly, and push its way through the soil. Developing in > less than two hours’ time to a size and height which, perhaps, under > ordinary circumstances, would require several days or weeks, it grows > miraculously under the very eyes of the perplexed experimenter, and > mockingly upsets every accepted formula in Botany. Is this a miracle? > By no means; it may be one, perhaps, if we take Webster’s definition, > that a miracle is “every event contrary to the _established_ > constitution and course of things—a deviation from the _known_ laws of > nature.” But are our naturalists prepared to support the claim that > what they have once _established_ on observation is infallible? Or that > _every_ law of nature is known to them? In this instance, the “miracle” > is but a little _more_ prominent than the now well-known experiments > of General Pleasanton, of Philadelphia. While the vegetation and > fruitage of his vines were stimulated to an incredible activity by the > artificial violet light, the magnetic fluid emanating from the hands > of the fakir effected still more intense and rapid changes in the > vital function of the Indian plants. It attracted and concentrated the > _akasa_, or life-principle, on the germ.[256] His magnetism, obeying {140} > his will, drew up the _akasa_ in a concentrated current through the > plant towards his hands, and by keeping up an unintermitted flow for > the requisite space of time, the life-principle of the plant built > up cell after cell, layer after layer, with preternatural activity, > until the work was done. The life-principle is but a blind force > obeying a controlling influence. In the ordinary course of nature the > plant-protoplasm would have concentrated and directed it at a certain > established rate. This rate would have been controlled by the prevalent > atmospheric conditions; its growth being rapid or slow, and, in stalk > or head, in proportion to the amount of light, heat, and moisture > of the season. But the fakir, coming to the help of nature with his > powerful will and spirit purified from the contact with matter,[257] > condenses, so to speak, the essence of plant-life into its germ, > and forces it to maturity ahead of its time. This blind force being > totally submissive to his will, obeys it with servility. If he chose > to _imagine_ the plant as a monster, it would as surely become such, > as ordinarily it would grow in its natural shape; for the concrete > image—slave to the subjective model outlined in the imagination of the > fakir—is forced to follow the original in its least detail, as the hand > and brush of the painter follow the image which they copy from his > mind. The will of the fakir-conjurer forms an invisible but yet, to it, > perfectly objective matrix, in which the vegetable matter is caused to > deposit itself and assume the fixed shape. The will creates; for the > will in motion is _force_, and force produces _matter_. > > If some persons object to the explanation on the ground that the fakir {141} > could by no means create the model in his imagination, since he was > kept ignorant by Jacolliot of the kind of seed he had selected for the > experiment; to these we will answer that the spirit of man is like that > of his Creator—omniscient in its essence. While in his natural state > the fakir did _not_, and _could not_ know whether it was a melon-seed, > or seed of any other plant; once entranced, _i.e._, bodily dead to all > outward appearance—the spirit, for which there exist neither distance, > material obstacle, nor space of time, experienced no difficulty in > perceiving the melon-seed, whether as it lay deeply buried in the > mud of the flower-pot, or reflected in the faithful picture-gallery > of Jacolliot’s brain. Our visions, portents, and other psychological > phenomena, all of which exist in nature, are corroborative of the above > fact. > > And now, perhaps, we might as well meet at once another impending > objection. Indian _jugglers_, they will tell us, do the same, and > as well as the fakir, if we can believe newspapers and travellers’ > narratives. Undoubtedly so; and moreover these strolling jugglers are > neither pure in their modes of living nor considered holy by any one; > neither by foreigners nor their own people. _They are generally_ FEARED > _and despised by the natives_, for they are _sorcerers_; men practising > the _black art_. While such a holy man as Kavindasami requires but the > help of his own divine soul, closely united with the astral spirit, and > the help of a few familiar _pitris_—pure, ethereal beings, who rally > around their elect brother in flesh—the sorcerer can summon to his > help but that class of spirits which we know as the elementals. Like > attracts like; and greed for money, impure purposes, and selfish views, > cannot attract any other spirits than those that the Hebrew kabalists > know as the _klippoth_, dwellers of _Asiah_, the fourth world, and the > Eastern magicians as the _afrits_, or elementary spirits of error, or > the _devs_. > > This is how an English paper describes the astounding _trick_ of > plant-growth, as performed by Indian _jugglers_: > > “An empty flower-pot was now placed upon the floor by the juggler, who > requested that his comrades might be allowed to bring up some garden > mould from the little plot of ground below. Permission being accorded, > the man went, and in two minutes returned with a small quantity of > fresh earth tied up in a corner of his chudder, which was deposited > in the flower-pot and lightly pressed down. Taking from his basket a > dry mango-stone, and handing it round to the company that they might > examine it, and satisfy themselves that it was really what it seemed > to be, the juggler scooped out a little earth from the centre of the > flower-pot and placed the stone in the cavity. He then turned the earth > lightly over it, and, having poured a little water over the surface, {142} > shut the flower-pot out of view by means of a sheet thrown over a > small triangle. And now, amid a full chorus of voices and rat-tat-tat > accompaniment of the tabor, the stone germinated; presently a section > of the cloth was drawn aside, and gave to view the tender shoot, > characterized by two long leaves of a blackish-brown color. The cloth > was readjusted, and the incantation resumed. Not long was it, however, > before the cloth was a second time drawn aside, and it was then seen > that the two first leaves had given place to several green ones, and > that the plant now stood nine or ten inches high. A third time, and the > foliage was much thicker, the sapling being about thirteen to fourteen > inches in height. A fourth time, and the little miniature tree, now > about eighteen inches in height, had ten or twelve mangoes about the > size of walnuts hanging about its branches. Finally, after the lapse of > three of four minutes, the cloth was altogether removed, and the fruit, > having the perfection of size, though not of maturity, was plucked > and handed to the spectators, and, on being tasted, was found to be > approaching ripeness, being sweetly acid.” > > We may add to this, that we have witnessed the same experiment in > India and Thibet, and that more than once we provided the flower-pot > ourselves, by emptying an old tin box of some Liebig extracts. We > filled it with earth with our own hands, and planted in it a small root > handed to us by the conjurer, and until the experiment was ended never > once removed our eyes from the pot, which was placed _in our own room_. > The result was invariably the same as above described. Does the reader > imagine that any prestidigitator could produce the same manifestation > under the same conditions? > > The learned Orioli, Corresponding Member of the Institute of France, > gives a number of instances which show the marvellous effects produced > by the will-power acting upon the invisible Proteus of the mesmerists. > “I have seen,” says he, “certain persons, who simply by pronouncing > certain words, arrest wild bulls and horses at headlong speed, and > suspend in its flight the arrow which cleaves the air.” Thomas > Bartholini affirms the same. > > Says Du Potet: “When I trace upon the floor with chalk or charcoal this > figure ... a _fire_, a _light_ fixes itself on it. Soon it attracts to > itself the person who approaches it; it detains and fascinates him ... > and it is useless for him to try to cross the line. A _magic_ power > compels him to stand still. At the end of a few moments he yields, > uttering sobs.... _The cause is not in me_, it is in this entirely > kabalistic sign; in vain would you employ violence.”[258] > > In a series of remarkable experiments made by Regazzoni in the {143} > presence of certain well-known French physicians, at Paris, on the 18th > of May, 1856, they assembled on one night together, and Regazzoni, > with his finger, traced an imaginary kabalistic line upon the floor, > over which he made a few rapid passes. It was agreed that the mesmeric > subjects, selected by the investigators and the committee for the > experiments, and all strangers to him, should be brought blindfold into > the room, and caused to walk toward the line, without a word being > spoken to indicate what was expected of them. The subjects moved along > unsuspiciously till they came to the invisible barrier, when, as it > is described, “their feet, _as if they had been suddenly seized and > riveted_, adhere to the ground, while their bodies, carried forward by > the rapid impulse of the motion, fall and strike the floor. The sudden > rigidity of their limbs was like that of a frozen corpse, and their > heels were rooted with mathematical precision upon the fatal line!”[259] > > In another experiment it was agreed that upon one of the physicians > giving a certain signal by a glance of the eye, the blindfolded girl > should be made to fall on the ground, as if struck by lightning, by > the magnetic fluid emitted by Regazzoni’s will. She was placed at a > distance from the magnetizer; the signal was given, and instantly > the subject was felled to the earth, without a word being spoken or > a gesture made. Involuntarily one of the spectators stretched out > his hand as if to catch her; but Regazzoni, in a voice of thunder, > exclaimed, “Do not touch her! Let her fall; a magnetized subject is > never hurt by falling.” Des Mousseaux, who tells the story, says that > “marble is not more rigid than was her body; her head did not touch the > ground; one of her arms remained stretched in the air; one of her legs > was raised and the other horizontal. She remained in this unnatural > posture an indefinite time. Less rigid is a statue of bronze.”[260] > > All the effects witnessed in the experiments of public lecturers upon > mesmerism, were produced by Regazzoni in perfection, and without one > spoken word to indicate what the subject was to do. He even by his > silent will produced the most surprising effects upon the physical > systems of persons totally unknown to him. Directions whispered by the > committee in Regazzoni’s ear were immediately obeyed by the subjects, > whose ears were stuffed with cotton, and whose eyes were bandaged. > Nay, in some cases it was not even necessary for them to express to > the magnetizer what they desired, for their own mental requests were > complied with with perfect fidelity. > > Experiments of a similar character were made by Regazzoni in England, > at a distance of three hundred paces from the subject brought to him. {144} > The _jettatura_, or evil eye, is nothing but the direction of this > invisible fluid, charged with malicious will and hatred, from one > person to another, and sent out with the intention of harming him. It > may equally be employed for a good or evil purpose. _In the former case > it is magic; in the latter, sorcery._ > > What is the WILL? Can “exact science” tell? What is the nature of that > intelligent, intangible, and powerful something which reigns supreme > over all inert matter? The great Universal Idea willed, and the cosmos > sprang into existence. I _will_, and my limbs obey. I _will_, and, my > thought traversing space, which does not exist for it, envelops the > body of another individual who is not a part of myself, penetrates > through his pores, and, superseding his own faculties, if they are > weaker, forces him to a predetermined action. It acts like the fluid > of a galvanic battery on the limbs of a corpse. The mysterious effects > of attraction and repulsion are the _unconscious_ agents of that will; > fascination, such as we see exercised by some animals, by serpents over > birds, for instance, is a _conscious_ action of it, and the result > of thought. Sealing-wax, glass, and amber, when rubbed, _i.e._, when > the latent heat which exists in every substance is awakened, attract > light bodies; they exercise unconsciously, _will_; for inorganic as > well as organic matter possesses a particle of the _divine_ essence in > itself, however infinitesimally small it may be. And how could it be > otherwise? Notwithstanding that in the progress of its evolution it may > from beginning to end have passed through millions of various forms, > it must ever retain its germ-point of that _preëxistent matter_, which > is the first manifestation and emanation of the Deity itself. What is > then this inexplicable power of attraction but an atomical portion of > that essence that scientists and kabalists equally recognize as the > “principle of life” the _akasa_? Granted that the attraction exercised > by such bodies may be blind; but as we ascend higher the scale of the > organic beings in nature, we find this principle of life developing > attributes and faculties which become more determined and marked with > every rung of the endless ladder. Man, the most perfect of organized > beings on earth, in whom matter and spirit—_i.e._, _will_—are the most > developed and powerful, is alone allowed to give a conscious impulse to > that principle which emanates from him; and only he can impart to the > magnetic fluid opposite and various impulses without limit as to the > direction. “He wills,” says Du Potet, “and _organized_ matter obeys. It > has _no poles_.” > > Dr. Brierre de Boismont, in his volume on _Hallucinations_, reviews a > wonderful variety of visions, apparitions, and ecstasies, generally > termed hallucinations. “We cannot deny,” he says, “that in certain > diseases we see developed a great surexcitation of sensibility, which {145} > lends to the senses a prodigious acuteness of perception. Thus, some > individuals will perceive at considerable distances, others will > announce the approach of persons who are really on their way, although > those present can neither hear nor see them coming.”[261] > > A lucid patient, lying in his bed, announces the arrival of persons > to see whom he must possess _transmural vision_, and this faculty is > termed by Brierre de Boismont—_hallucination_. In our ignorance, we > have hitherto innocently supposed that in order to be rightly termed a > _hallucination_, a vision must be subjective. It must have an existence > only in the delirious brain of the patient. But if the latter announces > the visit of a person, miles away, and this person arrives at the very > moment predicted by the _seer_, then his vision was no more subjective, > but on the contrary perfectly _objective_, for he saw that person in > the act of coming. And how could the patient see, through solid bodies > and space, an object shut out from the reach of our mortal sight, if he > had not exercised his _spiritual_ eyes on that occasion? Coincidence? > > Cabanis speaks of certain nervous disorders in which the patients > easily distinguished with the naked eye infusoria and other > microscopical beings which others could only perceive through powerful > lenses. “I have met subjects,” he says, “who saw in Cimmerian darkness > as well as in a lighted room; ...” others “who followed persons, > tracing them out like dogs, and recognizing by the smell objects > belonging to such persons or even such as had been only touched by > them, with a sagacity which was hitherto observed only in animals.”[262] > > Exactly; because reason, which, as Cabanis says, develops only at the > expense and loss of natural instinct, is a Chinese wall slowly rising > on the soil of sophistry, and which finally shuts out man’s spiritual > perceptions of which the instinct is one of the most important > examples. Arrived at certain stages of physical prostration, when mind > and the reasoning faculties seem paralyzed through weakness and bodily > exhaustion, instinct—the spiritual _unity_ of the five senses—sees, > hears, feels, tastes, and smells, unimpaired by either time or space. > What do we know of the exact limits of mental action? How can a > physician take upon himself to distinguish the imaginary from the > real senses in a man who may be living a spiritual life, in a body so > exhausted of its usual vitality that it actually is unable to prevent > the soul from _oozing_ out from its prison? > > The divine light through which, unimpeded by matter, the soul {146} > perceives things past, present, and to come, as though their rays > were focused in a mirror; the death-dealing bolt projected in an > instant of fierce anger or at the climax of long-festering hate; the > blessing wafted from a grateful or benevolent heart; and the curse > hurled at an object—offender or victim—all have to pass through that > universal agent, which under one impulse is the breath of God, and > under another—the venom of the devil. It was _discovered_ (?) by Baron > Reichenbach and called OD, whether intentionally or otherwise we cannot > say, but it is singular that a name should have been chosen which is > mentioned in the most ancient books of the Kabala. > > Our readers will certainly inquire what then is this invisible _all_? > How is it that our scientific methods, however perfected, have never > discovered any of the magical properties contained in it? To this we > can answer, that it is no reason because modern scientists are ignorant > of them that it should not possess all the properties with which the > ancient philosophers endowed it. Science rejects many a thing to-day > which she may find herself forced to accept to-morrow. A little less > than a century ago the Academy denied Franklin’s electricity, and, at > the present day, we can hardly find a house without a conductor on its > roof. Shooting at the barn-door, the Academy missed the barn itself. > Modern scientists, by their wilful skepticism and learned ignorance, do > this very frequently. > > Emepht, the supreme, first principle, produced an egg; by brooding > over which, and permeating the substance of it with its own vivifying > essence, the germ contained within was developed; and _Phtha_, the > active creative principle proceeded from it, and began his work. > From the boundless expanse of cosmic matter, which had formed itself > under his breath, or _will_, this cosmic matter—astral light, æther, > fire-mist, principle of life—it matters not how we may call it, this > creative principle, or, as our modern philosophy terms it, law of > evolution, by setting in motion the potencies latent in it, formed > suns and stars, and satellites; controlled their emplacement by the > immutable law of harmony, and peopled them “with every form and > quality of life.” In the ancient Eastern mythologies, the cosmogonic > myth states that there was but water (the father) and the prolific > slime (the mother, _Ilus_ or _Hylè_), from which crept forth the > mundane snake-_matter_. It was the god _Phanes_, the revealed one, > the Word, or _logos_. How willingly this myth was accepted, even by > the Christians who compiled the New Testament, may be easily inferred > from the following fact: Phanes, the revealed god, is represented in > this snake-symbol as a _protogonos_, a being furnished with the heads > of a _man_, a hawk or an eagle, a bull—_taurus_, and a lion, with > wings on both sides. The heads relate to the zodiac, and typify the > four seasons of the year, for the _mundane_ serpent is the _mundane_ {147} > year, while the serpent itself is the symbol of Kneph, the hidden, > or _unrevealed_ deity—God the Father. Time is winged, therefore the > serpent is represented with wings. If we remember that each of the four > evangelists is represented as having near him one of the described > animals—grouped together in Solomon’s triangle in the pentacle of > Ezekiel, and to be found in the four cherubs or sphinxes of the sacred > arch—we will perhaps understand the secret meaning, as well as the > reason why the early Christians adopted this symbol; and how it is > that the present Roman Catholics and the Greeks of the Oriental Church > still represent these animals in the pictures of their evangelists > which sometimes accompany the four _Gospels_. We will also understand > why Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, had so insisted upon the necessity of > the _fourth_ gospel; giving as a reason that there could not be less > than four of them, as there were _four_ zones in the world, and four > principal winds coming from the four cardinal points, etc.[263] > > According to one of the Egyptian myths, the phantom-form of the isle of > Chemmis (_Chemi_, ancient Egypt), which floats on the ethereal waves > of the empyrean sphere, was called into being by Horus-Apollo, the > sun-god, who caused it to evolve out of the mundane egg. > > In the cosmogonical poem of _Völuspa_ (the song of the prophetess), > which contains the Scandinavian legends of the very dawn of ages, > the phantom-germ of the universe is represented as lying in the > _Ginnunga-gap_—or the cup of illusion, a boundless and void abyss. > In this world’s matrix, formerly a region of night and desolation, > _Nebelheim_ (the Mist-place) dropped a ray of cold light (æther), > which overflowed this cup and froze in it. Then the Invisible blew a > scorching wind which dissolved the frozen waters and cleared the mist. > These waters, called the streams of _Elivâgar_, distilled in vivifying > drops which, falling down, created the earth and the giant _Ymir_, who > only had “the semblance of man” (male principle). With him was created > the cow, _Audhumla_[264] (female principle), from whose udder flowed > _four_ streams of milk,[265] which diffused themselves throughout space > (the astral light in its purest emanation). The cow Audhumla produces a > _superior_ being, called _Bur_, handsome and powerful, by licking the > stones that were covered with _mineral salt_. > > Now, if we take into consideration that this mineral was universally {148} > regarded by ancient philosophers as one of the chief formative > principles in organic creation; by the alchemists as the universal > menstruum, which, they said, was to be wrought from water; and by every > one else, even as it is regarded now by science as well as in the > popular ideas, to be an indispensable ingredient for man and beast; > we may readily comprehend the hidden wisdom of this allegory of the > creation of man. Paracelsus calls salt “the centre of water, wherein > metals ought to die,” etc., and Van Helmont terms the _Alkahest_, > “_summum et felicissimum omnium salium_,” the most successful of all > salts. > > In the _Gospel according to Matthew_, Jesus says: “Ye are the _salt of > the earth_: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it > be salted?” and following the parable he adds: “Ye are _the light_ of > the world” (v. 14). This is more than an allegory; these words point > to a direct and unequivocal meaning in relation to the spiritual and > physical organisms of man in his dual nature, and show, moreover, a > knowledge of the “secret doctrine,” the direct traces of which we find > equally in the oldest ancient and current popular traditions, in both > the Old and New Testaments, and in the writings of the ancient and > mediæval mystics and philosophers. > > But to return to our _Edda_-legend. Ymir, the giant, falls asleep, and > sweats profusely. This perspiration causes the pit of his left arm to > generate out of that place a man and a woman, while his foot produces > a son for them. Thus, while the mythic “cow” gives being to a race > of superior spiritual men, the giant Ymir begets a race of evil and > depraved men, the Hrimthursen, or frost-giants. Comparing notes with > the Hindu _Vedas_, we find it then, with slight modifications, the > same cosmogonic legend in substance and details. Brahma, as soon as > Bhagaveda, the Supreme God, endows him with creative powers, produces > animated beings, wholly spiritual at first. The Dejotas, inhabitants > of the Surg’s (the celestial) region, are unfit to live on earth, > therefore Brahma creates the Daints (giants, who become the dwellers of > the Patals, the lower regions of space), who are also unfit to inhabit > Mirtlok (the earth). To palliate the evil, the creative power evolves > _from his mouth_ the first Brahman, who thus becomes the progenitor > of our race; from his right arm Brahma creates Raettris, the warrior, > and from his left Shaterany, the wife of Raettris. Then their son > Bais springs from the right foot of the creator, and his wife Basany > from the left. While in the Scandinavian legend Bur (the son of the > cow Audhumla), a _superior_ being, marries Besla, a daughter of the > depraved race of giants, in the Hindu tradition the first Brahman > marries Daintary, also a daughter of the race of the giants; and in > _Genesis_ we see the sons of God taking for wives the daughters of men, {149} > and likewise producing mighty men of old; the whole establishing an > unquestionable identity of origin between the Christian inspired Book, > and the heathen “fables” of Scandinavia and Hindustan. The traditions > of nearly every other nation, if examined, will yield a like result. > > What modern cosmogonist could compress within so simple a symbol as the > Egyptian serpent in a circle such a world of meaning? Here we have, in > this creature, the whole philosophy of the universe: matter vivified by > spirit, and the two conjointly evolving out of chaos (Force) everything > that was to be. To signify that the elements are fast bound in this > cosmic matter, which the serpent symbolizes, the Egyptians tied its > tail _into a knot_. > > There is one more important emblem connected with the sloughing of > the serpent’s skin, which, so far as we are aware, has never been > heretofore noticed by our symbolists. As the reptile upon casting > his coat becomes freed from a casing of gross matter, which cramped > a body grown too large for it, and resumes its existence with > renewed activity, so _man, by casting off the gross material body, > enters upon the next stage of his existence with enlarged powers and > quickened vitality_. Inversely, the Chaldean Kabalists tell us that > primeval man, who, contrary to the Darwinian theory was purer, wiser, > and far more spiritual, as shown by the myths of the Scandinavian > Bur, the Hindu Dejotas, and the Mosaic “sons of God,“in short, of a > far higher nature than the man of the present Adamic race, became > _despiritualized_ or tainted with matter, and then, for the first > time, was given the _fleshly body_, which is typified in _Genesis_ in > that profoundly-significant verse: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did > the Lord God _make coats of skin_, and clothed them.”[266] Unless the > commentators would make of the First Cause a _celestial tailor_, what > else can the apparently absurd words mean, but that the spiritual man > had reached, through the progress of involution, to that point where > matter, predominating over and conquering spirit, had transformed him > into the physical man, or the second Adam, of the second chapter of > _Genesis_? > > This kabalistical doctrine is much more elaborated in the _Book of > Jasher_.[267] In chapter vii., these garments of skin are taken by Noah > into the ark, he having obtained them by inheritance from Methuselah > and Enoch, who had them from Adam and his wife. Ham steals them from {150} > his father Noah; gives them “in secret” to Cush, who conceals them from > his sons and brothers, and passes them to Nimrod. > > While some Kabalists, and even archæologists say that “Adam, Enoch, > and Noah might, in outward appearance, be different men, but they were > really the self-same divine person.”[268] Others explain that between > Adam and Noah there intervened several cycles. That is to say, that > every one of the antediluvian patriarchs stood as the representative of > a race which had its place in a succession of cycles; and each of which > races was less spiritual than its predecessor. Thus Noah, though a good > man, could not have borne comparison with his ancestor, Enoch, who > “walked with God and did not die.” Hence the allegorical interpretation > which makes Noah have this coat of skin by inheritance from the second > Adam and Enoch, but not wear it himself, for if otherwise, Ham could > not have stolen it. But Noah and his children bridged the flood; and > while the former belonged to the old and still spiritual antediluvian > generation, insomuch as he was selected from all mankind for his > purity, his children were _post_-diluvian. The coat of skin worn by > Cush “in secret,“_i. e._, when his spiritual nature began to be tainted > by the material—is placed on Nimrod, the most powerful and strongest > of physical men on this side of the flood—the last remnant of the > antediluvian giants.[269] > > In the Scandinavian legend, Ymir, the giant, is slain by the sons of > Bur, and the streams of blood flowing from his wounds were so copious > that the flood drowned the whole race of ice and frost giants, and > Bergelmir alone of that race was saved, with his wife, by taking refuge > in a bark; which fact permitted him to transmit a new branch of giants > from the old stock. But all the sons of Bur remained untouched by the > flood.[270] > > When the symbolism of this diluvian legend is unravelled, one perceives > at once the real meaning of the allegory. The giant Ymir typifies > the primitive rude organic _matter_, the blind cosmical forces, in > their chaotic state, before they received the intelligent impulse of > the Divine Spirit which set them into a regular motion dependent on > immovable laws. The progeny of Bur are the “sons of God,” or the minor > gods mentioned by Plato in the _Timæus_, and who were intrusted, as > he expresses it, with the creation of men; for we see them taking the > mangled remains of Ymir to the Ginnunga-gap, the chaotic abyss, and > employing them for the creation of our world. His blood goes to form > oceans and rivers; his bones, the mountains; his teeth, the rocks and {151} > cliffs; his hair, the trees, etc.; while his skull forms the heavenly > vault, supported by four pillars representing the four cardinal points. > From the eyebrows of Ymir was created the future abode of man—Midgard. > This abode (the earth), says the _Edda_, in order to be correctly > described in all its minute particulars, must be conceived as _round > as a ring_, or as a disk, floating in the midst of the Celestial > Ocean (Ether). It is encircled by Yörmungand, the gigantic Midgard > or Earth Serpent, holding its tail in its mouth. This is the mundane > snake, matter and spirit, combined product and emanation of Ymir, the > gross rudimental matter, and of the spirit of the “sons of God,” who > fashioned and created all forms. This emanation is the astral light of > the Kabalists, and the as yet problematical, and hardly known, æther, > or the “hypothetical agent of great elasticity” of our physicists. > > How sure the ancients were of this doctrine of man’s trinitarian nature > may be inferred from the same Scandinavian legend of the creation > of mankind. According to the _Völuspa_, Odin, Hönir, and Lodur, who > are the progenitors of our race, found in one of their walks on the > ocean-beach, two sticks floating on the waves, “powerless and without > destiny.” Odin breathed in them the breath of life; Hönir endowed > them with soul and motion; and Lodur with beauty, speech, sight, > and hearing. The man they called _Askr_—the ash,[271] and the woman > _Embla_—the alder. These first men are placed in Midgard (mid-garden, > or Eden) and thus inherit, from their creators, matter or inorganic > life; mind, or soul; and pure spirit; the first corresponding to that > part of their organism which sprung from the remains of Ymir, the > giant-matter, the second from the _Æsir_, or gods, the descendants > of Bur, and the third from the _Vanr_, or the representative of pure > spirit. > > Another version of the _Edda_ makes our visible universe spring from > beneath the luxuriant branches of the mundane tree—the Yggdrasill, the > tree with the _three_ roots. Under the first root runs the fountain > of life, Urdar; under the second is the famous well of Mimer, in > which lie deeply buried Wit and Wisdom. Odin, the Alfadir, asks for > a draught of this water; he gets it, but finds himself obliged to > pledge one of his eyes for it; the eye being in this case the symbol > of the Deity revealing itself in the wisdom of its own creation; for > Odin leaves it at the bottom of the deep well. The care of the mundane > tree is intrusted to three maidens (the Norns or Parcæ), Urdhr, > Verdandi, and Skuld—or the Present, the Past, and the Future. Every {152} > morning, while fixing the term of human life, they draw water from the > Urdar-fountain, and sprinkle with it the roots of the mundane tree, > that it may live. The exhalations of the ash, Yggdrasill, condense, > and falling down upon our earth call into existence and change of > form every portion of the inanimate matter. This tree is the symbol > of the _universal_ Life, organic as well as inorganic; its emanations > represent the spirit which vivifies every form of creation; and of > its three roots, one extends to heaven, the second to the dwelling of > the magicians—giants, inhabitants of the _lofty mountains_—and at the > third, under which is the spring Hvergelmir, gnaws the monster Nidhögg, > who constantly leads mankind into evil. The Thibetans have also their > mundane tree, and the legend is of an untold antiquity. With them > it is called _Zampun_. The first of its three roots also extends to > heaven, to the top of the highest mountains; the second passes down to > the lower region; the third remains midway, and reaches the east. The > mundane tree of the Hindus is the _Aswatha_.[272] Its branches are the > components of the visible world; and its leaves the _Mantras_ of the > Vedas, symbols of the universe in its intellectual or moral character. > > Who can study carefully the ancient religious and cosmogonic myths > without perceiving that this striking similitude of conceptions, in > their exoteric form and esoteric spirit, is the result of no mere > coincidence, but manifests a concurrent design? It shows that already > in those ages which are shut out from our sight by the impenetrable > mist of tradition, human religious thought developed in uniform > sympathy in every portion of the globe. Christians call this adoration > of nature in her most concealed verities—Pantheism. But if the latter, > which worships and reveals to us God in space in His only possible > objective form—that of visible nature—perpetually reminds humanity of > Him who created it, and a religion of theological dogmatism only serves > to conceal Him the more from our sight, which is the better adapted to > the needs of mankind? > > Modern science insists upon the doctrine of evolution; so do human > reason and the “secret doctrine,” and the idea is corroborated by > the ancient legends and myths, and even by the Bible itself when it > is read between the lines. We see a flower slowly developing from > a bud, and the bud from its seed. But whence the latter, with all > its predetermined programme of physical transformation, and its > invisible, therefore _spiritual_ forces which gradually develop its > form, color, and odor? The word _evolution_ speaks for itself. The > germ of the present human race must have preëxisted in the parent {153} > of this race, as the seed, in which lies hidden the flower of next > summer, was developed in the capsule of its parent-flower; the parent > may be but _slightly_ different, but it still differs from its future > progeny. The antediluvian ancestors of the present elephant and lizard > were, perhaps, the mammoth and the plesiosaurus; why should not the > progenitors of our human race have been the “giants” of the _Vedas_, > the _Völuspa_, and the Book of _Genesis_? While it is positively > absurd to believe the “transformation of species” to have taken place > according to some of the more materialistic views of the evolutionists, > it is but natural to think that each genus, beginning with the mollusks > and ending with monkey-man, has modified from its own primordial > and distinctive form. Supposing that we concede that “animals have > descended from at most only four or five progenitors;”[273] and that > even _à la rigueur_ “all the organic beings which have ever lived > on _this earth_ have descended from some one primordial form;”[274] > still no one but a stone-blind materialist, one utterly devoid of > intuitiveness, can seriously expect to see “in the distant future ... > psychology based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement > of each mental power and capacity by gradation.”[275] > > Physical man, as a product of evolution, may be left in the hands > of the man of exact science. None but he can throw light upon the > _physical_ origin of the race. But, we must positively deny the > materialist the same privilege as to the question of man’s psychical > and spiritual evolution, for he and his highest faculties _cannot_ be > proved on any conclusive evidence to be “as much products of evolution > as the humblest plant or the lowest worm.”[276] > > Having said so much, we will now proceed to show the > evolution-hypothesis of the old Brahmans, as embodied by them in the > allegory of the mundane tree. The Hindus represent their mythical > tree, which they call _Aswatha_, in a way which differs from that of > the Scandinavians. It is described by them as growing in a reversed > position, the branches extending downward and the roots upward; the > former typifying the external world of sense, _i.e._, the visible > cosmical universe, and the latter the invisible world of spirit, > because the roots have their _genesis_ in the heavenly regions where, > from the world’s creation, humanity has placed its invisible deity. > The creative energy having originated in the primordial point, the > religious symbols of every people are so many illustrations of this > metaphysical hypothesis expounded by Pythagoras, Plato, and other {154} > philosophers. “These Chaldeans,” says Philo,[277] “were of opinion that > the Kosmos, among the things that exist, is a single point, either > being itself God (Theos) or that in it is God, comprehending the soul > of all the things.” > > The Egyptian Pyramid also symbolically represents this idea of the > mundane tree. Its apex is the mystic link between heaven and earth, and > stands for the root, while the base represents the spreading branches, > extending to the four cardinal points of the universe of matter. It > conveys the idea that all things had their origin in spirit—evolution > having originally begun from above and proceeded downward, instead > of the reverse, as taught in the Darwinian theory. In other words, > there has been a gradual materialization of forms until a fixed > ultimate of debasement is reached. This point is that at which the > doctrine of modern evolution enters into the arena of speculative > hypothesis. Arrived at this period we will find it easier to understand > Haeckel’s _Anthropogeny_, which traces the pedigree of man “from its > protoplasmic root, sodden in the mud of seas which existed before > the oldest of the fossiliferous rocks were deposited,” according to > Professor Huxley’s exposition. We may believe man evolved “by gradual > modification of a mammal of ape-like organization” still easier when we > remember that (though in a more condensed and less elegant, but still > as comprehensible, phraseology) the same theory was said by Berosus > to have been taught many thousands of years before his time by the > man-fish Oannes or Dagon, the semi-demon of Babylonia.[278] We may add, > as a fact of interest, that this ancient theory of evolution is not > only embalmed in allegory and legend, but also depicted upon the walls > of certain temples in India, and, in a fragmentary form, has been found > in those of Egypt and on the slabs of Nimroud and Nineveh, excavated by > Layard. > > But what lies back of the Darwinian line of descent? So far as he is > concerned nothing but “unverifiable hypotheses.” For, as he puts it, > he views all beings “as the lineal descendants of some few beings > which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was > deposited.”[279] He does not attempt to show us who these “few beings” > were. But it answers our purpose quite as well, for in the admission of > their existence at all, resort to the ancients for corroboration and > elaboration of the idea receives the stamp of scientific approbation. > With all the changes that our globe has passed through as regards > temperature, climate, soil, and—if we may be pardoned, in view of > recent developments—its electro-magnetic condition, he would be bold {155} > indeed who dare say that anything in present science contradicts the > ancient hypothesis of ante-Silurian man. The flint-axes first found by > Boucher de Perthes, in the valley of the Sômme, prove that men must > have existed at a period so remote as to be beyond calculation. If we > believe Büchner, man must have lived even during and before the glacial > epoch, a subdivision of the quaternary or diluvial period probably > extending very far back in it. But who can tell what the next discovery > has in store for us? > > Now, if we have indisputable proof that man has existed so long as > this, there must have been wonderful modifications of his physical > system, corresponding with the changes of climate and atmosphere. Does > not this seem to show by analogy that, tracing backward, there may have > been other modifications, which fitted the most remote progenitors of > the “frost-giants” to live even contemporaneously with the Devonian > fishes or the Silurian mollusks? True, they left no flint-hatchets > behind them, nor any bones or cave-deposits; but, if the ancients are > correct, the races at that time were composed not only of giants, > or “mighty men of renown,” but also of “sons of God.” If those who > believe in the evolution of _spirit_ as firmly as the materialists > believe in that of _matter_ are charged with teaching “unverifiable > hypotheses,” how readily can they retort upon their accusers by saying > that, by _their_ own confession, their physical evolution is still > “an unverified, if not actually an unverifiable hypothesis.”[280] The > former have at least the inferential proof of legendary myth, the vast > antiquity of which is admitted by both philologists and archæologists; > while their antagonists have nothing of a similar nature, _unless they > help themselves to a portion of the ancient picture-writings, and > suppress the rest_. > > It is more than fortunate that, while the works of some men of > science—who have justly won their great reputations—will flatly > contradict our hypotheses, the researches and labors of others not > less eminent seem to fully confirm our views. In the recent work of > Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, _The Geographical Distribution of Animals_, we > find the author seriously favoring the idea of “some slow process of > development” of the present species from others which have preceded > them, his idea extending back over an innumerable series of cycles. > And if animals, why not animal man, preceded still farther back by a > thoroughly “spiritual” one—a “son of God”? > > And now, we may once more return to the symbolology of the olden times, > and their physico-religious myths. Before we close this work, we hope > to demonstrate more or less successfully how closely the conceptions of > the latter were allied with many of the achievements of modern science {156} > in physics and natural philosophy. Under the emblematical devices and > peculiar phraseology of the priesthood of old lie latent hints of > sciences as yet undiscovered during the present cycle. Well acquainted > as may be a scholar with the hieratic writing and hieroglyphical > system of the Egyptians, he must first of all learn to sift their > records. He has to assure himself, compasses and rule in hand, that > the picture-writing he is examining fits, to a line, certain fixed > geometrical figures which are the hidden keys to such records, before > he ventures on an interpretation. > > But there are myths which speak for themselves. In this class we may > include the double-sexed first creators, of every cosmogony. The Greek > Zeus-Zēn (æther), and Chthonia (the chaotic earth) and Metis (the > water), his wives; Osiris and Isis-Latona—the former god representing > also ether—the first emanation of the Supreme Deity, Amun, the primeval > source of light; the goddess earth and water again; Mithras,[281] the > rock-born god, the symbol of the male mundane-fire, or the personified > primordial light, and Mithra, the fire-goddess, at once his mother and > his wife; the pure element of fire (the active, or male principle) > regarded as light and heat, in conjunction with earth and water, or > matter (female or passive elements of cosmical generation). Mithras > is the son of Bordj, the Persian mundane mountain,[282] from which he > flashes out as a radiant ray of light. Brahma, the fire-god, and his > prolific consort; and the Hindu _Unghi_, the refulgent deity, from > whose body issue a thousand streams of glory and _seven_ tongues of > flame, and in whose honor the Sagniku Brahmans preserve to this day > a _perpetual_ fire; Siva, personated by the mundane mountain of the > Hindus—the _Meru_ (Himalaya). This terrific fire-god, who is said in > the legend to have descended from heaven, like the Jewish Jehovah, _in > a pillar of fire_, and a dozen of other archaic, double-sexed deities, > all loudly proclaim their hidden meaning. And what can these dual > myths mean but the physico-chemical principle of primordial creation? > The first revelation of the Supreme Cause in its triple manifestation > of spirit, force, and matter; the divine _correlation_, at its > starting-point of evolution, allegorized as the marriage of _fire_ > and water, products of electrifying spirit, union of the male active > principle with the female passive element, which become the parents of > their tellurian child, cosmic matter, the _prima materia_, whose spirit > is ether, the ASTRAL LIGHT! > > Thus all the world-mountains and mundane eggs, the mundane trees, and > the mundane snakes and pillars, may be shown to embody scientifically {157} > demonstrated truths of natural philosophy. All of these mountains > contain, with very trifling variations, the allegorically-expressed > description of primal cosmogony; the mundane trees, that of subsequent > evolution of spirit and matter; the mundane snakes and pillars, > symbolical memorials of the various attributes of this double evolution > in its endless correlation of cosmic forces. Within the mysterious > recesses of the mountain—the matrix of the universe—the gods (powers) > prepare the atomic germs of organic life, and at the same time the > life-drink, which, when tasted, awakens in man-matter the man-_spirit_. > The soma, the sacrificial drink of the Hindus, is that sacred beverage. > For, at the creation of the _prima materia_, while the grossest > portions of it were used for the physical embryo-world, the more > divine essence of it pervaded the universe, invisibly permeating and > enclosing within its ethereal waves the newly-born infant, developing > and stimulating it to activity as it slowly evolved out of the eternal > chaos. > > From the poetry of abstract conception, these mundane myths gradually > passed into the concrete images of cosmic symbols, as archæology now > finds them. The snake, which plays such a prominent part in the imagery > of the ancients, was degraded by the absurd interpretation of the > serpent of the Book of _Genesis_ into a synonym of Satan, the Prince > of Darkness, whereas it is the most ingenious of all the myths in its > various symbolisms. For one, as _agathodaimon_, it is the emblem of > the healing art and of the immortality of man. It encircles the images > of most of the sanitary or hygienic gods. The _cup of health_, in the > Egyptian Mysteries, was entwined by serpents. As evil can only arise > from an extreme in good, the serpent, under some other aspects, became > typical of matter; which, the more it recedes from its primal spiritual > source, the more it becomes subject of evil. In the oldest Egyptian > imagery, as in the cosmogonic allegories of Kneph, the mundane snake, > when typifying matter, is usually represented as contained within a > circle; he lies straight across its equator, thus indicating that the > universe of astral light, out of which the physical world evolved, > while bounding the latter, is itself bound by Emepht, or the Supreme > First Cause. _Phtha_ producing _Ra_, and the myriad forms to which he > gives life, are shown as creeping out of the mundane egg, because it > is the most familiar form of that in which is deposited and developed > the germ of every living being. When the serpent represents eternity > and immortality, it encircles the world, biting its tail, and thus > offering no solution of continuity. It then becomes the astral light. > The disciples of the school of Pherecydes taught that ether (Zeus or > Zēn) is the highest empyrean heaven, which encloses the supernal world, > and its light (the astral) is the concentrated primordial element. > > Such is the origin of the serpent, metamorphosed in Christian ages {158} > into Satan. It is the _Od_, the _Ob_, and the _Aour_ of Moses and the > Kabalists. When in its passive state, when it acts on those who are > unwittingly drawn within its current, the astral light is the _Ob_, or > Python. Moses was determined to exterminate all those who, sensitive > to its influence, allowed themselves to fall under the easy control > of the vicious beings which move in the astral waves like fish in the > water; beings who surround us, and whom Bulwer-Lytton calls in _Zanoni_ > “the dwellers of the threshold.” It becomes the _Od_, as soon as it is > vivified by the _conscious efflux_ of an immortal soul; for then the > astral currents are acting under the guidance of either an adept, a > pure spirit, or an able mesmerizer, who is pure himself and knows how > to direct the blind forces. In such cases even a high Planetary Spirit, > one of the class of beings that have never been embodied (though there > are many among these hierarchies who have lived on our earth), descends > occasionally to our sphere, and purifying the surrounding atmosphere > enables the _subject_ to see, and opens in him the springs of true > divine prophecy. As to the term _Aoûr_, the word is used to designate > certain occult properties of the universal agent. It pertains more > directly to the domain of the alchemist, and is of no interest to the > general public. > > The author of the _Homoiomerian_ system of philosophy, Anaxagoras > of Clazomenè, firmly believed that the spiritual prototypes of all > things, as well as their elements, were to be found in the boundless > ether, where they were generated, whence they evolved, and whither they > returned from earth. In common with the Hindus who had personified > their Akas’a (sky or ether) and made of it a deific entity, the Greeks > and Latins had deified Æther. Virgil calls Zeus, _pater omnipotens > æther_;[283] _Magnus_, the great god, Ether. > > These beings above alluded to are the elemental spirits of the > Kabalists,[284] whom the Christian clergy denounce as “devils,” the > enemies of mankind. > > “Already Tertullian,” gravely remarks Des Mousseaux, in his chapter on {159} > the devils, “has _formally_ discovered the secret of their cunning.” > > A priceless discovery, that. And now that we have learned so much of > the mental labors of the holy fathers and their achievements in astral > anthropology, need we be surprised at all, if, in the zeal of their > spiritual explorations, they have so far neglected their own planet as > at times to deny not only its right to motion but even its sphericity? > > And this is what we find in Langhorne, the translator of _Plutarch_: > “Dionysius of Halicarnassus [L. ii.] is of opinion that Numa built > the temple of Vesta in a _round_ form, to represent the figure of the > earth, for by Vesta they meant the earth.” Moreover, Philolaüs, in > common with all other Pythagoreans, held that the element of fire was > placed in the centre of the universe; and Plutarch, speaking on the > subject, remarks of the Pythagoreans that “the earth they suppose not > to be without motion, _nor_ situated in the centre of the world, but to > make its revolution round the sphere of fire, being neither one of the > most valuable, nor principal parts of the great machine.” Plato, too, > is reported to have been of the same opinion. It appears, therefore, > that the Pythagoreans anticipated Galileo’s _discovery_. > > The existence of such an invisible universe being once admitted—as > seems likely to be the fact if the speculations of the authors of the > _Unseen Universe_ are ever accepted by their colleagues—many of the > phenomena, hitherto mysterious and inexplicable, become plain. It acts > on the organism of the magnetized mediums, it penetrates and saturates > them through and through, either directed by the powerful will of a > mesmerizer, or by unseen beings who achieve the same result. Once that > the silent operation is performed, the astral or sidereal phantom of > the mesmerized subject quits its paralyzed, earthly casket, and, after > having roamed in the boundless space, alights at the threshold of the > mysterious “bourne.” For it, the gates of the portal which marks the > entrance to the “silent land,” are now but partially ajar; they will > fly wide open before the soul of the entranced somnambulist only on > that day when, united with its higher immortal essence, it will have > quitted forever its mortal frame. Until then, the seer or seeress > can look but through a chink; it depends on the acuteness of the > clairvoyant’s spiritual sight to see more or less through it. > > The trinity in unity is an idea which all the ancient nations held in {160} > common. The three Dejotas—the Hindu Trimurti; the _Three Heads_ of the > Jewish Kabala.[285] “Three heads are hewn in one another and over one > another.” The trinity of the Egyptians and that of the mythological > Greeks were alike representations of the first triple emanation > containing two male and one female principles. It is the union of > the male _Logos_, or wisdom, the revealed Deity, with the female > _Aura_ or _Anima Mundi_—“the holy _Pneuma_,” which is the _Sephira_ > of the Kabalists and the _Sophia_ of the refined Gnostics—that > produced all things visible and invisible. While the true metaphysical > interpretation of this universal dogma remained within the sanctuaries, > the Greeks, with their poetical instincts, impersonated it in many > charming myths. In the _Dionysiacs_ of Nonnus, the god Bacchus, among > other allegories, is represented as in love with the soft, genial > breeze (the Holy Pneuma), under the name of _Aura Placida_.[286] And > now we will leave Godfrey Higgins to speak: “When the _ignorant_ > Fathers were constructing their calendar, they made out of this gentle > zephyr two Roman Catholic saints!!” SS. Aura and Placida;—nay, they > even went so far as to transfer the jolly god into St. Bacchus, and > actually _show his coffin and relics at Rome_. The festival of the two > “blessed saints,” Aura and Placida, occurs on the 5th of October, close > to the festival of St. Bacchus.[287] > > How far more poetical, and how much greater the religious spirit to > be found in the “heathen” Norse legends of creation! In the boundless > abyss of the mundane pit, the Ginnunga-gap, where rage in blind fury > and conflict cosmic matter and the primordial forces, suddenly blows > the thaw-wind. It is the “unrevealed God,” who sends his beneficent > breath from Muspellheim, the sphere of empyreal fire, within whose > glowing rays dwells this great Being, far beyond the limits of the > world of matter; and the _animus_ of the Unseen, the Spirit brooding > over the dark, abysmal waters, calls order out of chaos, and once > having given the impulse to all creation the FIRST CAUSE retires, and > remains for evermore in _statu abscondito_![288] > > There is both religion and science in these Scandinavian songs of > heathendom. As an example of the latter, take the conception of Thor, > the son of Odin. Whenever this Hercules of the North would grasp the > handle of his terrible weapon, the thunderbolt or electric hammer, > he is obliged to put on his _iron_ gantlets. He also wears a magical {161} > belt known as the “_girdle of strength_,” which, whenever girded about > his person, greatly augments his celestial power. He rides upon a car > drawn by two rams with silver bridles, and his awful brow is encircled > by a wreath of stars. His chariot has a pointed iron pole, and the > spark-scattering wheels continually roll over rumbling thunder-clouds. > He hurls his hammer with resistless force against the rebellious > frost-giants, whom he dissolves and annihilates. When he repairs to the > Urdar fountain, where the gods meet in conclave to decide the destinies > of humanity, he alone goes on foot, the rest of the deities being > mounted. He walks, for fear that in crossing Bifrost (the rainbow), the > many-hued Æsir-bridge, he might set it on fire with his thunder-car, at > the same time causing the Urdar waters to boil. > > Rendered into plain English, how can this myth be interpreted but as > showing that the Norse legend-makers were thoroughly acquainted with > electricity? Thor, the euhemerization of electricity, handles his > peculiar element only when protected by gloves of _iron_, which is its > natural conductor. His belt of strength is a closed circuit, around > which the isolated current is compelled to run instead of diffusing > itself through space. When he rushes with his car through the clouds, > he is electricity in its _active_ condition, as the sparks scattering > from his wheels and the rumbling thunder of the clouds testify. The > pointed iron pole of the chariot is suggestive of the lightning-rod; > the two rams which serve as his coursers are the familiar ancient > symbols of the male or generative power; their silver bridles typify > the female principle, for silver is the metal of Luna, Astartè, Diana. > Therefore in the ram and his bridle we see combined the active and > passive principles of nature in opposition, one rushing forward, > and the other restraining, while both are in subordination to the > world-permeating, electrical principle, which gives them their impulse. > With the electricity supplying the impulse, and the male and female > principles combining and recombining in endless correlation, the > result is—evolution of visible nature, the crown-glory of which is > the planetary system, which in the mythic Thor is allegorized by the > circlet of glittering orbs which bedeck his brow. When in his active > condition, his awful thunderbolts destroy everything, even the lesser > other Titanic forces. But he goes afoot over the rainbow bridge, > Bifrost, because to mingle with other less powerful gods than himself, > he is obliged to be in a _latent_ state, which he could not be in his > car; otherwise he would set on fire and annihilate all. The meaning of > the Urdar-fountain, that Thor is afraid to make boil, and the cause > of his reluctance, will only be comprehended by our physicists when > the reciprocal electro-magnetic relations of the innumerable members > of the planetary system, now just suspected, shall be thoroughly > determined. Glimpses of the truth are given in the recent scientific {162} > essays of Professors Mayer and Sterry Hunt. The ancient philosophers > believed that not only volcanos, but boiling springs were caused by > concentrations of underground electric currents, and that this same > cause produced mineral deposits of various natures, which form curative > springs. If it be objected that this fact is not distinctly stated by > the ancient authors, who, in the opinion of our century were hardly > acquainted with electricity, we may simply answer that not all the > works embodying ancient wisdom are now extant among our scientists. The > clear and cool waters of Urdar were required for the daily irrigation > of the mystical mundane tree; and if they had been disturbed by Thor, > or active electricity, they would have been converted into mineral > springs unsuited for the purpose. Such examples as the above will > support the ancient claim of the philosophers that _there is a logos in > every mythos_, or a groundwork of truth in every fiction. > > CHAPTER VI. {163} > > “Hermes, who is of my ordinances ever the bearer ... > Then taking his staff, with which he the eyelids of mortals > Closes at will, and the sleeper, at will, reawakens.”—_Odyssey_, > Book V. > > “I saw the Samothracian rings > Leap, and steel-filings boil in a brass dish > So soon as underneath it there was placed > The magnet-stone; and with wild terror seemed > The iron to flee from it in stern hate....”—_Lucretius_, Book VI. > > “But that which especially distinguishes the Brotherhood is > their marvellous knowledge of the resources of the medical art. > They work not by charms but by simples.” > (_MS. Account of the Origin and Attributes of the True > Rosicrucians._) > > One of the truest things ever said by a man of science is the remark > made by Professor Cooke in his _New Chemistry_. “The history of Science > shows that the age must be prepared before scientific truths can take > root and grow. The barren premonitions of science have been barren > because these seeds of truth fell upon unfruitful soil; and, as soon as > the fulness of the time has come, the seed has taken root and the fruit > has ripened ... every student is surprised to find how very little is > the share of new truth which even the greatest genius has added to the > previous stock.” > > The revolution through which chemistry has recently passed, is well > calculated to concentrate the attention of chemists upon this fact; > and it would not be strange, if, in less time than it has required > to effect it, the claims of the alchemists would be examined with > impartiality, and studied from a rational point of view. To bridge over > the narrow gulf which now separates the _new_ chemistry from _old_ > alchemy, is little, if any harder than what they have done in going > from dualism to the law of Avogadro. > > As Ampère served to introduce Avogadro to our contemporary chemists, so > Reichenbach will perhaps one day be found to have paved the way with > his OD for the just appreciation of Paracelsus. It was more than fifty > years before molecules were accepted as units of chemical calculations; > it may require less than half that time to cause the superlative merits > of the Swiss mystic to be acknowledged. The warning paragraph about > healing mediums,[289] which will be found elsewhere, might have been {164} > written by one who had read his works. “You must understand,” he says, > “that the magnet is that spirit of life in man which the infected > seeks, as both unite themselves with chaos from without. And thus the > healthy are infected by the unhealthy through magnetic attraction.” > > The primal causes of the diseases afflicting mankind; the secret > relations between physiology and psychology, vainly tortured by men > of modern science for some clew to base their speculations upon; the > specifics and remedies for every ailment of the human body—all are > described and accounted for in his voluminous works. Electro-magnetism, > the so-called _discovery_ of Professor Oersted, had been used by > Paracelsus three centuries before. This may be demonstrated by > examining critically his mode of curing disease. Upon his achievements > in chemistry there is no need to enlarge, for it is admitted by fair > and unprejudiced writers that he was one of the greatest chemists of > his time.[290] Brierre de Boismont terms him a “genius” and agrees with > Deleuze that he created a new epoch in the history of medicine. The > secret of his successful and, as they were called, magic cures lies in > his sovereign contempt for the so-called learned “authorities” of his > age. “Seeking for truth,” says Paracelsus, “I considered with myself > that if there were no teachers of medicine in this world, how would > I set to learn the art? No otherwise than in the great open book of > nature, written with the finger of God.... I am accused and denounced > for not having entered in at the right door of art. But which is the > right one? Galen, Avicenna, Mesue, Rhasis, or honest nature? I believe, > the last! Through this door I entered, and the light of nature, and no > apothecary’s lamp directed me on my way.” > > This utter scorn for established laws and scientific formulas, this > aspiration of mortal clay to commingle with the spirit of nature, and > look to it alone for health, and help, and the light of truth, was the > cause of the inveterate hatred shown by the contemporary pigmies to > the fire-philosopher and alchemist. No wonder that he was accused of > charlatanry and even drunkenness. Of the latter charge, Hemmann boldly > and fearlessly exonerates him, and proves that the foul accusation > proceeded from “Oporinus, who lived with him some time in order to > learn his secrets, but his object was defeated; hence, the evil reports > of his disciples and apothecaries.” He was the founder of the School > of Animal Magnetism and the discoverer of the occult properties of the > magnet. He was branded by his age as a sorcerer, because the cures > he made were marvellous. Three centuries later, Baron Du Potet was > also accused of sorcery and demonolatry by the Church of Rome, and of {165} > charlatanry by the academicians of Europe. As the fire-philosophers > say, it is not the chemist who will condescend to look upon the “living > fire” otherwise than his colleagues do. “Thou hast forgotten what thy > fathers taught thee about it—or rather, thou hast never known ... it is > _too loud_ for thee!”[291] > > A work upon magico-spiritual philosophy and occult science would > be incomplete without a particular notice of the history of animal > magnetism, as it stands since Paracelsus staggered with it the > schoolmen of the latter half of the sixteenth century. > > We will observe briefly its appearance in Paris when imported from > Germany by Anton Mesmer. Let us peruse with care and caution the old > papers now mouldering in the Academy of Sciences of that capital, > for there we will find that, after having rejected in its turn every > discovery that was ever made since Galileo, the _Immortals_ capped > the climax by turning their backs upon magnetism and mesmerism. They > voluntarily shut the doors before themselves, the doors which led to > those greatest mysteries of nature, which lie hid in the dark regions > of the psychical as well as the physical world. The great universal > solvent, the Alkahest, was within their reach—they passed it by; and > now, after nearly a hundred years have elapsed, we read the following > confession: > > “Still it is true that, beyond the limits of direct observation, our > science (chemistry) is not infallible, and our theories and systems, > although they _may_ all contain a kernel of truth, undergo frequent > changes, and are often revolutionized.”[292] > > To assert so dogmatically that mesmerism and animal magnetism are > but hallucinations, implies that it can be proved. But where are > these proofs, which alone ought to have authority in science? > Thousands of times the chance was given to the academicians to assure > themselves of its truth; but, they have invariably declined. Vainly > do mesmerists and healers invoke the testimony of the deaf, the lame, > the diseased, the dying, who were cured or restored to life by simple > manipulations and the apostolic “laying on of hands.” “Coincidence” > is the usual reply, when the fact is too evident to be absolutely > denied; “will-o’-the-wisp,” “exaggeration,” “quackery,” are favorite > expressions, with our but too numerous Thomases. Newton, the well-known > American healer, has performed more instantaneous cures than many a > famous physician of New York City has had patients in all his life; > Jacob, the Zouave, has had a like success in France. Must we then > consider the accumulated testimony of the last forty years upon this > subject to be all illusion, confederacy with clever charlatans, and {166} > lunacy? Even to breathe such a stupendous fallacy would be equivalent > to a self-accusation of lunacy. > > Notwithstanding the recent sentence of Leymarie, the scoffs of the > skeptics and of a vast majority of physicians and scientists, the > unpopularity of the subject, and, above all, the indefatigable > persecutions of the Roman Catholic clergy, fighting in mesmerism > woman’s traditional enemy, so evident and unconquerable is the truth > of its phenomena that even the French magistrature was forced tacitly, > though very reluctantly, to admit the same. The famous _clairvoyante_, > Madame Roger, was charged with obtaining money under false pretenses, > in company with her mesmerist, Dr. Fortin. On May 18th, 1876, she > was arraigned before the _Tribunal Correctionnel_ of the Seine. > Her witness was Baron Du Potet, the grand master of mesmerism in > France for the last fifty years; her advocate, the no less famous > Jules Favre. Truth for once triumphed—the accusation was abandoned. > Was it the extraordinary eloquence of the orator, or bare facts > incontrovertible and unimpeachable that won the day? But Leymarie, > the editor of the _Revue Spirite_, had also facts in his favor; and, > moreover, the evidence of over a hundred respectable witnesses, > among whom were the first names of Europe. To this there is but one > answer—the magistrates dared not question the facts of mesmerism. > Spirit-photography, spirit-rapping, writing, moving, talking, and even > spirit-materializations can be simulated; there is hardly a physical > phenomenon now in Europe and America but could be imitated—with > apparatus—by a clever juggler. The wonders of mesmerism and subjective > phenomena alone defy tricksters, skepticism, stern science, and > dishonest mediums; _the cataleptic state it is impossible to feign_. > Spiritualists who are anxious to have their truths proclaimed and > forced on science, cultivate the mesmeric phenomena. Place on the stage > of Egyptian Hall a somnambulist plunged in a deep mesmeric sleep. Let > her mesmerist send her freed spirit to all the places the public may > suggest; test her clairvoyance and clairaudience; stick pins into any > part of her body which the mesmerist may have made his passes over; > thrust needles through the skin below her eyelids; burn her flesh and > lacerate it with a sharp instrument. “Do not fear!” exclaim Regazzoni > and Du Potet, Teste and Pierrard, Puysegur and Dolgorouky—“a mesmerized > or entranced subject _is never hurt_!” And when all this is performed, > invite any popular wizard of the day who thirsts for puffery, and is, > or pretends to be, clever at mimicking every spiritual phenomenon, to > submit _his_ body to the same tests![293] > > The speech of Jules Favre is reported to have lasted an hour and a {167} > half, and to have held the judges and the public spellbound by its > eloquence. We who have heard Jules Favre believe it most readily; > only the statement embodied in the last sentence of his argument was > unfortunately premature and erroneous at the same time. “We are in the > presence of a phenomenon which _science admits_ without attempting > to explain. _The public may smile at_ it, but our most illustrious > physicians regard it with gravity. Justice can no longer ignore what > _science has acknowledged_!” > > Were this sweeping declaration based upon fact and had mesmerism > been impartially investigated by many instead of a few true men of > science, more desirous of questioning nature than mere expediency, the > public would _never_ smile. The public is a docile and pious child, > and readily goes whither the nurse leads it. It chooses its idols and > fetishes, and worships them in proportion to the noise they make; and > then turns round with a timid look of adulation to see whether the > nurse, old Mrs. Public Opinion, is satisfied. > > Lactantius, the old Christian father, is said to have remarked that > no skeptic in his days would have dared to maintain before a magician > that the soul did not survive the body, but died together with it; “for > he would refute them on the spot by calling up the souls of the dead, > rendering them visible to human eyes, and making them foretell future > events.”[294] So with the magistrates and bench in Madame Roger’s > case. Baron Du Potet was there, and they were _afraid_ to see him > mesmerize the somnambulist, and so force them not only to believe in > the phenomenon, but to acknowledge it—which was far worse. > > And now to the doctrine of Paracelsus. His incomprehensible, though > lively style must be read like the biblio-rolls of Ezekiel, “_within > and without_.” The peril of propounding heterodox theories was great > in those days; the Church was powerful, and sorcerers were burnt by > the dozens. For this reason, we find Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Eugenius > Philalethes as notable for their pious declarations as they were > famous for their achievements in alchemy and magic. The full views > of Paracelsus on the occult properties of the magnet are explained > partially in his famous book, _Archidaxarum_, in which he describes the {168} > wonderful tincture, a medicine extracted from the magnet and called > _Magisterium Magnetis_, and partially in the _De Ente Dei_, and _De > Ente Astrorum_, Lib. I. But the explanations are all given in a diction > unintelligible to the profane. “Every peasant sees,” said he, “that a > magnet will attract iron, but a wise man must inquire for himself.... > I have discovered that the magnet, besides this visible power, that of > attracting iron, possesses another _and concealed_ power.” > > He demonstrates further that in man lies hidden a “_sidereal_ force,” > which is that emanation from the stars and celestial bodies of which > the spiritual form of man—the astral spirit—is composed. This identity > of essence, which we may term the spirit of cometary matter, always > stands in direct relation with the stars from which it was drawn, and > thus there exists a mutual attraction between the two, both being > magnets. The identical composition of the earth and all other planetary > bodies and man’s terrestrial body was a fundamental idea in his > philosophy. “The body comes from the elements, the [astral] spirit from > the stars.... Man eats and drinks of the elements, for the sustenance > of his blood and flesh; from the stars are the intellect and thoughts > sustained in his spirit.” _The spectroscope has made good his theory > as to the identical composition of man and stars; the physicists now > lecture to their classes upon the magnetic attractions of the sun and > planets._[295] > > Of the substances known to compose the body of man, there have been > discovered in the stars already, hydrogen, sodium, calcium, magnesium > and iron. In all the stars observed, numbering many hundreds, hydrogen > was found, except in two. Now, if we recollect how they have deprecated > Paracelsus and his theory of man and the stars being composed of like > substances; how ridiculed he was by astronomers and physicists, for his > ideas of chemical affinity and attraction between the two; and then > realize that the spectroscope has vindicated one of his assertions at > least, is it so absurd to prophesy that in time all the rest of his > theories will be substantiated? > > And now, a very natural question is suggested. How did Paracelsus > come to learn anything of the composition of the stars, when, till a > very recent period—till the discovery of the spectroscope in fact—the > constituents of the heavenly bodies were utterly unknown to our learned {169} > academies? And even now, notwithstanding tele-spectroscope and other > very important modern improvements, except a few elements and a > hypothetical chromosphere, everything is yet a mystery for them in the > stars. Could Paracelsus have been so sure of the nature of the starry > host, unless he had means of which science knows nothing? Yet knowing > nothing she will not even hear pronounced the very names of these > means, which are—hermetic philosophy and alchemy. > > We must bear in mind, moreover, that _Paracelsus was the discoverer > of hydrogen, and knew well all its properties and composition_ long > before any of the orthodox academicians ever thought of it; that he had > studied astrology and astronomy, as all the fire-philosophers did; and > that, if he did assert that man is in a direct affinity with the stars, > he knew well what he asserted. > > The next point for the physiologists to verify is his proposition that > the nourishment of the body comes not merely through the stomach, > “but also imperceptibly through the magnetic force, which resides in > all nature and by which every individual member draws its specific > nourishment to itself.” Man, he further says, draws not only health > from the elements when in equilibrium, but also disease when they are > disturbed. Living bodies are subject to the laws of attraction and > chemical affinity, as science admits; the most remarkable physical > property of organic tissues, according to physiologists, is the > property of _imbibition_. What more natural, then, than this theory > of Paracelsus, that this absorbent, attractive, and chemical body of > ours gathers into itself the astral or sidereal influences? “The sun > and the stars attract from us to themselves, and we again from them to > us.” What objection can science offer to this? What it is that we give > off, is shown in Baron Reichenbach’s discovery of the odic emanations > of man, which are identical with flames from magnets, crystals, and in > fact from all vegetable organisms. > > The unity of the universe was asserted by Paracelsus, who says that > “the human body is possessed of primeval stuff (or cosmic matter); the > spectroscope has proved the assertion by showing that the same chemical > elements which exist upon earth and in the sun, are also found in all > the stars. The spectroscope does more: it shows that all the stars are > _suns_, similar in constitution to our own;[296] and as we are told by > Professor Mayer,[297] that the magnetic condition of the earth changes > with every variation upon the sun’s surface, and is said to be “in {170} > subjection to _emanations_ from the sun,” the stars being suns must > also give off emanations which affect us in proportionate degrees. > > “In our dreams,” says Paracelsus, “we are like the plants, which have > also the elementary and vital body, but possess not the spirit. In our > sleep the astral body is free and can, by the elasticity of its nature, > either hover round in proximity with its sleeping vehicle, or soar > higher to hold converse with its starry parents, or even communicate > with its brothers at great distances. Dreams of a prophetic character, > prescience, and present wants, are the faculties of the astral spirit. > To our elementary and grosser body, these gifts are not imparted, for > at death it descends into the bosom of the earth and is reunited to the > physical elements, while the several spirits return to the stars. The > animals,” he adds, “have also their presentiments, for they too have an > astral body.” > > Van Helmont, who was a disciple of Paracelsus, says much the same, > though his theories on magnetism are more largely developed, and still > more carefully elaborated. The _Magnale Magnum_, the means by which > the secret magnetic property “enables one person to affect another > mutually, is attributed by him to that universal sympathy which exists > between all things in nature. The cause produces the effect, the > effect refers itself back to the cause, and both are reciprocated. > “Magnetism,” he says, “is an unknown property of a heavenly nature; > very much resembling the stars, and not at all impeded by any > boundaries of space or time.... Every created being possesses his own > celestial power and is closely allied with heaven. This magic power of > man, which thus can operate externally, lies, as it were, hidden in > the inner man. This magical wisdom and strength thus sleeps, but, by > a mere suggestion is roused into activity, and becomes more living, > the more the outer man of flesh and the darkness is repressed ... and > this, I say, the kabalistic art effects; it brings back to the soul > that magical yet natural strength which like a startled sleep had left > it.”[298] > > Both Van Helmont and Paracelsus agree as to the great potency of the > will in the state of ecstasy; they say that “the spirit is everywhere > diffused; and the spirit is the medium of magnetism;” that pure > primeval magic does not consist in superstitious practices and vain > ceremonies but in the imperial will of man. “It is not the spirits of > heaven and of hell which are the masters over physical nature, but > the soul and spirit of man which are concealed in him as the fire is > concealed in the flint.” > > The theory of the sidereal influence on man was enunciated by all the > mediæval philosophers. “The stars consist equally of the elements {171} > of earthly bodies,” says Cornelius Agrippa, “and therefore the ideas > attract each other.... Influences only go forth through the help of the > spirit; but this spirit is diffused through the whole universe and is > in full accord with the human spirits. The magician who would acquire > supernatural powers must possess _faith_, _love_, and _hope_.... In > all things there is a secret power concealed, and thence come the > miraculous powers of magic.” > > The modern theory of General Pleasanton[299] singularly coincides > with the views of the fire-philosophers. His view of the positive and > negative electricities of man and woman, and the mutual attraction > and repulsion of everything in nature seems to be copied from that > of Robert Fludd, the Grand Master of the Rosicrucians of England. > “When two men approach each other,” says the fire-philosopher, “their > magnetism is either passive or active; that is, positive or negative. > If the emanations which they send out are broken or thrown back, there > arises antipathy. But when the emanations pass through each other from > both sides, then there is positive magnetism, for the rays proceed from > the centre to the circumference. In this case they not only affect > sicknesses but also moral sentiments. This magnetism or sympathy is > found not only among animals but also in plants and in animals.”[300] > > And now we will notice how, when Mesmer had imported into France his > “baquet” and system based entirely on the philosophy and doctrines of > the Paracelsites—the great psychological and physiological discovery > was treated by the physicians. It will demonstrate how much ignorance, > superficiality, and prejudice can be displayed by a scientific body, > when the subject clashes with their own cherished theories. It is the > more important because, to the neglect of the committee of the French > Academy of 1784 is probably due the present materialistic drift of the > public mind; and certainly the gaps in the atomic philosophy which we > have seen its most devoted teachers confessing to exist. The committee > of 1784 comprised men of such eminence as Borie, Sallin, d’Arcet, > and the famous Guillotin, to whom were subsequently added, Franklin, > Leroi, Bailly, De Borg and Lavoisier. Borie died shortly afterward > and Magault succeeded him. There can be no doubt of two things, viz.: > that the committee began their work under strong prejudices and only > because peremptorily ordered to do it by the king; and that their > manner of observing the delicate facts of mesmerism was injudicious > and illiberal. Their report, drawn by Bailly, was intended to be a > death-blow to the new science. It was spread ostentatiously throughout > all the schools and ranks of society, arousing the bitterest feelings {172} > among a large portion of the aristocracy and rich commercial class, > who had patronized Mesmer and had been eye-witnesses of his cures. > Ant. L. de Jussieu, an academician of the highest rank, who had > thoroughly investigated the subject with the eminent court-physician, > d’Eslon, published a counter-report drawn with minute exactness, in > which he advocated the careful observation by the medical faculty of > the therapeutic effects of the magnetic fluid and insisted upon the > immediate publication of their discoveries and observations. His demand > was met by the appearance of a great number of memoirs, polemical > works, and dogmatical books developing new facts; and Thouret’s works > entitled _Recherches et Doutes sur le Magnetisme Animal_, displaying > a vast erudition, stimulated research into the records of the past, > and the magnetic phenomena of successive nations from the remotest > antiquity were laid before the public. > > The doctrine of Mesmer was simply a restatement of the doctrines of > Paracelsus, Van Helmont, Santanelli, and Maxwell, the Scotchman; and > he was even guilty of copying texts from the work of Bertrand, and > enunciating them as his own principles.[301] In Professor Stewart’s > work,[302] the author regards our universe as composed of atoms with > some sort of medium between them as the machine, and the laws of energy > as the laws working this machine. Professor Youmans calls this “a > modern doctrine,” but we find among the twenty-seven propositions laid > down by Mesmer, in 1775, just one century earlier, in his _Letter to a > Foreign Physician_, the following: > > _1st. There exists a mutual influence between the heavenly bodies, the > earth, and living bodies._ > > _2d. A fluid, universally diffused and continued, so as to admit no > vacuum, whose subtility is beyond all comparison, and which, from its > nature, is capable of receiving, propagating, and communicating all the > impressions of motion, is the medium of this influence._ > > It would appear from this, that the theory is not so modern after all. > Professor Balfour Stewart says, “We may regard the universe in the > light of a vast physical machine.” And Mesmer: > > _3d. This reciprocal action is subject to mechanical laws, unknown up > to the present time._ > > Professor Mayer, reaffirming Gilbert’s doctrine that the earth is a > great magnet, remarks that the mysterious variations in the intensity > of its force seem to be in subjection to emanations from the sun, > “changing with the apparent daily and yearly revolutions of that orb, {173} > and pulsating in sympathy with the huge waves of fire which sweep over > its surface.” He speaks of “the constant fluctuation, the ebb and flow > of the earth’s directive influence.” And Mesmer: > > _4th._ “_From this action result alternate effects which may be > considered a flux and reflux._” > > _6th. It is by this operation (the most universal of those presented to > us by nature) that the relations of activity occur between the heavenly > bodies, the earth, and its constituent parts._ > > There are two more which will be interesting reading to our modern > scientists: > > _7th. The properties of matter, and of organized body, depend on this > operation._ > > _8th. The animal body experiences the alternate effects of this agent; > and it is by insinuating itself into the substance of the nerves, that > it immediately affects them._ > > Among other important works which appeared between 1798 and 1824, when > the French Academy appointed its second commission to investigate > mesmerism, the _Annales du Magnetisme Animal_, by the Baron d’Henin > de Cuvillier, Lieutenant-General, Chevalier of St. Louis, member of > the Academy of Sciences, and correspondent of many of the learned > societies of Europe, may be consulted with great advantage. In 1820 > the Prussian government instructed the Academy of Berlin to offer a > prize of three hundred ducats in gold for the best thesis on mesmerism. > The Royal Scientific Society of Paris, under the presidency of His > Royal Highness the Duc d’Angoulême, offered a gold medal for the > same purpose. The Marquis de la Place, peer of France, one of the > _Forty_ of the Academy of Sciences, and honorary member of the learned > societies of all the principal European governments, issued a work > entitled _Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités_, in which this > eminent scientist says: “Of all the instruments that we can employ > to know the imperceptible agents of nature, the most sensitive are > the nerves, especially when exceptional influences increase their > sensibility.... The singular phenomena which result from this extreme > nervous sensitiveness of certain individuals, have given birth to > diverse opinions as to the existence of a new agent, which has > been named animal magnetism.... We are so far from knowing all the > agents of nature and their various modes of action that it would be > hardly philosophical to deny the phenomena, simply because they are > inexplicable, in the actual state of our information. It is simply our > duty to examine them with an attention as much more scrupulous as it > seems difficult to admit them.” > > The experiments of Mesmer were vastly improved upon by the Marquis > de Puysegur, who entirely dispensed with apparatus and produced {174} > remarkable cures among the tenants of his estate at Busancy. These > being given to the public, many other educated men experimented with > like success, and in 1825 M. Foissac proposed to the Academy of > Medicine to institute a new inquiry. A special committee, consisting of > Adelon, Parisey, Marc, Burdin, sen., with Husson as reporter, united > in a recommendation that the suggestion should be adopted. They make > the manly avowal that “in science no decision whatever is absolute > and irrevocable,” and afford us the means to estimate the value which > should be attached to the conclusions of the Franklin committee of > 1784, by saying that “the experiments on which this judgment was > founded appeared to have been conducted without the simultaneous and > necessary assembling together of all the commissioners, and _also with > moral predispositions_, which, according to the principles of the > fact which they were appointed to examine, _must cause their complete > failure_.” > > What they say concerning magnetism as a secret remedy, has been said > many times by the most respected writers upon modern Spiritualism, > namely: “It is the duty of the Academy to study it, to subject it to > trials; finally, to take away the use and practice of it from persons > quite strangers to the art, who abuse this means, and make it an object > of lucre and speculation.” > > This report provoked long debates, but in May, 1826, the Academy > appointed a commission which comprised the following illustrious > names: Leroux, Bourdois de la Motte, Double, Magendie, Guersant, > Husson, Thillaye, Marc, Itard, Fouquier, and Guénau de Mussy. They > began their labors immediately, and continued them five years, > communicating, through Monsieur Husson, to the Academy the results > of their observations. The report embraces accounts of phenomena > classified under thirty-four different paragraphs, but as this work is > not specially devoted to the science of magnetism, we must be content > with a few brief extracts. They assert that neither contact of the > hands, frictions, nor passes are invariably needed, since, on several > occasions, the will, fixedness of stare, have sufficed to produce > magnetic phenomena, even without the knowledge of the magnetized. > “Well-attested and therapeutical phenomena” depend on magnetism alone, > and are not reproduced without it. The state of somnambulism exists > and “occasions the development of new faculties, which have received > the denominations of _clairvoyance_, intuition, internal prevision.” > Sleep (the magnetic) has “been excited under circumstances where those > magnetized could not see, and were entirely ignorant of the means > employed to occasion it. The magnetizer, having once controlled his > subject, may “put him completely into somnambulism, take him out of > it without his knowledge, out of his sight, at a certain distance, > and through closed doors.” The external senses of the sleeper seem {175} > to be completely paralyzed, and a duplicate set to be brought into > action. “Most of the time they are entirely strangers to the external > and unexpected noise made in their ears, such as the sound of copper > vessels, forcibly struck, the fall of any heavy substance, and so > forth.... One may make them respire hydrochloric acid or ammonia > without inconveniencing them by it, or without even a suspicion on > their part.” The committee could “tickle their feet, nostrils, and the > angles of the eyes by the approach of a feather, pinch their skin so > as to produce ecchymosis, prick it under the nails with pins plunged > to a considerable depth, without the evincing of any pain, or by sign > of being at all aware of it.” In a word, we have seen one person who > was insensible to one of the most painful operations of surgery, and > whose countenance, pulse, or respiration did not manifest the slightest > emotion.” > > So much for the external senses; now let us see what they have to say > about the internal ones, which may fairly be considered as proving a > marked difference between man and a mutton-protoplasm. “Whilst they > are in this state of somnambulism,” say the committee, “the magnetized > persons we have observed, retain the exercise of the faculties which > they have whilst awake. Their memory even appears to be more faithful > and more extensive.... We have seen two somnambulists distinguish, > with their eyes shut, the objects placed before them; they have told, > without touching them, the color and value of the cards; they have > read words traced with the hand, or some lines of books opened by > mere chance. This phenomenon took place, even when the opening of the > eyelids was accurately closed, by means of the fingers. We met, in two > somnambulists, the power of foreseeing acts more or less complicated of > the organism. One of them announced several days, nay, several months > beforehand, the day, the hour, and the minute when epileptic fits would > come on and return; the other declared the time of the cure. Their > previsions were realized with remarkable exactness.” > > The commission say that “it has collected and communicated facts > sufficiently important to induce it to think that the Academy should > encourage the researches on magnetism as a very curious branch of > psychology and natural history.” The committee conclude by saying that > the facts _are so extraordinary_ that they scarcely imagine that the > Academy will concede their reality, but protest that they have been > throughout animated by motives of a lofty character, “the love of > science and by the necessity of justifying the hopes which the Academy > had entertained of our zeal and our devotion.” > > Their fears were fully justified by the conduct of at least one > member of their own number, who had absented himself from the > experiments, and, as M. Husson tells us, “did not deem it right to {176} > sign the report.” This was Magendie, the physiologist, who, despite > the fact stated by the official report that he had not “been present > at the experiments,” did not hesitate to devote four pages of his > famous work on _Human Physiology_ to the subject of mesmerism, and > after summarizing its alleged phenomena, without endorsing them as > unreservedly as the erudition and scientific acquirements of his fellow > committee-men would seem to have exacted, says: “Self-respect and the > dignity of the profession demand circumspection on these points. He > (the well-informed physician) will remember how readily mystery glides > into charlatanry, and how apt the profession is to become degraded even > by its semblance when countenanced by respectable practitioners.” No > word in the context lets his readers into the secret that he had been > duly appointed by the Academy to serve on the commission of 1826; had > absented himself from its sittings; had so failed to learn the truth > about mesmeric phenomena, and was now pronouncing judgment ex parte. > “Self-respect and the dignity of the profession” probably exacted > silence! > > Thirty-eight years later, an English scientist, whose specialty is > the investigation of physics, and whose reputation is even greater > than that of Magendie, stooped to as unfair a course of conduct. When > the opportunity offered to investigate the spiritualistic phenomena, > and aid in taking it out of the hands of ignorant or dishonest > investigators, Professor John Tyndall avoided the subject; but in his > _Fragments of Science_, he was guilty of the ungentlemanly expressions > which we have quoted in another place. > > But we are wrong; he made one attempt, and that sufficed. He tells > us, in the _Fragments_, that he once got under a table, to see how > the raps were made, and arose with a despair for humanity, such as he > never felt before! Israel Putnam, crawling on hand and knee to kill the > she-wolf in her den, partially affords a parallel by which to estimate > the chemist’s courage in groping in the dark after the ugly truth; but > Putnam killed his wolf, and Tyndall was devoured by his! “_Sub mensa > desperatio_” should be the motto on his shield. > > Speaking of the report of the committee of 1824, Dr. Alphonse Teste, a > distinguished contemporaneous scientist, says that it produced a great > impression on the Academy, but few convictions: “No one could question > the veracity of the commissioners, whose good faith as well as great > knowledge were undeniable, but they were suspected of having been > dupes. In fact, _there are certain unfortunate truths which compromise > those who believe in them, and those especially who are so candid as > to avow them publicly_.” How true this is, let the records of history, > from the earliest times to this very day, attest. When Professor > Robert Hare announced the preliminary results of his spiritualistic {177} > investigations, he, albeit one of the most eminent chemists and > physicists in the world, was, nevertheless, regarded as a dupe. When he > proved that he was not, he was charged with having fallen into dotage; > the Harvard professors denouncing “his insane adherence to the gigantic > humbug.” > > When the professor began his investigations in 1853, he announced that > he “felt called upon, as an act of duty to his fellow-creatures, to > bring whatever influence he possessed to the attempt to stem the tide > of popular madness, which, in defiance of reason and science, was fast > setting in favor of the _gross delusion_ called Spiritualism.” Though, > according to his declaration, he “entirely coincided with Faraday’s > theory of table-turning,” he had the true greatness which characterizes > the princes of science to make his investigation thorough, and then > tell the truth. How he was rewarded by his life-long associates, let > his own words tell. In an address delivered in New York, in September, > 1854, he says that “he had been engaged in scientific pursuits for > upwards of half a century, and his accuracy and precision had never > been questioned, until he had become a spiritualist; while his > integrity as a man had never in his life been assailed, until the > Harvard professors fulminated their report against that which _he knew_ > to be true, and which they _did not know_ to be false.” > > How much mournful pathos is expressed in these few words! An old man > of seventy-six—a scientist of half a century, deserted for telling the > truth! And now Mr. A. R. Wallace, who had previously been esteemed > among the most illustrious of British scientists, having proclaimed > his belief in spiritualism and mesmerism, is spoken of in terms of > compassion. Professor Nicholas Wagner, of St. Petersburg, whose > reputation as a zöologist is one of the most conspicuous, in his turn > pays the penalty of his exceptional candor, in his outrageous treatment > by the Russian scientists! > > There are scientists and _scientists_; and if the occult sciences > suffer in the instance of modern spiritualism from the malice of one > class, nevertheless, they have had their defenders at all times among > men whose names have shed lustre upon science itself. In the first > rank stands Isaac Newton, “the light of science,” who was a thorough > believer in magnetism, as taught by Paracelsus, Van Helmont, and by > the fire-philosophers in general. No one will presume to deny that > his doctrine of universal space and attraction is purely a theory of > magnetism. If his own words mean anything at all, they mean that he > based all his speculations upon the “soul of the world,” the great > universal, magnetic agent, which he called the _divine sensorium_.[303] {178} > “Here,” he says, “the question is of a very subtile spirit which > penetrates through all, even the hardest bodies, and which is concealed > in their substance. Through the strength and activity of this > spirit, bodies attract each other, and adhere together when brought > into contact. Through it, electrical bodies operate at the remotest > distance, as well as near at hand, attracting and repelling; through > this spirit the light also flows, and is refracted and reflected, and > warms bodies. All senses are excited by this spirit, and through it the > animals move their limbs. But these things cannot be explained in few > words, and we have not yet sufficient experience to determine fully the > laws by which this universal spirit operates.” > > There are two kinds of magnetization; the first is purely _animal_, > the other transcendent, and depending on the will and knowledge of the > mesmerizer, as well as on the degree of spirituality of the subject, > and his capacity to receive the impressions of the astral light. But > now it is next to ascertain that clairvoyance depends a great deal more > on the former than on the latter. To the power of an adept, like Du > Potet, the most _positive_ subject will have to submit. If his sight > is ably directed by the mesmerizer, magician, or spirit, the light > must yield up its most secret records to our scrutiny; for, if it is a > book which is ever closed to those “who see and do not perceive,” on > the other hand it is ever opened for one who _wills_ to see it opened. > It keeps an unmutilated record of all that was, that is, or ever will > be. The minutest acts of our lives are imprinted on it, and even our > thoughts rest photographed on its eternal tablets. It is the book which > we see opened by the angel in the _Revelation_, “which is the Book of > life, and out of which the dead are judged according to their works.” > It is, in short, the MEMORY of GOD! > > “The oracles assert that the impression of thoughts, characters, men, > and other divine visions, appear in the æther.... In this the things > without figure are figured,” says an ancient fragment of the _Chaldean > Oracles_ of Zoroaster.[304] > > Thus, ancient as well as modern wisdom, vaticination and science, > agree in corroborating the claims of the kabalists. It is on the > indestructible tablets of the astral light that is stamped the > impression of every thought we think, and every act we perform; and > that future events—effects of long-forgotten causes—are already > delineated as a vivid picture for the eye of the seer and prophet > to follow. Memory—the despair of the materialist, the enigma of > the psychologist, the sphinx of science—is to the student of > old philosophies merely a name to express that power which man {179} > unconsciously exerts, and shares with many of the inferior animals—to > look with inner sight into the astral light, and there behold the > images of past sensations and incidents. Instead of searching the > cerebral ganglia for “micrographs of the living and the dead, of scenes > that we have visited, of incidents in which we have borne a part,”[305] > they went to the vast repository where the records of every man’s life > as well as every pulsation of the visible cosmos are stored up for all > Eternity! > > That flash of memory which is traditionally supposed to show a drowning > man every long-forgotten scene of his mortal life—as the landscape > is revealed to the traveller by intermittent flashes of lightning—is > simply the sudden glimpse which the struggling soul gets into the > silent galleries where his history is depicted in imperishable colors. > > The well-known fact—one corroborated by the personal experience of > nine persons out of ten—that we often recognize as familiar to us, > scenes, and landscapes, and conversations, which we see or hear for > the first time, and sometimes in countries never visited before, is a > result of the same causes. Believers in reïncarnation adduce this as > an additional proof of our antecedent existence in other bodies. This > recognition of men, countries, and things that we have never seen, is > attributed by them to flashes of soul-memory of anterior experiences. > But the men of old, in common with mediæval philosophers, firmly held > to a contrary opinion. > > They affirmed that though this psychological phenomenon was one of the > greatest arguments in favor of immortality and the soul’s preëxistence, > yet the latter being endowed with an individual memory apart from that > of our physical brain, it is no proof of reïncarnation. As Eliphas Levi > beautifully expresses it, “nature shuts the door after everything that > passes, and pushes life onward” in more perfected forms. The chrysalis > becomes a butterfly; the latter can never become again a grub. In the > stillness of the night-hours, when our bodily senses are fast locked > in the fetters of sleep, and our elementary body rests, the astral > form becomes free. It then _oozes_ out of its earthly prison, and as > Paracelsus has it—“confabulates with the outward world,” and travels > round the visible as well as the invisible worlds. “In sleep,” he > says, “the astral body (soul) is in freer motion; then it soars to > its parents, and holds converse with the stars.” Dreams, forebodings, > prescience, prognostications and presentiments are impressions left > by our astral spirit on our brain, which receives them more or less > distinctly, according to the proportion of blood with which it is > supplied during the hours of sleep. The more the body is exhausted, the > freer is the spiritual man, and the more vivid the impressions of our > soul’s memory. In heavy and robust sleep, dreamless and uninterrupted, {180} > upon awakening to outward consciousness, men may sometimes remember > nothing. But the impressions of scenes and landscapes which the astral > body saw in its peregrinations are still there, though lying latent > under the pressure of matter. They may be awakened at any moment, > and then, during such flashes of man’s inner memory, there is an > instantaneous interchange of energies between the visible and the > invisible universes. Between the “micrographs” of the cerebral ganglia > and the photo-scenographic galleries of the astral light, a current is > established. And a man who knows that he has never visited in body, > nor seen the landscape and person that he recognizes may well assert > that still has he seen and knows them, for the acquaintance was formed > while travelling in “spirit.” To this the physiologists can have but > one objection. They will answer that in natural sleep—perfect and > deep, “half of our nature which is volitional is in the condition of > inertia;” hence unable to travel; the more so as the existence of any > such individual astral body or soul is considered by them little else > than a poetical myth. Blumenbach assures us that in the state of sleep, > all intercourse between mind and body is suspended; an assertion which > is denied by Dr. Richardson, F. R. S., who honestly reminds the German > scientist that “the precise limits and connections of mind and body > being unknown” it is more than should be said. This confession, added > to those of the French physiologist, Fournié, and the still more recent > one of Dr. Allchin, an eminent London physician, who frankly avowed, > in an address to students, that “of all scientific pursuits which > practically concern the community, there is none perhaps which rests > upon so uncertain and insecure a basis as medicine,” gives us a certain > right to offset the hypotheses of ancient scientists against those of > the modern ones. > > No man, however gross and material he may be, can avoid leading a > double existence; one in the visible universe, the other in the > invisible. The life-principle which animates his physical frame is > chiefly in the astral body; and while the more animal portions of > him rest, the more spiritual ones know neither limits nor obstacles. > We are perfectly aware that many learned, as well as the unlearned, > will object to such a novel theory of the distribution of the > life-principle. They would prefer remaining in blissful ignorance and > go on confessing that no one knows or can pretend to tell whence and > whither this mysterious agent appears and disappears, than to give one > moment’s attention to what they consider old and exploded theories. > Some might object on the ground taken by theology, that dumb brutes > have no immortal souls, and hence, can have no astral spirits; for > _theologians as well as laymen labor under the erroneous impression > that soul and spirit are one and the same thing_. But if we study {181} > Plato and other philosophers of old, we may readily perceive that while > the “_irrational_ soul,” by which Plato meant our astral body, or the > more ethereal representation of ourselves, can have at best only a more > or less prolonged continuity of existence beyond the grave; the divine > spirit—wrongly termed _soul_, by the Church—is immortal by its very > essence. (Any Hebrew scholar will readily appreciate the distinction > who comprehends the difference between the two words רוח _ruah_ and נפש > _nephesh_.) If the life-principle is something apart from the astral > spirit and in no way connected with it, why is it that the intensity of > the clairvoyant powers depends so much on the bodily prostration of the > subject? The deeper the trance, the less signs of life the body shows, > the clearer become the spiritual perceptions, and the more powerful are > the soul’s visions. The soul, disburdened of the bodily senses, shows > activity of power in a far greater degree of intensity than it can in a > strong, healthy body. Brierre de Boismont gives repeated instances of > this fact. The organs of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing are > proved to become far acuter in a mesmerized subject deprived of the > possibility of exercising them bodily, than while he uses them in his > normal state. > > Such facts alone, once proved, ought to stand as invincible > demonstrations of the continuity of individual life, at least for a > certain period after the body has been left by us, either by reason > of its being worn out or by accident. But though during its brief > sojourn on earth our soul may be assimilated to a light hidden > under a bushel, it still shines more or less bright and attracts > to itself the influences of kindred spirits; and when a thought > of good or evil import is begotten in our brain, it draws to it > _impulses_ of like nature as irresistibly as the magnet attracts > iron filings. This attraction is also proportionate to the intensity > with which the thought-impulse makes itself felt in the ether; and > so it will be understood how one man may impress himself upon his > own epoch so forcibly, that the influence may be carried—through the > ever-interchanging currents of energy between the two worlds, the > visible and the invisible—from one succeeding age to another, until it > affects a large portion of mankind. > > How much the authors of the famous work entitled the _Unseen Universe_ > may have allowed themselves to think in this direction, it would be > difficult to say; but that they have not told _all_ they might will be > inferred from the following language: > > “Regard it as you please, there can be no doubt that the properties of > the ether are of a much higher order in the arena of nature _than those > of tangible matter_. And, as even the high priests of science still > find the latter _far beyond_ their comprehension, except in numerous {182} > but minute and often isolated particulars, it would not become us to > speculate further. It is sufficient for our purpose to know from what > the ether certainly does, that _it is capable of vastly more than any > has yet ventured to say_.” > > One of the most interesting discoveries of modern times, is that of the > faculty which enables a certain class of sensitive persons to receive > from any object held in the hand or against the forehead impressions > of the character or appearance of the individual, or any other object > with which it has previously been in contact. Thus a manuscript, > painting, article of clothing, or jewelry—no matter how ancient—conveys > to the sensitive, a vivid picture of the writer, painter, or wearer; > even though he lived in the days of Ptolemy or Enoch. Nay, more; a > fragment of an ancient building will recall its history and even the > scenes which transpired within or about it. A bit of ore will carry > the soul-vision back to the time when it was in process of formation. > This faculty is called by its discoverer—Professor J. R. Buchanan, > of Louisville, Kentucky—_psychometry_. To him, the world is indebted > for this most important addition to Psychological Sciences; and to > him, perhaps, when skepticism is found felled to the ground by such > accumulation of facts, posterity will have to elevate a statue. In > announcing to the public his great discovery, Professor Buchanan, > confining himself to the power of psychometry to delineate human > character, says: “The mental and physiological influence imparted to > writing appears to be imperishable, as the oldest specimens I have > investigated gave their impressions with a distinctness and force, > little impaired by time. Old manuscripts, requiring an antiquary to > decipher their strange old penmanship, were easily interpreted by the > psychometric power.... The property of retaining the impress of mind > is not limited to writing. Drawings, paintings, everything upon which > human contact, thought, and volition have been expended, may become > linked with that thought and life, so as to recall them to the mind of > another when in contact.” > > Without, perhaps, really knowing, at the early time of the grand > discovery, the significance of his own prophetic words, the Professor > adds: “This discovery, in its application to the arts and to history, > will open a mine of interesting knowledge.”[306] > > The existence of this faculty was first experimentally demonstrated > in 1841. It has since been verified by a thousand psychometers in > different parts of the world. It proves that every occurrence in > nature—no matter how minute or unimportant—leaves its indelible impress > upon physical nature; and, as there has been no appreciable molecular {183} > disturbance, the only inference possible is, that these images have > been produced by that invisible, universal force—Ether, or astral light. > > In his charming work, entitled _The Soul of Things_, Professor Denton > the geologist,[307] enters at great length into a discussion of this > subject. He gives a multitude of examples of the psychometrical power, > which Mrs. Denton possesses in a marked degree. A fragment of Cicero’s > house, at Tusculum, enabled her to describe, without the slightest > intimation as to the nature of the object placed on her forehead, not > only the great orator’s surroundings, but also the previous owner of > the building, Cornelius Sulla Felix, or, as he is usually called, Sulla > the Dictator. A fragment of marble from the ancient Christian Church of > Smyrna, brought before her its congregation and officiating priests. > Specimens from Nineveh, China, Jerusalem, Greece, Ararat, and other > places all over the world brought up scenes in the life of various > personages, whose ashes had been scattered thousands of years ago. > In many cases Professor Denton verified the statements by reference > to historical records. More than this, a bit of the skeleton, or a > fragment of the tooth of some antediluvian animal, caused the seeress > to perceive the creature as it was when alive, and even live for a > few brief moments its life, and experience its sensations. Before the > eager quest of the psychometer, the most hidden recesses of the domain > of nature yield up their secrets; and the events of the most remote > epochs rival in vividness of impression the flitting circumstances of > yesterday. > > Says the author, in the same work: “Not a leaf waves, not an insect > crawls, not a ripple moves, but each motion is recorded by a thousand > faithful scribes in infallible and indelible scripture. This is just as > true of all past time. From the dawn of light upon this infant globe, > when round its cradle the steamy curtains hung, to this moment, nature > has been busy photographing everything. What a picture-gallery is hers!” > > It appears to us the height of impossibility to imagine that scenes > in ancient Thebes, or in some temple of prehistoric times should be > photographed only upon the substance of certain atoms. The images > of the events are imbedded in that all-permeating, universal, and > ever-retaining medium, which the philosophers call the “Soul of the > World,” and Mr. Denton “the Soul of Things.” The psychometer, by > applying the fragment of a substance to his forehead, brings his > _inner-self_ into relations with the inner soul of the object he > handles. It is now admitted that the universal æther pervades all > things in nature, even the most solid. It is beginning to be admitted, {184} > also, that this preserves the images of all things which transpire. > When the psychometer examines his specimen, he is brought in contact > with the current of the astral light, connected with that specimen, > and which retains pictures of the events associated with its history. > These, according to Denton, pass before his vision with the swiftness > of light; scene after scene crowding upon each other so rapidly, that > it is only by the supreme exercise of the will that he is able to hold > any one in the field of vision long enough to describe it. > > The psychometer is clairvoyant; that is, he sees with the inner > eye. Unless his will-power is very strong, unless he has thoroughly > trained himself to that particular phenomenon, and his knowledge of > the capabilities of his sight are profound, his perceptions of places, > persons, and events, must necessarily be very confused. But in the case > of mesmerization, in which this same clairvoyant faculty is developed, > the operator, whose will holds that of the subject under control, can > force him to concentrate his attention upon a given picture long enough > to observe all its minute details. Moreover, under the guidance of an > experienced mesmerizer, the seer would excel the natural psychometer in > having a prevision of future events, more distinct and clear than the > latter. And to those who might object to the possibility of perceiving > that which “yet is not,” we may put the question: Why is it more > impossible to see that which will be, than to bring back to sight that > which is gone, and is no more? According to the kabalistic doctrine, > the future exists in the astral light in embryo, as the present existed > in embryo in the past. While man is free to act as he pleases, the > manner in which he _will_ act was foreknown from all time; not on > the ground of fatalism or destiny, but simply on the principle of > universal, unchangeable harmony; and, as it may be foreknown that, when > a musical note is struck, its vibrations will not, and cannot change > into those of another note. Besides, eternity can have neither past > nor future, but only the present; as boundless space, in its strictly > literal sense, can have neither distant nor proximate places. Our > conceptions, limited to the narrow area of our experience, attempt to > fit if not an end, at least a beginning of time and space; but neither > of these exist in reality; for in such case time would not be eternal, > nor space boundless. The past no more exists than the future, as we > have said, only our memories survive; and our memories are but the > glimpses that we catch of the reflections of this past in the currents > of the astral light, as the psychometer catches them from the astral > emanations of the object held by him. > > Says Professor E. Hitchcock, when speaking of the influences of light > upon bodies, and of the formation of pictures upon them by means of > it: “It seems, then, that this photographic influence pervades all > nature; nor can we say where it stops. We do not know but it may {185} > imprint upon the world around us our features, as they are modified by > various passions, and thus fill nature with daguerreotype impressions > of all our actions; ... it may be, too, that there are tests by which > nature, more skilful than any photographist, can bring out and fix > these portraits, so that _acuter_ senses than ours shall see them as > on a great canvas, spread over the material universe. _Perhaps_, too, > they may never fade from that canvas, but become specimens in the great > picture-gallery of eternity.”[308] > > The “perhaps” of Professor Hitchcock is henceforth changed by the > demonstration of psychometry into a triumphant certitude. Those who > understand these psychological and clairvoyant faculties will take > exception to Professor Hitchcock’s idea, that acuter senses than ours > are needed to see these pictures upon his supposed cosmic canvas, and > maintain that he should have confined his limitations to the external > senses of the body. _The human spirit, being of the Divine, immortal > Spirit, appreciates neither past nor future, but sees all things as in > the present._ These daguerreotypes referred to in the above quotation > are imprinted upon the astral light, where, as we said before—and, > according to the Hermetic teaching, the first portion of which is > already accepted and demonstrated by science—is kept the record of all > that was, is, or ever will be. > > Of late, some of our learned men have given a particular attention > to a subject hitherto branded with the mark of “superstition.” They > begin speculating on hypothetical and invisible worlds. The authors > of the _Unseen Universe_ were the first to boldly take the lead, and > already they find a follower in Professor Fiske, whose speculations > are given in the _Unseen World_. Evidently the scientists are probing > the insecure ground of materialism, and, feeling it trembling under > their feet, are preparing for a less dishonorable surrender of arms in > case of defeat. Jevons confirms Babbage, and both firmly believe that > every thought, displacing the particles of the brain and setting them > in motion, scatters them throughout the universe, and think that “each > particle of the existing matter must be a register of all that has > happened.”[309] On the other hand, Dr. Thomas Young, in his lectures > on natural philosophy, most positively invites us to “speculate with > freedom on the possibility of independent worlds; some existing in > different parts, others _pervading each other, unseen and unknown_, in > the same space, and others again to which space may not be a necessary > mode of existence.” > > If scientists, proceeding from a strictly scientific point of > view, such as the possibility of energy being transferred into the > invisible universe—and on the principle of continuity, indulge in such > speculations, why should occultists and spiritualists be refused the {186} > same privilege? Ganglionic impressions on the surface of polished > metal, are registered and may be preserved for an indefinite space > of time, according to science; and Professor Draper illustrates the > fact most poetically. “A shadow,” says he, “never falls upon a wall > without leaving thereupon a permanent trace, a trace which might be > made visible by resorting to proper processes.... The portraits of our > friends, or landscape-views, may be hidden on the sensitive surface > from the eye, but they are ready to make their appearance, as soon as > proper developers are resorted to. A spectre is concealed on a silver > or glassy surface, until, by our necromancy, we make it come forth > into the visible world. Upon the walls of our most private apartments, > where we think the eye of intrusion is altogether shut out, and our > retirement can never be profaned, there exist the vestiges of all our > acts, silhouettes of whatever we have done.”[310] > > If an indelible impression may be thus obtained on inorganic matter, > and if nothing is lost or passes completely out of existence in the > universe, why such a scientific levee of arms against the authors > of the _Unseen Universe_? And on what ground can they reject the > hypothesis that “_Thought, conceived to affect the matter of another > universe simultaneously with this, may explain a future state_?”[311] > > In our opinion, if psychometry is one of the grandest proofs of the > indestructibility of matter, retaining eternally the impressions of > the outward world, the possession of that faculty by our inner sight > is a still greater one in favor of the immortality of man’s individual > spirit. Capable of discerning events which took place hundreds of > thousands of years ago, why would it not apply the same faculty to a > future lost in the eternity, in which there can be neither past nor > future, but only one boundless present? > > Notwithstanding the confessions of stupendous ignorance in some things, > made by the scientists themselves, they still deny the existence of > that mysterious spiritual force, lying beyond the grasp of the ordinary > physical laws. They still hope to be able to apply to living beings the > same laws which they have found to answer in reference to dead matter. > And, having discovered what the kabalists term “the gross purgations” > of Ether—light, heat, electricity, and motion—they have rejoiced over > their good fortune, counted its vibrations in producing the colors > of the spectrum; and, proud of their achievements, refuse to see any > further. Several men of science have pondered more or less over its > protean essence, and unable to measure it with their photometers, > called it “an _hypothetical_ medium of great elasticity and extreme {187} > tenuity, _supposed_ to pervade all space, the interior of solid bodies > not excepted;” and, “to be the medium of transmission of light and > heat” (Dictionary). Others, whom we will name “the will-o’-the-wisps” > of science—her pseudo-sons—examined it also, and even went to the > trouble of scrutinizing it “through powerful glasses,” they tell us. > But perceiving neither spirits nor ghosts in it, and failing equally > to discover in its treacherous waves anything of a more scientific > character, they turned round and called all believers in immortality in > general, and spiritualists in particular, “insane fools” and “visionary > lunatics;”[312] the whole, in doleful accents, perfectly appropriate to > the circumstance of such a sad failure. > > Say the authors of the _Unseen Universe_: > > “We have driven the operation of that mystery called _Life_ out of > the objective universe. The mistake made, lies in imagining that by > this process they completely get rid of a thing so driven before them, > and that it disappears from the universe altogether. It does no such > thing. It only disappears from that _small circle_ of light which we > may call the universe of _scientific perception_. Call it the trinity > of mystery: mystery of matter, the mystery of life and—the mystery of > God—and these three are _One_.”[313] > > Taking the ground that “the visible universe must _certainly, in > transformable energy, and probably in matter_, come to an end,” and > “the principle of continuity ... still demanding a continuance of the > universe...” the authors of this remarkable work find themselves forced > to believe “that there is something _beyond_ that which is visible[314] > ... and that the visible system is not the whole universe but only, it > may be, a very small part of it.” Furthermore, looking back as well > as forward to the origin of this visible universe, the authors urge > that “if the visible universe is _all_ that exists then the first > abrupt manifestation of it is as truly a break of continuity as its > final overthrow” (Art. 85). Therefore, as such a break is against > the accepted law of continuity, the authors come to the following > conclusion:— > > “Now, is it not natural to imagine, that a universe of this nature, > _which we have reason to think exists_, and is connected by bonds of > energy with the visible universe, is also capable of receiving energy > from it?... May we not regard Ether, or the medium, as not merely a {188} > bridge[315] between one order of things and another, forming as it > were a species of cement, in virtue of which the various orders of > the universe are welded together and made into one? In fine, what we > generally called Ether, may be not a mere medium, but a medium _plus_ > the invisible order of things, so that when the motions of the visible > universe are transferred into Ether, part of them are conveyed as by > a _bridge_ into the invisible universe, and are there made use of and > stored up. Nay, is it even necessary to retain the conception of a > bridge? May we not at once say that when energy is carried from matter > into Ether, it is carried from the visible into the invisible; and > that when it is carried from Ether to matter it is carried from the > invisible into the visible?“(Art. 198, _Unseen Universe_.) > > Precisely; and were Science to take a few more steps in that direction > and fathom more seriously the “hypothetical medium” who knows but > Tyndall’s impassable chasm between the physical processes of the brain > and _consciousness_, might be—at least intellectually—passed with > surprising ease and safety. > > So far back as 1856, a man considered a savant in his days—Dr. Jobard > of Paris,—had certainly the same ideas as the authors of the _Unseen > Universe_, on ether, when he startled the press and the world of > science by the following declaration: “I hold a discovery which > frightens me. There are two kinds of electricity; one, brute and blind, > is produced by the contact of metals and acids;” (the gross purgation) > ... “the other is intelligent and CLAIRVOYANT!... Electricity has > bifurcated itself in the hands of Galvani, Nobili, and Matteuci. The > brute force of the current has followed Jacobi, Bonelli, and Moncal, > while the intellectual one was following Bois-Robert, Thilorier, and > the Chevalier Duplanty. The electric ball or globular electricity > contains a thought which disobeys Newton and Mariotte to follow its own > freaks.... We have, in the annals of the Academy, thousands of proofs > _of the_ INTELLIGENCE _of the electric bolt_.... But I remark that I > am permitting myself to become indiscreet. A little more and _I should > have disclosed_ to you the key which is about to discover to us the > universal spirit.”[316] > > The foregoing, added to the wonderful confessions of science and what > we have just quoted from the _Unseen Universe_, throw an additional > lustre on the wisdom of the long departed ages. In one of the preceding > chapters we have alluded to a quotation from Cory’s translation of > _Ancient Fragments_, in which it appears that one of the _Chaldean > Oracles_ expresses this self-same idea about ether, and in language {189} > singularly like that of the authors of the _Unseen Universe_. It > states that from æther have come all things, and to it all will > return; that the images of all things are indelibly impressed upon it; > and that it is the storehouse of the germs or of the remains of all > visible forms, and even ideas. It appears as if this case strangely > corroborates our assertion that whatever discoveries may be made in our > days will be found to have been anticipated by many thousand years by > our “simple-minded ancestors.” > > At the point at which we are now arrived, the attitude assumed by the > materialists toward psychical phenomena being perfectly defined, we may > assert with safety that were this key lying loose on the threshold of > the “chasm” not one of our Tyndalls would stoop to pick it up. > > How timid would appear to some kabalists these tentative efforts to > solve the GREAT MYSTERY of the universal ether! Although so far in > advance of anything propounded by contemporary philosophers, what the > intelligent explorers of the _Unseen Universe_ speculate upon, was to > the masters of hermetic philosophy familiar science. To them ether > was not merely a bridge connecting the seen and unseen sides of the > universe, but across its span their daring feet followed the road that > led through the mysterious gates which modern speculators either will > not or _cannot_ unlock. > > The deeper the research of the modern explorer, the more often he > comes face to face with the discoveries of the ancients. Does Elie > de Beaumont, the great French geologist, venture a hint upon the > terrestrial circulation, in relation to some elements in the earth’s > crust, he finds himself anticipated by the old philosophers. Do we > demand of distinguished technologists, what are the most recent > discoveries in regard to the origin of the metalliferous deposits? > We hear one of them, Professor Sterry Hunt, in showing us how water > is a _universal solvent_, enunciating the doctrine held and taught > by the old Thales, more than two dozen centuries ago, that water was > the principle of all things. We listen to the same professor, with de > Beaumont as authority, expounding the terrestrial circulation, and > the chemical and physical phenomena of the material world. While we > read with pleasure that he is “not prepared to concede that we have in > chemical and physical processes _the whole secret of organic life_,” we > note with a still greater delight the following honest confession on > his part: “Still we are, in many respects, approximating the phenomena > of the organic world to those of the mineral kingdom; and we at the > same time learn that these so far interest and depend upon each other > that _we begin to see a certain truth_ underlying the notion of those > old philosophers, who extended to the mineral world the notion of a > vital force, which led them to speak of the earth as a great _living_ > organism, and to look upon the various changes of its air, its waters, > and its rocky depths, as processes belonging to the life of our > planet.” > > Everything in this world must have a beginning. Things have latterly {190} > gone so far with scientists in the matter of prejudice, that it is > quite a wonder that even so much as this should be conceded to ancient > philosophy. The poor, honest primordial elements have long been exiled, > and our ambitious men of science run races to determine who shall add > one more to the fledgling brood of the sixty-three or more elementary > substances. Meanwhile there rages a war in modern chemistry about > terms. We are denied the right to call these substances “chemical > elements,” for they are not “primordial principles or self-existing > essences out of which the universe was fashioned.”[317] Such ideas > associated with the word _element_ were good enough for the “old Greek > philosophy,” but modern science rejects them; for, as Professor Cooke > says, “they are unfortunate terms,” and experimental science will have > “nothing to do with any kind of essences except those which it can see, > smell, or taste.” It must have those that can be put in the eye, the > nose, or the mouth! It leaves others to the metaphysicians. > > Therefore, when Van Helmont tells us that, “though a homogeneal part of > elementary earth may be artfully (artificially) converted into water,” > though he still denies “that the same can be done by nature alone; > for no natural agent is able to transmute one element into another,” > offering as a reason that the elements always remain the same, we > must believe him, if not quite an ignoramus, at least an unprogressed > disciple of the mouldy “old Greek philosophy.” Living and dying in > blissful ignorance of the future sixty-three _substances_, what could > either he or his old master, Paracelsus, achieve? Nothing, of course, > but _metaphysical_ and crazy speculations, clothed in a meaningless > jargon common to all mediæval and ancient alchemists. Nevertheless, > in comparing notes, we find in the latest of all works upon modern > chemistry, the following: “The study of chemistry has revealed a > remarkable class of substances, from no one of which a second substance > has ever been produced by any chemical process which weighs less > than the original substance ... by no chemical process whatever can > we obtain from iron a substance weighing less than the metal used in > its production. In a word, we can _extract_ from iron nothing but > iron.”[318] Moreover, it appears, according to Professor Cooke, that > “_seventy-five years ago_ men did not know there was any difference” > between elementary and compound substances, for in old times alchemists > _had never conceived_ “that _weight is the measure of material_, and > that, as thus measured, no material is ever lost; but, on the contrary, > they imagined that in such experiments[319] as these the substances > involved underwent a _mysterious transformation_.... Centuries,” in {191} > short, “were wasted in vain attempts to transform the baser metals > into gold.” > > Is Professor Cooke, so eminent in modern chemistry, equally proficient > in the knowledge of what the alchemists did or did not know? Is he > quite sure that he understands the meaning of the alchemical diction? > We are not. But let us compare his views as above expressed with but > sentences written in plain and good, albeit old English, from the > translations of Van Helmont and Paracelsus. We learn from their own > admissions that the alkahest induces the following changes: > > “(1.) The alkahest never destroys the _seminal virtues_ of the bodies > thereby dissolved: for instance, gold, by its action, is reduced to > a _salt_ of gold, antimony to _a salt of antimony_, etc., of the > same seminal virtues, or characters with the original concrete. (2.) > The _subject exposed_ to its operation is converted into its three > principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury, and afterwards into salt alone, > which then becomes volatile, and at length is wholly turned into > clear water. (3.) Whatever it dissolves may be rendered volatile by > a sand-heat; and if, after volatilizing the solvent, it be distilled > therefrom, the body is left pure, insipid water, but always _equal in > quantity to its original self_.” Further, we find Van Helmont, the > elder, saying of this salt that it will dissolve the most untractable > bodies into substances of the same seminal virtues, “_equal in weight > to the matter dissolved_;” and he adds, “This salt, by being several > times cohobated with Paracelsus, _sal circulatum_, loses all its > fixedness, and at length becomes an insipid water, _equal in quantity_ > to the salt it was made from.”[320] > > The objection that might be made by Professor Cooke, in behalf of > modern science, to the hermetic expressions, would equally apply to > the Egyptian hieratic writings—they hide that which was meant to be > concealed. If he would profit by the labors of the past, he must employ > the cryptographer, and not the satirist. Paracelsus, like the rest, > exhausted his ingenuity in transpositions of letters and abbreviations > of words and sentences. For example, when he wrote _sutratur_ he meant > tartar, and _mutrin_ meant nitrum, and so on. There was no end to the > pretended explanations of the meaning of the alkahest. Some imagined > that it was an alkaline of salt of tartar salatilized; others that it > meant _algeist_, a German word which means all-spirit, or spirituous. > Paracelsus usually termed salt “the centre of water wherein metals > ought to die.” This gave rise to the most absurd suppositions, and > some persons—such as Glauber—thought that the alkahest was the spirit > of salt. It requires no little hardihood to assert that Paracelsus and > his colleagues were ignorant of the natures of elementary and compound {192} > substances; they may not be called by the same names as are now in > fashion, but that they were known is proved by the results attained. > What matters it by what name the gas given off when iron is dissolved > in sulphuric acid was called by Paracelsus, since he is recognized, > even by our standard authorities, as the discoverer of _hydrogen_?[321] > His merit is the same; and though Van Helmont may have concealed, under > the name “seminal virtues,” his knowledge of the fact that elementary > substances have their original properties, which the entering into > compounds only temporarily modifies—never destroys—he was none the less > the greatest chemist of his age, and the peer of modern scientists. He > affirmed that the _aurum potabile_ could be obtained with the alkahest, > by converting the whole body of gold into salt, retaining its seminal > virtues, and being soluble in water. When chemists learn what he meant > by _aurum potabile_, alkahest, salt, and seminal virtues—what he really > meant, not what he said he meant, nor what was thought he meant—then, > and not before, can our chemists safely assume such airs toward the > fire-philosophers and those ancient masters whose mystic teachings > they reverently studied. One thing is clear, at any rate. Taken merely > in its exoteric form, this language of Van Helmont shows that he > understood the solubility of metallic substances in water, which Sterry > Hunt makes the basis of his theory of metalliferous deposits. We would > like to see what sort of terms would be invented by our scientific > contempories to conceal and yet half-reveal their audacious proposition > that man’s “only God is the cineritious matter of his brain,” if in the > basement of the new Court House or the cathedral on Fifth Avenue there > were a torture-chamber, to which judge or cardinal could send them at > will. > > Professor Sterry Hunt says in one of his lectures:[322] “The alchemists > sought in vain for a universal solvent; but we now know that water, > aided in some cases by heat, pressure, and the presence of certain > widely-distributed substances, such as carbonic acid and alkaline > carbonates and sulphides, will dissolve the most insoluble bodies; so > that it may, after all, be looked upon as the long-sought for alkahest > or universal menstruum.” > > This reads almost like a paraphrase of Van Helmont, or Paracelsus > himself! They knew the properties of water as a solvent as well > as modern chemists, and what is more, made no concealment of the > fact; which shows that this was not _their_ universal solvent. Many > commentaries and criticisms of their works are still extant, and one > can hardly take up a book on the subject without finding at least one {193} > of their speculations of which they never thought of making a mystery. > This is what we find in an old work on alchemists—a satire, moreover—of > 1820, written at the beginning of our century when the new theories on > the chemical potency of water were hardly in their embryonic state. > > “It may throw some light to observe, that Van Helmont, as well as > Paracelsus, _took water for the universal instrument (agent?) of > chymistry_ and natural philosophy; and earth for the unchangeable basis > of all things—that fire was assigned as the sufficient cause of all > things—that seminal impressions were lodged in the mechanism of the > earth—that water, by dissolving and fermenting with this earth, as > it does by means of fire, brings forth everything; whence originally > proceeded animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms.”[323] > > The alchemists understand well this universal potency of water. In the > works of Paracelsus, Van Helmont, Philalethes, Pantatem, Tachenius, and > even Boyle, “the great characteristic of the alkahest,” “to dissolve > and change all sublunary bodies—_water alone excepted_,” is explicitly > stated. And is it possible to believe that Van Helmont, whose private > character was unimpeachable, and whose great learning was universally > recognized, should most solemnly declare himself possessed of the > secret, were it but a vain boast![324] > > In a recent address at Nashville, Tennessee, Professor Huxley laid > down a certain rule with respect to the validity of human testimony > as a basis of history and science, which we are quite ready to > apply to the present case. “It is impossible,” he says, “that one’s > practical life should not be more or less influenced by the views > which we may hold as to what has been the past history of things. > One of them is _human testimony_ in its various shapes—all testimony > of eye-witnesses, traditional testimony from the lips of _those who > have been eye-witnesses_, and the testimony of those who have put > their impressions into writing and into print.... If you read Cæsar’s > _Commentaries_, wherever he gives an account of his battles with the > Gauls, you place a certain amount of confidence in his statements. You > take his testimony upon this. _You feel that Cæsar would not have made > these statements unless he had believed them to be true._” > > Now, we cannot in logic permit Mr. Huxley’s philosophical rule to be > applied in a one-sided manner to Cæsar. Either that personage was > naturally truthful or a natural liar; and since Mr. Huxley has settled > that point to his own satisfaction as regards the facts of military > history in his favor, we insist that Cæsar is also a competent witness {194} > as to augurs, diviners, and psychological facts. So with Herodotus, > and all other ancient authorities, unless they were by nature men > of truth, they should not be believed even about civil or military > affairs. _Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus._ And equally, if they are > credible as to physical things, they must be regarded as equally so as > to spiritual things; for as Professor Huxley tells us, human nature was > of old just as it is now. Men of intellect and conscience did not lie > for the pleasure of bewildering or disgusting posterity. > > The probabilities of falsification by such men having been defined > so clearly by a man of science, we feel free from the necessity of > discussing the question in connection with the names of Van Helmont > and his illustrious but unfortunate master, the much-slandered > Paracelsus. Deleuze, though finding in the works of the former many > “mythic, illusory ideas” perhaps only because he could not understand > them—credits him nevertheless with a vast knowledge, “an acute > judgment,” and at the same time with having given to the world “great > truths.” “He was the first,” he adds, “to give the name of _gas_ to > aerial fluids. Without him it is probable that steel would have given > no new impulse to science.”[325] By what application of the doctrine > of chances could we discover the likelihood that experimentalists, > capable of resolving and recombining chemical substances, as they > are admitted to have done, were ignorant of the nature of elementary > substances, their combining energies, and the solvent or solvents, that > would disintegrate them when wanted? If they had the reputation only of > theorists the case would stand differently and our argument would lose > its force, but the chemical discoveries grudgingly accorded to them, > by their worst enemies, form the basis for much stronger language than > we have permitted ourselves, from a fear of being deemed over partial. > And, as this work, moreover, is based on the idea that there is a > higher nature of man, that his moral and intellectual faculties should > be judged _psychologically_, we do not hesitate to reaffirm that since > Van Helmont asserted, “most solemnly,” that he was possessed of the > secret of the alkahest, no modern critic has a right to set him down > as either a liar or a visionary, until something more certain is known > about the nature of this alleged _universal menstruum_. > > “Facts are stubborn things,” remarks Mr. A. R. Wallace, in his preface > to _Miracles and Modern Spiritualism_. Therefore,[326] as facts must {195} > be our strongest allies, we will bring as many of these forward as > the “miracles” of antiquity and those of our modern times will furnish > us with. The authors of the _Unseen Universe_ have _scientifically_ > demonstrated the possibility of certain alleged psychological > phenomena through the medium of the universal ether. Mr. Wallace has > as scientifically proved that the whole catalogue of assumptions to > the contrary, including the sophisms of Hume, are untenable if brought > face to face with strict logic. Mr. Crookes has given to the world > of skepticism his own experiments, which lasted above three years > before he was conquered by the most undeniable of evidence—that of his > own senses. A whole list could be made up of men of science who have > recorded their testimony to that effect; and Camille Flammarion, the > well-known French astronomer, and author of many works which, in the > eyes of the skeptical, should send him to the ranks of the “deluded,” > in company with Wallace, Crookes, and Hare, corroborates our words in > the following lines: > > “I do not hesitate to affirm my conviction, based on a personal > examination of the subject, that any scientific man who declares the > phenomena denominated ‘magnetic,’ ‘somnambulic,‘ ‘mediumic,’ and others > not yet explained by science, to be impossible, is one who speaks > without knowing what he is talking about, and also any man accustomed, > by his professional avocations, to scientific observations—provided > that his mind be not biassed by preconceived opinions, nor his mental > vision blinded by that opposite kind of illusion, unhappily too common > in the learned world, which consists in _imagining that the laws of > Nature are already known to us_, and that everything which appears to > overstep the limit of our present formulas is impossible, may require a > radical and absolute certainty of the reality of the facts alluded to.” > > In Mr. Crookes’ _Notes of an Enquiry into the Phenomena called > Spiritual_, on p. 101, this gentleman quotes Mr. Sergeant Cox, who > having named this unknown force, _psychic_, explains it thus: “As > the organism is itself moved and directed within the structure by a > force—which either is, or is not controlled by—the soul, spirit, or > mind ... which constitutes the individual being we term ‘the man,’ it > is an equally reasonable conclusion that the force which causes the > motions beyond the limits of the body _is the same force that produces > motion within the limits of the body_. And, as the external force is > often directed by intelligence, it is an equally reasonable conclusion > that the directing intelligence of the external force is the same > intelligence that directs the force internally.” > > In order to comprehend this theory the better, we may as well divide it > in four propositions and show that Mr. Sergeant Cox believes: > > 1. That the force which produces physical phenomena proceeds _from_ > (consequently is generated _in_) the medium. > > 2. That the intelligence directing the force for the production of the {196} > phenomena (_a_) _may_ sometimes be other than the intelligence of the > medium; but of this the “proof” is “insufficient;” therefore, (_b_) the > directing intelligence is probably that of the medium himself. This Mr. > Cox calls “a reasonable conclusion.” > > 3. He assumes that the force which moves the table is identical with > the force which moves the medium’s body itself. > > 4. He strongly disputes the spiritualistic theory, or rather assertion, > that “spirits of the dead are the _sole_ agents in the production of > _all_ the phenomena.” > > Before we fairly proceed on our analysis of such views we must remind > the reader that we find ourselves placed between two extreme opposites > represented by two parties—the believers and unbelievers in this agency > of human spirits. Neither seem capable of deciding the point raised > by Mr. Cox; for while the spiritualists are so omnivorous in their > credulity as to believe every sound and movement in a _circle_ to be > produced by _disembodied_ human beings, their antagonists dogmatically > deny that anything can be produced by “spirits,” for there are none. > Hence, neither class is in a position to examine the subject without > bias. > > If they consider that force which “produces motion within the body” and > the one “which causes the motion beyond the limits of the body” to be > of _the same essence_, they may be right. But the identity of these two > forces stops here. The life-principle which animates Mr. Cox’s body is > of the same nature as that of his medium; nevertheless he is not the > medium, nor is the latter Mr. Cox. > > This force, which, to please Mr. Cox and Mr. Crookes we may just as > well call _psychic_ as anything else, proceeds _through_ not _from_ the > individual medium. In the latter case this force would be generated in > the medium and we are ready to show that it cannot be so; neither in > the instances of levitation of human bodies, the moving of furniture > and other objects without contact, nor in such cases in which the force > shows reason and intelligence. It is a well-known fact to both mediums > and spiritualists, that the more the former is passive, the better > the manifestations; and every one of the above-mentioned phenomena > requires a _conscious_ predetermined _will_. In cases of levitation, > we should have to believe that this self-generated force would raise > the inert mass off the ground, direct it through the air, and lower it > down again, avoiding obstacles and thereby showing intelligence, and > still act automatically, the medium remaining all the while _passive_. > If such were the fact, the medium would be a conscious magician, and > all pretence for being a passive instrument in the hands of invisible > intelligences would become useless. As well plead that a quantity of {197} > steam sufficient to fill, without bursting, a boiler, will raise the > boiler; or a Leyden jar, full of electricity, overcome the inertia of > the jar, as such a mechanical absurdity. All analogy would seem to > indicate that the force which operates in the presence of a medium upon > external objects comes from a source back of the medium himself. We may > rather compare it with the hydrogen which overcomes the inertia of the > balloon. The gas, under the control of an intelligence, is accumulated > in the receiver in sufficient volume to overcome the attraction of > its combined mass. On the same principle this force moves articles of > furniture, and performs other manifestations; and though identical > in its essence with the astral spirit of the medium, it cannot be > his spirit only, for the latter remains all the while in a kind of > cataleptic torpor, when the mediumship is genuine. Mr. Cox’s first > point seems, therefore, not well taken; it is based upon an hypothesis > mechanically untenable. Of course our argument proceeds upon the > supposition that levitation is an observed fact. The theory of psychic > force, to be perfect, must account for all “visible motions ... in > solid substances,” and among these is levitation. > > As to his second point, we deny that “the proof is insufficient” that > the force which produces the phenomena is sometimes directed by other > intelligences than the mind of the “psychic.” On the contrary there is > such an abundance of testimony to show that the mind of the medium, > in a majority of cases, has nothing to do with the phenomena, that we > cannot be content to let Mr. Cox’s bold assertion go unchallenged. > > Equally illogical do we conceive to be his third proposition; for if > the medium’s body be not the generator but simply the channel of the > force which produces the phenomena—a question upon which Mr. Cox’s > researches throw no light whatever—then it does not follow that because > the medium’s “soul, spirit, or mind” directs the medium’s organism, > therefore this “soul, spirit, or mind,” lifts a chair or raps at the > call of the alphabet. > > As to the fourth proposition, namely, that “spirits of the dead are > the sole agents in the production of all the phenomena,” we need not > join issue at the present moment, inasmuch as the nature of the spirits > producing mediumistic manifestations is treated at length in other > chapters. > > The philosophers, and especially those who were initiated into the > Mysteries, held that the astral soul is the impalpable duplicate of > the gross external form which we call body. It is the _perisprit_ > of the Kardecists and the _spirit-form_ of the spiritualists. Above > this internal duplicate, and illuminating it as the warm ray of the {198} > sun illuminates the earth, fructifying the germ and calling out to > spiritual vivification the latent qualities dormant in it, hovers the > divine spirit. The astral _perisprit_ is contained and confined within > the physical body as ether in a bottle, or magnetism in magnetized > iron. It is a centre and engine of force, fed from the universal supply > of force, and moved by the same general laws which pervade all nature > and produce all cosmical phenomena. Its inherent activity causes the > incessant physical operations of the animal organism and ultimately > results in the destruction of the latter by overuse and its own > escape. It is the prisoner, not the voluntary tenant, of the body. It > has an attraction so powerful to the external universal force, that > after wearing out its casing it finally escapes to it. The stronger, > grosser, more material its encasing body, the longer is the term of its > imprisonment. Some persons are born with organizations so exceptional, > that the door which shuts other people in from communication with the > world of the astral light, can be easily unbarred and opened, and their > souls can look into, or even pass into that world, and return again. > Those who do this consciously, and at will, are termed magicians, > hierophants, seers, adepts; those who are made to do it, either through > the fluid of the mesmerizer or of “spirits,” are “mediums.” The astral > soul, when the barriers are once opened, is so powerfully attracted by > the universal, astral magnet, that it sometimes lifts its encasement > with it and keeps it suspended in mid-air, until the gravity of matter > reässerts its supremacy, and the body redescends again to earth. > > Every objective manifestation, whether it be the motion of a living > limb, or the movement of some inorganic body, requires two conditions: > will and force—plus _matter_, or that which makes the object so moved > visible to our eye; and these three are all convertible forces, or the > force-correlation of the scientists. In their turn they are directed > or rather overshadowed by the Divine intelligence which these men so > studiously leave out of the account, but without which not even the > crawling of the smallest earth-worm could ever take place. The simplest > as the most common of all natural phenomena,—the rustling of the > leaves which tremble under the gentle contact of the breeze—requires > a constant exercise of these faculties. Scientists may well call them > cosmic laws, immutable and unchangeable. Behind these laws we must > search for the intelligent cause, which once having created and set > these laws in motion, has infused into them the essence of its own > consciousness. Whether we call this the first cause, the universal > will, or God, it must always bear intelligence. > > And now we may ask, how can a will manifest itself intelligently and > unconsciously at the same time? It is difficult, if not impossible, to > conceive of intellection apart from consciousness. By consciousness {199} > we do not necessarily imply physical or corporeal consciousness. > _Consciousness is a quality of the sentient principle, or, in other > words, the soul; and the latter often displays activity even while the > body is asleep or paralyzed._ When we lift our arm mechanically, we > may imagine that we do it unconsciously because our superficial senses > cannot appreciate the interval between the formulation of the purpose > and its execution. Latent as it seemed to us, our vigilant will evolved > force, and set our matter in motion. There is nothing in the nature > of the most trivial of mediumistic phenomena to make Mr. Cox’s theory > plausible. If the intelligence manifested by this force is no proof > that it belongs to a disembodied spirit, still less is it evidence that > it is unconsciously given out by the medium; Mr. Crookes himself tells > us of cases where the intelligence could not have emanated from any > one in the room; as in the instance where the word “however,” covered > by his finger and unknown even to himself, was correctly written by > planchette.[327] No explanation whatever can account for this case; the > only hypothesis tenable—if we exclude the agency of a spirit-power—is > that the clairvoyant faculties were brought into play. But scientists > deny clairvoyance; and if, to escape the unwelcome alternative of > accrediting the phenomena to a spiritual source, they concede to us the > fact of clairvoyance, it then devolves upon them to either accept the > kabalistic explanation of what this faculty is, or achieve the task > hitherto impracticable of making a new theory to fit the facts. > > Again, if for the sake of argument it should be admitted that Mr. > Crookes’ word “however” might have been clairvoyantly read, what shall > we say of mediumistic communications having a prophetic character? Does > any theory of mediumistic impulse account for the ability to foretell > events beyond the possible knowledge of both speaker and listener? Mr. > Cox will have to try again. > > As we have said before, the modern psychic force, and the ancient > oracular fluids, whether terrestrial or sidereal, are identical in > essence—simply a blind force. So is air. And while in a dialogue the > sound-waves produced by a conversation of the speakers affect the same > body of air, that does not imply any doubt of the fact that there > are two persons talking with each other. Is it any more reasonable > to say that when a common agent is employed by medium and “spirit” > to intercommunicate, there must necessarily be but one intelligence > displaying itself? As the air is necessary for the mutual exchange > of audible sounds, so are certain currents of astral light, or ether > directed by an _Intelligence_, necessary for the production of the > phenomena called spiritual. Place two interlocutors in the exhausted {200} > receiver of an air-pump, and, if they could live, their words would > remain inarticulate thoughts, for there would be no air to vibrate, and > hence no ripple of sound would reach their ears. Place the strongest > medium in such isolating atmosphere as a powerful mesmerizer, familiar > with the properties of the magical agent, can create around him, and no > manifestations will take place until some opposing intelligence, more > potential than the will-power of the mesmerizer, overcomes the latter > and terminates the astral inertia. > > The ancients were at no loss to discriminate between a blind > force acting spontaneously and the same force when directed by an > intelligence. > > Plutarch, the priest of Apollo, when speaking of the oracular vapors > which were but a subterranean gas, imbued with intoxicating magnetic > properties, shows its nature to be dual, when he addresses it in these > words: “And who art thou? without a God who creates and ripens thee; > without a dæmon [spirit] who, acting under the orders of God, directs > and governs thee; thou canst do nothing, thou art _nothing_ but a > vain breath.”[328] Thus without the indwelling soul or intelligence, > “Psychic Force” would be also but a “vain breath.” > > Aristotle maintains that this gas, or astral emanation, escaping from > inside the earth, is the sole _sufficient cause_, acting from within > outwardly for the vivification of every living being and plant upon the > external crust. In answer to the skeptical negators of his century, > Cicero, moved by a just wrath, exclaims: “And what can be more divine > than the exhalations of the earth, which affect the human soul so as to > enable her to predict the future? And could the hand of time evaporate > such a virtue? Do you suppose you are talking of some kind of wine or > salted meat?”[329] Do modern experimentalists claim to be wiser than > Cicero, and say that this eternal force has evaporated, and that the > springs of prophecy are dry? > > All the prophets of old—inspired sensitives—were said to be uttering > their prophecies under the same conditions, either by the direct > outward efflux of the astral emanation, or a sort of damp fluxion, > rising from the earth. It is this astral matter which serves as a > temporary clothing of the souls who form themselves in this light. > Cornelius Agrippa expresses the same views as to the nature of these > phantoms by describing it as moist or humid: “_In spirito turbido_ > HUMIDOQUE.”[330] > > Prophecies are delivered in two ways—consciously, by magicians who are > able to look into the astral light; and unconsciously, by those who {201} > act under what is called inspiration. To the latter class belonged > and belong the Biblical prophets and the modern trance-speakers. So > familiar with this fact was Plato, that of such prophets he says: “No > man, when in his senses, attains prophetic truth and inspiration ... > but only when demented by some distemper or possession ...” (by a > daimonion or spirit).[331] “Some persons call them prophets; they do > not know that they are only _repeaters_ ... and are not to be called > prophets at all, but only _transmitters_ of vision and prophecy,“he > adds. > > In continuation of his argument, Mr. Cox says: “The most ardent > spiritualists practically admit the existence of psychic force, under > the very inappropriate name of magnetism (to which it has no affinity > whatever), for they assert that the spirits of the dead can only do the > acts attributed to them by using the magnetism (that is, the psychic > force) of the mediums.”[332] > > Here, again, a misunderstanding arises in consequence of different > names being applied to what may prove to be one and the same > imponderable compound. Because electricity did not become a science > till the eighteenth century, no one will presume to say that this > force has not existed since the creation; moreover, we are prepared > to prove that even the ancient Hebrews were acquainted with it. But, > merely because exact science did not happen before 1819 to stumble > over the discovery which showed the intimate connection existing > between magnetism and electricity, it does not at all prevent these two > agents being identical. If a bar of iron can be endowed with magnetic > properties, by passing a current of voltaic electricity over some > conductor placed in a certain way close to the bar, why not accept, > as a provisional theory, that a medium may also be a _conductor_, > and nothing more, at a seance? Is it unscientific to say that the > intelligence of “psychic force,” drawing currents of electricity from > the waves of the ether, and employing the medium as a conductor, > develops and calls into action the latent magnetism with which the > atmosphere of the seance-room is saturated, so as to produce the > desired effects? The word _magnetism_ is as appropriate as any other, > until science gives us something more than a merely hypothetical agent > endowed with conjectural properties. > > “The difference between the advocates of psychic force and the > spiritualists consists in this,” says Sergeant Cox, “that we contend > that there is as yet insufficient proof of any other directing agent > than the intelligence of the medium, and _no proof whatever_ of the > agency of the ‘spirits’ of the dead.”[333] > > We fully agree with Mr. Cox as to the lack of proof that the agency {202} > is that of the spirits of the dead; as for the rest, it is a very > extraordinary deduction from “a wealth of facts,” according to the > expression of Mr. Crookes, who remarks further, “On going over my > notes, I find ... such a superabundance of evidence, so overwhelming > a mass of testimony ... that I could fill several numbers of the > _Quarterly_.”[334] > > Now some of these facts of an “overwhelming evidence” are as follows: > 1st. The movement of heavy bodies with contact, but without mechanical > exertion. 2d. The phenomena of percussive and other sounds. 3d. The > alteration of weight of bodies. 4th. Movements of heavy substances > _when at a distance from the medium_. 5th. The rising of tables and > chairs off the ground, _without contact with any person_. 6th. THE > LEVITATION OF HUMAN BEINGS.[335] 7th. “Luminous apparitions.” Says > Mr. Crookes, “Under the strictest conditions, I have seen a solid > self-luminous body, the size and nearly the shape of a turkey’s egg, > float noiselessly about the room, at one time higher than any one could > reach on tiptoe, and then gently descend to the floor. It was visible > for more than ten minutes, and before it faded away it struck the > table three times with a sound like that of a hard, solid body.”[336] > (We must infer that the egg was of the same nature as M. Babinet’s > meteor-cat, which is classified with other natural phenomena in Arago’s > works.) 8th. The appearance of hands, either self-luminous or visible > by ordinary light. 9th. “Direct writing” by these same luminous hands, > detached, and evidently endowed with intelligence. (Psychic force?) > 10th. “Phantom-forms and faces.” In this instance, the psychic force > comes “from a corner of the room” as a “phantom form,” takes an > accordeon in its hand, and then glides about the room, playing the > instrument; Home, the medium, being in full view at the time.[337] The > whole of the preceding Mr. Crookes witnessed and tested at his own > house, and, having assured himself scientifically of the genuineness of > the phenomenon, reported it to the Royal Society. Was he welcomed as {203} > the discoverer of natural phenomena of a new and important character? > Let the reader consult his work for the answer. > > In addition to these freaks played on human credulity by “psychic > force,” Mr. Crookes gives another class of phenomena, which he terms > “special instances,” which _seem_ (?) to point to the agency of an > _exterior_ intelligence.[338] > > “I have been,” says Mr. Crookes, “with Miss Fox when she has been > writing a message automatically to one person present, whilst a message > to another person, on _another_ subject, was being given alphabetically > by means of ‘raps,’ and the whole time she was conversing freely with > a third person, on a subject totally different from either.... During > a seance with Mr. Home, a small lath moved across the table to me, > _in the light_, and delivered a message to me by tapping my hand; I > repeating the alphabet, and the lath tapping me at the right letters > ... being at a distance from Mr. Home’s hands.” The same lath, upon > request of Mr. Crookes, gave him “a telegraphic message through the > Morse alphabet, by taps on my hand” (the Morse code being quite unknown > to any other person present, and but imperfectly to himself), “and,” > adds Mr. Crookes, “it convinced me that there was a good Morse operator > at the other end of the line, WHEREVER THAT MIGHT BE.”[339] Would it be > undignified in the present case to suggest that Mr. Cox should search > for the operator in his private principality—Psychic Land? But the same > lath does more and better. In full light in Mr. Crookes’ room _it_ > is asked to give a message, “ ... a pencil and some sheets of paper > had been lying on the centre of the table; presently the _pencil rose > on its point_, and after advancing by hesitating jerks to the paper, > fell down. It then rose, and again fell.... After three unsuccessful > attempts, a small wooden lath” (the Morse operator) “which was lying > near upon the table, _slid towards the pencil_, and _rose_ a few inches > from the table; the pencil rose again, _and propping itself against the > lath_, the two together made an effort to mark the paper. It fell, and > then _a joint effort_ was made again. After a third trial the lath gave > it up, and _moved back to its place_; the pencil lay as it fell across > the paper, and an alphabetic message told us: “We have tried to do as > you asked, but _our power_ is exhausted.”[340] The word _our_, as the > joint intelligent efforts of the friendly lath and pencil, would make > us think that there were _two_ psychic forces present. > > In all this, is there any proof that the directing agent was “the > intelligence of the medium”? Is there not, on the contrary, every > indication that the movements of the lath and pencil were directed > by spirits “of the dead,” or at least of those of some other unseen {204} > intelligent entities? Most certainly the word magnetism explains in > this case as little as the term _psychic force_; howbeit, there is more > reason to use the former than the latter, if it were but for the simple > fact that the _transcendent_ magnetism or mesmerism produces phenomena > identical in effects with those of spiritualism. The phenomenon of the > _enchanted_ circle of Baron Du Potet and Regazzoni, is as contrary > to the accepted laws of physiology as the rising of a table without > contact is to the laws of natural philosophy. As strong men have often > found it impossible to raise a small table weighing a few pounds, and > broken it to pieces in the effort, so a dozen of experimenters, among > them sometimes, academicians, were utterly unable to step across a > chalk-line drawn on the floor by Du Potet. On one occasion a Russian > general, well known for his skepticism, persisted until he fell on the > ground in violent convulsions. In this case, the magnetic fluid which > opposed such a resistance was Mr. Cox’s psychic force, which endows the > tables with an extraordinary and supernatural weight. If they produce > the same psychological and physiological effects, there is good reason > to believe them more or less identical. We do not think the deduction > could be very reasonably objected to. Besides, were the fact even > denied, this is no reason why it should not be so. Once upon a time, > all the Academies in Christendom had agreed to deny that there were > any mountains in the moon; and there was a certain time when, if any > one had been so bold as to affirm that there was life in the superior > regions of the atmosphere as well as in the fathomless depths of the > ocean, he would have been set down as a fool or an ignoramus. > > “The Devil affirms—it must be a lie!” the pious Abbé Almiguana used > to say, in a discussion with a “spiritualized table.” We will soon be > warranted in paraphrasing the sentence and making it read—“Scientists > deny—then it must be true.” > > CHAPTER VII. {205} > > “Thou great First Cause, least understood.”—POPE. > > “Whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire, > This longing after immortality? > Or whence this secret dread, and inward horror > Of falling into naught? Why shrinks the soul > Back on herself, and startles at destruction? > ’Tis the divinity that stirs within us; > ’Tis heaven itself that points out our hereafter > And intimates eternity to man. > > ETERNITY! Thou pleasing, dreadful thought!”—ADDISON. > > “There is another and a better world.”—KOTZEBUE: _The Stranger_. > > After according so much space to the conflicting opinions of our men > of science about certain occult phenomena of our modern period, it > is but just that we give attention to the speculations of mediæval > alchemists and certain other illustrious men. Almost without exception, > ancient and mediæval scholars believed in the arcane doctrines of > wisdom. These included Alchemy, the Chaldeo-Jewish Kabala, the esoteric > systems of Pythagoras and the old Magi, and those of the later Platonic > philosophers and theurgists. We also propose in subsequent pages to > treat of the Indian gymnosophists and the Chaldean astrologers. We > must not neglect to show the grand truths underlying the misunderstood > religions of the past. The four elements of our fathers, earth, air, > water, and fire, contain for the student of alchemy and ancient > psychology—or as it is now termed, _magic_—many things of which our > philosophy has never dreamed. We must not forget that what is now > called _Necromancy_ by the Church, and _Spiritualism_ by modern > believers, and that includes the evoking of departed spirits, is a > science which has, from remote antiquity, been almost universally > diffused over the face of the globe. > > Although neither an alchemist, magician, nor astrologer, but simply > a great philosopher, Henry More, of Cambridge University—a man > universally esteemed, may be named as a shrewd logician, scientist, and > metaphysician. His belief in witchcraft was firm throughout his life. > His faith in immortality and able arguments in demonstration of the > survival of man’s spirit after death are all based on the Pythagorean > system, adopted by Cardan, Van Helmont, and other mystics. The infinite {206} > and uncreated spirit that we usually call GOD, a substance of the > highest virtue and excellency, produced everything else by _emanative > causality_. God thus is the primary substance, the rest, the secondary; > if the former created matter with a power of moving itself, he, the > primary substance, is still the cause of that motion as well as of the > matter, and yet we rightly say that it is matter which moves itself. > “We may define this kind of spirit we speak of to be a substance > indiscernible, that can move itself, that can penetrate, contract, and > dilate itself, and can also penetrate, move, and alter matter,”[341] > which is the third emanation. He firmly believed in apparitions, > and stoutly defended the theory of the individuality of every soul > in which “personality, memory, and conscience will surely continue > in the future state.” He divided the astral spirit of man after its > exit from the body into two distinct entities: the “aërial” and the > “æthereal vehicle.” During the time that a disembodied man moves in its > aërial clothing, he is subject to _Fate_—_i. e._, evil and temptation, > attached to its earthly interests, and therefore is not utterly pure; > it is only when he casts off this garb of the first spheres and becomes > ethereal that he becomes sure of his immortality. “For what shadow > can that body cast that is a pure and transparent light, such as the > ethereal vehicle is? And therefore that oracle is then fulfilled, when > the soul has ascended into that condition we have already described, in > which alone it is out of the reach of fate and mortality.” He concludes > his work by stating that this transcendent and divinely-pure condition > was the only aim of the Pythagoreans. > > As to the skeptics of his age, his language is contemptuous and severe. > Speaking of Scot, Adie, and Webster, he terms them “our new inspired > saints ... sworn advocates of the witches, who thus madly and boldly, > against all sense and reason, against all antiquity, all interpreters, > and against the Scripture itself, will have even no Samuel in the > scene, but a confederate knave! Whether the Scripture, or these inblown > buffoons, puffed up with nothing but ignorance, vanity, and stupid > infidelity, are to be believed, let any one judge,” he adds.[342] > > What kind of language would this eminent divine have used against our > skeptics of the nineteenth century? > > Descartes, although a worshipper of matter, was one of the most devoted > teachers of the magnetic doctrine and, in a certain sense, even of > Alchemy. His system of physics was very much like that of other great > philosophers. Space, which is infinite, is composed, or rather filled > up with a fluid and elementary matter, and is the sole fountain of all {207} > life, enclosing all the celestial globes and keeping them in perpetual > motion. The magnet-streams of Mesmer are disguised by him into the > Cartesian vortices, and both rest on the same principle. Ennemoser does > not hesitate to say that both have more in common “than people suppose, > who have not carefully examined the subject.”[343] > > The esteemed philosopher, Pierre Poiret Naudé, was the warmest defender > of the doctrines of occult magnetism and its first propounders,[344] > in 1679. The magico-theosophical philosophy is fully vindicated in his > works. > > The well-known Dr. Hufeland has written a work on magic[345] in which > he propounds the theory of the universal magnetic sympathy between men, > animals, plants, and even minerals. The testimony of Campanella, Van > Helmont, and Servius, is confirmed by him in relation to the sympathy > existing between the different parts of the body as well as between the > parts of all organic and even inorganic bodies. > > Such also was the doctrine of Tenzel Wirdig. It may even be found > expounded in his works, with far more clearness, logic, and vigor, > than in those of other mystical authors who have treated of the same > subject. In his famous treatise, _The New Spiritual Medicine_, he > demonstrates, on the ground of the later-accepted fact of universal > attraction and repulsion—now called “gravitation” that the whole nature > is _ensouled_. Wirdig calls this magnetic sympathy “the accordance > of spirits.” Everything is drawn to its like, and converges with > natures congenial to itself. Out of this sympathy and antipathy > arises a constant movement in the whole world, and in all its parts, > and uninterrupted communion between heaven and earth, which produces > universal harmony. Everything lives and perishes through magnetism; > one thing affects another one, even at great distances, and its > “congenitals” may be influenced to health and disease by the power > of this sympathy, at any time, and notwithstanding the intervening > space.[346] “Hufeland,” says Ennemoser, “gives the account of a nose > which had been cut from the back of a porter, but which, when the > porter died, died too and fell off from its artificial position. A > piece of skin,” adds Hufeland, “taken from a living head, had its > hair turn gray at the same time as that on the head from which it was > taken.”[347] > > Kepler, the forerunner of Newton in many great truths, even in that of > the universal “gravitation” which he very justly attributed to magnetic > attraction, notwithstanding that he terms astrology “the insane > daughter of a most wise mother” Astronomy, shares the kabalistic belief {208} > that the spirits of the stars are so many “intelligences.” _He firmly > believes that each planet is the seat of an intelligent principle, > and that they are all inhabited by spiritual beings, who exercise > influences over other beings inhabiting more gross and material spheres > than their own and especially_ our earth.[348] As Kepler’s _spiritual_ > starry influences were superseded by the vortices of the more > materialistic Descartes, whose atheistical tendencies did not prevent > him from believing that he had found out a diet that would prolong his > life five hundred years and more, so the vortices of the latter and his > astronomical doctrines may some day give place to the _intelligent_ > magnetic streams which are directed by the _Anima Mundi_. > > Baptista Porta, the learned Italian philosopher, notwithstanding his > endeavors to show to the world the groundlessness of their accusations > of magic being a superstition and sorcery, was treated by later critics > with the same unfairness as his colleagues. This celebrated alchemist > left a work on _Natural Magic_,[349] in which he bases all of the > occult phenomena possible to man upon the world-soul which binds all > with all. He shows that the astral light acts in harmony and sympathy > with all nature; that it is the essence out of which our spirits are > formed; and that by acting in unison with their parent-source, our > sidereal bodies are rendered capable of producing magic wonders. The > whole secret depends on our knowledge of kindred elements. He believed > in the philosopher’s stone, “of which the world hath so great an > opinion of, which hath been bragged of in so many ages and _happily > attained unto by some_.” Finally, he throws out many valuable hints as > to its “spiritual meaning.” In 1643, there appeared among the mystics > a monk, Father Kircher, who taught a complete philosophy of universal > magnetism. His numerous works[350] embrace many of the subjects merely > hinted at by Paracelsus. His definition of magnetism is very original, > for he contradicted Gilbert’s theory that the earth was a great magnet. > He asserted that although every particle of matter, and even the > intangible invisible “powers” were magnetic, they did not themselves > constitute a magnet. _There is but one_ MAGNET _in the universe, and > from it proceeds the magnetization of everything existing._ This {209} > magnet is of course what the kabalists term the central Spiritual > Sun, or God. The sun, moon, planets, and stars he affirmed are highly > magnetic; but they have become so by induction from living in the > universal magnetic fluid—the Spiritual light. He proves the mysterious > sympathy existing between the bodies of the three principal kingdoms > of nature, and strengthens his argument by a stupendous catalogue of > instances. Many of these were verified by naturalists, but still more > have remained unauthenticated; therefore, according to the traditional > policy and very equivocal logic of our scientists, they are denied. > For instance, he shows a difference between mineral magnetism and > zoömagnetism, or animal magnetism. He demonstrates it in the fact that > except in the case of the lodestone all the minerals are magnetized by > the higher potency, the animal magnetism, while the latter enjoys it as > the direct emanation from the first cause—the Creator. A needle can be > magnetized by simply being held in the hand of a strong-willed man, and > amber develops its powers more by the friction of the human hand than > by any other object; therefore man can impart his own life, and, to a > certain degree, _animate_ inorganic objects. This, “in the eyes of the > foolish, is sorcery.” “The sun is the most magnetic of all bodies,” he > says; thus anticipating the theory of General Pleasonton by more than > two centuries. “The ancient philosophers never denied the fact,” he > adds; “but have at all times perceived that the sun’s emanations were > binding all things to itself, and that it imparts this binding power to > everything falling under its direct rays.” > > As a proof of it he brings the instance of a number of plants being > especially attracted to the sun, and others to the moon, and showing > their irresistible sympathy to the former by following its course > in the heavens. The plant known as the _Githymal_,[351] faithfully > follows its sovereign, even when it is invisible on account of the > fog. The acacia uncloses its petals at its rising, and closes them at > its setting. So does the Egyptian lotos and the common sunflower. The > nightshade exhibits the same predilection for the moon. > > As examples of antipathies or sympathies among plants, he instances the > aversion which the vine feels for the cabbage, and its fondness toward > the olive-tree; the love of the ranunculus for the water-lily, and of > the rue for the fig. The antipathy which sometimes exists even among > kindred substances is clearly demonstrated in the case of the Mexican > pomegranate, whose shoots, when cut to pieces, repel each other with > the “most extraordinary ferocity.” > > Kircher accounts for every feeling in human nature as results of > changes in our magnetic condition. Anger, jealousy, friendship, love, {210} > and hatred, are all modifications of the magnetic atmosphere which > is developed in us and constantly emanates from us. Love is one of > the most variable, and therefore the aspects of it are numberless. > Spiritual love, that of a mother for her child, of an artist for > some particular art, love as pure friendship, are purely magnetic > manifestations of sympathy in congenial natures. _The magnetism of > pure love is the originator of every created thing._ In its ordinary > sense love between the sexes is electricity, and he calls it _amor > febris species_, the fever of species. There are two kinds of magnetic > attraction: sympathy and fascination; the one holy and natural, the > other evil and unnatural. To the latter, fascination, we must attribute > the power of the poisonous toad, which upon merely opening its mouth, > forces the passing reptile or insect to run into it to its destruction. > The deer, as well as smaller animals, are attracted by the breath > of the boa, and are made irresistibly to come within its reach. The > electric fish, the torpedo, repels the arm with a shock that for a > time benumbs it. To exercise such a power for beneficent purposes, man > requires three conditions: 1, nobility of soul; 2, strong will and > imaginative faculty; 3, a subject weaker than the magnetizer; otherwise > he will resist. A man free from worldly incentives and sensuality, may > cure in such a way the most “incurable” diseases, and his vision may > become clear and prophetic. > > A curious instance of the above-mentioned universal attraction between > all the bodies of the planetary system and everything organic as well > as inorganic pertaining to them, is found in a quaint old volume of > the seventeenth century. It contains notes of travel and an official > report to the King of France, by his Ambassador, de la Loubère, upon > what he has seen in the kingdom of Siam. “At Siam,” he says, “there are > two species of fresh-water fish, which they respectively call _pal-out_ > and _pla-cadi_ fish. Once salted and placed uncut (whole) in the pot, > they are found to exactly follow the flux and reflux of the sea, > growing higher and lower in the pot as the sea ebbs or flows.”[352] De > la Loubère experimented with this fish for a long time, together with > a government engineer, named Vincent, and, therefore, vouches for the > truth of this assertion, which at first had been dismissed as an idle > fable. So powerful is this mysterious attraction that it affected the > fishes even when their bodies became totally rotten and fell to pieces. > > It is especially in the countries unblessed with civilization that > we should seek for an explanation of the nature, and observe the > effects of that subtile power, which ancient philosophers called the {211} > “world’s soul.” In the East only, and on the boundless tracts of > unexplored Africa, will the student of psychology find abundant food > for his truth-hungering soul. The reason is obvious. The atmosphere > in populous neighborhoods is badly vitiated by the smoke and fumes of > manufactories, steam-engines, railroads, and steamboats, and especially > by the miasmatic exhalations of the living and the dead. Nature is as > dependent as a human being upon conditions before she can work, and > her mighty breathing, so to say, can be as easily interfered with, > impeded, and arrested, and the correlation of her forces destroyed in > a given spot, as though she were a man. Not only climate, but also > occult influences daily felt not only modify the physio-psychological > nature of man, but even alter the constitution of so-called inorganic > matter in a degree not fairly realized by European science. Thus the > London _Medical and Surgical Journal_ advises surgeons not to carry > lancets to Calcutta, because it has been found by personal experience > “that English steel could not bear the atmosphere of India;” so a > bunch of English or American keys will be completely covered with rust > twenty-four hours after having been brought to Egypt; while objects > made of native steel in those countries remain unoxidized. So, too, it > has been found that a Siberian Shaman who has given stupendous proofs > of his occult powers among his native Tschuktschen, is gradually and > often completely deprived of such powers when coming into smoky and > foggy London. Is the inner organism of man less sensitive to climatic > influences than a bit of steel? If not, then why should we cast doubt > upon the testimony of travellers who may have seen the Shaman, day > after day, exhibit phenomena of the most astounding character in his > native country, and deny the possibility of such powers and such > phenomena, only because he cannot do as much in London or Paris? In > his lecture on the _Lost Arts_, Wendell Phillips proves that beside > the psychological nature of man being affected by a change of climate, > Oriental people have physical senses far more acute than the Europeans. > The French dyers of Lyons, whom no one can surpass in skill, he says, > “have a theory that there is a certain delicate shade of blue that > Europeans _cannot see_.... And in Cashmere, where the girls make > shawls worth $30,000, they will show him (the dyer of Lyons) three > hundred distinct colors, which he not only cannot make, but _cannot > even distinguish_.” If there is such a vast difference between the > acuteness of the external senses of two races, why should there not be > the same in their psychological powers? Moreover, the eye of a Cashmere > girl is able to see _objectively_ a color which does exist, but which > being inappreciable by the European, is therefore non-existent for him. > Why then not concede, that some peculiarly-endowed organisms, which > are thought to be possessed of that mysterious faculty called _second {212} > sight_, see their pictures as objectively as the girl sees the colors; > and that therefore the former, instead of mere objective hallucinations > called forth by imagination are, on the contrary, reflections of real > things and persons impressed upon the astral ether, as explained by the > old philosophy of the _Chaldean Oracles_, and surmised by those modern > discoverers, Babbage, Jevons, and the authors of the _Unseen Universe_? > > “Three spirits live and actuate man,” teaches Paracelsus; “three > worlds pour their beams upon him; but all three only as the image and > echo of one and the same all constructing and uniting principle of > production. The first is the spirit of the elements (terrestrial body > and vital force in its brute condition); the second, the spirit of the > stars (sidereal or astral body—the soul); the third is the _Divine_ > spirit (_Augoeidés_).” Our human body, being possessed of “primeval > earth-stuff,” as Paracelsus calls it, we may readily accept the > tendency of modern scientific research “to regard the processes of both > animal and vegetable life as simply physical and chemical.” This theory > only the more corroborates the assertions of old philosophers and the > _Mosaic Bible_, that from the dust of the ground our bodies were made, > and to dust they will return. But we must remember that > > “‘Dust thou art, to dust returnest,’ > Was not spoken of the soul.” > > Man is a little world—a microcosm inside the great universe. Like a > fœtus, he is suspended, by all his _three_ spirits, in the matrix > of the macrocosmos; and while his terrestrial body is in constant > sympathy with its parent earth, his astral soul lives in unison with > the sidereal _anima mundi_. He is in it, as it is in him, for the > world-pervading element fills all space, and _is_ space itself, only > shoreless and infinite. As to his third spirit, the divine, what is it > but an infinitesimal ray, one of the countless radiations proceeding > directly from the Highest Cause—the Spiritual Light of the World? > This is the trinity of organic and inorganic nature—the spiritual and > the physical, which are three in one, and of which Proclus says that > “The first monad is the Eternal God; the second, eternity; the third, > the paradigm, or pattern of the universe;” the three constituting the > Intelligible Triad. Everything in this visible universe is the outflow > of this Triad, and a microcosmic triad itself. And thus they move in > majestic procession in the fields of eternity, around the spiritual > sun, as in the heliocentric system the celestial bodies move round the > visible suns. The Pythagorean _Monad_, which lives “in solitude and > darkness,” may remain on this earth forever invisible, impalpable, > and undemonstrated by experimental science. Still the whole universe > will be gravitating around it, as it did from the “beginning of time,” {213} > and with every second, man and atom approach nearer to that solemn > moment in the eternity, when the Invisible Presence will become clear > to their spiritual sight. When every particle of matter, even the > most sublimated, has been cast off from the last shape that forms the > ultimate link of that chain of double evolution which, throughout > millions of ages and successive transformations, has pushed the entity > onward; and when it shall find itself reclothed in that primordial > essence, identical with that of its Creator, then this once impalpable > organic atom will have run its race, and the sons of God will once more > “shout for joy” at the return of the pilgrim. > > “Man,” says Van Helmont, “is the mirror of the universe, and his triple > nature stands in relationship to all things.” The will of the Creator, > through which all things were made and received their first impulse, > is the property of every living being. Man, endowed with an additional > spirituality, has the largest share of it on this planet. It depends on > the proportion of matter in him whether he will exercise its magical > faculty with more or less success. Sharing this divine potency in > common with every inorganic atom, he exercises it through the course > of his whole life, whether consciously or otherwise. In the former > case, when in the full possession of his powers, he will be the master, > and the _magnale magnum_ (the universal soul) will be controlled and > guided by him. In the cases of animals, plants, minerals, and even > of the average of humanity, this ethereal fluid which pervades all > things, finding no resistance, and being left to itself, moves them as > its impulse directs. Every created being in this sublunary sphere, is > formed out of the _magnale magnum_, and is related to it. Man possesses > a double celestial power, and is allied to heaven. This power is “not > only in the outer man, but to a degree also in the animals, and perhaps > in all other things, as all things in the universe stand in a relation > to each other; or, at least, God is in all things, as the ancients > have observed it with a worthy correctness. It is necessary that the > magic strength should be awakened in the outer as well as in the inner > man.... And if we call this a magic power, the uninstructed only can > be terrified by the expression. But, if you prefer it, you can call it > a spiritual power—_spirituale robur vocitaveris_. There is, therefore, > such magic power in the inner man. But, as there exists a certain > relationship between the inner and the outer man, this strength must be > diffused through the whole man.”[353] > > In an extended description of the religious rites, monastic life, and > “superstitions” of the Siamese, de la Loubère cites among other things > the wonderful power possessed by the _Talapoin_ (the monks, or the {214} > holy men of Buddha) over the wild beasts. “The Talapoin of Siam,” he > says, “will pass whole weeks in the dense woods under a small awning > of branches and palm leaves, and never make a fire in the night to > scare away the wild beasts, as all other people do who travel through > the woods of this country.” The people consider it a miracle that no > Talapoin is ever devoured. The tigers, elephants, and rhinoceroses—with > which the neighborhood abounds—respect him; and travellers placed in > secure ambuscade have often seen these wild beasts lick the hands and > feet of the sleeping Talapoin. “They all use magic,” adds the French > gentleman, “and think all nature animated (ensouled);[354] they believe > in tutelar geniuses.” But that which seems to shock the author most is > the idea which prevails among the Siamese, “that all that man was in > his bodily life, he will be after death.” “When the Tartar, which now > reigns at China,” remarks de la Loubère, “would force the Chinese to > shave their hair after the Tartarian fashion, several of them chose > rather to suffer death, than to go, they said, into the other world and > appear before their ancestors without hair; imagining that they shaved > the head of the soul also!”[355] “Now, what is altogether impertinent,” > adds the Ambassador, “in this absurd opinion is, that the Orientals > attribute the human figure rather than any other to the soul.” Without > enlightening his reader as to the particular shape these benighted > Orientals ought to select for their disembodied souls, de la Loubère > proceeds to pour out his wrath on these “savages.” Finally, he attacks > the memory of the old king of Siam, the father of the one to whose > court he was sent, by accusing him of having foolishly spent over two > million livres in search of the philosopher’s stone. “The Chinese,” he > says, “reputed so wise, have for three or four thousand years had the > folly of believing in the existence, and of seeking out a universal > remedy by which they hope to exempt themselves from the necessity of > dying. They base themselves on some foolish traditions, concerning > some _rare_ persons that are reported to have made gold, and to have > lived some ages; there are some very strongly established facts among > the Chinese, the Siamese, and other Orientals, concerning those that > know how to render themselves immortal, either absolutely, or in such > a manner that they can die no otherwise than by violent death.[356] > Wherefore, they name some persons who have withdrawn themselves from > the sight of men to enjoy free and peaceable life. They relate wonders > concerning the knowledge of these pretended immortals.” > > If Descartes, a Frenchman and a scientist, could, in the midst of > civilization, firmly believe that such a universal remedy had been {215} > found, and that if possessed of it he could live at least five hundred > years, why are not the Orientals entitled to the same belief? The > master-problems of both life and death are still unsolved by occidental > physiologists. Even sleep is a phenomenon about whose cause there is a > great divergence of opinion among them. How, then, can they pretend to > set limits to the possible, and define the impossible? > > From the remotest ages the philosophers have maintained the singular > power of music over certain diseases, especially of the nervous > class. Kircher recommends it, having experienced its good effects in > himself, and he gives an elaborate description of the instrument he > employed. It was a harmonica composed of five tumblers of a very thin > glass, placed in a row. In two of them were two different varieties of > wine; in the third, brandy; in the fourth, oil; in the fifth, water. > He extracted five melodious sounds from them in the usual way, by > merely rubbing his finger on the edges of the tumblers. The sound has > an attractive property; it draws out disease, which streams out to > encounter the musical wave, and the two, blending together, disappear > in space. Asclepiades employed music for the same purpose, some twenty > centuries ago; he blew a trumpet to cure sciatica, and its prolonged > sound making the fibres of the nerves to palpitate, the pain invariably > subsided. Democritus in like manner affirmed that many diseases could > be cured by the melodious sounds of a flute. Mesmer used this very > harmonica described by Kircher for his magnetic cures. The celebrated > Scotchman, Maxwell, offered to prove to various medical faculties that > with certain magnetic means at his disposal, he would cure any of the > diseases abandoned by them as incurable; such as epilepsy, impotence, > insanity, lameness, dropsy, and the most obstinate fevers.[357] > > The familiar story of the exorcism of the “evil spirit from God” that > obsessed Saul, will recur to every one in this connection. It is thus > related: “And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon > Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: _so Saul was > refreshed, and was well_, and the evil spirit departed from him.”[358] > > Maxwell, in his _Medicina Magnetica_, expounds the following > propositions, all which are the very doctrines of the alchemists and > kabalists. > > “That which men call the world-soul, is a life, as fire, spiritual, > fleet, light, and ethereal as light itself. It is a life-spirit > everywhere, and everywhere the same.... All matter is destitute of > action, except as it is ensouled by this spirit. This spirit maintains > all things in their peculiar condition. It is found in nature free from {216} > all fetters; and he who understands how to unite it with a harmonizing > body, possesses a treasure which exceeds all riches.” > > “This spirit is the common bond of all quarters of the earth, and lives > through and in all—_adest in mundo quid commune omnibus mextis, in quo > ipsa permanent_.” > > “He who knows this universal life-spirit and its application can > prevent all injuries.”[359] > > “If thou canst avail thyself of this spirit and fix it on some > particular body thou wilt perform the mystery of magic.” > > “He who knows how to operate on men by this universal spirit, can heal, > and this at any distance that he pleases.”[360] > > “He who can invigorate the particular spirit through the universal one, > _might continue his life to eternity_.”[361] > > “There is a blending together of spirits, or of emanations, even when > they are far separated from each other. And what is this blending > together? It is an eternal and incessant outpouring of the rays of one > body into another.” > > “In the meantime,” says Maxwell, “it is not _without danger_ to treat > of this. Many abominable abuses of this may take place.” > > And now let us see what are these abuses of mesmeric and magnetic > powers in some healing mediums. > > Healing, to deserve the name, requires either faith in the patient, > or robust health united with a strong will, in the operator. _With > expectency supplemented by faith, one can cure himself of almost any > morbific condition._ The tomb of a saint; a holy relic; a talisman; a > bit of paper or a garment that has been handled by the supposed healer; > a nostrum; a penance, or a ceremonial; the laying on of hands, or a > few words impressively pronounced—either will do. It is a question of > temperament, imagination, self-cure. In thousands of instances, the > doctor, the priest, or the relic has had credit for healings that were > solely and simply due to the patient’s unconscious will. The woman with > the bloody issue who pressed through the throng to touch the robe of > Jesus, was told that her “faith” had made her whole. > > The influence of mind over the body is so powerful that it has effected > miracles at all ages. > > “How many unhoped-for, sudden, and prodigious cures have been effected > by imagination,” says Salverte. “Our medical books are filled with > facts of this nature which would easily pass for miracles.”[362] > > But, if the patient has no faith, what then? If he is physically {217} > negative and receptive, and the healer strong, healthy, positive, > determined, the disease may be extirpated by the imperative will of the > operator, which, consciously or unconsciously, draws to and reinforces > itself with the universal spirit of nature, and restores the disturbed > equilibrium of the patient’s aura. He may employ as an auxiliary, a > crucifix—as Gassner did; or impose the hands and “will,” like the > French Zouave Jacob, like our celebrated American, Newton, the healer > of many thousands of sufferers, and like many others; or like Jesus, > and some apostles, he may cure by the word of command. The process in > each case is the same. > > In all these instances, the cure is radical and real, and without > secondary ill-effects. But, when one who is himself physically > diseased, attempts healing, he not only fails of that, but often > imparts his illness to his patient, and robs him of what strength he > may have. The decrepit King David reinforced his failing vigor with the > healthy magnetism of the young Abishag;[363] and the medical works tell > us of an aged lady of Bath, England, who broke down the constitutions > of two maids in succession, in the same way. The old sages, and > Paracelsus also, removed disease by applying a healthy organism to the > afflicted part, and in the works of the above-said fire-philosopher, > their theory is boldly and categorically set forth. If a diseased > person—medium or not—attempts to heal, his force may be sufficiently > robust to displace the disease, to disturb it in the present place, > and cause it to shift to another, where shortly it will appear; the > patient, meanwhile, thinking himself cured. > > But, what if the healer be morally diseased? The consequences may > be infinitely more mischievous; for it is easier to cure a bodily > disease than cleanse a constitution infected with moral turpitude. The > mystery of Morzine, Cevennes, and that of the Jansenists, is still as > great a mystery for physiologists as for psychologists. If the gift > of prophecy, as well as hysteria and convulsions, can be imparted by > “infection,” why not every vice? The healer, in such a case, conveys > to his patient—who is now his victim—the moral poison that infects > his own mind and heart. His magnetic touch is defilement; his glance, > profanation. Against this insidious taint, there is no protection for > the passively-receptive subject. The healer holds him under his power, > spellbound and powerless, as the serpent holds a poor, weak bird. The > evil that one such “healing medium” can effect is incalculably great; > and such healers there are by the hundred. > > But, as we have said before, there are real and God-like healers, > who, notwithstanding all the malice and skepticism of their bigoted {218} > opponents, have become famous in the world’s history. Such are the > Curé d’Ars, of Lyons, Jacob, and Newton. Such, also, were Gassner, the > clergyman of Klorstele, and the well-known Valentine Greatrakes, the > ignorant and poor Irishman, who was endorsed by the celebrated Robert > Boyle, President of the Royal Society of London, in 1670. In 1870, > he would have been sent to Bedlam, in company with other healers, if > another president of the same society had had the disposal of the case, > or Professor Lankester would have “summoned” him under the _Vagrant > Act_ for practicing upon Her Majesty’s subjects “by _palmistry_ or > otherwise.” > > But, to close a list of witnesses which might be extended indefinitely, > it will suffice to say that, from first to last, from Pythagoras down > to Eliphas Levi, from highest to humblest, every one teaches _that > the magical power is never possessed by those addicted to vicious > indulgences_. Only the pure in heart “see God,” or exercise divine > gifts—only such can heal the ills of the body, and allow themselves, > with relative security, to be guided by the “invisible powers.” Such > only can give peace to the disturbed spirits of their brothers and > sisters, for the healing waters come from no poisonous source; grapes > do not grow on thorns, and thistles bear no figs. But, for all this, > “magic has nothing supernal in it;” it is a science, and even the power > of “casting out devils” was a branch of it, of which the Initiates made > a special study. “That skill which expels demons out of human bodies, > is a science useful and sanative to men,” says Josephus.[364] > > The foregoing sketches are sufficient to show why we hold fast to > the wisdom of the ages, in preference to any new theories that may > have been hatched from the occurrences of our later days, respecting > the laws of intermundane intercourse and the occult powers of man. > While phenomena of a physical nature may have their value as a means > of arousing the interest of materialists, and confirming, if not > wholly, at least inferentially, our belief in the survival of our > souls and spirits, it is questionable whether, under their present > aspect, the modern phenomena are not doing more harm than good. Many > minds, hungering after proofs of immortality, are fast falling into > fanaticism; and, as Stow remarks, “fanatics are governed rather by > imagination than judgment.” > > Undoubtedly, believers in the modern phenomena can claim for themselves > a diversity of endowments, but the “discerning of spirits” is evidently > absent from this catalogue of “spiritual” gifts. Speaking of the > “Diakka,” whom he one fine morning had discovered in a shady corner of > the “Summer Land,” A. J. Davis, the great American seer, remarks: “A > Diakka is one who takes insane delight in _playing parts_, in juggling {219} > _tricks_, in _personating_ opposite characters; to whom prayer and > profane utterances are of equi-value; surcharged with a passion for > lyrical narrations; ... morally deficient, he is without the active > feelings of justice, philanthropy, or tender affection. He knows > nothing of what men call the sentiment of gratitude; the ends of hate > and love are the same to him; his motto is often fearful and terrible > to others—SELF is the whole of private living, and exalted annihilation > _the end of all private life_.[365] Only yesterday, one said to a > lady medium, signing himself _Swedenborg_, this: “Whatsoever is, has > been, will be, or may be, _that_ I AM; and private life is but the > aggregative phantasms of thinking throblets, rushing in their rising > onward to the central heart of eternal death!”[366] > > Porphyry, whose works—to borrow the expression of an irritated > phenomenalist—“are mouldering like every other antiquated trash in the > closets of oblivion,” speaks thus of these Diakka—if such be their > name—rediscovered in the nineteenth century: “It is with the direct > help of these bad demons, that every kind of sorcery is accomplished > ... it is the result of their operations, and men who injure their > fellow-creatures by enchantments, usually pay great honors to these bad > demons, and especially to their chief. These spirits pass their time in > deceiving us, with a great display of cheap prodigies and _illusions_; > their ambition is to be taken for gods, and their leader demands to be > recognized as the supreme god.”[367] > > The spirit signing himself Swedenborg—just quoted from Davis’s > _Diakka_, and hinting that he is the I AM, singularly resembles this > chief leader of Porphyry’s bad demons. > > What more natural than this vilification of the ancient and experienced > theurgists by certain mediums, when we find Iamblichus, the expositor > of spiritualistic theurgy, strictly forbidding all endeavors to procure > such phenomenal manifestations; unless, after a long preparation of > moral and physical purification, and under the guidance of experienced > theurgists. When, furthermore, he declares that, with very few > exceptions, for _a person_ “_to appear elongated or thicker, or > be borne aloft in the air_,” is a sure mark of obsession by _bad_ > demons.[368] > > Everything in this world has its time, and truth, however based upon > unimpeachable evidence, will not root or grow, unless, like a plant, it > is thrown into soil in its proper season. “The age must be prepared,” {220} > says Professor Cooke; and some thirty years ago this humble work would > have been doomed to self-destruction by its own contents. But the > modern phenomenon, notwithstanding the daily _exposés_, the ridicule > with which it is crowned at the hand of every materialist, and its own > numerous errors, grows and waxes strong in facts, if not in wisdom and > spirit. What would have appeared twenty years ago simply preposterous, > may well be listened to now that the phenomena are endorsed by great > scientists. Unfortunately, if the manifestations increase in power > daily, there is no corresponding improvement in philosophy. The > discernment of spirits is still as wanting as ever. > > Perhaps, among the whole body of spiritualist writers of our day, not > one is held in higher esteem for character, education, sincerity, and > ability, than Epes Sargent, of Boston, Massachusetts. His monograph > entitled _The Proof Palpable of Immortality_, deservedly occupies a > high rank among works upon the subject. With every disposition to be > charitable and apologetic for mediums and their phenomena, Mr. Sargent > is still compelled to use the following language: “The power of spirits > to reproduce simulacra of persons who have passed from the earth-life, > suggests the question—How far can we be assured of the identity > of _any_ spirit, let the tests be what they may? We have not yet > arrived at that stage of enlightenment that would enable us to reply > confidently to this inquiry.... There is much that is yet a puzzle in > the language and action of this class of materialized spirits.” As > to the intellectual calibre of most of the spirits which lurk behind > the physical phenomena, Mr. Sargent will unquestionably be accepted > as a most competent judge, and he says, “the great majority, as in > this world, are of the unintellectual sort.” If it is a fair question, > we would like to ask why they should be so lacking in intelligence, > if they are human spirits? Either intelligent human spirits _cannot_ > materialize, or, the spirits that do materialize have not human > intelligence, and, therefore, by Mr. Sargent’s own showing, they may > just as well be “elementary” spirits, who have ceased to be human > altogether, or those demons, which, according to the Persian Magi and > Plato, hold a middle rank between gods and disembodied men. > > There is good evidence, that of Mr. Crookes for one, to show that many > “materialized” spirits talk in an audible voice. Now, we have shown, > on the testimony of ancients, that the voice of human spirits is not > and _cannot_ be articulated; being, as Emanuel Swedenborg declares, “a > deep suspiration.” Who of the two classes of witnesses may be trusted > more safely? Is it the ancients who had the experience of so many ages > in theurgical practices, or modern spiritualists, who have had none > at all, and who have no facts upon which to base an opinion, except > such as have been communicated by “spirits,” whose identity they have {221} > no means of proving? There are mediums whose organisms have called > out sometimes hundreds of these would-be “human” forms. And yet we > do not recollect to have seen or heard of one expressing anything > but the most commonplace ideas. This fact ought surely to arrest the > attention of even the most uncritical spiritualist. If a spirit can > speak at all, and if the way is opened to intelligent as well as to > unintellectual beings, why should they not sometimes give us addresses > in some remote degree approximating in quality to the communications > we receive through the “direct writing?” Mr. Sargent puts forward a > very suggestive and important idea in this sentence. “How far they > are limited in their mental operations and in their recollections by > the act of materialization, or how far by the intellectual horizon of > the medium is still a question.”[369] If the same kind of “spirits” > materialize that produce the direct writing, and both manifest through > mediums, and the one talk nonsense, while the other often give us > sublime philosophical teachings, why should their mental operations be > limited “by the intellectual horizon of the medium” in the one instance > more than in the other? The materializing mediums—at least so far as > our observation extends—are no more uneducated than many peasants and > mechanics who at different times have, under supernal influences, given > profound and sublime ideas to the world. The history of psychology > teems with examples in illustration of this point, among which that of > Boehmè, the inspired but ignorant shoemaker, and our own Davis, are > conspicuous. As to the matter of unintellectuality we presume that no > more striking cases need be sought than those of the child-prophets > of Cevennes, poets and seers, such as have been mentioned in previous > chapters. When spirits have once furnished themselves with vocal organs > to speak at all, it surely ought to be no more difficult for them to > talk as persons of their assumed respective education, intelligence, > and social rank would in life, instead of falling invariably into one > monotonous tone of commonplace and, but too often, platitude. As to Mr. > Sargent’s hopeful remark, that “the science of Spiritualism being still > in its infancy, we may hope for more light on this question,” we fear > we must reply, that _it is not through “dark cabinets” that this light > will ever break_.[370] > > It is simply ridiculous and absurd to require from every investigator > who comes forward as a witness to the marvels of the day and > psychological phenomena the diploma of a master of arts and sciences. > The experience of the past forty years is an evidence that it is not > always the minds which are the most “scientifically trained” that are > the best in matters of simple common sense and honest truth. Nothing {222} > blinds like fanaticism, or a one sided view of a question. We may > take as an illustration Oriental magic or ancient spiritualism, as > well as the modern phenomena. Hundreds, nay thousands of perfectly > trustworthy witnesses, returning from residence and travels in the > East, have testified to the fact that uneducated fakirs, sheiks, > dervishes, and lamas have, in their presence, without confederates > or mechanical appliances, produced wonders. They have affirmed that > the phenomena exhibited by them were in contravention of all the > _known_ laws of science, and thus tended to prove the existence of > many yet unknown occult potencies in nature, seemingly directed by > preterhuman intelligences. What has been the attitude assumed by our > scientists toward this subject? How far did the testimony of the > most “scientifically” trained minds make impression on their own? > Did the investigations of Professors Hare and de Morgan, of Crookes > and Wallace, de Gasparin and Thury, Wagner and Butlerof, etc., shake > for one moment their skepticism? How were the personal experiences > of Jacolliot with the fakirs of India received, or the psychological > elucidations of Professor Perty, of Geneva, viewed? How far does the > loud cry of mankind, craving for palpable and demonstrated signs of > a God, an individual soul, and of eternity, affect them; and what is > their response? They pull down and destroy every vestige of spiritual > things, but they erect nothing. “We cannot get such signs with either > retorts or crucibles,” they say; “hence, it’s all but a delusion!” In > this age of cold reason and prejudice, even the Church has to look to > science for help. Creeds built on sand, and high-towering but rootless > dogmas, crumble down under the cold breath of research, and pull down > _true_ religion in their fall. But the longing for some outward sign of > a God and a life hereafter, remains as tenaciously as ever in the human > heart. In vain is all sophistry of science; it can never stifle the > voice of nature. Only her representatives have poisoned the pure waters > of simple faith, and now humanity mirrors itself in waters made turbid > with all the mud stirred up from the bottom of the once pure spring. > The anthropomorphic God of our fathers is replaced by anthropomorphic > monsters; and what is still worse, by the reflection of humanity itself > in these waters, whose ripples send it back the distorted images of > truth and facts as evoked by its misguided imagination. “It is not a > miracle that we want,” writes the Reverend Brooke Herford, “but to find > palpable evidence of the spiritual and the divine. It is not to the > prophets that men cry for such a “sign,” but rather to the scientists. > Men feel as if all that groping about in the foremost verge or > innermost recesses of creation should bring the investigator at length > close to the deep, underlying facts of all things, to some unmistakable > signs of God.” The signs are there, and the scientists too; what can {223} > we expect more of them, now that they have done so well their duty? > Have they not, these Titans of thought, dragged down God from His > hiding-place, and given us instead a _protoplasm_? > > At the Edinburgh meeting of the British Association, in 1871, Sir > William Thomson said: “Science is bound by the everlasting law of > honor to face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be presented > to it.” In his turn, Professor Huxley remarks: “With regard to the > miracle-question, I can only say that the word ‘impossible’ is not, > to my mind, applicable to matters of philosophy.” The great Humboldt > remarks that “a presumptuous skepticism that rejects facts without > examination of their truth is, in some respects, more injurious than > unquestioning credulity.” > > These men have proved untrue to their own teachings. The opportunity > afforded them by the opening of the Orient, to investigate for > themselves the phenomena alleged by every traveller to take place > in those countries, has been rejected. Did our physiologists and > pathologists ever so much as think of availing themselves of it to > settle this most momentous subject of human thought? Oh, no; for > they would never dare. It is not to be expected that the principal > Academicians of Europe and America should undertake a joint journey > to Thibet and India, and investigate the fakir marvel on the spot! > And were one of them to go as a solitary pilgrim and witness all the > miracles of creation, in that land of wonders, who, of his colleagues, > could be expected to believe his testimony? > > It would be as tedious as superfluous to begin a restatement of facts, > so forcibly put by others. Mr. Wallace and W. Howitt,[371] have > repeatedly and cleverly described the thousand and one absurd errors > into which the learned societies of France and England have fallen, > through their blind skepticism. If Cuvier could throw aside the fossil > excavated in 1828 by Boué, the French geologist, only because the > anatomist thought himself wiser than his colleague, and would not > believe that human skeletons could be found eighty feet deep in the mud > of the Rhine; and if the French Academy could discredit the assertions > of Boucher de Perthes, in 1846, only to be criticised in its turn in > 1860, when the truth of de Perthes’ discoveries and observations was > fully confirmed by the whole body of geologists finding flint weapons > in the drift-gravels of northern France; and if McEnery’s testimony, in > 1825, to the fact that he had discovered worked flints, together with > the remains of extinct animals, in Kent’s Hole Cavern[372] was laughed {224} > at; and that of Godwin Austen to the same effect, in 1840, ridiculed > still more, if that were possible; and all that excess of scientific > skepticism and merriment could, in 1865, finally come to grief, and > be shown to have been entirely uncalled for; when—says Mr. Wallace > “all the previous reports for forty years were confirmed and shown to > be even less wonderful than the reality;“who can be so credulous as > to believe in the infallibility of our science? And why wonder at the > exhibition of such a lack of moral courage in individual members of > this great and stubborn body known as modern science? > > Thus fact after fact has been discredited. From all sides we hear > constant complaints. “Very little is known of psychology!” sighs > one F. R. S. “We must confess that we know little, if anything, in > physiology,” says another. “Of all sciences, there is none which rests > upon so uncertain a basis as medicine,” reluctantly testifies a third. > “What do we know about the presumed nervous fluids?... Nothing, as > yet,” puts in a fourth one; and so on in every branch of science. And, > meanwhile, phenomena, surpassing in interest all others of nature, and > to be solved only by physiology, psychology, and the “as yet unknown” > fluids, are either rejected as delusions, or, if even true, “do not > interest” scientists. Or, what is still worse, when a _subject_, whose > organism exhibits in itself the most important features of such occult > though natural potencies, offers his person for an investigation, > instead of an honest experiment being attempted with him he finds > himself entrapped by a scientist (?) and paid for his trouble with a > sentence of three months’ imprisonment! This is indeed promising. > > It is easy to comprehend that a fact given in 1731, testifying to > another fact which happened during the papacy of Paul III., for > instance, is disbelieved in 1876. And when scientists are told that > the Romans preserved lights in their sepulchres for countless years > by the _oiliness of gold_; and that one of such ever-burning lamps > was found brightly burning in the tomb of Tullia, the daughter of > Cicero, notwithstanding that the tomb had been shut up fifteen hundred > and fifty years,[373]—they have a certain right to doubt, and even > disbelieve the statement, until they assure themselves, on the evidence > of their own senses, that such a thing is possible. In such a case they > can reject the testimony of all the ancient and mediæval philosophers. > The burial of living fakirs and their subsequent resuscitation, after > thirty days of inhumation, may have a suspicious look to them. So also > with the self-infliction of mortal wounds, and the exhibition of their > own bowels to the persons present by various lamas, who heal such > wounds almost instantaneously. > > For certain men who deny the evidence of their own senses as to {225} > phenomena produced in their own country, and before numerous witnesses, > the narratives to be found in classical books, and in the notes of > travellers, must of course seem absurd. But what we will never be able > to understand is the collective stubbornness of the Academies, in the > face of such bitter lessons in the past, to these institutions which > have so often “darkened counsel by words without knowledge.” Like the > Lord answering Job “out of the whirlwind,” magic can say to modern > science: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? > declare, if thou hast understanding!” And, who art thou who dare say to > nature, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy > proud waves be stayed?” > > But what matters it if they do deny? Can they prevent phenomena > taking place in the four corners of the world, if their skepticism > were a thousand times more bitter? Fakirs will still be buried and > resuscitated, gratifying the curiosity of European travellers; and > lamas and Hindu ascetics will wound, mutilate, and even disembowel > themselves, and find themselves all the better for it; and the denials > of the whole world will not blow sufficiently to extinguish the > perpetually-burning lamps in certain of the subterranean crypts of > India, Thibet, and Japan. One of such lamps is mentioned by the Rev. > S. Mateer, of the London Mission. In the temple of Trevandrum, in the > kingdom of Travancore, South India, “there is a deep well inside the > temple, into which immense riches are thrown year by year, and in > another place, in a hollow covered by a stone, a great golden lamp, > which was lit over 120 years ago, still continues burning,” says this > missionary in his description of the place. Catholic missionaries > attribute these lamps, as a matter of course, to the obliging services > of the devil. The more prudent Protestant divine mentions the fact, > and makes no commentary. The Abbé Huc has seen and examined one of > such lamps, and so have other people whose good luck it has been to > win the confidence and friendship of Eastern lamas and divines. No > more can be denied the wonders seen by Captain Lane in Egypt; the > Benares experiences of Jacolliot and those of Sir Charles Napier; > the levitations of human beings in broad daylight, and which can be > accounted for only on the explanation given in the Introductory chapter > of the present work.[374] Such levitations are testified to—besides Mr. > Crookes—by Professor Perty, who shows them produced in open air, and > lasting sometimes twenty minutes; all these phenomena and many more > have happened, do, and will happen in every country of this globe, and > that in spite of all the skeptics and scientists that ever were evolved > out of the Silurian mud. > > Among the ridiculed claims of alchemy is that of the _perpetual_ lamps. {226} > If we tell the reader that we have seen such, we may be asked—in > case that the sincerity of our personal belief is not questioned—how > we can tell that the lamps we have observed are perpetual, as the > period of our observation was but limited? Simply that, as we know the > ingredients employed, and the manner of their construction, and the > natural law applicable to the case, we are confident that our statement > can be corroborated upon investigation in the proper quarter. What that > quarter is, and from whom that knowledge can be learned, our critics > must discover, by taking the pains we did. Meanwhile, however, we will > quote a few of the 173 authorities who have written upon the subject. > None of these, as we recollect, have asserted that these sepulchral > lamps would burn perpetually, but only for an indefinite number of > years, and instances are recorded of their continuing alight for many > centuries. It will not be denied that, if there is a natural law by > which a lamp can be made without replenishment to burn ten years, > there is no reason why the same law could not cause the combustion to > continue one hundred or one thousand years. > > Among the many well-known personages who firmly believed and > strenuously asserted that such sepulchral lamps burned for several > hundreds of years, and would have continued to burn _may be_ forever, > had they not been extinguished, or the vessels broken by some accident, > we may reckon the following names: Clemens Alexandrinus, Hermolaus > Barbarus, Appian, Burattinus, Citesius, Cœlius, Foxius, Costæus, > Casalius, Cedrenus, Delrius, Ericius, Gesnerus, Jacobonus, Leander, > Libavius, Lazius, P. de la Mirandolla, Philalethes, Licetus, Maiolus, > Maturantius, Baptista Porta, Pancirollus, Ruscellius, Scardonius, > Ludovicus Vives, Volateranus, Paracelsus, several Arabian alchemists, > and finally, Pliny, Solinus, Kircher, and Albertus Magnus. > > The discovery is claimed by the ancient Egyptians, those sons of the > Land of Chemistry.[375] At least, they were a people who used these > lamps far more than any other nation, on account of their religious > doctrines. The astral soul of the mummy was believed to be lingering > about the body for the whole space of the three thousand years of > the circle of necessity. Attached to it by a magnetic thread, which > could be broken but by its own exertion, the Egyptians hoped that the > ever-burning lamp, symbol of their incorruptible and immortal spirit, > would at last decide the more material soul to part with its earthly > dwelling, and unite forever with its divine SELF. Therefore lamps were > hung in the sepulchres of the rich. Such lamps are often found in the {227} > subterranean caves of the dead, and Licetus has written a large folio > to prove that in his time, whenever a sepulchre was opened, a burning > lamp was found within the tomb, but was instantaneously extinguished > on account of the _desecration_. T. Livius, Burattinus, and Michael > Schatta, in their letters to Kircher,[376] affirm that they found many > lamps in the subterranean caves of old Memphis. Pausanias speaks of > the golden lamp in the temple of Minerva at Athens, which he says was > the workmanship of Callimachus, and burnt a whole year. Plutarch[377] > affirms that he saw one in the temple of Jupiter Amun, and that the > priests assured him that it had burnt continually for years, and though > it stood in the open air, neither wind nor water could extinguish it. > St. Augustine, the Catholic authority, also describes a lamp in the > fane of Venus, of the same nature as the others, unextinguishable > either by the strongest wind or by water. A lamp was found at Edessa, > says Kedrenus, “which, being hidden at the top of a certain gate, > burned 500 years.” But of all such lamps, the one mentioned by Olybius > Maximus of Padua is by far the more wonderful. It was found near > Attestè, and Scardeonius[378] gives a glowing description of it: “In a > large earthen urn was contained a lesser, and in that a burning lamp, > which had continued so for 1500 years, by means of a most pure liquor > contained in two bottles, one of gold and the other of silver. These > are in the custody of Franciscus Maturantius, and are by him valued at > an exceeding rate.” > > Taking no account of exaggerations, and putting aside as mere > unsupported negation the affirmation by modern science of the > impossibility of such lamps, we would ask whether, in case these > inextinguishable fires are found to have really existed in the ages > of “miracles,” the lamps burning at Christian shrines and those of > Jupiter, Minerva, and other Pagan deities, ought to be differently > regarded. According to certain theologians, it would appear that the > former (for Christianity also claims such lamps) have burned by a > _divine_, miraculous power, and that the light of the latter, made by > “heathen” art, was supported by the wiles of the devil. Kircher and > Licetus show that they were ordered in these two diverse ways. The lamp > at Antioch, which burned 1500 years, in an open and public place, over > the door of a church, was preserved by the “_power of God_,” who “hath > made so infinite a number of stars to burn with perpetual light.” As > to the Pagan lamps, St. Augustine assures us they were the work of the > devil, “who deceives us in a thousand ways.” What more easy for Satan > to do than represent a flash of light, or a bright flame to them who {228} > first enter into such a subterranean cave? This was asserted by all > good Christians during the Papacy of Paul III., when upon opening a > tomb in the Appian Way, at Rome, there was found the entire body of a > young girl swimming in a bright liquor which had so well preserved it, > that the face was beautiful and like life itself. At her feet burned > a lamp, whose flame vanished upon opening the sepulchre. From some > engraved signs it was found to have been buried for over 1500 years, > and supposed to have been the body of Tulliola, or Tullia, Cicero’s > daughter.[379] > > Chemists and physicists deny that perpetual lamps are possible, > alleging that whatever is resolved into vapor or smoke cannot be > permanent, but must consume; and as the oily nutriment of a lighted > lamp is exhaled into a vapor, hence the fire cannot be perpetual > for want of food. Alchemists, on the other hand, deny that all the > nourishment of kindled fire must of necessity be converted into > vapor. They say that there are things in nature which will not only > resist the force of fire and remain inconsumable, but will also prove > inextinguishable by either wind or water. In an old chemical work > of the year 1700, called ΝΕΚΡΟΚΗΔΕΙΑ, the author gives a number of > refutations of the claims of various alchemists. But though he denies > that a fire can be made to burn _perpetually_, he is half-inclined to > believe it possible that a lamp should burn several hundred years. > Besides, we have a mass of testimony from alchemists who devoted years > to these experiments and came to the conclusion that it was possible. > > There are some peculiar preparations of gold, silver, and mercury; > also of naphtha, petroleum, and other bituminous oils. Alchemists also > name the oil of camphor and amber, the _Lapis asbestos seu Amianthus_, > the _Lapis Carystius_, _Cyprius_, and _Linum vivum seu Creteum_, as > employed for such lamps. They affirm that such matter can be prepared > either of gold or silver, reduced to fluid, and indicate that gold is > the fittest _pabulum_ for their wondrous flame, as, of all metals, gold > wastes the least when either heated or melted, and, moreover, can be > made to reäbsorb its oily humidity as soon as exhaled, so continuously > feeding its own flame when it is once lighted. The Kabalists assert > that the secret was known to Moses, who had learned it from the > Egyptians; and that the lamp ordered by the “Lord” to burn on the > tabernacle, was an inextinguishable lamp. “And thou shalt command the > children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil-olive beaten for the > light, _to cause the lamp to burn always_” (Exod. xxvii. 20). > > Licetus also denies that these lamps were prepared of metal, but on {229} > page 44 of his work mentions a preparation of quicksilver filtrated > seven times through white sand by fire, of which, he says, lamps were > made that would burn perpetually. Both Maturantius and Citesius firmly > believe that such a work can be done by a purely chemical process. This > liquor of quicksilver was known among alchemists as _Aqua Mercurialis_, > _Materia Metallorum_, _Perpetua Dispositio_, and _Materia prima Artis_, > also _Oleum Vitri_. Tritenheim and Bartolomeo Korndorf both made > preparations for the inextinguishable fire, and left their recipes for > it.[380] > > Asbestos, which was known to the Greeks under the name of Ασβεστος, or > _inextinguishable_, is a kind of stone, which once set on fire cannot {230} > be quenched, as Pliny and Solinus tell us. Albertus Magnus describes it > as a stone of an iron color, found mostly in Arabia. It is generally > found covered with a hardly-perceptible oleaginous moisture, which > upon being approached with a lighted candle will immediately catch > fire. Many were the experiments made by chemists to extract from it > this indissoluble oil, but they are alleged to have all failed. But, > are our chemists prepared to say that the above operation is utterly > impracticable? If this oil could once be extracted there can be no > question but it would afford a perpetual fuel. The ancients might > well boast of having had the secret of it, for, we repeat, there > are experimenters living at this day who have done so successfully. > Chemists who have vainly tried it, have asserted that the fluid or > liquor chemically extracted from that stone was more of a watery > than oily nature, and so impure and feculent that it could not burn; > others affirmed, on the contrary, that the oil, as soon as exposed > to the air, became so thick and solid that it would hardly flow, and > when lighted emitted no flame, but escaped in dark smoke; whereas the > lamps of the ancients are alleged to have burned with the purest and > brightest flame, without emitting the slightest smoke. Kircher, who > shows the practicability of purifying it, thinks it so difficult as to > be accessible only to the highest adepts of alchemy. > > St. Augustine, who attributes the whole of these arts to the Christian > scape-goat, the devil, is flatly contradicted by Ludovicus Vives,[381] > who shows that all such would-be magical operations are the work > of man’s industry and deep study of the hidden secrets of nature, > wonderful and miraculous as they may seem. Podocattarus, a Cypriote > knight,[382] had both flax and linen made out of another asbestos, > which _Porcacchius_ says[383] he saw at the house of this knight. Pliny > calls this flax _linum vinum_, and Indian flax, and says it is done > out of _asbeston sive asbestinum_, a kind of flax of which they made > cloth that was to be cleaned by throwing it in the fire. He adds that > it was as precious as pearls and diamonds, for not only was it very > rarely found but exceedingly difficult to be woven, on account of the > shortness of the threads. Being beaten flat with a hammer, it is soaked > in warm water, and when dried its filaments can be easily divided into > threads like flax and woven into cloth. Pliny asserts he has seen some > towels made of it, and assisted in an experiment of purifying them by > fire. Baptista Porta also states that he found the same, at Venice, > in the hands of a Cyprian lady; he calls this discovery of Alchemy a > _secretum optimum_. > > Dr. Grew, in his description of the curiosities in Gresham College {231} > (seventeenth century), believes the art, as well as the use of such > linen, altogether lost, but it appears that it was not quite so, for > we find the Museum Septalius boasting of the possession of thread, > ropes, paper, and net-work done of this material as late as 1726; > some of these articles made, moreover, by the own hand of Septalius, > as we learn in Greenhill’s _Art of Embalming_, p. 361. “Grew,” says > the author, “seems to make _Asbestinus Lapis_ and _Amianthus_ all > one, and calls them in English the thrum-stone;” he says it grows in > short threads or thrums, from about a quarter of an inch to an inch in > length, parallel and glossy, as fine as those small, single threads > the silk-worms spin, and very flexible like to flax or tow. That the > secret is not altogether lost is proved by the fact that some Buddhist > convents in China and Thibet are in possession of it. Whether made > of the fibre of one or the other of such stones, we cannot say, but > we have seen in a monastery of female Talapoins, a yellow gown, such > as the Buddhist monks wear, thrown into a large pit, full of glowing > coals, and taken out two hours afterward as clear as if it had been > washed with soap and water. > > Similar severe trials of asbestos having occurred in Europe and > America in our own times, the substance is being applied to various > industrial purposes, such as roofing-cloth, incombustible dresses and > fire-proof safes. A very valuable deposit on Staten Island, in New York > harbor, yields the mineral in bundles, like dry wood, with fibres of > several feet in length. The finer variety of asbestos, called αμιαντος > (undefiled) by the ancients, took its name from its white, satin-like > lustre. > > The ancients made the wick of their perpetual lamps from another stone > also, which they called _Lapis Carystius_. The inhabitants of the city > of Carystos seemed to have made no secret of it, as _Matthæus Raderus_ > says in his work[384] that they “kemb’d, spun, and wove this downy > stone into mantles, table-linen, and the like, which when foul they > purified again with fire instead of water.” Pausanias, in _Atticus_, > and Plutarch[385] also assert that the wicks of lamps were made from > this stone; but Plutarch adds that it was no more to be found in his > time. Licetus is inclined to believe that the perpetual lamps used by > the ancients in their sepulchres had no wicks at all, as very few have > been found; but Ludovicus Vives is of a contrary opinion and affirms > that he has seen quite a number of them. > > Licetus, moreover, is firmly persuaded that a “pabulum for fire may be > given with such an equal temperament as cannot be consumed but after > a long series of ages, and so that neither the matter shall exhale {232} > but strongly resist the fire, nor the fire consume the matter, but be > restrained by it, as it were with a chain, from flying upward.” To > this, Sir Thomas Brown,[386] speaking of lamps which have burned many > hundred years, included in small bodies, observes that “this proceeds > from the purity of the oil, which yields no fuliginous exhalations to > suffocate the fire; for if air had nourished the flame, then it had not > continued many minutes, for it would certainly in that case have been > spent and wasted by the fire.” But he adds, “the art of preparing this > inconsumable oil is lost.” > > Not quite; and time will prove it, though all that we now write should > be doomed to fail, like so many other truths. > > We are told, in behalf of science, that she accepts no other mode of > investigation than observation and experiment. Agreed; and have we > not the records of say three thousand years of observation of facts > going to prove the occult powers of man? As to experiment, what better > opportunity could have been asked than the so-called modern phenomena > have afforded? In 1869, various scientific Englishmen were invited by > the London Dialectical Society to assist in an investigation of these > phenomena. Let us see what our philosophers replied. Professor Huxley > wrote: “I have no time for such an inquiry, which would involve much > trouble and (unless it were unlike all inquiries of that kind I have > known) much annoyance.... I take no interest in the subject ... but > supposing the phenomena to be genuine—they do not interest me.”[387] > Mr. George H. Lewes expresses a wise thing in the following sentence: > “When any man says that phenomena are produced by no known physical > laws, he declares he knows the laws by which they are produced.”[388] > Professor Tyndall expresses doubt as to the possibility of good results > at any seance which he might attend. His presence, according to the > opinion of Mr. Varley, throws everything in confusion.[389] Professor > Carpenter writes, “I have satisfied myself by personal investigation, > that, whilst a great number of what pass as such (_i. e._, spiritual > manifestations) are the results of intentional imposture, and many > others of self-deception, there are certain phenomena which are quite > genuine, and must be considered as fair subjects of scientific study > ... the source of these phenomena does not lie in any communication > _ab-extra_, but depend upon the _subjective_ condition of the > individual which operates according to certain recognized physiological > laws ... the process to which I have given the name ‘_unconscious > cerebration_’ ... performs a large part in the production of the {233} > phenomena known as spiritualistic.”[390] > > And it is thus that the world is apprised through the organ of exact > science, that _unconscious cerebration_ has acquired the faculty of > making the guitars fly in the air and forcing furniture to perform > various clownish tricks! > > So much for the opinions of the English scientists. The Americans > have not done much better. In 1857, a committee of Harvard University > warned the public against investigating this subject, which “corrupts > the morals and degrades the intellect.” They called it, furthermore, > “a contaminating influence, which surely tends to lessen the truth of > man and the purity of woman.” Later, when Professor Robert Hare, the > great chemist, defying the opinions of his contemporaries, investigated > spiritualism, and became a believer, he was immediately declared _non > compos mentis_; and in 1874, when one of the New York daily papers > addressed a circular letter to the principal scientists of this > country, asking them to investigate, and offering to pay the expenses, > they, like the guests bidden to the supper, “with one consent, began to > make excuses.” > > Yet, despite the indifference of Huxley, the jocularity of Tyndall, > and the “unconscious cerebration” of Carpenter, many a scientist as > noted as either of them, has investigated the unwelcome subject, > and, overwhelmed with the evidence, become converted. And another > scientist, and a great author—although not a spiritualist—bears this > honorable testimony: “That the spirits of the dead occasionally revisit > the living, or haunt their former abodes, has been in all ages, in > all European countries, a fixed belief, not confined to rustics, but > participated in by the intelligent.... If human testimony on such > subjects can be of any value, there is a body of evidence reaching from > the remotest ages to the present time, as _extensive and unimpeachable > as is to be found_ in support of anything whatever.”[391] > > Unfortunately, human skepticism is a stronghold capable of defying any > amount of testimony. And to begin with Mr. Huxley, our men of science > accept of but so much as suits them, and no more. > > “Oh shame to men! devil with devil damn’d > Firm concord holds,—_men_ only disagree > Of creatures rational....”[392] > > How can we account for such divergence of views among men taught out of > the same text-books and deriving their knowledge from the same source? {234} > Clearly, this is but one more corroboration of the truism that no two > men see the same thing exactly alike. This idea is admirably formulated > by Dr. J. J. Garth Wilkinson, in a letter to the Dialectical Society. > > “I have long,” says he, “been convinced, by the experience of my > life as a pioneer in several heterodoxies which are rapidly becoming > orthodoxies, that nearly all truth is temperamental to us, or given > in the affections and intuitions, and that discussion and inquiry do > little more than feed temperament.” > > This profound observer might have added to his experience that of > Bacon, who remarks that “ ... a _little_ philosophy inclineth a man’s > mind to atheism, but _depth_ in philosophy bringeth man’s mind about to > religion.” > > Professor Carpenter vaunts the advanced philosophy of the present day > which “ignores no fact however strange that can be attested by valid > evidence;” and yet he would be the first to reject the claims of the > ancients to philosophical and scientific knowledge, although based > upon evidence quite “as valid” as that which supports the pretensions > of men of our times to philosophical or scientific distinction. In > the department of science, let us take for example the subjects of > electricity and electro-magnetism, which have exalted the names of > Franklin and Morse to so high a place upon our roll of fame. Six > centuries before the Christian era, Thales is said to have discovered > the electric properties of amber; and yet the later researches of > Schweigger, as given in his extensive works on Symbolism, have > thoroughly demonstrated that all the ancient mythologies were based > on the science of natural philosophy, and show that the most occult > properties of electricity and magnetism were known to the theurgists > of the earliest Mysteries recorded in history, those of Samothrace. > Diodorus, of Sicily, Herodotus, and Sanchoniathon, the Phœnician—the > oldest of historians—tell us that these Mysteries originated in the > night of time, centuries and probably thousands of years prior to > the historical period. One of the best proofs of it we find in a > most remarkable picture, in Raoul-Rochette’s _Monuments d’Antiquité > Figurés_, in which, like the “erect-haired Pan,” all the figures have > their hair streaming out in every direction—except the central figure > of the Kabeirian Demeter, from whom the power issues, and one other, > a kneeling man.[393] The picture, according to Schweigger, evidently > represents a part of the ceremony of initiation. And yet it is not > so long since the elementary works on natural philosophy began to > be ornamented with cuts of _electrified_ heads, with hair standing {235} > out in all directions, under the influence of the electric fluid. > Schweigger shows that a _lost natural philosophy of antiquity_ was > connected with the most important religious ceremonies. He demonstrates > in the amplest manner, that _magic_ in the prehistoric periods had a > part in the mysteries and that the greatest phenomena, the so-called > miracles—whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian—rested in fact on the > arcane knowledge of the ancient priests of physics and all the branches > of chemistry, or rather alchemy. > > In chapter xi., which is entirely devoted to the wonderful achievements > of the ancients, we propose to demonstrate our assertions more fully. > We will show, on the evidence of the most trustworthy classics, that > at a period far anterior to the siege of Troy, the learned priests of > the sanctuaries were thoroughly acquainted with electricity and even > lightning-conductors. We will now add but a few more words before > closing the subject. > > The theurgists so well understood the minutest properties of magnetism, > that, without possessing the lost key to their arcana, but depending > wholly upon what was known in their modern days of electro-magnetism, > Schweigger and Ennemoser have been able to trace the identity of the > “twin brothers,” the Dioskuri, with the polarity of electricity and > magnetism. Symbolical myths, previously supposed to be meaningless > fictions, are now found to be “the cleverest and at the same time most > profound expressions of a strictly scientifically defined truth of > nature,” according to Ennemoser.[394] > > Our physicists pride themselves on the achievements of our century > and exchange antiphonal hymns of praise. The eloquent diction > of their class-lectures, their flowery phraseology, require but > a slight modification to change these lectures into melodious > sonnets. Our modern Petrarchs, Dantes, and Torquato Tassos rival > with the troubadours of old in poetical effusion. In their unbounded > glorification of matter, they sing the amorous commingling of the > wandering atoms, and the loving interchange of protoplasms, and lament > the coquettish fickleness of “forces” which play so provokingly at > hide-and-seek with our grave professors in the great drama of life, > called by them “force-correlation.” Proclaiming matter sole and > autocratic sovereign of the Boundless Universe, they would forcibly > divorce her from her consort, and place the widowed queen on the great > throne of nature made vacant by the exiled spirit. And now, they try to > make her appear as attractive as they can by incensing and worshipping > at the shrine of their own building. Do they forget, or are they {236} > utterly unaware of the fact, that in the absence of its legitimate > sovereign, this throne is but a whitened sepulchre, inside of which > all is rottenness and corruption! That matter without the spirit which > vivifies it, and of which it is but the “gross purgation,” to use a > hermetic expression, is nothing but a soulless corpse, whose limbs, in > order to be moved in predetermined directions, require an intelligent > operator at the great galvanic battery called LIFE! > > In what particular is the knowledge of the present century so superior > to that of the ancients? When we say knowledge we do not mean that > brilliant and clear definition of our modern scholars of particulars > to the most trifling detail in every branch of exact science; of that > tuition which finds an appropriate term for every detail insignificant > and microscopic as it may be; a name for every nerve and artery in > human and animal organisms, an appellation for every cell, filament, > and rib in a plant; but the philosophical and ultimate expression of > every truth in nature. > > The greatest ancient philosophers are accused of shallowness and a > superficiality of knowledge of those details in exact sciences of > which the moderns boast so much. Plato is declared by his various > commentators to have been utterly ignorant of the anatomy and functions > of the human body; to have known nothing of the uses of the nerves > to convey sensations; and to have had nothing better to offer than > vain speculations concerning physiological questions. He has simply > generalized the divisions of the human body, they say, and given > nothing reminding us of anatomical facts. As to his own views on the > human frame, the microcosmos being in his ideas the image in miniature > of the macrocosmos, they are much too transcendental to be given the > least attention by our exact and materialistic skeptics. The idea of > this frame being, as well as the universe, formed out of triangles, > seems preposterously ridiculous to several of his translators. Alone > of the latter, Professor Jowett, in his introduction to the _Timæus_, > honestly remarks that the modern physical philosopher “hardly allows > to his notions the merit of being ‘the dead men’s bones’ out of which > he has himself risen to a higher knowledge;”[395] forgetting how much > the metaphysics of olden times has helped the “physical” sciences of > the present day. If, instead of quarrelling with the insufficiency > and at times absence of terms and definitions strictly scientific in > Plato’s works, we analyze them carefully, the _Timæus_, alone, will > be found to contain within its limited space the germs of every new > discovery. The circulation of the blood and the law of gravitation are > clearly mentioned, though the former fact, it may be, is not so clearly > defined as to withstand the reiterated attacks of modern science; for {237} > according to Prof. Jowett, the specific discovery that the blood flows > out at one side of the heart through the arteries, and returns through > the veins at the other, was unknown to him, though Plato was perfectly > aware “that blood is a fluid in constant motion.” > > Plato’s method, like that of geometry, was to descend from universals > to particulars. Modern science vainly seeks a first cause among the > permutations of molecules; the former sought and found it amid the > majestic sweep of worlds. For him it was enough to know the great > scheme of creation and to be able to trace the mightiest movements > of the universe through their changes to their ultimates. The petty > details, whose observation and classification have so taxed and > demonstrated the patience of modern scientists, occupied but little of > the attention of the old philosophers. Hence, while a fifth-form boy > of an English school can prate more learnedly about the little things > of physical science than Plato himself, yet, on the other hand, the > dullest of Plato’s disciples could tell more about great cosmic laws > and their mutual relations, and demonstrate a familiarity with and > control over the occult forces which lie behind them, than the most > learned professor in the most distinguished academy of our day. > > This fact, so little appreciated and never dwelt upon by Plato’s > translators, accounts for the self-laudation in which we moderns > indulge at the expense of that philosopher and his compeers. Their > alleged mistakes in anatomy and physiology are magnified to an > inordinate extent to gratify our self-love, until, in acquiring the > idea of our own superior learning, we lose sight of the intellectual > splendor which adorns the ages of the past; it is as if one should, > in fancy, magnify the solar spots until he should believe the bright > luminary to be totally eclipsed. > > The unprofitableness of modern scientific research is evinced in > the fact that while we have a name for the most trivial particle of > mineral, plant, animal, and man, the wisest of our teachers are unable > to tell us anything definite about the vital force which produces the > changes in these several kingdoms. It is necessary to seek further > for corroboration of this statement than the works of our highest > scientific authorities themselves. > > It requires no little moral courage in a man of eminent professional > position to do justice to the acquirements of the ancients, in the > face of a public sentiment which is content with nothing else than > their abasement. When we meet with a case of the kind we gladly lay a > laurel at the feet of the bold and honest scholar. Such is Professor > Jowett, Master of Balliol College, and Regius Professor of Greek in > the University of Oxford, who, in his translation of Plato’s works, > speaking of “the physical philosophy of the ancients as a whole,” {238} > gives them the following credit: 1. “That the nebular theory was the > received belief of the early physicists.” Therefore it could not have > rested, as Draper asserts,[396] upon the telescopic discovery made > by Herschel I. 2. “That the development of animals out of frogs who > came to land, and of man out of the animals, was held by Anaximenes > in the sixth century before Christ.” The professor might have added > that this theory antedated Anaximenes by some thousands of years, > perhaps; that it was an accepted doctrine among Chaldeans, and that > Darwin’s evolution of species and monkey theory are of an antediluvian > origin. 3. “ ... that, even by Philolaus and the early Pythagoreans, > the earth was held to be a body like the other stars revolving in > space.”[397] Thus Galileo, studying some Pythagorean fragments, which > are shown by Reuchlin to have yet existed in the days of the Florentine > mathematician;[398] being, moreover, familiar with the doctrines of > the old philosophers, but reässerted an astronomical doctrine which > prevailed in India at the remotest antiquity. 4. The ancients “ > ... thought that there was a sex in plants as well as in animals.” > Thus our modern naturalists had but to follow in the steps of their > predecessors. 5. “That musical notes depended on the relative length or > tension of the strings from which they were emitted, and were measured > by ratios of number.” 6. “That mathematical laws pervaded the world > and even qualitative differences were supposed to have their origin > in number;” and 7, “the annihilation of matter was denied by them, > and held to be a _transformation_ only.”[399] “Although one of these > discoveries might have been supposed to be a happy guess,” adds Mr. > Jowett, “we can hardly attribute them all to mere coincidences.”[400] > > In short, the Platonic philosophy was one of order, system, and > proportion; it embraced the evolution of worlds and species, the > correlation and conservation of energy, the transmutation of material > form, the indestructibility of matter and of spirit. Their position in > the latter respect being far in advance of modern science, and binding {239} > the arch of their philosophical system with a keystone at once perfect > and immovable. If science has made such colossal strides during these > latter days—if we have such clearer ideas of natural law than the > ancients—why are our inquiries as to the nature and source of life > unanswered? If the modern laboratory is so much richer in the fruits > of experimental research than those of the olden time, how comes it > that we make no step except on paths that were trodden long before the > Christian era? How does it happen that the most advanced standpoint > that has been reached in our times only enables us to see in the dim > distance up the Alpine path of knowledge the monumental proofs that > earlier explorers have left to mark the plateaux they had reached and > occupied? > > If modern masters are so much in advance of the old ones, why do they > not restore to us the lost arts of our postdiluvian forefathers? Why do > they not give us the unfading colors of Luxor—the Tyrian purple; the > bright vermilion and dazzling blue which decorate the walls of this > place, and are as bright as on the first day of their application? The > indestructible cement of the pyramids and of ancient aqueducts; the > Damascus blade, which can be turned like a corkscrew in its scabbard > without breaking; the gorgeous, unparalleled tints of the stained glass > that is found amid the dust of old ruins and beams in the windows of > ancient cathedrals; and the secret of the true malleable glass? And > if chemistry is so little able to rival even with the early mediæval > ages in some arts, why boast of achievements which, according to strong > probability, were perfectly known thousands of years ago? The more > archæology and philology advance, the more humiliating to our pride are > the discoveries which are daily made, the more glorious testimony do > they bear in behalf of those who, perhaps on account of the distance > of their remote antiquity, have been until now considered ignorant > flounderers in the deepest mire of superstition. > > Why should we forget that, ages before the prow of the adventurous > Genoese clove the Western waters, the Phœnician vessels had > circumnavigated the globe, and spread civilization in regions now > silent and deserted? What archæologist will dare assert that the same > hand which planned the Pyramids of Egypt, Karnak, and the thousand > ruins now crumbling to oblivion on the sandy banks of the Nile, did > _not_ erect the monumental Nagkon-Wat of Cambodia? or trace the > hieroglyphics on the obelisks and doors of the deserted Indian village, > newly discovered in British Columbia by Lord Dufferin? or those on the > ruins of Palenque and Uxmal, of Central America? Do not the relics we > treasure in our museums—last mementos of the long “lost arts” speak > loudly in favor of ancient civilization? And do they not prove, over > and over again, that nations and continents that have passed away have {240} > buried along with them arts and sciences, which neither the first > crucible ever heated in a mediæval cloister, nor the last cracked by a > modern chemist have revived, nor will—at least, in the present century. > > “They were not without some knowledge of optics,” Professor Draper > magnanimously concedes to the ancients; others positively deny to them > even that little. “The convex lens found at Nimroud shows that they > were not unacquainted with magnifying instruments.”[401] Indeed? If > they were not, all the classical authors must have lied. For, when > Cicero tells us that he had seen the entire _Iliad_ written on skin > of such a miniature size, that it could easily be rolled up inside a > nut-shell, and Pliny asserts that Nero had a ring with a small glass > in it, through which he watched the performance of the gladiators at > a distance—could audacity go farther? Truly, when we are told that > Mauritius could see from the promontory of Sicily over the entire > sea to the coast of Africa, with an instrument called _nauscopite_, > we must either think that all these witnesses lied, or that the > ancients were more than slightly acquainted with optics and magnifying > glasses. Wendell Phillips states that he has a friend who possesses an > extraordinary ring “perhaps three-quarters of an inch in diameter, and > on it is the naked figure of the god Hercules. By the aid of glasses, > you can distinguish the interlacing muscles, and _count every separate > hair on the eyebrows_.... Rawlinson brought home a stone about twenty > inches long and ten wide, containing an entire treatise on mathematics. > It would be perfectly illegible without glasses.... In Dr. Abbott’s > Museum, there is a ring of Cheops, to which Bunsen assigns 500 B.C. The > signet of the ring is about the size of a quarter of a dollar, and the > engraving is _invisible_ without the aid of glasses.... At Parma, they > will show you a gem once worn on the finger of Michael Angelo, of which > the engraving is 2,000 years old, and on which there are the figures of > _seven_ women. You must have the aid of powerful glasses in order to > distinguish the forms at all.... So the microscope,” adds the learned > lecturer, “instead of dating from our time, finds its brothers in the > Books of Moses—and these are infant brothers.“ > > The foregoing facts do not seem to show that the ancients had merely > “_some_ knowledge of optics.” Therefore, totally disagreeing in this > particular with Professor Fiske and his criticism of Professor Draper’s > _Conflict_ in his _Unseen World_, the only fault we find with the > admirable book of Draper is that, as an historical critic, he sometimes > uses his own optical instruments in the wrong place. While, in order > to magnify the atheism of the Pythagorean Bruno, he looks through {241} > convex lenses; whenever talking of the knowledge of the ancients, he > evidently sees things through _concave_ ones. > > It is simply worthy of admiration to follow in various modern works > the cautious attempts of both pious Christians and skeptical, albeit > very learned men, to draw a line of demarcation between what we are > and what we are not to believe, in ancient authors. No credit is ever > allowed them without being followed by a qualifying caution. If Strabo > tells us that ancient Nineveh was forty-seven miles in circumference, > and his testimony is accepted, why should it be otherwise the moment > he testifies to the accomplishment of Sibylline prophecies? Where is > the common sense in calling Herodotus the “Father of History,” and > then accusing him, in the same breath, of silly gibberish, whenever he > recounts marvellous manifestations, of which he was an eye-witness? > Perhaps, after all, such a caution is more than ever necessary, now > that our epoch has been christened the Century of Discovery. The > disenchantment may prove too cruel for Europe. Gunpowder, which has > long been thought an invention of Bacon and Schwartz, is now shown > in the school-books to have been used by the Chinese for levelling > hills and blasting rocks, centuries before our era. “In the Museum > of Alexandria,” says Draper, “there was a machine invented by Hero, > the mathematician, a little more than 100 years B.C. It revolved by > the agency of steam, and was of the form that we should now call a > reaction-engine.... Chance had nothing to do with the invention of the > modern steam-engine.”[402] Europe prides herself upon the discoveries > of Copernicus and Galileo, and now we are told that the astronomical > observations of the Chaldeans extend back to within a hundred years of > the flood; and Bunsen fixes the flood at not less than 10,000 years > before our era.[403] Moreover, a Chinese emperor, more than 2,000 years > before the birth of Christ (_i. e._, before Moses) put to death his two > chief astronomers for not predicting an eclipse of the sun. > > It may be noted, as an example of the inaccuracy of current notions as > to the scientific claims of the present century, that the discoveries > of the indestructibility of matter and force-correlation, especially > the latter, are heralded as among our crowning triumphs. It is “the > most important discovery of the present century,” as Sir William > Armstrong expressed it in his famous address as president of the > British Association. But, this “important discovery” is no discovery > after all. Its origin, apart from the undeniable traces of it to be > found among the old philosophers, is lost in the dense shadows of {242} > prehistoric days. Its first vestiges are discovered in the dreamy > speculations of Vedic theology, in the doctrine of emanation and > absorption, the nirvana in short. John Erigena outlined it in his bold > philosophy in the eighth century, and we invite any one to read his _De > Divisione Naturæ_, who would convince himself of this truth. Science > tells that when the theory of the indestructibility of matter (also > a very, very old idea of Demokritus, by the way) was demonstrated, > it became necessary to extend it to force. No material particle can > ever be lost; no part of the force existing in nature can vanish; > hence, force was likewise proved indestructible, and its various > manifestations or forces, under divers aspects, were shown to be > mutually convertible, and but different modes of motion of the material > particles. And thus was rediscovered the force-correlation. Mr. Grove, > so far back as 1842, gave to each of these forces, such as heat, > electricity, magnetism, and light, the character of convertibility; > making them capable of being at one moment a cause, and at the next an > effect.[404] But whence come these forces, and whither do they go, when > we lose sight of them? On this point science is silent. > > The theory of “force-correlation,” though it may be in the minds of > our contemporaries “the greatest discovery of the age,” can account > for neither the beginning nor the end of one of such forces; neither > can the theory point out the cause of it. Forces may be convertible, > and one may produce the other, still, no exact science is able to > explain the alpha and omega of the phenomenon. In what particular > are we then in advance of Plato who, discussing in the _Timæus_ the > primary and secondary qualities of matter,[405] and the feebleness of > human intellect, makes Timæus say: “God knows the original qualities > of things; man can only hope to attain to probability.” We have but > to open one of the several pamphlets of Huxley and Tyndall to find > precisely the same confession; but they improve upon Plato by not > allowing even God to know more than themselves; and perhaps it may > be upon this that they base their claims of superiority? The ancient > Hindus founded their doctrine of emanation and absorption on precisely > that law. The Τὸ Ὀν the primordial point in the boundless circle, > “whose circumference is nowhere, and the centre everywhere,” emanating > from itself all things, and manifesting them in the visible universe > under multifarious forms; the forms interchanging, commingling, and, > after a gradual transformation from the pure spirit (or the Buddhistic > “_nothing_”), into the grossest matter, beginning to recede and as > gradually re-emerge into their primitive state, which is the absorption > into Nirvana[406]—what else is this but correlation of forces? > > Science tells us that heat may be shown to develop electricity, {243} > electricity produce heat; and magnetism to evolve electricity, and > _vice versa_. Motion, they tell us, results from motion itself, and so > on, _ad infinitum_. This is the A B C of occultism and of the earliest > alchemists. The indestructibility of matter and force being discovered > and proved, the great problem of eternity is solved. What need have > we more of spirit? its uselessness is henceforth scientifically > demonstrated! > > Thus modern philosophers may be said not to have gone one step beyond > what the priests of Samothrace, the Hindus, and even the Christian > Gnostics well knew. The former have shown it in that wonderfully > ingenious mythos of the Dioskuri, or “the sons of heaven;” the twin > brothers, spoken of by Schweigger, “who constantly die and return > to life together, while it is absolutely necessary _that one should > die that the other may live_.” They knew as well as our physicists, > that when a force has disappeared it has simply been converted into > another force. Though archæology may not have discovered any ancient > apparatus for such special conversions, it may nevertheless be affirmed > with perfect reason and upon analogical deductions that nearly all > the ancient religions were based on such indestructibility of matter > and force—plus the emanation of the whole from an ethereal, spiritual > fire—or the central sun, which is God or spirit, on the knowledge of > whose potentiality is based ancient theurgic magic. > > In the manuscript commentary of Proclus on magic he gives the following > account: “In the same manner as lovers gradually advance from that > beauty which is apparent in sensible forms, to that which is divine; > so the ancient priests, when they considered that there is a certain > alliance and sympathy in natural things to each other, and of things > manifest to occult powers, and discovered that all things subsist > in all, they fabricated a sacred science from this mutual sympathy > and similarity. Thus they recognized things supreme in such as are > subordinate, and the subordinate in the supreme; in the celestial > regions, terrene properties subsisting in a causal and celestial > manner; and in earth celestial properties, but according to a terrene > condition.” > > Proclus then proceeds to point to certain mysterious peculiarities {244} > of plants, minerals, and animals, all of which are well known to our > naturalists, but none of which are explained. Such are the rotatory > motion of the sunflower, of the heliotrope, of the lotos—which, before > the rising of the sun, folds its leaves, drawing the petals within > itself, so to say, then expands them gradually, as the sun rises, > and draws them in again as it descends to the west—of the sun and > lunar stones and the helioselenus, of the cock and lion, and other > animals. “Now the ancients,” he says, “having contemplated this mutual > sympathy of things (celestial and terrestrial) applied them for occult > purposes, both celestial and terrene natures, by means of which, > through a certain similitude, they deduced divine virtues into this > inferior abode.... All things are full of divine natures; terrestrial > natures receiving the plenitude of such as are celestial, but celestial > of _super_celestial essences, while every order of things proceeds > gradually in a beautiful descent from _the highest to the lowest_.[407] > For whatever particulars are collected into one above the order of > things, are afterwards dilated in descending, _various souls being > distributed under their various ruling divinities_.”[408] > > Evidently Proclus does not advocate here simply a superstition, but > science; for notwithstanding that it is occult, and unknown to our > scholars, who deny its possibilities, magic is still a science. It is > firmly and solely based on the mysterious affinities existing between > organic and inorganic bodies, the visible productions of the four > kingdoms, and the invisible powers of the universe. That which science > calls gravitation, the ancients and the mediæval hermetists called > magnetism, attraction, affinity. It is the universal law, which is > understood by Plato and explained in _Timæus_ as the attraction of > lesser bodies to larger ones, and of similar bodies to similar, the > latter exhibiting a magnetic power rather than following the law of > gravitation. The anti-Aristotelean formula that _gravity causes all > bodies to descend with equal rapidity, without reference to their > weight_, the difference being caused by some other _unknown_ agency, > would seem to point a great deal more forcibly to _magnetism_ than to > gravitation, the former attracting rather in virtue of the substance > than of the weight. A thorough familiarity with the occult faculties > of everything existing in nature, visible as well as invisible; their > mutual relations, attractions, and repulsions; the cause of these, > traced to the _spiritual_ principle which pervades and animates all > things; the ability to furnish the best conditions for this principle > to manifest itself, in other words a profound and exhaustive knowledge > of natural law—this _was_ and _is_ the basis of magic. > > In his notes on _Ghosts and Goblins_, when reviewing some facts adduced {245} > by certain illustrious defenders of the spiritual phenomena, such > as Professor de Morgan, Mr. Robert Dale Owen, and Mr. Wallace among > others—Mr. Richard A. Proctor says that he “cannot see any force in > the following remarks by Professor Wallace: ‘How is such evidence as > this,’ he (Wallace) says, speaking of one of Owen’s stories, ‘refuted > or explained away? Scores, and even hundreds, of equally-attested facts > are on record, but no attempt is made to explain them. They are simply > ignored, and in many cases admitted to be inexplicable.’” To this > Mr. Proctor jocularly replies that as “our philosophers declare that > they have long ago decided these ghost stories to be all delusions; > _therefore_ they need only be ignored; and they feel much ‘worritted’ > that fresh evidence should be adduced, and fresh converts made, some of > whom are so unreasonable as to ask for a new trial on the ground that > the former verdict was contrary to the evidence.” > > “All this,” he goes on to say, “affords excellent reason why the > ‘converts’ should not be ridiculed for their belief; but something more > to the purpose must be urged before ‘the philosophers’ can be expected > to devote much of their time to the inquiry suggested. It ought to > be shown that _the well-being of the human race is to some important > degree concerned in the matter_, whereas the trivial nature of all > ghostly conduct hitherto recorded is admitted even by converts!” > > Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten has collected a great number of > authenticated facts from secular and scientific journals, which show > with what serious questions our scientists sometimes replace the vexed > subject of “Ghosts and Goblins.” She quotes from a Washington paper a > report of one of these solemn conclaves, held on the evening of April > 29th, 1854. Professor Hare, of Philadelphia, the venerable chemist, who > was so universally respected for his individual character, as well as > for his life-long labors for science, “was _bullied_ into silence” by > Professor Henry, as soon as he had touched the subject of spiritualism. > “The impertinent action of one of the members of the ‘American > Scientific Association,’” says the authoress, “was sanctioned by the > majority of that distinguished body and subsequently endorsed by all > of them in their proceedings.”[409] On the following morning, in the > report of the session, the _Spiritual Telegraph_ thus commented upon > the events: > > “It would seem that a subject like this” (presented by Professor Hare) > was one which would lie peculiarly within the domain of ‘science.’ But > the ‘American Association for the Promotion of Science’,[410] decided {246} > that it was either unworthy of their attention or dangerous for them to > meddle with, and so they voted to put the invitation on the table.... > We cannot omit in this connection to mention that the ‘American > Association for _the Promotion of Science_’ held a very learned, > extended, grave, and profound discussion at the same session, _upon the > cause why ‘roosters crow between twelve and one o’clock at night_!’ > A subject worthy of philosophers; and one, moreover, which must have > been shown to effect “the well-being of the human race” in a _very_ > “_important_ degree.” > > It is sufficient for one to express belief in the existence of a > mysterious sympathy between the life of certain plants and that > of human beings, to assure being made the subject of ridicule. > Nevertheless, there are many well-authenticated cases going to show > the reality of such an affinity. Persons have been known to fall sick > simultaneously with the uprooting of a tree planted upon their natal > day, and dying when the tree died. Reversing affairs, it has been > known that a tree planted under the same circumstances withered and > died simultaneously with the person whose twin brother, so to speak, > it was. The former would be called by Mr. Proctor an “effect of the > imagination;” the latter a “curious coincidence.” > > Max Müller gives a number of such cases in his essay _On Manners and > Customs_. He shows this popular tradition existing in Central America, > in India, and Germany. He traces it over nearly all Europe; finds it > among the Maori Warriors, in British Guiana, and in Asia. Reviewing > Tyler’s _Researches into the Early History of Mankind_, a work in > which are brought together quite a number of such traditions, the > great philologist very justly remarks the following: “If it occurred > in Indian and German tales only, we might consider it as ancient Aryan > property; but when we find it again in Central America, nothing remains > but either to admit a later communication between European settlers and > native American story-tellers ... or to inquire whether there is not > some intelligible and truly human element in this supposed sympathy > between the life of flowers and the life of man.” > > The present generation of men, who believe in nothing beyond the > superficial evidence of their senses, will doubtless reject the very > idea of such a sympathetic power existing in plants, animals, and even > stones. The caul covering their inner sight allows them to see but that > which they cannot well deny. The author of the _Asclepian Dialogue_ > furnishes us with a reason for it, that might perhaps fit the present > period and account for this epidemic of unbelief. In our century, as {247} > then, “there is a lamentable departure of divinity from man, when > nothing worthy of heaven or celestial concerns is heard or believed, > and when every divine voice is by a _necessary_ silence dumb.”[411] Or, > as the Emperor Julian has it, “the _little_ soul” of the skeptic “is > indeed acute, but sees nothing with a vision healthy and sound.” > > _We are at the bottom of a cycle and evidently in a transitory state._ > Plato divides the intellectual progress of the universe during every > cycle into fertile and barren periods. In the sublunary regions, the > spheres of the various elements remain eternally in perfect harmony > with the divine nature, he says; “but their parts,” owing to a too > close proximity to earth, and their commingling with the _earthly_ > (which is matter, and therefore the realm of evil), “are sometimes > according, and sometimes contrary to (divine) nature.” When those > circulations—which Eliphas Levi calls “currents of the astral light” in > the universal ether which contains in itself every element, take > place in harmony with the divine spirit, our earth and everything > pertaining to it enjoys a fertile period. The occult powers of > plants, animals, and minerals magically sympathize with the “superior > natures,” and the divine soul of man is in perfect intelligence with > these “inferior” ones. But during the barren periods, the latter lose > their magic sympathy, and the spiritual sight of the majority of > mankind is so blinded as to lose every notion of the superior powers > of its own divine spirit. We are in a barren period: the eighteenth > century, during which the malignant fever of skepticism broke out so > irrepressibly, has entailed unbelief as an hereditary disease upon the > nineteenth. The divine intellect is veiled in man; his animal brain > alone _philosophizes_. > > _Formerly, magic was a universal science, entirely in the hands of > the sacerdotal savant._ Though the focus was jealously guarded in the > sanctuaries, its rays illuminated the whole of mankind. Otherwise, how > are we to account for the extraordinary identity of “superstitions,” > customs, traditions, and even sentences, repeated in popular proverbs > so widely scattered from one pole to the other that we find exactly > the same ideas among the Tartars and Laplanders as among the southern > nations of Europe, the inhabitants of the steppes of Russia, and the > aborigines of North and South America? For instance, Tyler shows one of > the ancient Pythagorean maxims, “Do not stir the fire with a sword,” > as popular among a number of nations which have not the slightest > connection with each other. He quotes De Plano Carpini, who found > this tradition prevailing among the Tartars so far back as in 1246. A > Tartar will not consent for any amount of money to stick a knife into > the fire, or touch it with any sharp or pointed instrument, for fear {248} > of cutting the “head of the fire.” The Kamtchadal of North-eastern > Asia consider it a great sin so to do. The Sioux Indians of North > America dare not touch the fire with either needle, knife, or any sharp > instrument. The Kalmucks entertain the same dread; and an Abyssinian > would rather bury his bare arms to the elbows in blazing coals than > use a knife or axe near them. All these facts Tyler also calls “simply > curious coincidences.” Max Müller, however, thinks that they lose much > of their force by the fact “of the Pythagorean doctrine being at the > bottom of it.” > > Every sentence of Pythagoras, like most of the ancient maxims, has > a dual signification; and, while it had an occult physical meaning, > expressed literally in its words, it embodied a moral precept, which > is explained by Iamblichus in his _Life of Pythagoras_. This “Dig > not fire with a sword,” is the ninth symbol in the _Protreptics_ of > this Neo-platonist. “This symbol,” he says, “exhorts to prudence.” It > shows “the propriety of not opposing sharp words to a man full of fire > and wrath—not contending with him. For frequently by uncivil words > you will agitate and disturb an ignorant man, and you will suffer > yourself.... Herakleitus also testifies to the truth of this symbol. > For, he says, ‘It is difficult to fight with anger, for whatever is > necessary to be done redeems the soul.’ And this he says truly. For > many, by gratifying anger, have changed the condition of their soul, > and have made death preferable to life. But by governing the tongue > and being quiet, friendship is produced from strife, the fire of anger > being extinguished, and you yourself will not appear to be destitute of > intellect.”[412] > > We have had misgivings sometimes; we have questioned the impartiality > of our own judgment, our ability to offer a respectful criticism upon > the labors of such giants as some of our modern philosophers—Tyndall, > Huxley, Spencer, Carpenter, and a few others. In our immoderate love > for the “men of old” the primitive sages—we were always afraid to > trespass the boundaries of justice and refuse their dues to those who > deserve them. Gradually this natural fear gave way before an unexpected > reinforcement. We found out that we were but the feeble echo of public > opinion, which, though suppressed, has sometimes found relief in able > articles scattered throughout the periodicals of the country. One of > such can be found in the _National Quarterly Review_ of December, > 1875, entitled “Our Sensational Present-Day Philosophers.” It is a > very able article, discussing fearlessly the claims of several of > our scientists to new discoveries in regard to the nature of matter, > the human soul, the mind, the universe; how the universe came into > existence, etc. “The religious world has been much startled,” the > author proceeds to say, “and not a little excited by the utterances {249} > of men like Spencer, Tyndall, Huxley, Proctor, and a few others of the > same school.” Admitting very cheerfully how much science owes to each > of those gentlemen, nevertheless the author “most emphatically” denies > that they have made any discoveries at all. There is nothing new in > the speculations, even of the most advanced of them; nothing which was > not known and taught, in one form or another, thousands of years ago. > He does not say that these scientists “put forward their theories as > their own discoveries, but they leave the fact to be implied, and the > newspapers do the rest.... The public, which has neither time nor the > inclination to examine the facts, adopts the faith of the newspapers > ... and wonders what will come next! ... The supposed originators of > such startling theories are assailed in the newspapers. Sometimes the > obnoxious scientists undertake to defend themselves, but we cannot > recall a single instance in which they have candidly said, ‘Gentlemen, > be not angry with us; we are merely _revamping_ stories which are > nearly as old as the mountains.’” This would have been the simple > truth; “but even scientists or philosophers,” adds the author, “are not > always proof against the weakness of encouraging any notion which they > think may secure niches for them among the immortal ones.”[413] > > Huxley, Tyndall, and even Spencer have become lately the great oracles, > the “infallible popes” on the dogmas of protoplasm, molecules, > primordial forms, and atoms. They have reaped more palms and laurels > for their great discoveries than Lucretius, Cicero, Plutarch, and > Seneca had hairs on their heads. Nevertheless, the works of the > latter teem with ideas on the protoplasm, primordial forms, etc., let > alone the atoms, which caused Demokritus to be called the _atomic_ > philosopher. In the same _Review_ we find this very startling > denunciation: > > “Who, _among the innocent_, has not been astonished, even within the > last year, at the wonderful results accomplished by oxygen? What > an excitement Tyndall and Huxley have created by proclaiming, in > their own ingenious, oracular way, just the very doctrines which we > have just quoted from Liebig; yet, as early as 1840, Professor Lyon > Playfair translated into English the most ‘advanced’ of Baron Liebig’s > works.”[414] > > “Another recent utterance,” he says, “which startled a large number > of innocent and pious persons, is, that every thought we express, > or attempt to express, produces a certain wonderful change in the > substance of the brain. But, for this and a good deal more of its > kind, our philosophers had only to turn to the pages of Baron Liebig. {250} > Thus, for instance, that scientist proclaims: “Physiology has > sufficiently decisive grounds for the opinions, that _every thought, > every sensation_ is accompanied by a change in the composition of the > _substance of the brain_; that every motion, every manifestation of > force is the result of a transformation of the structure or of its > substance.[415] > > Thus, throughout the sensational lectures of Tyndall, we can trace, > almost to a page, the whole of Liebig’s speculations, interlined now > and then with the still earlier views of Demokritus and other Pagan > philosophers. A potpourri of old hypotheses elevated by the great > authority of the day into quasi-demonstrated formulas, and delivered > in that pathetic, picturesque, mellow, and thrillingly-eloquent > phraseology so pre-eminently his own. > > Further, the same reviewer shows us many of the identical ideas and > all the material requisite to demonstrate the great discoveries of > Tyndall and Huxley, in the works of Dr. Joseph Priestley, author of > _Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit_, and even in Herder’s _Philosophy > of History_. > > “Priestley,” adds the author, “was not molested by government, simply > because he had no ambition to obtain fame by proclaiming his atheistic > views from the house-top. This philosopher ... was the author of from > seventy to eighty volumes, and the discoverer of oxygen.” It is in > these works that “he puts forward those identical ideas which have > been declared so ‘startling,’ ‘bold,’ etc., as the utterances of our > present-day philosophers.” > > “Our readers,” he proceeds to say, “remember what an excitement has > been created by the utterances of some of our modern philosophers as > to the origin and nature of ideas, but those utterances, like others > that preceded and followed them, contain nothing new.” “An idea,” > says Plutarch, “is a _being_ incorporeal, which has no subsistence by > itself, but gives figure and form unto shapeless matter, and _becomes > the cause of its manifestation_” (_De Placitio Philosophorum_). > > Verily, no modern atheist, Mr. Huxley included, can outvie Epicurus in > materialism; he can but mimic him. And what is his “protoplasm,” but a > _rechauffé_ of the speculations of the Hindu Swâbhâvikas or Pantheists, > who assert that all things, the gods as well as men and animals, are > born from Swâbhâva or their own nature?[416] As to Epicurus, this > is what Lucretius makes him say: “The soul, thus produced, must be > _material_, because we trace it issuing from a material source; because > it exists, and exists alone in a material system; is nourished by > material food; grows with the growth of the body; becomes matured with > its maturity; declines with its decay; and hence, whether belonging to {251} > man or brute, must die with its death.” Nevertheless, we would remind > the reader that Epicurus is here speaking of the _Astral Soul_, not of > Divine Spirit. Still, if we rightly understand the above, Mr. Huxley’s > “mutton-protoplasm” is of a very ancient origin, and can claim for its > birthplace, Athens, and for its cradle, the brain of old Epicurus. > > Further, still, anxious not to be misunderstood or found guilty of > depreciating the labor of any of our scientists, the author closes > his essay by remarking, “We merely want to show that, at least, > that portion of the public which considers itself intelligent and > enlightened should cultivate its memory, or remember the ‘advanced’ > thinkers of the past much better than it does. Especially should those > do so who, whether from the desk, the rostrum, or the pulpit, undertake > to instruct all willing to be instructed by them. There would then be > much less groundless apprehension, much less charlatanism, and above > all, much less plagiarism, than there is.”[417] > > Truly says Cudworth that the greatest ignorance of which our > modern wiseacres accuse the ancients is their belief in the soul’s > immortality. Like the old skeptic of Greece, our scientists—to use > an expression of the same Dr. Cudworth—are afraid that if they admit > spirits and apparitions they must admit a God too; and there is > nothing too absurd, he adds, for them to suppose, in order to keep > out the existence of God. The great body of ancient materialists, > skeptical as they now seem to us, thought otherwise, and Epicurus, > who rejected the soul’s immortality, believed still in a God, and > Demokritus fully conceded the reality of apparitions. The preëxistence > and God-like powers of the human spirit were believed in by most all > the sages of ancient days. The magic of Babylon and Persia based upon > it the doctrine of their _machagistia_. The _Chaldean Oracles_, on > which Pletho and Psellus have so much commented, constantly expounded > and amplified their testimony. Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Epicharmus, > Empedocles, Kebes, Euripides, Plato, Euclid, Philo, Boëthius, Virgil, > Marcus Cicero, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Psellus, Synesius, > Origen, and, finally, _Aristotle_ himself, far from denying our > immortality, support it most emphatically. Like Cardon and Pompanatius, > “who were no friends to the soul’s immortality,” as says Henry More, > “Aristotle expressly concludes that the rational soul is both a > distinct being from the soul of the world, though of the same essence, > and that “it does preëxist before it comes into the body.”[418] > > Years have rolled away since the Count Joseph De Maistre wrote a > sentence which, if appropriate to the Voltairean epoch in which {252} > he lived, applies with still more justice to our period of utter > skepticism. “I have heard,” writes this eminent man, “I have heard and > read of myriads of good jokes on the ignorance of the ancients, who > were always seeing spirits everywhere; methinks that we are a great > deal more imbecile than our forefathers, in never perceiving any such > now, anywhere.”[419] > > CHAPTER VIII. {253} > > “Think not my magic wonders wrought by aid > Of Stygian angels summoned up from Hell; > Scorned and accursed by those who have essay’d > Her gloomy Divs and Afrites to compel. > But by perception of the secret powers > Of mineral springs, in nature’s inmost cell, > Of herbs in curtain of her greenest bowers, > And of the moving stars o’er mountain tops and towers.” > —TASSO, Canto XIV., xliii. > > “Who dares think _one_ thing and _another_ tell > My heart detests him as the gates of Hell!”—POPE. > > “If man ceases to exist when he disappears in the grave, you > must be compelled to affirm that he is the only creature in > existence whom nature or providence has condescended to deceive > and cheat by capacities for which there are no available > objects.”—BULWER-LYTTON: _Strange Story_. > > The preface of Richard A. Proctor’s latest work on astronomy, entitled > _Our Place among Infinities_, contains the following extraordinary > words: “It was their ignorance of the earth’s place among infinities, > which led the ancients to regard the heavenly bodies as ruling > favorably or adversely the fates of men and nations, and to dedicate > the days in sets of seven to the seven planets of their astrological > system.” > > Mr. Proctor makes two distinct assertions in this sentence: 1. That > the ancients were ignorant of the earth’s place among infinities; and > 2, That they regarded the heavenly bodies as ruling, favorably or > adversely, the fates of men and nations.[420] We are very confident > that there is at least good reason to suspect that the ancients were > familiar with the movements, emplacement, and mutual relations of the > heavenly bodies. The testimony of Plutarch, Professor Draper, and > Jowett, are sufficiently explicit. But we would ask Mr. Proctor how it > happens, if the ancient astronomers were so ignorant of the law of the > birth and death of worlds that, in the fragmentary bits which the hand > of time has spared us of ancient lore there should be—albeit couched in > obscure language—so much information which the most recent discoveries > of science have verified? Beginning with the tenth page of the work {254} > under notice, Mr. Proctor sketches for us the theory of the formation > of our earth, and the successive changes through which it passed until > it became habitable for man. In vivid colors he depicts the gradual > accretion of cosmic matter into gaseous spheres surrounded with “a > liquid non-permanent shell;” the condensation of both; the ultimate > solidification of the external crust; the slow cooling of the mass; > the chemical results following the action of intense heat upon the > primitive earthy matter; the formation of soils and their distribution; > the change in the constitution of the atmosphere; the appearance of > vegetation and animal life; and, finally, the advent of man. > > Now, let us turn to the oldest written records left us by the > Chaldeans, the Hermetic _Book of Numbers_,[421] and see what we > shall find in the allegorical language of Hermes, Kadmus, or Thuti, > the thrice great Trismegistus. “In the beginning of time the great > invisible one had his holy hands full of celestial matter which he > scattered throughout the infinity; and lo, behold! it became balls of > fire and balls of clay; and they scattered like the moving metal[422] > into many smaller balls, and began their ceaseless turning; and some > of them which were balls of fire became balls of clay; and the balls > of clay became balls of fire; and the balls of fire were waiting their > time to become balls of clay; and the others envied them and bided > their time to become balls of pure divine fire.” > > Could any one ask a clearer definition of the cosmic changes which Mr. > Proctor so elegantly expounds? > > Here we have the distribution of matter throughout space; then its > concentration into the spherical form; the separation of smaller > spheres from the greater ones; axial rotation; the gradual change of > orbs from the incandescent to the earthy consistence; and, finally, > the total loss of heat which marks their entrance into the stage of > planetary death. The change of the balls of clay into balls of fire > would be understood by materialists to indicate some such phenomenon > as the sudden ignition of the star in Cassiopeia, A.D. 1572, and the > one in Serpentarius, in 1604, which was noted by Kepler. But, do the > Chaldeans evince in this expression a profounder philosophy than of > our day? Does this change into balls of “pure divine fire” signify a {255} > continuous planetary existence, correspondent with the spirit-life > of man, beyond the awful mystery of death? If worlds have, as the > astronomers tell us, their periods of embryo, infancy, adolescence, > maturity, decadence, and death, may they not, like man, have their > continued existence in a sublimated, ethereal, or spiritual form? The > magians so affirm. They tell us that the fecund mother Earth is subject > to the same laws as every one of her children. At her appointed time > she brings forth all created things; in the fulness of her days she > is gathered to the tomb of worlds. Her gross, material body slowly > parts with its atoms under the inexorable law which demands their > new arrangement in other combinations. Her own perfected vivifying > spirit obeys the eternal attraction which draws it toward that central > spiritual sun from which it was originally evolved, and which we > vaguely know under the name of GOD. > > “And the heaven was visible in seven circles, and the planets appeared > with all their signs, in star-form, and the stars were divided and > numbered with the rulers that were in them, and their _revolving_ > course was bounded with _the air_, and borne with a circular course, > through the agency of the divine SPIRIT.”[423] > > We challenge any one to indicate a single passage in the works of > Hermes which proves him guilty of that crowning absurdity of the Church > of Rome which assumed, upon the geocentric theory of astronomy, that > the heavenly bodies were made for our use and pleasure, and that it > was worth while for the only son of God to descend upon this cosmic > mote and die in expiation for our sins! Mr. Proctor tells us of a > liquid non-permanent shell of uncongealed matter enclosing a “viscous > plastic ocean,” within which “there is another interior _solid globe_ > rotating.” We, on our part, turn to the _Magia Adamica_ of Eugenius > Philalethes, published in 1650, and at page 12, we find him quoting > from Trismegistus in the following terms: “Hermes affirmeth that in > the _Beginning_ the earth was a quackmire or quivering kind of jelly, > it being nothing else but _water congealed_ by the incubation and heat > of the divine spirit; _cum adhuc_ (sayeth he) _Terra tremula esset, > Lucente sole compacta esto_.” > > In the same work, Philalethes, speaking in his quaint, symbolical way, > says, “The earth is invisible ... on my soul it is so, and which is > more, the _eye_ of _man_ never _saw_ the _earth_, nor can it be _seen_ > without _art_. To make this _element invisible_, is the _greatest > secret_ in _magic_ ... as for this _fœculent_, gross _body_ upon _which > we walk_, it is a _compost_, and no earth _but it hath earth in it_, > ... in a word all the _elements_ are _visible_ but _one_, namely the > _earth_, and when thou hast attained to so much _perfection_ as to {256} > know why _God_ hath placed the _earth in abscondito_,[424] thou hast > an excellent figure whereby to know _God Himself_, and how He is > _visible_, how _invisible_.”[425] > > Ages before our savants of the nineteenth century came into existence, > a wise man of the Orient thus expressed himself, in addressing the > invisible Deity: “For thy Almighty Hand, that made the world of > _formless matter_.”[426] > > There is much more contained in this language than we are willing > to explain, but we will say that the secret is worth the seeking; > perhaps in this formless matter, the _pre_-Adamite earth, is contained > a “potency” with which Messrs. Tyndall and Huxley would be glad to > acquaint themselves. > > But to descend from universals to particulars, from the ancient {257} > theory of planetary evolution to the evolution of plant and animal > life, as opposed to the theory of special creation, what does Mr. > Proctor call the following language of Hermes but an anticipation of > the modern theory of evolution of species? “When God had filled his > powerful hands with those things which are in nature, and in that which > compasseth nature, then shutting them close again, he said: ‘Receive > from me, O holy earth! that art ordained to be the _mother of all_, > lest thou shouldst want anything;’ when presently opening such hands > as it becomes a God to have, he poured down all that was necessary > to the constitution of things.” Here we have primeval matter imbued > with “the promise and potency of every future form of life,” and the > earth declared to be the predestined mother of everything that should > thenceforth spring from her bosom. > > More definite is the language of Marcus Antoninus in his discourse to > himself. “The nature of the universe delights not in anything so much > as to alter all things, and present them under another form. This is > her conceit to play one game and begin another. Matter is placed before > her like a piece of wax and she shapes it to all forms and figures. Now > she makes _a bird, then out of the bird a beast_—now a _flower_, then a > frog, and she is pleased with her own magical performances as men are > with their own fancies.”[427] > > Before any of our modern teachers thought of evolution, the ancients > taught us, through Hermes, that nothing can be abrupt in nature; that > she never proceeds by jumps and starts, that everything in her works is > slow harmony, and that there is nothing sudden—not even violent death. > > The slow development from preëxisting forms was a doctrine with > the Rosicrucian Illuminati. The _Tres Matres_ showed Hermes the > mysterious progress of their work, before they condescended to reveal > themselves to mediæval alchemists. Now, in the Hermetic dialect, > these three mothers are the symbol of light, heat, and electricity, > or magnetism, the two latter being as convertible as the whole of > the forces or agents which have a place assigned them in the modern > “Force-correlation.” Synesius mentions books of stone which he found in > the temple of Memphis, on which was engraved the following sentence: > “One _nature_ delights in another, one nature overcomes another, one > nature overrules another, and the whole of them are _one_.” > > The inherent restlessness of matter is embodied in the saying of > Hermes: “Action is the life of Phta;” and Orpheus calls nature > Πολυμήχανος μάτηρ, “the mother that makes many things,” or the > ingenious, the contriving, the inventive mother. > > Mr. Proctor says: “All that _that is upon and within the earth, all {258} > vegetable forms and_ all animal forms, our bodies, our brains, are > formed of materials which have been drawn in from those depths of > space surrounding us on all sides.” The Hermetists and the later > Rosicrucians held that all things visible and invisible were produced > by the contention of light with darkness, and that every particle > of matter contains within itself a spark of the divine essence—or > light, _spirit_—which, through its tendency to free itself from its > entanglement and return to the central source, produced motion in the > particles, and from motion forms were born. Says Hargrave Jennings, > quoting Robertus di Fluctibus: “Thus all minerals in this spark of life > have the rudimentary possibility of plants and growing organisms; thus > all plants have rudimentary sensations which might (in the ages) enable > them to perfect and transmute into locomotive new creatures, lesser or > higher in their grade, or nobler or meaner in their functions; thus all > plants, and all vegetation might pass off (by side roads) into more > distinguished highways as it were, of independent, completer advance, > allowing their original spark of light to expand and thrill with higher > and more vivid force, and to urge forward with more abounding, informed > purpose, all wrought by planetary influence directed by the unseen > spirits (or workers) of the great original architect.”[428] > > _Light_—the first mentioned in _Genesis_, is termed by the kabalists, > Sephira, or the Divine _Intelligence_, the mother of all the Sephiroth, > while the _Concealed Wisdom_ is the father. Light is the first > begotten, and the first emanation of the Supreme, and Light is Life, > says the evangelist. Both are electricity—the life-principle, the > _anima mundi_, pervading the universe, the electric vivifier of all > things. Light is the great Protean magician, and under the Divine > Will of the architect, its multifarious, omnipotent waves gave birth > to every form as well as to every living being. From its swelling, > electric bosom, springs _matter_ and _spirit_. Within its beams lie > the beginnings of all physical and chemical action, and of all cosmic > and spiritual phenomena; it vitalizes and disorganizes; it gives life > and produces death, and from its primordial point gradually emerged > into existence the myriads of worlds, visible and invisible celestial > bodies. It was at the ray of this _First_ mother, one in three, that > God, according to Plato, “lighted a fire, which we now call the > sun,”[429] and, which is _not_ the cause of either light or heat, but > merely the focus, or, as we might say, the lens, by which the rays of > the primordial light become materialized, are concentrated upon our > solar system, and produce all the correlations of forces. > > So much for the first of Mr. Proctor’s two propositions; now for the {259} > second. > > The work which we have been noticing, comprises a series of twelve > essays, of which the last is entitled _Thoughts on Astrology_. The > author treats the subject with so much more consideration than is > the custom of men of his class, that it is evident he has given it > thoughtful attention. In fact, he goes so far as to say that, “If > we consider the matter aright, we must concede ... that of all the > errors into which men have fallen in their desire to penetrate into > futurity, astrology is the most respectable, we may even say the most > reasonable.”[430] > > He admits that “The heavenly bodies _do_ rule the fates of men and > nations in the most unmistakable manner, seeing that without the > controlling and beneficent influences of the chief among those orbs—the > sun—every living creature on the earth must perish.“[431] He admits, > also, the influence of the moon, and sees nothing strange in the > ancients reasoning by analogy, that if two among these heavenly bodies > were thus potent in terrestrial influences, it was ” ... natural that > the other moving bodies known to the ancients, should be thought to > possess also their special powers.”[432] Indeed, the professor sees > nothing unreasonable in their supposition that the influences exerted > by the slower moving planets “might be even more potent than those of > the sun himself.” Mr. Proctor thinks that the system of astrology “was > formed gradually and perhaps tentatively.” Some influences may have > been inferred from observed events, the fate of this or that king or > chief, guiding astrologers in assigning particular influences to such > planetary aspects as were presented at the time of his nativity. Others > may have been invented, and afterward have found general acceptance, > because confirmed by some _curious coincidences_. > > A witty joke may sound very prettily, even in a learned treatise, and > the word “coincidence” may be applied to anything we are unwilling to > accept. But a sophism is not a truism; still less is it a mathematical > demonstration, which alone ought to serve as a beacon—to astronomers, > at least. Astrology is a science _as infallible_ as astronomy itself, > with the condition, however, that its interpreters must be equally > infallible; and it is this condition, _sine qua non_, so very difficult > of realization, that has always proved a stumbling-block to both. > Astrology is to exact astronomy what psychology is to exact physiology. > In astrology and psychology one has to step beyond the visible world of > matter, and enter into the domain of transcendent spirit. It is the old > struggle between the Platonic and Aristotelean schools, and it is not {260} > in our century of Sadducean skepticism that the former will prevail > over the latter. Mr. Proctor, in his professional capacity, is like the > uncharitable person of the Sermon on the Mount, who is ever ready to > attract public attention to the mote in his despised neighbor’s eye, > and overlook the beam in his own. Were we to record the failures and > ridiculous blunders of astronomers, we are afraid they would outnumber > by far those of the astrologers. Present events fully vindicate > Nostradamus, who has been so much ridiculed by our skeptics. In an old > book of prophecies, published in the fifteenth century (an edition of > 1453), we read the following, among other astrological predictions:[433] > > “In twice two hundred years, the Bear > The Crescent will assail; > But if the Cock and Bull unite, > The Bear will not prevail. > In twice ten years again— > Let Islam know and fear— > The Cross shall stand, the Crescent wane, > Dissolve, and disappear.” > > In just twice two hundred years from the date of that prophecy, we > had the Crimean war, during which the alliance of the Gallic Cock and > English Bull interfered with the political designs of the Russian Bear. > In 1856 the war was ended, and Turkey, or the Crescent, closely escaped > destruction. In the present year (1876) the most unexpected events of a > political character have just taken place, and _twice ten years_ have > elapsed since peace was proclaimed. Everything seems to bid fair for a > fulfilment of the old prophecy; the future will tell whether the Moslem > Crescent, which seems, indeed, to be _waning_, will irrevocably “wane, > dissolve, and disappear,” as the outcome of the present troubles. > > In explaining away the heterodox facts which he appears to have > encountered in his pursuit of knowledge, Mr. Proctor is obliged more > than once in his work, to fall back upon these “curious coincidences.” > One of the most curious of these is stated by him in a foot-note (page > 301) as follows: “I do not here dwell on the curious coincidence—if, > indeed, Chaldean astrologers had not discovered the ring of Saturn—that > they showed the god corresponding within a ring and _triple_.... Very > moderate optical knowledge—such, indeed, as we may fairly infer from {261} > the presence of optical instruments among Assyrian remains—might > have led to the discovery of Saturnal rings and Jupiter’s moons.... > Bel, the Assyrian Jupiter,” he adds, “was represented sometimes with > four star-tipped wings. _But it is possible that these are mere > coincidences._” > > In short, Mr. Proctor’s theory of coincidence becomes finally more > suggestive of miracle than the facts themselves. For coincidences our > friends the skeptics appear to have an unappeasable appetite. We have > brought sufficient testimony in the preceding chapter to show that the > ancients must have used as good optical instruments as we have now. > Were the instruments in possession of Nebuchadnezzar of such moderate > power, and the knowledge of his astronomers so very contemptible, > when, according to Rawlinson’s reading of the tiles, the Birs-Nimrud, > or temple of Borsippa, had seven stages, symbolical of the concentric > circles of the seven spheres, each built of tiles and metals to > correspond with the color of the ruling planet of the sphere typified? > Is it a coincidence again, that they should have appropriated to each > planet the color which our latest telescopic discoveries show to be > the real one?[434] Or is it again a coincidence, that Plato should > have indicated in the _Timæus_ his knowledge of the indestructibility > of matter, of conservation of energy, and correlation of forces? “The > latest word of modern philosophy,” says Jowett, “is continuity and > development, but to Plato _this is the beginning and foundation of > science_.”[435] > > The radical element of the oldest religions was essentially > _sabaistic_; and we maintain that their myths and allegories—if once > correctly and thoroughly interpreted, will dovetail with the most exact > astronomical notions of our day. We will say more; there is hardly a > scientific law—whether pertaining to physical astronomy or physical > geography—that could not be easily pointed out in the ingenious > combinations of their fables. They allegorized the most important as > well as the most trifling causes of the celestial motions; the nature > of every phenomenon was personified; and in the mythical biographies > of the Olympic gods and goddesses, one well acquainted with the > latest principles of physics and chemistry can find their causes, > inter-agencies, and mutual relations embodied in the deportment and > course of action of the fickle deities. The atmospheric electricity > in its neutral and latent states is embodied usually in demi-gods and > goddesses, whose scene of action is more limited to earth and who, in > their occasional flights to the higher deific regions, display their > electric tempers always _in strict proportion with the increase of > distance from the earth’s surface_: the weapons of Hercules and Thor {262} > were never more mortal than when the gods soared into the clouds. We > must bear in mind that before the time when the Olympian Jupiter was > anthropomorphized by the genius of Pheidias into the Omnipotent God, > the _Maximus_, the God of gods, and thus abandoned to the adoration of > the multitudes, in the earliest and abstruse science of symbology he > embodied in his person and attributes the whole of the cosmic forces. > The Myth was less metaphysical and complicated, but more truly eloquent > as an expression of natural philosophy. Zeus, the male element of the > creation with Chthonia—Vesta (the earth), and Metis (the water) the > first of the Oceanides (the feminine principles)—was viewed according > to Porphyry and Proclus as the _zōŏn-ek-zōōn_, the chief of living > beings. In the Orphic theology, the oldest of all, metaphysically > speaking, he represented both the _potentia_ and _actus_, the > unrevealed _cause_ and the Demiurg, or the active creator as an > emanation from the invisible potency. In the latter demiurgic capacity, > in conjunction with his consorts, we find in him all the mightiest > agents of cosmic evolution—chemical affinity, atmospheric electricity, > attraction, and repulsion. > > It is in following his representations in this physical qualification > that we discover how well acquainted were the ancients with all the > doctrines of physical science in their modern development. Later, in > the Pythagorean speculations, Zeus became the metaphysical trinity; > the monad evolving from its invisible SELF the _active_ cause, effect, > and intelligent will, the whole forming the _Tetractis_. Still later > we find the earlier Neo-platonists leaving the primal monad aside, > on the ground of its utter incomprehensibleness to human intellect, > speculating merely on the _demiurgic triad_ of this deity as visible > and intelligible in its effects; and thus the metaphysical continuation > by Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, and other philosophers of this view of > Zeus the father, Zeus _Poseidon_, or _dunamis_, the son and power, and > the spirit or _nous_. This triad was also accepted as a whole by the > Irenæic school of the second century; the more substantial difference > between the doctrines of the Neo-platonists and the Christians being > merely the forcible amalgamation by the latter of the incomprehensible > monad with its actualized creative trinity. > > In his astronomical aspect Zeus-Dionysus has his origin in the zodiac, > the ancient solar year. In Libya he assumed the form of a ram, and is > identical with the Egyptian Amun, who begat Osiris, the taurian god. > Osiris is also a personified emanation of the Father-Sun, and himself > the Sun in Taurus. The Parent-Sun being the Sun in Aries. As the > latter, Jupiter, is in the guise of a ram, and as Jupiter-Dionysus or > Jupiter-Osiris, he is the bull. This animal is, as it is well known, > the symbol of the creative power; moreover the Kabala explains, through {263} > the medium of one of its chief expounders, Simon-Ben-Iochai,[436] the > origin of this strange worship of the bulls and cows. It is neither > Darwin nor Huxley—the founders of the doctrine of evolution and its > necessary complement, the transformation of species—that can find > anything against the rationality of this symbol, except, perhaps, a > natural feeling of uneasiness upon finding that they were preceded by > the ancients even in this particular modern discovery. Elsewhere, we > will give the doctrine of the kabalists as taught by Simon-Ben-Iochai. > > It may be easily proved that from time immemorial Saturn or Kronos, > whose ring, most positively, _was_ discovered by the Chaldean > astrologers, and whose symbolism is no “coincidence,” was considered > the father of Zeus, before the latter became himself the father of > all the gods, and was the highest deity. He was the Bel or Baal of > the Chaldeans, and originally imported among them by the Akkadians. > Rawlinson insists that the latter came from Armenia; but if so, how can > we account for the fact that Bel is but a Babylonian personification > of the Hindu Siva, or Bala, the fire-god, the omnipotent creative, and > at the same time, destroying Deity, in many senses higher than Brahma > himself? > > “Zeus,” says an Orphic hymn, “is the first and the last, the head, and > the extremities; from him have proceeded all things. He is a man and an > immortal nymph (male and female element); the soul of all things; and > the principal motor in fire; he is the sun and the moon; the fountain > of the ocean; the demiurgus of the universe; one power, one God; the > mighty creator and governor of the cosmos. Everything, fire, water, > earth, ether, night, the heavens, Metis, the primeval architecturess > (the Sophia of the Gnostics, and the Sephira of the Kabalists), the > beautiful Eros, Cupid, all is included within the vast dimensions of > his glorious body!”[437] > > This short hymn of laudation contains within itself the groundwork of > every mythopœic conception. The imagination of the ancients proved > as boundless as the visible manifestations of the Deity itself which > afforded them the themes for their allegories. Still the latter, > exuberant as they seem, never departed from the two principal ideas > which may be ever found running parallel in their sacred imagery; > a strict adherence to the physical as well as moral or spiritual > aspect of natural law. Their metaphysical researches never clashed > with scientific truths, and their religions may be truly termed the > psycho-physiological creeds of the priests and scientists, who built > them on the traditions of the infant-world, such as the unsophisticated > minds of the primitive races received them, and on their own > experimental knowledge, hoary with all the wisdom of the intervening > ages. > > As the sun, what better image could be found for Jupiter emitting {264} > his golden rays than to personify this emanation in Diana, the > all-illuminating virgin Artemis, whose oldest name was Diktynna, > literally the emitted _ray_, from the word _dikein_. The moon is > non-luminous, and it shines only by the reflected light of the > sun; hence, the imagery of his daughter, the goddess of the moon, > and herself, Luna, Astartè, or Diana. As the Cretan Diktynna, she > wears a wreath made of the magic plant _diktamnon_, or _dictamnus_, > the evergreen shrub whose contact is said, at the same time, to > develop somnambulism and cure finally of it; and, as Eilithyia and > Juno Pronuba, she is the goddess who presides over births; she > is an Æsculapian deity, and the use of the dictamnus-wreath, in > association with the moon, shows once more the profound observation > of the ancients. This plant is known in botany as possessing strongly > sedative properties; it grows on Mount Dicte, a Cretan mountain, in > great abundance; on the other hand, the moon, according to the best > authorities on animal magnetism, acts upon the juices and ganglionic > system, or nerve-cells, the seat from whence proceed all the > nerve-fibres which play such a prominent part in mesmerization. During > childbirth the Cretan women were covered with this plant, and its > roots were administered as best calculated to soothe acute pain, and > allay the irritability so dangerous at this period. They were placed, > moreover, within the precincts of the temple sacred to the goddess, > and, if possible, under the direct rays of the resplendent daughter of > Jupiter—the bright and warm Eastern moon. > > The Hindu Brahmans and Buddhists have complicated theories on the > influence of the sun and moon (the male and female elements), as > containing the negative and positive principles, the opposites of the > magnetic polarity. “The influence of the moon on women is well known,” > write all the old authors on magnetism; and Ennemoser, as well as Du > Potet, confirm the theories of the Hindu seers in every particular. > > The marked respect paid by the Buddhists to the sapphire-stone—which > was also sacred to Luna, in every other country—may be found based > on something more scientifically exact than a mere groundless > superstition. They ascribed to it a sacred magical power, which every > student of psychological mesmerism will readily understand, for its > polished and deep-blue surface produces extraordinary somnambulic > phenomena. The varied influence of the prismatic colors on the growth > of vegetation, and especially that of the “blue ray,” has been > recognized but recently. The Academicians quarrelled over the unequal > heating power of the prismatic rays until a series of experimental > demonstrations by General Pleasonton, proved that under the blue ray, > the most electric of all, animal and vegetable growth was increased to {265} > a magical proportion. Thus Amoretti’s investigations of the electric > polarity of precious stones show that the diamond, the garnet, the > amethyst, are -E., while the sapphire is +E.[438] Thus, we are enabled > to show that the latest experiments of science only corroborate that > which was known to the Hindu sages before any of the modern academies > were founded. An old Hindu legend says that Brahma-Prajapâti, having > fallen in love with his own daughter, _Ushâs_ (Heaven, sometimes the > Dawn also), assumed the form of a buck (_ris’ya_) and Ushâs that > of a female deer (_rôhit_) and thus committed the first sin.[439] > Upon seeing such a desecration, the gods felt so terrified, that > uniting their most fearful-looking bodies—each god possessing as many > bodies as he desires—they produced Bhûtavan (the spirit of evil), > who was created by them on purpose to destroy the _incarnation_ of > the first sin committed by the Brahma himself. Upon seeing this, > Brahma-Hiranyagarbha[440] repented bitterly and began repeating the > Mantras, or prayers of purification, and, in his grief, dropped on > earth a tear, the _hottest_ that ever fell from an eye; and from it was > formed the first sapphire. > > This half-sacred, half-popular legend shows that the Hindus knew which > was the most electric of all the prismatic colors; moreover, the > particular influence of the sapphire-stone was as well defined as that > of all the other minerals. Orpheus teaches how it is possible to affect > a whole audience by means of a lodestone; Pythagoras pays a particular > attention to the color and nature of precious stones; while Apollonius > of Tyana imparts to his disciples the secret virtues of each, and > changes his jewelled rings daily, using a particular stone for every > day of the month and according to the laws of judicial astrology. The > Buddhists assert that the sapphire produces peace of mind, equanimity, > and chases all evil thoughts by establishing a healthy circulation in > man. So does an electric battery, with its well-directed fluid, say > our electricians. “The sapphire,” say the Buddhists, “will open barred > doors and dwellings (for the spirit of man); it produces a desire for > prayer, and brings with it more peace than any other gem; but he who > would wear it must lead a pure and holy life.”[441] > > Diana-Luna is the daughter of Zeus by Proserpina, who represents > the Earth in her active labor, and, according to Hesiod, as Diana {266} > Eilythia-Lucina she is Juno’s daughter. But Juno, devoured by Kronos or > Saturn, and restored back to life by the Oceanid Metis, is also known > as the Earth. Saturn, as the evolution of Time, swallows the earth > in one of the ante-historical cataclysms, and it is only when Metis > (the waters) by retreating in her many beds, frees the continent, that > Juno is said to be restored to her first shape. The idea is expressed > in the 9th and 10th verses of the first chapter of _Genesis_. In the > frequent matrimonial quarrels between Juno and Jupiter, Diana is always > represented as turning her back on her mother and smiling upon her > father, though she chides him for his numerous frolics. The Thessalian > magicians are said to have been obliged, during such eclipses, to > draw her attention to the earth by the power of their spells and > incantations, and the Babylonian astrologers and magi never desisted > in their spells until they brought about a reconciliation between the > irritated couple, after which Juno “radiantly smiled on the bright > goddess” Diana, who, encircling her brow with her crescent, returned to > her hunting-place in the mountains. > > It seems to us that the fable illustrates the different phases of the > moon. We, the inhabitants of the earth, never see but one-half of our > bright satellite, who thus turns _her back_ to her mother Juno. The > sun, the moon, and the earth are constantly changing positions with > relation to each other. With the _new_ moon there is constantly a > change of weather; and sometimes the wind and storms may well suggest > a quarrel between the sun and earth, especially when the former is > concealed by grumbling thunder-clouds. Furthermore, the new moon, when > her dark side is turned toward us, is invisible; and it is only after a > _reconciliation_ between the sun and the earth, that a bright crescent > becomes visible on the side nearest to the sun, though this time Luna > is not illuminated by sunlight _directly_ received, but by sunlight > reflected from the earth to the moon, and by her reflected back to us. > Hence, the Chaldean astrologers and the magicians of Thessaly, who > probably watched and determined as accurately as a Babinet the course > of the celestial bodies, were said by their enchantments to force the > moon to descend on earth, _i.e._, to show her crescent, which she could > do but after receiving the “radiant smile” from her mother-earth, who > put it on after the conjugal reconciliation. Diana-Luna, having adorned > her head with her crescent, returns back to hunt in _her mountains_. > > As to calling in question the intrinsic knowledge of the ancients > on the ground of their “_superstitious_ deductions from natural > phenomena,” it is as appropriate as it would be if, five hundred years > hence, our descendents should regard the pupils of Professor Balfour > Stewart as _ancient_ ignoramuses, and himself a shallow philosopher. > If modern science, in the person of this gentleman, can condescend to {267} > make experiments to determine whether the appearance of the spots on > the sun’s surface is in any way connected with the potatoe disease, > and finds _it is_; and that, moreover, “the earth is very seriously > affected by what takes place in the sun,”[442] why should the ancient > astrologers be held up as either fools or arrant knaves? There is the > same relation between natural and judicial or judiciary astrology, as > between physiology and psychology, the physical and the moral. If in > later centuries these sciences were degraded into charlatanry by some > money-making impostors, is it just to extend the accusation to those > mighty men of old who, by their persevering studies and holy lives, > bestowed an immortal name upon Chaldea and Babylonia? Surely those who > are now found to have made correct astronomical observations ranging > back to “within 100 years from the flood,” from the top observatory > of the “cloud-encompassed Bel,” as Prof. Draper has it, can hardly be > considered impostors. If their mode of impressing upon the popular > minds the great astronomical truths differed from the “system of > education” of our present century and appears ridiculous to some, the > question still remains unanswered: which of the two systems was the > best? With them science went hand in hand with religion, and the idea > of God was inseparable from that of his works. And while in the present > century there is not one person out of ten thousand who knows, if he > ever knew the fact at all, that the planet Uranus is _next_ to Saturn, > and revolves about the sun in eighty-four years; and that Saturn is > _next_ to Jupiter, and takes twenty-nine and a half years to make one > complete revolution in its orbit; while Jupiter performs his revolution > in twelve years; the uneducated masses of Babylon and Greece, having > impressed on their minds that Uranus was the father of Saturn, and > Saturn that of Jupiter, considering them furthermore deities as well as > all their satellites and attendants, we may perhaps infer from it, that > while Europeans only discovered Uranus in 1781, a curious coincidence > is to be noticed in the above myths. > > We have but to open the most common book on astrology, and compare the > descriptions embraced in the _Fable of the Twelve Houses_ with the > most modern discoveries of science as to the nature of the planets > and the elements in each star, to see that without any spectroscope > the ancients were perfectly well acquainted with the same. Unless > the fact is again regarded as “a coincidence,” we can learn, to a > certain extent, of the degree of the solar heat, light, and nature of > the planets by simply studying their symbolic representations in the > Olympic gods, and the twelve signs of the zodiac, to each of which in > astrology is attributed a particular quality. If the goddesses of our {268} > own planet vary in no particular from other gods and goddesses, but > all have a like physical nature, does not this imply that the sentinels > who watched from the top of Bel’s tower, by day as well as by night, > holding communion with the euhemerized deities, had remarked, before > ourselves, the physical unity of the universe and the fact that the > planets above are made of precisely the same chemical elements as our > own. The sun in Aries, Jupiter, is shown in astrology as a masculine, > diurnal, cardinal, equinoctial, easterly sign, hot and dry, and > answers perfectly to the character attributed to the fickle “Father > of the gods.” When angry Zeus-Akrios snatches from his fiery belt the > thunderbolts which he hurls forth from heaven, he rends the clouds and > descends as Jupiter _Pluvius_ in torrents of rain. He is the greatest > and highest of gods, and his movements are as rapid as lightning > itself. The planet Jupiter is known to revolve on its axis so rapidly > that the point of its equator turns at the rate of 450 miles a minute. > An immense excess of centrifugal force at the equator is believed to > have caused the planet to become extremely flattened at the poles; and > in Crete the personified god Jupiter was represented without ears. The > planet Jupiter’s disk is crossed by dark belts; varying in breadth, > they appear to be connected with its rotation on its axis, and are > produced by disturbances in its atmosphere. The face of Father Zeus, > says Hesiod, became spotted with rage when he beheld the Titans ready > to rebel. > > In Mr. Proctor’s book, astronomers seem especially doomed by Providence > to encounter all kinds of curious “coincidences,” for he gives us > many cases out of the “multitude,” and even of the “_thousands_ of > facts [sic].” To this list we may add the army of Egyptologists and > archæologists who of late have been the chosen pets of the capricious > _Dame Chance_, who, moreover, generally selects “well-to-do Arabs” > and other Eastern gentlemen, to play the part of benevolent _genii_ > to Oriental scholars in difficulties. Professor Ebers is one of the > latest favored ones. It is a well-known fact, that whenever Champollion > needed important links, he fell in with them in the most various and > unexpected ways. > > Voltaire, the greatest of “infidels” of the eighteenth century, used > to say, that if there were no God, people would have to invent one. > Volney, another “materialist,” nowhere throughout his numerous writings > denies the existence of God. On the contrary, he plainly asserts > several times that the universe is the work of the “All-wise,” and is > convinced that there is a Supreme Agent, a universal and identical > Artificer, designated by the name of God.[443] Voltaire becomes, toward > the end of his life, Pythagorical, and concludes by saying: “I have {269} > consumed forty years of my pilgrimage ... seeking the philosopher’s > stone called truth. I have consulted all the adepts of antiquity, > Epicurus and Augustine, Plato and Malebranche, and I still remain in > ignorance.... All that I have been able to obtain by comparing and > combining the system of Plato, of the tutor of Alexander, Pythagoras, > and the Oriental, is this: _Chance is a word void of sense_. The world > is arranged according to mathematical laws.”[444] > > It is pertinent for us to suggest that Mr. Proctor’s stumbling-block is > that which trips the feet of all materialistic scientists, whose views > he but repeats; he confounds the physical and spiritual operations of > nature. His very theory of the probable inductive reasoning of the > ancients as to the subtile influences of the more remote planets, by > comparison with the familiar and potent effects of the sun and moon > upon our earth, shows the drift of his mind. Because science _affirms_ > that the sun imparts physical _heat_ and _light_ to us, and the moon > affects the tides, he thinks that the ancients must have regarded the > other heavenly bodies as exerting the same kind of influence upon us > physically, and indirectly upon our fortunes.[445] And here we must > permit ourselves a digression. > > How the ancients regarded the heavenly bodies is very hard to > determine, for one unacquainted with the esoteric explanation of their > doctrines. While philology and comparative theology have begun the > arduous work of analysis, they have as yet arrived at meagre results. > The allegorical form of speech has often led our commentators so far > astray, that they have confounded causes with effects, and _vice > versa_. In the baffling phenomenon of force-correlation, even our > greatest scientists would find it very hard to explain which of these > forces is the cause, and which the effect, since each may be both by > turns, and convertible. Thus, if we should inquire of the physicists, > “Is it light which generates heat, or the latter which produces > light?” we would in all probability be answered that it is certainly > light which creates heat. Very well; but how? did the great Artificer > first produce light, or did He first construct the sun, which is said > to be the sole dispenser of light, and, consequently, heat? These > questions may appear at first glance indicative of ignorance; but, > perhaps, if we ponder them deeply, they will assume another appearance. > In _Genesis_, the “Lord” first creates _light_, and three days and > three nights are alleged to pass away before He creates the sun, the > moon, and the stars. This gross blunder against _exact_ science has > created much merriment among materialists. And they certainly would > be warranted in laughing, if their doctrine that our light and heat {270} > are derived from the sun were unassailable. Until recently, nothing > has happened to upset this theory, which, for lack of a better one, > according to the expression of a preacher, “reigns sovereign in the > Empire of Hypothesis.” The ancient sun-worshippers regarded the Great > Spirit as a nature-god, identical with nature, and the sun as the > deity, “in whom the Lord of life dwells.” Gama is the sun, according > to the Hindu theology, and “The sun is the source of the souls and of > _all life_.”[446] Agni, the “Divine Fire,” the deity of the Hindu, > is the sun,[447] for the fire and sun are the same. Ormazd is light, > the Sun-God, or the Life-giver. In the Hindu philosophy, “The souls > issue from the soul of the world, and return to it as sparks to the > fire.”[448] But, in another place, it is said that “_The Sun_ is the > soul _of all things_; all has proceeded out of it, and will return to > it,”[449] which shows that the sun is meant allegorically here, and > refers to the _central_, invisible sun, GOD, whose first manifestation > was Sephira, the emanation of En-Soph—Light, in short. > > “And I looked, and behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great > cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it,” > says Ezekiel (i. 4, 22, etc.), “ ... and the likeness of a throne ... > and as the appearance of a man above upon it ... and I saw as it were > the appearance _of fire_ and it had brightness round about it.” And > Daniel speaks of the “ancient of days,” the kabalistic En-Soph, whose > throne was “the fiery flame, his wheels burning fire.... A fiery stream > issued and came forth from before him.”[450] Like the Pagan Saturn, who > had his castle of flame in the seventh heaven, the Jewish Jehovah had > his “castle of fire over the seventh heavens.”[451] > > If the limited space of the present work would permit we might easily > show that none of the ancients, the sun-worshippers included, regarded > our visible sun otherwise than as an emblem of their metaphysical > invisible central sun-god. Moreover, they did _not_ believe what our > modern science teaches us, namely, that light and heat proceed from > _our_ sun, and that it is this planet which imparts all life to our > visible nature. “His radiance is undecaying,” says the _Rig-Veda_, > “the intensely-shining, all-pervading, unceasing, undecaying rays of > Agni desist not, neither night nor day.” This evidently related to the > spiritual, central sun, whose rays are all-pervading and unceasing, the > eternal and boundless life-giver. HE the _Point_; the centre (which is > everywhere) of the circle (which is nowhere), the ethereal, spiritual > fire, the soul and spirit of the all-pervading, mysterious ether; the > despair and puzzle of the materialist, who will some day find that that {271} > which causes the numberless cosmic forces to manifest themselves in > eternal correlation is but a divine electricity, or rather _galvanism_, > and that the sun is but one of the myriad _magnets_ disseminated > through space—a reflector—as General Pleasonton has it. That the > sun has no more heat in it than the moon or the space-crowding host > of sparkling stars. That there is no _gravitation_ in the Newtonian > sense,[452] but only magnetic attraction and repulsion; and that it > is by their magnetism that the planets of the solar system have their > motions regulated in their respective orbits by the still more powerful > magnetism of the sun, not by their weight or gravitation. This and much > more they may learn; but, until then we must be content with being > merely laughed at, instead of being burned alive for impiety, or shut > up in an insane asylum. > > The laws of Manu are the doctrines of Plato, Philo, Zoroaster, > Pythagoras, and of the Kabala. The esoterism of every religion may > be solved by the latter. The kabalistic doctrine of the allegorical > Father and Son, or Πατηρ and Λογος is identical with the groundwork of > Buddhism. Moses could not reveal to the multitude the sublime secrets > of religious speculation, nor the cosmogony of the universe; the whole > resting upon the Hindu _Illusion_, a clever mask veiling the _Sanctum > Sanctorum_, and which has misled so many theological commentators.[453] > > The kabalistic heresies receive an unexpected support in the heterodox {272} > theories of General Pleasonton. According to his opinions (which he > supports on far more unimpeachable facts than orthodox scientists > theirs) the space between the sun and the earth must be filled with a > material medium, which, so far as we can judge from his description, > answers to our kabalistic astral light. The passage of light through > this must produce enormous friction. Friction generates electricity, > and it is this electricity and its correlative magnetism which forms > those tremendous forces of nature that produce in, on, and about our > planet the various changes which we everywhere encounter. He proves > that terrestrial heat _cannot_ be directly derived from the sun, for > heat _ascends_. The force by which heat is effected is a repellent > one, he says, and as it is associated with positive electricity, it is > attracted to the upper atmosphere by its negative electricity, always > associated with cold, which is opposed to positive electricity. He > strengthens his position by showing that the earth, which when covered > with snow cannot be affected by the sun’s rays, is warmest where the > snow is deepest. This he explains upon the theory that the radiation of > heat from the interior of the earth, positively electrified, meeting at > the _surface_ of the earth with the snow in contact with it, negatively > electrified, produces the heat. > > Thus he shows that it is not at all to the sun that we are indebted for > light and heat; that light is a creation _sui generis_, which sprung > into existence at the instant when the Deity _willed_, and uttered the > fiat: “Let there be light;” and that it is this independent material > agent which produces heat _by friction_, on account of its enormous > and incessant velocity. In short, it is the first kabalistic emanation > to which General Pleasonton introduces us, that Sephira or divine > _Intelligence_ (the female principle), which, in unity with En-Soph, > or divine wisdom (male principle) produced every thing visible and > invisible. He laughs at the current theory of the incandescence of the > sun and its gaseous substance. The reflection from the photosphere > of the sun, he says, passing through planetary and stellar spaces, > must have thus created a vast amount of electricity and magnetism. > Electricity, by the union of its opposite polarities, evolves heat and > imparts magnetism to all substances capable of receiving it. The sun, > planets, stars, and nebulæ are all magnets, etc. > > If this courageous gentleman should prove his case, future generations > will have but little disposition to laugh at Paracelsus and his > sidereal or astral light, and at his doctrine of the magnetic influence {273} > exercised by the stars and planets upon every living creature, plant, > or mineral of our globe. Moreover, if the Pleasonton hypothesis is > established, the transcendent glory of Professor Tyndall will be > rather obscured. According to public opinion, the General makes a > terrible onslaught on the learned physicist, for attributing to the sun > calorific effects experienced by him in an Alpine ramble, that were > simply due to his own vital electricity.[454] > > The prevalence of such revolutionary ideas in science, embolden us > to ask the representatives of science whether they can explain _why_ > the tides follow the moon in her circling motion? The fact is, they > cannot demonstrate even so familiar a phenomenon as this, one that has > no mystery for even the neophytes in alchemy and magic. We would also > like to learn whether they are equally incapable of telling us why the > moon’s rays are so poisonous, even fatal, to some organisms; why in > some parts of Africa and India a person sleeping in the moonlight is > often made insane; why the crises of certain diseases correspond with > lunar changes; why somnambulists are more affected at her full; and > why gardeners, farmers, and woodmen cling so tenaciously to the idea > that vegetation is affected by lunar influences? Several of the mimosæ > alternately open and close their petals as the full moon emerges from > or is obscured by clouds. And the Hindus of Travancore have a popular > but extremely suggestive proverb which says: “Soft words are better > than harsh; the sea is attracted by the cool moon and not by the hot > sun.” Perhaps the one man or the many men who launched this proverb on > the world knew more about the cause of such attraction of the waters > by the moon than we do. Thus if science cannot explain the cause of > this physical influence, what can she know of the moral and occult > influences that may be exercised by the celestial bodies on men and > their destiny; and why contradict that which it is impossible for her > to prove false? If certain aspects of the moon effect tangible results > so familiar in the experience of men throughout all time, what violence > are we doing to logic in assuming the possibility that a certain > combination of sidereal influences may also be more or less potential? > > If the reader will recall what is said by the learned authors of {274} > the _Unseen Universe_, as to the positive effect produced upon the > universal ether by so small a cause as the evolution of thought in a > single human brain, how reasonable will it not appear that the terrific > impulses imparted to this common medium by the sweep of the myriad > blazing orbs that are rushing through “the interstellar depths,” should > affect us and the earth upon which we live, in a powerful degree? If > astronomers cannot explain to us the occult law by which the drifting > particles of cosmic matter aggregate into worlds, and then take their > places in the majestic procession which is ceaselessly moving around > some central point of attraction, how can any one assume to say what > mystic influences may or may not be darting through space and affecting > the issues of life upon this and other planets? Almost nothing is known > of the laws of magnetism and the other imponderable agents; almost > nothing of their effects upon our bodies and minds; even that which is > known and moreover perfectly demonstrated, is attributed to chance, and > curious _coincidences_. But we do know, by these coincidences,[455] > that “there are periods when certain diseases, propensities, fortunes, > and misfortunes of humanity are more rife than at others.” There are > times of epidemic in moral and physical affairs. In one epoch “the > spirit of religious controversy will arouse the most ferocious passions > of which human nature is susceptible, provoking mutual persecution, > bloodshed, and wars; at another, an epidemic of resistance to > constituted authority will spread over half the world (as in the year > 1848), rapid and simultaneous as the most virulent bodily disorder.” > > Again, the _collective character_ of mental phenomena is illustrated > by an anomalous psychological condition invading and dominating > over thousands upon thousands, depriving them of everything but > automatic action, and giving rise to the popular opinion of demoniacal > possession, an opinion in some sense justified by the satanic passions, > emotions, and acts which accompany the condition. At one period, the > aggregate tendency is to retirement and contemplation; hence, the > countless votaries of monachism and anchoretism; at another the mania > is directed toward _action_, having for its proposed end some utopian > scheme, equally impracticable and useless; hence, the myriads who have > forsaken their kindred, their homes, and their country, to seek a land > whose stones were gold, or to wage exterminating war for the possession > of worthless cities and trackless deserts.[456] > > The author from whom the above is quoted says that “the seeds of vice {275} > and crime appear to be sown under the surface of society, and to > spring up and bring forth fruit with appalling rapidity and paralyzing > succession.” > > In the presence of these striking phenomena science stands speechless; > she does not even attempt to conjecture as to their cause, and > naturally, for she has not yet learned to look outside of this ball > of dirt upon which we live, and its heavy atmosphere, for the hidden > influences which are affecting us day by day, and even minute by > minute. But the ancients, whose “ignorance” is assumed by Mr. Proctor, > fully realized the fact that the reciprocal relations between the > planetary bodies is as perfect as those between the corpuscles of the > blood, which float in a common fluid; and that each one is affected > by the combined influences of all the rest, as each in its turn > affects each of the others. As the planets differ in size, distance, > and activity, so differ in intensity their impulses upon the ether or > astral light, and the magnetic and other subtile forces radiated by > them in certain aspects of the heavens. Music is the combination and > modulation of sounds, and sound is the effect produced by the vibration > of the ether. Now, if the impulses communicated to the ether by the > different planets may be likened to the tones produced by the different > notes of a musical instrument, it is not difficult to conceive that > the Pythagorean “music of the spheres” is something more than a mere > fancy, and that certain planetary aspects may imply disturbances in > the ether of our planet, and certain others rest and harmony. Certain > kinds of music throw us into frenzy; some exalt the soul to religious > aspirations. In fine, there is scarcely a human creation which does > not respond to certain vibrations of the atmosphere. It is the same > with colors; some excite us, some soothe and please. The nun clothes > herself in black to typify the despondency of a faith crushed under the > sense of original sin; the bride robes herself in white; red inflames > the anger of certain animals. If we and the animals are affected > by vibrations acting upon a very minute scale, why may we not be > influenced in the mass by vibrations acting upon a grand scale as the > effect of combined stellar influences? > > “We know,” says Dr. Elam, “that certain pathological conditions > have a tendency to become epidemic, _influenced by causes not yet > investigated_.... We see how strong is the tendency of opinion once > promulgated to run into an epidemic form—no opinion, no delusion, is > too absurd to assume this collective character. We observe, also, > how remarkably the same ideas reproduce themselves and _reappear in > successive ages_; ... no crime is too horrible to become popular, > homicide, infanticide, suicide, poisoning, or any other diabolical {276} > human conception. ... In epidemics, the cause of the rapid spread at > that particular period _remains a mystery_!” > > These few lines contain an undeniable _psychological_ fact, sketched > with a masterly pen, and at the same time a _half_-confession of utter > ignorance—“_Causes not yet investigated_.” Why not be honest and add at > once, “_impossible_ to investigate with present scientific methods?” > > Noticing an epidemic of incendiarism, Dr. Elam quotes from the _Annales > d’Hygiene Publique_ the following cases: “A girl about seventeen years > of age was arrested on suspicion ... she confessed that twice she had > set fire to dwellings by _instinct_, by _irresistible necessity_.... A > boy about eighteen committed many acts of this nature. He was not moved > by any passion, but the bursting-out of the flames excited a profoundly > pleasing emotion.” > > Who but has noticed in the columns of the daily press similar > incidents? They meet the eye constantly. In cases of murder, of every > description, and of other crimes of a diabolical character, the act > is attributed, in nine cases out of ten, by the offenders themselves, > to _irresistible obsessions_. “_Something_ whispered constantly in > my ear.... _Somebody_ was incessantly pushing and leading me on.” > Such are the too-frequent confessions of the criminals. Physicians > attribute them to hallucinations of disordered brains, and call the > homicidal impulse temporary _lunacy_. But is lunacy itself well > understood by any psychologist? Has its cause ever been brought under a > hypothesis capable of withstanding the challenge of an uncompromising > investigator? Let the controversial works of our contemporary alienists > answer for themselves. > > Plato acknowledges man to be the toy of the element of necessity, which > he enters upon in appearing in this world of matter; he is influenced > by external causes, and these causes are _daimonia_, like that of > Socrates. Happy is the man physically pure, for if his _external_ > soul (body) is pure, it will strengthen the second one (astral body), > or the soul which is termed by him the _higher mortal soul_, which > though liable to err from its own motives, will always side with reason > against the animal proclivities of the body. The lusts of man arise in > consequence of his perishable material body, so do other diseases; but > though he regards crimes as _involuntary_ sometimes, for they result > like bodily disease from external causes, Plato clearly makes a wide > distinction between these _causes_. The fatalism which he concedes > to humanity, does not preclude the possibility of avoiding them, for > though pain, fear, anger, and other feelings are given to men by > _necessity_, “if they conquered these they would live righteously, > and if they were conquered by them, _unrighteously_.”[457] The {277} > _dual_ man, _i. e._, one from whom the divine _immortal_ spirit has > departed, leaving but the animal form and astral body (Plato’s higher > _mortal_ soul), is left merely to his _instincts_, for he was conquered > by all the evils entailed on matter; hence, he becomes a docile > tool in the hands of the _invisibles_—beings of sublimated matter, > hovering in our atmosphere, and ever ready to inspire those who are > deservedly deserted by their _immortal_ counsellor, the Divine Spirit, > called by Plato “genius.”[458] According to this great philosopher > and initiate, one “who lived well during his appointed time would > return to the habitation _of his star_, and there have a blessed and > suitable existence. But if he failed in attaining this in the second > generation he would pass _into a woman_—become helpless and weak as > a woman;[459] and should he not cease from evil in that condition, > he would be changed into some brute, which resembled him in his evil > ways, and would not cease from his toils and transformations until he > followed the original principle of sameness and likeness within him, > and overcame, by the help of reason, the latter secretions of turbulent > and irrational _elements_ (elementary dæmons) composed of fire and air, > and water and earth, and returned to the form of his first and better > nature.”[460] > > But Dr. Elam thinks otherwise. On page 194 of his book, _A Physician’s > Problems_, he says that the cause of the rapid spread of certain > epidemics of disease which he is noticing “remains a mystery;” but as > regards the incendiarism he remarks that “in all this we find nothing > mysterious,” though the epidemic is strongly developed. Strange > contradiction! De Quincey, in his paper, entitled _Murder Considered as > One of the Fine Arts_, treats of the epidemic of assassination, between > 1588 and 1635, by which seven of the most distinguished characters of {278} > the time lost their lives at the hands of assassins, and neither he, > nor any other commentator has been able to explain the mysterious cause > of this homicidal mania. > > If we press these gentlemen for an explanation, which as pretended > philosophers they are bound to give us, we are answered that it is a > great deal more _scientific_ to assign for such epidemics “agitation of > the mind,” “ ... a time of political excitement (1830)“ ” ... imitation > and impulse,“ ” ... excitable and idle boys,“ and ”_hysterical_ girls,” > than to be absurdly seeking for the verification of superstitious > traditions in a hypothetical astral light. It seems to us that if, > by some providential fatality, _hysteria_ were to disappear entirely > from the human system, the medical fraternity would be entirely at a > loss for explanations of a large class of phenomena now conveniently > classified under the head of “normal symptoms of certain pathological > conditions of the nervous centres.” Hysteria has been hitherto the > sheet-anchor of skeptical pathologists. Does a dirty peasant-girl begin > suddenly to speak with fluency different foreign languages hitherto > unfamiliar to her, and to write poetry—“hysterics!” Is a medium > levitated, in full view of a dozen of witnesses, and carried out of one > third-story window and brought back through another—“disturbance of the > nervous centres, followed by a _collective_ hysterical delusion.”[461] > A Scotch terrier, caught in the room during a manifestation, is hurled > by an invisible hand across the room, breaks to pieces, in his _salto > mortali_, a chandelier, under a ceiling eighteen feet high, to fall > down killed[462]—“_canine hallucination_!” > > “True science has no belief,” says Dr. Fenwick, in Bulwer-Lytton’s > _Strange Story_; “true science knows but three states of mind: denial, > conviction, and the vast interval between the two, which is not belief, > but the _suspension of judgment_.” Such, perhaps, was true science in > Dr. Fenwick’s days. But the true science of our modern times proceeds > otherwise; it either denies point-blank, without any preliminary > investigation, or sits in the interim, between denial and conviction, > and, dictionary in hand, invents new Græco-Latin appellations for > non-existing kinds of hysteria! > > How often have powerful clairvoyants and adepts in mesmerism > described the epidemics and _physical_ (though to others invisible) > manifestations which science attributes to epilepsy, hæmato-nervous > disorders, and what not, of _somatic origin_, as their lucid vision > saw them in the astral light. They affirm that the “electric waves” > were in violent perturbation, and that they discerned a direct relation > between this ethereal disturbance and the mental or physical epidemic {279} > then raging. But science has heeded them not, but gone on with her > encyclopædic labor of devising new names for old things. > > “History,” says Du Potet, the prince of French mesmerists, “keeps but > too well the sad records of sorcery. These facts were but too real, and > lent themselves but too readily to dreadful malpractices of the art, to > monstrous abuse!... But how did I come to find out that art? Where did > I learn it? In my thoughts? no; it is _nature_ herself which discovered > to me the secret. And how? By producing before my own eyes, without > waiting for me to search for it, indisputable facts of sorcery and > magic.... What is, after all, somnambulistic sleep? _A result of the > potency of magic._ And what is it which determines these attractions, > these _sudden impulses_, these raving epidemics, rages, antipathies, > crises;—these convulsions which _you can make durable_?... what is it > which determines them, if not the _very principle_ we employ, the agent > _so decidedly well known to the ancients_? What you call nervous fluid > or _magnetism_, the men of old called _occult power_, or the potency of > the soul, subjection, MAGIC!” > > “Magic is based on the existence of a mixed world placed _without_, not > _within_ us; and with which we can enter in communication by the use of > certain arts and practices.... An element _existing in nature_, unknown > to most men, gets hold of a person and withers and breaks him down, > as the fearful hurricane does a bulrush; it scatters men far away, it > strikes them in a _thousand places_ at _the same time_, without their > perceiving the invisible foe, or being able to protect themselves ... > all this is _demonstrated_; but that this element could choose friends > and select _favorites_, obey their _thoughts_, answer to the human > voice, and understand the meaning of _traced signs_, that is what > people cannot realize, and _what their reason rejects_, and that is > _what I saw_; and I say it here most emphatically, that for me it is a > fact and _a truth_ demonstrated for ever.”[463] > > “If I entered into greater details, one could readily understand that > there do exist _around_ us, _as in ourselves_, mysterious beings who > have _power_ and _shape_, who enter and go out at will, notwithstanding > the well-closed doors.”[464] Further, the great mesmerizer teaches > us that the faculty of directing this fluid is a “physical property, > resulting from our organization ... it passes through all bodies ... > everything can be used as a conductor for magical operations, and > it will retain the power of producing effects in its turn.” This is > the theory common to all hermetic philosophers. Such is the power of > the fluid, “that _no chemical or physical forces are able to destroy > it_.... There is very little analogy between the imponderable fluids {280} > known to physicists and this animal magnetic fluid.”[465] > > If we now refer to mediæval ages, we find, among others, Cornelius > Agrippa telling us precisely the same: “The ever-changing universal > force, the ‘soul of the world,’ can fecundate anything by infusing in > it its own celestial properties. Arranged according to the formula > taught by _science_, these objects receive the gift of communicating > to us their virtue. It is sufficient to wear them, to feel them > immediately operating on the soul as on the body.... Human soul > possesses, from the fact of its being of the same essence as all > creation, a _marvellous power_. One who possesses the secret is enabled > to rise in science and knowledge as high as his imagination will carry > him; but he does that only on the condition of becoming closely united > to this universal force.... Truth, even the future, can be then made > ever present to the eyes of the soul; and this fact has been many > times demonstrated by things coming to pass as they were seen and > described beforehand ... time and space vanish before the eagle eye of > the immortal soul ... her power becomes boundless ... she can shoot > through space and envelop with her presence a man, _no matter at what > distance_; she can plunge and penetrate him through, and make him hear > the voice of the person she belongs to, as if that person were in the > room.”[466] > > If unwilling to seek for proof or receive information from > mediæval, hermetic philosophy, we may go still further back into > antiquity, and select, out of the great body of philosophers of the > pre-Christian ages, one who can least be accused of superstition and > credulity—Cicero. Speaking of those whom he calls _gods_, and who are > either human or atmospheric spirits, “We know,” says the old orator, > “that of all living beings man is the best formed, and, as the gods > belong to this number, they must have a human form.... I do not mean > to say that the gods have body and blood in them; but I say that they > _seem_ as if they had bodies with blood in them.... Epicurus, for whom > hidden things were as tangible as if he had touched them with his > finger, teaches us that gods are not generally visible, but that they > are _intelligible_; that they are not bodies having a certain solidity > ... but that we can recognize them by their _passing_ images; that > as there are _atoms_ enough in the infinite space _to produce such > images_, these are produced before us ... and make us realize what are > these happy, immortal beings.”[467] > > “When the initiate,” says Levi, in his turn, “has become quite {281} > _lucide_, he communicates and directs at will the _magnetic_ > vibrations in the mass of astral light.... Transformed in human light > at the moment of the conception, _it_ (the light) becomes the _first > envelope of the soul_; by combination with the subtlest fluids it > forms an ethereal body, or the _sidereal phantom_, which is entirely > disengaged _only_ at the moment of death.”[468] To project this > ethereal body, at no matter what distance; to render it more objective > and tangible by condensing over its fluidic form the waves of the > parent essence, is the great secret of the adept-_magician_. > > Theurgical magic is the last expression of occult psychological > science. The Academicians reject it as the hallucination of diseased > brains, or brand it with the opprobrium of charlatanry. We deny to them > most emphatically the right of expressing their opinion on a subject > which they have never investigated. They have no more right, in their > present state of knowledge, to judge of magic and Spiritualism than > a Fiji islander to venture his opinion about the labors of Faraday > or Agassiz. About all they can do on any one day is to correct the > errors of the preceding day. Nearly three thousand years ago, earlier > than the days of Pythagoras, the ancient philosophers claimed that > light was ponderable—hence _matter_, and that light was force. The > corpuscular theory, owing to certain Newtonian failures to account for > it, was laughed down, and the undulatory theory, which proclaimed light > _imponderable_, accepted. And now the world is startled by Mr. Crookes > _weighing_ light with his radiometer! The Pythagoreans held that > neither the sun nor the stars were the _sources_ of light and heat, > and that the former was but an agent; but the modern schools teach the > contrary. > > The same may be said respecting the Newtonian law of gravitation. > Following strictly the Pythagorean doctrine, Plato held that > gravitation was not merely a law of the magnetic attraction of > lesser bodies to larger ones, but a magnetic repulsion of similars > and attraction of dissimilars. “Things brought together,” says he, > “contrary to nature, are naturally at war, and repel one another.”[469] > This cannot be taken to mean that repulsion occurs of necessity between > bodies of dissimilar properties, but simply that when naturally > antagonistic bodies are brought together they repel one another. The > researches of Bart and Schweigger leave us in little or no doubt > that the ancients were well acquainted with the mutual attractions > of iron and the lodestone, as well as with the positive and negative > properties of electricity, by whatever name they may have called it. {282} > The reciprocal magnetic relations of the planetary orbs, which are > all magnets, was with them an accepted fact, and aërolites were not > only called by them magnetic stones, but used in the Mysteries for > purposes to which we now apply the magnet. When, therefore, Professor > A. M. Mayer, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, in 1872, told the > Yale Scientific Club that the earth is a great magnet, and that “on > any sudden agitation of the sun’s surface the magnetism of the earth > receives a profound disturbance in its equilibrium, causing fitful > tremors in the magnets of our observatories, and producing those grand > outbursts of the polar lights, whose lambent flames dance in rhythm to > the quivering needle,”[470] he only restated, in good English, what > was taught in good Doric untold centuries before the first Christian > philosopher saw the light. > > The prodigies accomplished by the priests of theurgical magic are > so well authenticated, and the evidence—if human testimony is worth > anything at all—is so overwhelming, that, rather than confess that the > Pagan theurgists far outrivalled the Christians in miracles, Sir David > Brewster piously concedes to the former the greatest proficiency in > physics, and everything that pertains to natural philosophy. Science > finds herself in a very disagreeable dilemma. She must either confess > that the ancient physicists were superior in knowledge to her modern > representatives, or that there exists something in nature beyond > physical science, and that _spirit_ possesses powers of which our > philosophers never dreamed. > > “The mistake we make in some science we have specially cultivated,” > says Bulwer-Lytton, “is often only to be seen by the light of a > separate science as especially cultivated by another.”[471] > > Nothing can be easier accounted for than the highest possibilities of > magic. By the radiant light of the universal magnetic ocean, whose > electric waves bind the cosmos together, and in their ceaseless > motion penetrate every atom and molecule of the boundless creation, > the disciples of mesmerism—howbeit insufficient their various > experiments—intuitionally perceive the alpha and omega of the great > mystery. Alone, the study of this agent, which is the divine breath, > can unlock the secrets of psychology and physiology, of cosmical and > spiritual phenomena. > > “Magic,” says Psellus, “formed the last part of the sacerdotal science. > It investigated the nature, power, and quality of everything sublunary; > of the elements and their parts, of animals, all various plants and > their fruits, of stones and herbs. In short, it explored the essence > and power of everything. From hence, therefore, it produced its {283} > effects And it formed _statues_ (magnetized) which procure health, and > made all various figures and things (talismans) which could equally > become the instruments of disease as well as of health. Often, too, > celestial fire is made to appear through magic, and then statues laugh > and lamps are spontaneously enkindled.”[472] > > If Galvani’s modern discovery can set in motion the limbs of a dead > frog, and force a dead man’s face to express, by the distortion of > its features, the most varied emotions, from joy to diabolical rage, > despair, and horror, the Pagan priests, unless the combined evidence > of the most trustworthy men of antiquity is not to be relied upon, > accomplished the still greater wonders of making their stone and metal > statues to sweat and laugh. The _celestial_, pure fire of the Pagan > altar was electricity drawn from the astral light. Statues, therefore, > if properly prepared, might, without any accusation of superstition, > be allowed to have the property of imparting health and disease by > contact, as well as any modern galvanic belt, or overcharged battery. > > Scholastic skeptics, as well as ignorant materialists, have greatly > amused themselves for the last two centuries over the _absurdities_ > attributed to Pythagoras by his biographer, Iamblichus. The Samian > philosopher is said to have persuaded a she-bear to give up eating > human flesh; to have forced a white eagle to descend to him from > the clouds, and to have subdued him by stroking him gently with the > hand, and by talking to him. On another occasion, Pythagoras actually > persuaded an ox to renounce eating beans, by merely whispering in the > animal’s ear![473] Oh, ignorance and superstition of our forefathers, > how ridiculous they appear in the eyes of our enlightened generations! > Let us, however, analyze this absurdity. Every day we see unlettered > men, proprietors of strolling menageries, taming and completely > subduing the most ferocious animals, merely by the power of their > irresistible will. Nay, we have at the present moment in Europe several > young and physically-weak girls, under twenty years of age, fearlessly > doing the same thing. Every one has either witnessed or heard of the > seemingly magical power of some mesmerizers and psychologists. They are > able to subjugate their patients for any length of time. Regazzoni, > the mesmerist who excited such wonder in France and London, has > achieved far more extraordinary feats than what is above attributed to > Pythagoras. Why, then, accuse the ancient biographers of such men as > Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana of either wilful misrepresentation > or absurd superstition? When we realize that the majority of those {284} > who are so skeptical as to the magical powers possessed by the ancient > philosophers, who laugh at the old theogonies and the fallacies of > mythology, nevertheless have an implicit faith in the records and > inspiration of their Bible, hardly daring to doubt even that monstrous > absurdity that Joshua arrested the course of the sun, we may well > say _Amen_ to Godfrey Higgins’ just rebuke: “When I find,” he says, > “learned men believing _Genesis literally_, which the ancients, with > all their failings, had too much sense to receive except allegorically, > I am tempted to doubt the reality of the improvement of the human > mind.”[474] > > One of the very few commentators on old Greek and Latin authors, > who have given their just dues to the ancients for their mental > development, is Thomas Taylor. In his translation of Iamblichus’ _Life > of Pythagoras_, we find him remarking as follows: “Since Pythagoras, > as Iamblichus informs us, was initiated in all the Mysteries of Byblus > and Tyre, in the sacred operations of the Syrians, and in the Mysteries > of the Phœnicians, and also that he spent two and twenty years in the > adyta of temples in Egypt, associated with the magians in Babylon, and > was instructed by them in their venerable knowledge, it is not at all > wonderful that he was skilled in magic, or theurgy, and was therefore > able to perform things which surpass merely human power, and which > appear to be perfectly incredible to the vulgar.”[475] > > The universal ether was not, in their eyes, simply a something > stretching, tenantless, throughout the expanse of heaven; it was a > boundless ocean peopled like our familiar seas with monstrous and minor > creatures, and having in its every molecule the germs of life. Like the > finny tribes which swarm in our oceans and smaller bodies of water, > each kind having its _habitat_ in some spot to which it is curiously > adapted, some friendly and some inimical to man, some pleasant and > some frightful to behold, some seeking the refuge of quiet nooks and > land-locked harbors, and some traversing great areas of water, the > various races of the _elemental_ spirits were believed by them to > inhabit the different portions of the great ethereal ocean, and to be > exactly adapted to their respective conditions. If we will only bear in > mind the fact that the rushing of planets through space must create as > absolute a disturbance in this plastic and attenuated medium, as the > passage of a cannon shot does in the air or that of a steamer in the > water, and on a cosmic scale, we can understand that certain planetary > aspects, admitting our premises to be true, may produce much more > violent agitation and cause much stronger currents to flow in a given > direction, than others. With the same premises conceded, we may also > see why, by such various aspects of the stars, shoals of friendly or {285} > hostile “elementals” might be poured in upon our atmosphere, or some > particular portion of it, and make the fact appreciable by the effects > which ensue. > > According to the ancient doctrines, the soulless elemental spirits > were evolved by the ceaseless motion inherent in the astral light. > Light is force, and the latter is produced by the _will_. As this will > proceeds from an intelligence which cannot err, for it has nothing of > the material organs of _human_ thought in it, being the superfine pure > emanation of the highest divinity itself—(Plato’s “Father”) it proceeds > from the beginning of time, according to immutable laws, to evolve the > elementary fabric requisite for subsequent generations of what we term > human races. All of the latter, whether belonging to this planet or to > some other of the myriads in space, have their earthly bodies evolved > in the matrix out of the bodies of a certain class of these elemental > beings which have passed away in the invisible worlds. In the ancient > philosophy there was no missing link to be supplied by what Tyndall > calls an “educated imagination;” no hiatus to be filled with volumes > of materialistic speculations made necessary by the absurd attempt > to solve an equation with but one set of quantities; our “ignorant” > ancestors traced the law of evolution throughout the whole universe. As > by gradual progression from the star-cloudlet to the development of the > physical body of man, the rule holds good, so from the universal ether > to the incarnate human spirit, they traced one uninterrupted series > of entities. These evolutions were from the world of spirit into the > world of gross matter; and through that back again to the source of all > things. The “descent of species” was to them a descent from the spirit, > primal source of all, to the “degradation of matter.” In this complete > chain of unfoldings the elementary, spiritual beings had as distinct > a place, midway between the extremes, as Mr. Darwin’s missing-link > between the ape and man. > > No author in the world of literature ever gave a more truthful or more > poetical description of these beings than Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton, the > author of _Zanoni_. Now, himself “a thing not of matter” but an “Idea > of joy and light,” his words sound more like the faithful echo of > memory than the exuberant outflow of mere imagination. > > “Man is arrogant in proportion of his ignorance,” he makes the wise > Mejnour say to Glyndon. “For several ages he saw in the countless > worlds that sparkle through space like the bubbles of a shoreless > ocean, only the petty candles ... that Providence has been pleased to > light for no other purpose but to make the night more agreeable to > man.... Astronomy has corrected this delusion of human vanity, and man > now reluctantly confesses that the stars are worlds, larger and more > glorious than his own.... Everywhere, then, in this immense design, {286} > science brings new life to light.... Reasoning, then, by evident > analogy, if not a leaf, if not a drop of water, but is, no less than > yonder star, a habitable and breathing world—nay, if even man himself, > is a world to other lives, and millions and myriads dwell in the rivers > of his blood, and inhabit man’s frame, as man inhabits earth—common > sense (if our schoolmen had it) would suffice to teach that the > circumfluent infinite which you call space—the boundless impalpable > which divides earth from the moon and stars—is filled also with its > correspondent and appropriate life. Is it not a visible absurdity to > suppose that being is crowded upon every leaf, and yet absent from > the immensities of space! The law of the great system forbids the > waste even of an atom; it knows no spot where something of life does > not breathe.... Well, then, can you conceive that space, which is the > infinite itself, is alone a waste, is alone lifeless, is less useful to > the one design of universal being ... than the peopled leaf, than the > swarming globule? The microscope shows you the creatures on the leaf; > _no mechanical tube is yet invented to discover the nobler and more > gifted things that hover in the illimitable air_. Yet between these > last and man is a mysterious _and terrible affinity_.... But first, > to penetrate this barrier, the soul with which you listen must be > sharpened by intense enthusiasm, purified from all earthly desires.... > When thus prepared, science can be brought to aid it; the sight itself > may be rendered more subtile, the nerves more acute, the spirit more > alive and outward, and the element itself—the air the space—may be > made, by certain secrets of the higher chemistry, more palpable and > clear. And this, too, is not _magic_ as the credulous call it; as I > have so often said before, magic (a science that violates nature) > exists not; it is _but the science by which nature can be controlled_. > Now, in space there are millions of beings, _not literally spiritual_, > for they have all, like the animalcula unseen by the naked eye, certain > forms of matter, though matter so delicate, air-drawn, and subtile, > that it is, as it were, but a film, a gossamer, that clothes the > spirit.... Yet, in truth, these races differ most widely ... some of > surpassing wisdom, some of horrible malignity; some hostile as fiends > to men, others gentle as messengers between earth and heaven.... Amid > the dwellers of the threshold is one, too, surpassing in malignity and > hatred all her tribe; one whose eyes have paralyzed the bravest, and > whose power increases over the spirit precisely in proportion to its > fear.”[476] > > Such is the insufficient sketch of elemental beings void of divine > spirit, given by one whom many with reason believed to know more than > he was prepared to admit in the face of an incredulous public. > > In the following chapter we will contrive to explain some of the {287} > esoteric speculations of the initiates of the sanctuary, as to > what man was, is, and may yet be. The doctrines they taught in the > Mysteries—the source from which sprung the Old and partially the New > Testament, belonged to the most advanced notions of morality, and > religious _revelations_. While the literal meaning was abandoned to > the fanaticism of the unreasoning lower classes of society, the higher > ones, the majority of which consisted of _Initiates_, pursued their > studies in the solemn silence of the temples, and their worship of the > _one_ God of Heaven. > > The speculations of Plato, in the _Banquet_, on the creation of the > primordial men, and the essay on Cosmogony in the _Timæus_, must be > taken allegorically, if we accept them at all. It is this hidden > Pythagorean meaning in _Timæus_, _Cratylus_, and _Parmenides_, and a > few other trilogies and dialogues, that the Neo-platonists ventured to > expound, as far as the theurgical vow of secresy would allow them. The > Pythagorean doctrine that _God is the universal mind diffused through > all things_, and the dogma of the soul’s immortality, are the leading > features in these apparently incongruous teachings. His piety and the > great veneration Plato felt for the MYSTERIES, are sufficient warrant > that he would not allow his indiscretion to get the better of that > deep sense of responsibility which is felt by every adept. “Constantly > perfecting himself in perfect MYSTERIES, a man in them alone becomes > truly perfect,” says he in the _Phædrus_.[477] > > He took no pains to conceal his displeasure that the Mysteries had > become less secret than formerly. Instead of profaning them by putting > them within the reach of the multitude, he would have guarded them > with jealous care against all but the most earnest and worthy of > his disciples.[478] While mentioning the gods, on every page, his > monotheism is unquestionable, for the whole thread of his discourse > indicates that by the term _gods_ be means a class of beings far > lower in the scale than deities, and but one grade higher than men. > Even Josephus perceived and acknowledged this fact, despite the > natural prejudice of his race. In his famous onslaught upon Apion, > this historian says:[479] “Those, however, among the Greeks who > philosophized _in accordance with truth_, were not ignorant of anything > ... nor did they fail to perceive the chilling superficialities of the {288} > mythical allegories, on which account they justly despised them.... > By which thing Plato, being moved, says it is not necessary to admit > any one of the other poets into ‘the Commonwealth,’ and _he dismisses > Homer_ blandly, after having crowned him and pouring unguent upon > him, in order that indeed he should not destroy, by _his myths_, the > _orthodox belief respecting one God_.” > > Those who can discern the true spirit of Plato’s philosophy, will > hardly be satisfied with the estimate of the same which Jowett lays > before his readers. He tells us that the influence exercised upon > posterity by the _Timæus_ is partly due to a misunderstanding of the > doctrine of its author by the Neo-platonists. He would have us believe > that the hidden meanings which they found in this _Dialogue_, are > “quite at variance with the spirit of Plato.” This is equivalent to the > assumption that Jowett understands what this spirit really was; whereas > his criticism upon this particular topic rather indicates that he did > not penetrate it at all. If, as he tells us, the Christians seem to > find in his work their trinity, the word, the church, and the creation > of the world, in a Jewish sense, it is because all this _is_ there, and > therefore it is but natural that they should have found it. The outward > building is the same; but the spirit which animated the dead letter > of the philosopher’s teaching has fled, and we would seek for it in > vain through the arid dogmas of Christian theology. The Sphinx is the > same now, as it was four centuries before the Christian era; but the > Œdipus is no more. He is slain because he has given to the world that > which the world was not ripe enough to receive. He was the embodiment > of truth, and he had to die, as every grand truth has to, before, like > the Phœnix of old, it revives from its own ashes. Every translator of > Plato’s works remarked the strange similarity between the philosophy of > the esoterists and the Christian doctrines, and each of them has tried > to interpret it in accordance with his own religious feelings. So Cory, > in his _Ancient Fragments_, tries to prove that it is but an outward > resemblance; and does his best to lower the Pythagorean Monad in the > public estimation and exalt upon its ruins the later anthropomorphic > deity. Taylor, advocating the former, acts as unceremoniously with the > Mosaic God. Zeller boldly laughs at the pretensions of the Fathers > of the Church, who, notwithstanding history and its chronology, and > whether people will have it or not, insist that Plato and his school > have robbed Christianity of its leading features. It is as fortunate > for us as it is unfortunate for the Roman Church that such clever > sleight-of-hand as that resorted to by Eusebius is rather difficult > in our century. It was easier to pervert chronology “for the sake > of making synchronisms,” in the days of the Bishop of Cæsarea, than > it is now, and while history exists, no one can help people knowing > that Plato lived 600 years before Irenæus took it into his head to {289} > establish a _new_ doctrine from the ruins of Plato’s older Academy. > > This doctrine of God being the universal mind diffused through all > things, underlies all ancient philosophies. The Buddhistic tenets > which can never be better comprehended than when studying the > Pythagorean philosophy—its faithful reflection—are derived from this > source as well as the Brahmanical religion and early Christianity. > The purifying process of transmigrations—the metempsychoses—however > grossly anthropomorphized at a later period, must only be regarded as > a supplementary doctrine, disfigured by theological sophistry with > the object of getting a firmer hold upon believers through a popular > superstition. Neither Gautama Buddha nor Pythagoras intended to teach > this purely-metaphysical allegory _literally_. Esoterically, it is > explained in the “Mystery” of the _Kounboum_,[480] and relates to > the purely spiritual peregrinations of the human soul. It is not in > the dead letter of Buddhistical sacred literature that scholars may > hope to find the true solution of its metaphysical subtilties. The > latter weary the power of thought by the inconceivable profundity of > its ratiocination; and the student is never farther from truth than > when he believes himself nearest its discovery. The mastery of every > doctrine of the perplexing Buddhist system can be attained only by > proceeding strictly according to the Pythagorean and Platonic method; > from universals down to particulars. The key to it lies in the refined > and mystical tenets of the spiritual influx of divine life. “Whoever is > unacquainted with my law,” says Buddha, “and dies in that state, must > return to the earth till he becomes a perfect Samanean. To achieve this > object, he must destroy within himself the trinity of _Maya_.[481] He > must extinguish his passions, unite and identify himself with _the law_ > (the teaching of the secret doctrine), and comprehend the religion of > _annihilation_.” > > Here, annihilation refers but to _matter_, that of the visible as > well as of the invisible body; for the astral soul (_perisprit_) is > still matter, however sublimated. The same book says that what Fo > (Buddha) meant to say was, that “the primitive substance is eternal > and unchangeable. Its highest revelation is the pure, luminous ether, > the boundless infinite space, not a void resulting from the absence > of forms, but, on the contrary, _the foundation of all forms_, and > anterior to them. “But the very presence of _forms_ denotes it to be > the creation of _Maya_, and all her works are as nothing before the > _uncreated_ being, SPIRIT, in whose profound and sacred repose all > motion must cease forever.” > > Thus _annihilation_ means, with the Buddhistical philosophy, only a {290} > dispersion of matter, in whatever form or _semblance_ of form it may > be; for everything that bears a shape was created, and thus must sooner > or later perish, _i.e._, change that shape; therefore, as something > temporary, though seeming to be permanent, it is but an illusion, > _Maya_; for, as eternity has neither beginning nor end, the more or > less prolonged duration of some particular form passes, as it were, > like an instantaneous flash of lightning. Before we have the time to > realize that we have seen it, it is gone and passed away for ever; > hence, even our astral bodies, pure ether, are but illusions of matter, > so long as they retain their terrestrial outline. The latter changes, > says the Buddhist, according to the merits or demerits of the person > during his lifetime, and this is metempsychosis. When the spiritual > _entity_ breaks loose for ever from every particle of matter, then > only it enters upon the eternal and unchangeable Nirvana. He exists in > spirit, in _nothing_; as a form, a shape, a semblance, he is completely > _annihilated_, and thus will die no more, for spirit alone is no > _Maya_, but the only REALITY in an illusionary universe of ever-passing > forms. > > It is upon this Buddhist doctrine that the Pythagoreans grounded the > principal tenets of their philosophy. “Can that spirit, which gives > life and motion, and partakes of the nature of light, be reduced to > nonentity?” they ask. “Can that sensitive spirit in brutes which > exercises memory, one of the rational faculties, die, and become > nothing?” And Whitelock Bulstrode, in his able defence of Pythagoras, > expounds this doctrine by adding: “If you say, they (the brutes) > breathe their spirits into the air, and there vanish, that is all > I contend for. The air, indeed, is the proper place to receive > them, being, according to Laertius, full of souls; and, according > to Epicurus, full of atoms, the principles of all things; for even > this place wherein we walk and birds fly has so much of a spiritual > nature, that it is invisible, and, therefore, may well be the receiver > of forms, since the forms of all bodies are so; we can only see and > hear its effects; the air itself is too fine, and above the capacity > of the age. What then is the ether in the region above, and what are > the influences or forms that descend from thence?” The _spirits_ of > creatures, the Pythagoreans hold, who are emanations of the most > sublimated portions of ether, emanations, BREATHS, _but not forms_. > Ether is incorruptible, all philosophers agree in that; and what is > incorruptible _is so far from being annihilated_ when it gets rid of > the _form_, that it lays a good claim to IMMORTALITY. “But what is that > which has no body, no _form_; which is imponderable, invisible and > indivisible; that which exists and yet _is not_?” ask the Buddhists. > “It is Nirvana,” is the answer. It is NOTHING, not a region, but rather {291} > a state. When once Nirvana is reached, man is exempt from the effects > of the “four truths;” for an effect can only be produced through a > certain cause, and every cause is _annihilated_ in this state. > > These “four truths” are the foundation of the whole Buddhist doctrine > of Nirvana. They are, says the book of _Pradjuâ Pâramitâ_,[482] 1. > The existence of pain. 2. The production of pain. 3. The annihilation > of pain. 4. The way to the annihilation of pain. What is the source > of pain?—Existence. Birth existing, decrepitude and death ensue; for > wherever there is a form, there is a _cause_ for pain and suffering. > _Spirit_ alone has no form, and therefore _cannot be said to exist_. > Whenever man (the ethereal, inner man) reaches that point when he > becomes utterly spiritual, hence, formless, he has reached a state of > perfect bliss. MAN as an objective being becomes annihilated, but the > spiritual entity with its subjective life, will live for ever, for > spirit is incorruptible and immortal. > > It is by the spirit of the teachings of both Buddha and Pythagoras, > that we can so easily recognize the identity of their doctrines. > The all-pervading, universal soul, the _Anima Mundi_, is Nirvana; > and Buddha, as a generic name, is the anthropomorphized _monad_ of > Pythagoras. When resting in Nirvana, the final bliss, Buddha is the > silent monad, dwelling in darkness and silence; he is also the formless > Brahm, the sublime but _unknowable_ Deity, which pervades invisibly the > whole universe. Whenever it is manifested, desiring to impress itself > upon humanity in a shape intelligent to our intellect, whether we call > it an _avatar_, or a King Messiah, or a _permutation_ of Divine Spirit, > _Logos_, Christos, it is all one and the same thing. In each case it > is “the Father,” who is in the _Son_, and the Son in “the Father.” The > immortal spirit overshadows the mortal man. It enters into him, and > pervading his whole being, makes of him a god, who descends into his > earthly tabernacle. Every man may become a Buddha, says the doctrine. > And so throughout the interminable series of ages we find now and then > men who more or less succeed in _uniting_ themselves “with God,” as the > expression goes, with their _own spirit_, as we ought to translate. The > Buddhists call such men _Arhat_. An Arhat is next to a Buddha, and none > is equal to him either in _infused_ science, or _miraculous_ powers. > Certain fakirs demonstrate the theory well in practice, as Jacolliot > has proved. > > Even the so-called _fabulous_ narratives of certain Buddhistical > books, when stripped of their allegorical meaning, are found to be the > secret doctrines taught by Pythagoras. In the Pali Books called the > _Jutakâs_, are given the 550 incarnations or metempsychoses of Buddha. {292} > They narrate how he has appeared in every form of animal life, and > animated every sentient being on earth, from infinitesimal insect to > the bird, the beast, and finally man, the microcosmic image of God on > earth. Must this be taken _literally_; is it intended as a description > of the _actual_ transformations and existence of one and the same > individual immortal, divine spirit, which by turns has animated every > kind of sentient being? Ought we not rather to understand, with > Buddhist metaphysicians, that though the individual human spirits are > numberless, collectively they are one, as every drop of water drawn out > of the ocean, metaphorically speaking, may have an individual existence > and still be one with the rest of the drops going to form that ocean; > for each human spirit is a scintilla of the one all-pervading light? > That this divine spirit animates the flower, the particle of granite on > the mountain side, the lion, the man? Egyptian Hierophants, like the > Brahmans, and the Buddhists of the East, and some Greek philosophers, > maintained originally that the same spirit that animates the particle > of dust, lurking latent in it, animates man, manifesting itself in him > in its highest state of activity. The doctrine, also, of a gradual > refusion of the human _soul_ into the essence of the primeval parent > spirit, was universal at one time. But this doctrine never implied > annihilation of the higher spiritual _ego_—only the dispersion of the > _external forms_ of man, after his terrestrial death, as well as during > his abode on earth. Who is better fitted to impart to us the mysteries > of after-death, so erroneously thought impenetrable, than those men > who having, through self-discipline and purity of life and purpose, > succeeded in uniting themselves with their “God,” were afforded _some_ > glimpses, however imperfect, of the great truth.[483] And these seers > tell us strange stories about the _variety_ of forms assumed by > disembodied astral souls; forms of which each one is a spiritual though > concrete reflection of the abstract state of the mind, and thoughts of > the once living man. > > To accuse Buddhistical philosophy of rejecting a Supreme Being—God, > and the soul’s immortality, of atheism, in short, on the ground that > according to their doctrines, Nirvana means _annihilation_, and > _Svabhâvât is_ NOT _a person, but nothing_, is simply absurd. The En > (or Ayîn) of the Jewish En-Soph, also means _nihil_ or _nothing_, that > which is not (_quo ad nos_); but no one has ever ventured to twit the > Jews with atheism. In both cases the real meaning of the term _nothing_ > carries with it the idea that God is _not a thing_, not a concrete or > visible Being to which a name expressive of _any_ object known to us on > earth may be applied with propriety. > > CHAPTER IX. {293} > > “Thou can’st not call that madness of which thou art proved to > know nothing.”—TERTULLIAN: _Apology_ > > “This is not a matter of to-day, > Or yesterday, but hath been from all times; > And none hath told us whence it came or how!”—SOPHOCLES. > > “Belief in the supernatural is a fact natural, primitive, > universal, and constant in the life and history of the human > race. Unbelief in the supernatural begets materialism; > materialism, sensuality; sensuality, social convulsions, amid > whose storms man again learns to believe and pray.”—GUIZOT. > > “If any one think these things incredible, let him keep his > opinions to himself, and not contradict those who, by such > events, are incited to the study of virtue.”—JOSEPHUS. > > From the Platonic and Pythagorean views of matter and force, we > will now turn to the kabalistic philosophy of the origin of man, > and compare it with the theory of natural selection enunciated by > Darwin and Wallace. It may be that we shall find as much reason to > credit the ancients with originality in this direction as in that > which we have been considering. To our mind, no stronger proof of the > theory of cyclical progression need be required than the comparative > enlightenment of former ages and that of the Patristic Church, as > regards the form of the earth, and the movements of the planetary > system. Even were other evidence wanting, the ignorance of Augustine > and Lactantius, misleading the whole of Christendom upon these > questions until the period of Galileo, would mark the eclipses through > which human knowledge passes from age to age. > > The “coats of skin,” mentioned in the third chapter of _Genesis_ as > given to Adam and Eve, are explained by certain ancient philosophers > to mean the fleshy bodies with which, in the progress of the cycles, > the progenitors of the race became clothed. They maintained that the > godlike physical form became grosser and grosser, until the bottom of > what may be termed the last spiritual cycle was reached, and mankind > entered upon the ascending arc of the first human cycle. Then began > an uninterrupted series of cycles or _yogas_; the precise number of > years of which each of them consisted remaining an inviolable mystery > within the precincts of the sanctuaries and disclosed only to the > initiates. As soon as humanity entered upon a new one, the stone age, > with which the preceding cycle had closed, began to gradually merge > into the following and next higher age. With each successive age, or {294} > epoch, men grew more refined, until the acme of perfection possible in > that particular cycle had been reached. Then the receding wave of time > carried back with it the vestiges of human, social, and intellectual > progress. Cycle succeeded cycle, by imperceptible transitions; > highly-civilized flourishing nations, waxed in power, attained the > climax of development, waned, and became extinct; and mankind, when the > end of the lower cyclic arc was reached, was replunged into barbarism > as at the start. Kingdoms have crumbled and nation succeeded nation > from the beginning until our day, the races alternately mounting to > the highest and descending to the lowest points of development. Draper > observes that there is no reason to suppose that any one cycle applied > to the whole human race. On the contrary, while man in one portion of > the planet was in a condition of retrogression, in another he might be > progressing in enlightenment and civilization. > > How analogous this theory is to the law of planetary motion, which > causes the individual orbs to rotate on their axes; the several systems > to move around their respective suns; and the whole stellar host to > follow a common path around a common centre! Life and death, light and > darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and > traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater > cycles.[484] Remember the Hermetic axiom:—“As above, so below; as in > heaven, so on earth.” > > Mr. Alfred R. Wallace argues with sound logic, that the development > of man has been more marked in his mental organization than in his > external form. Man, he conceives to differ from the animal, by > being able to undergo great changes of conditions and of his entire > environment, without very marked alterations in bodily form and > structure. The changes of climate he meets with a corresponding > alteration in his clothing, shelter, weapons, and implements of > husbandry. His body may become less hairy, more erect, and of a > different color and proportions; “the head and face is immediately > connected with the organ of the mind, and as being the medium, > expressing the most refined motions of his nature,” alone change with > the development of his intellect. There was a time when “he had not yet > acquired that wonderfully-developed brain, the organ of the mind, which > now, even in his lowest examples, raises him far above the highest > brutes, at a period when he had the form, but hardly the nature of > man, when he neither possessed human speech nor sympathetic and moral > feelings.” Further, Mr. Wallace says that “Man may have been—indeed, {295} > I believe _must have been_, once a homogeneous race ... in man, the > hairy covering of the body has almost entirely disappeared.“ Of the > cave men of Les Eyzies, Mr. Wallace remarks further ” ... the great > breadth of the face, the enormous development of the ascending ramus of > the lower jaw ... indicate enormous muscular power and the habits of a > savage and brutal race.” > > Such are the glimpses which anthropology affords us of men, either > arrived at the bottom of a cycle or starting in a new one. Let > us see how far they are corroborated by clairvoyant psychometry. > Professor Denton submitted a fragment of fossilized bone to his wife’s > examination, without giving Mrs. Denton any hint as to what the > article was. It immediately called up to her pictures of people and > scenes which he thinks belonged to the stone age. She saw men closely > resembling monkeys, with a body very hairy, and “as if the natural > hair answered the purpose of clothing.” “I question whether he can > stand perfectly upright; his hip-joints appear to be so formed, he > cannot,” she added. “Occasionally I see part of the body of one of > those beings that looks comparatively smooth. I can see the skin, which > is lighter colored ... I do not know whether he belongs to the same > period.... At a distance the face seems flat; the lower part of it > is heavy; they have what I suppose would be called prognathous jaws. > The frontal region of the head is low, and the lower portion of it is > very prominent, forming a round ridge across the forehead, immediately > above the eyebrows.... Now I see a face that looks like that of a human > being, though there is a monkey-like appearance about it. All these > seem of that kind, having long arms and hairy bodies.”[485] > > Whether or not the men of science are willing to concede the > correctness of the Hermetic theory of the physical evolution of man > from higher and more spiritual natures, they themselves show us how > the race has progressed from the lowest observed point to its present > development. And, as all nature seems to be made up of analogies, is > it unreasonable to affirm that the same progressive development of > individual forms has prevailed among the inhabitants of the _unseen_ > universe? If such marvellous effects have been caused by evolution upon > our little insignificant planet, producing reasoning and intuitive men > from some higher type of the ape family, why suppose that the boundless > realms of space are inhabited only by disembodied _angelic_ forms? > Why not give place in that vast domain to the spiritual duplicates > of these hairy, long-armed and half-reasoning ancestors, their > predecessors, and all their successors, down to our time? Of course, > the spiritual parts of such primeval members of the human family would {296} > be as uncouth and undeveloped as were their physical bodies. While > they made no attempt to calculate the duration of the “grand cycle,” > the Hermetic philosophers yet maintained that, according to the cyclic > law, the living human race must inevitably and collectively return > one day to that point of departure, where man was first clothed with > “coats of skin;” or, to express it more clearly, the human race must, > in accordance with the law of evolution, be finally _physically_ > spiritualized. Unless Messrs. Darwin and Huxley are prepared to prove > that the man of our century has attained, as a physical and moral > animal, the acme of perfection, and evolution, having reached its apex, > must stop all further progress with the modern genus, _Homo_, we do not > see how they can possibly confute such a logical deduction. > > In his lecture on _The Action of Natural Selection on Man_, Mr. > Alfred R. Wallace concludes his demonstrations as to the development > of human races under that law of selection by saying that, if his > conclusions are just, “it must inevitably follow that the higher—the > more intellectual and moral—must displace the lower and more degraded > races; and the power of ‘natural selection,’ still acting on his mental > organization, must ever lead to the more perfect adaptation of man’s > higher faculties to the condition of surrounding nature, and to the > exigencies of the social state. While his external form will probably > ever remain unchanged, except in the development of that perfect beauty > ... refined and ennobled by the highest intellectual faculties and > sympathetic emotions, his mental constitution may continue to advance > and improve, till the world is again inhabited by a single, nearly > homogeneous race, no individual of which will be inferior _to the > noblest specimens of existing humanity_.” Sober, scientific methods and > cautiousness in hypothetical possibilities have evidently their share > in this expression of the opinions of the great anthropologist. Still, > what he says above clashes in no way with our kabalistic assertions. > Allow to ever-progressing nature, to the great law of the “survival of > the fittest,” one step beyond Mr. Wallace’s deductions, and we have in > future the possibility—nay, the assurance of a race, which, like the > Vril-ya of Bulwer-Lytton’s _Coming Race_, will be but one remove from > the primitive “Sons of God.” > > It will be observed that this philosophy of cycles, which was > allegorized by the Egyptian Hierophants in the “circle of necessity,” > explains at the same time the allegory of the “Fall of man.” According > to the Arabian descriptions, each of the seven chambers of the > Pyramids—those grandest of all cosmic symbols—was known by the name of > a planet. The peculiar architecture of the Pyramids shows in itself > the drift of the metaphysical thought of their builders. The apex is > lost in the clear blue sky of the land of the Pharaohs, and typifies {297} > the primordial point lost in the unseen universe from whence started > the first race of the spiritual prototypes of man. Each mummy, from > the moment that it was embalmed, lost its physical individuality > in one sense; it symbolized the human race. Placed in such a way > as was best calculated to aid the exit of the “soul,” the latter > had to pass through the seven planetary chambers before it made its > exit through the symbolical apex. Each chamber typified, at the same > time, one of the seven spheres, and one of the seven higher types of > physico-spiritual humanity alleged to be above our own. Every 3,000 > years, the soul, representative of its race, had to return to its > primal point of departure before it underwent another evolution into a > more perfected spiritual and physical transformation. We must go deep > indeed into the abstruse metaphysics of Oriental mysticism before we > can realize fully the infinitude of the subjects that were embraced at > one sweep by the majestic thought of its exponents. > > Starting as a pure and perfect spiritual being, the Adam of the second > chapter of _Genesis_, not satisfied with the position allotted to him > by the Demiurgus (who is the eldest first-begotten, the Adam-Kadmon), > Adam the second, the “man of dust,” strives in his pride to become > Creator in his turn. Evolved out of the androgynous Kadmon, this > Adam is himself an androgyn; for, according to the oldest beliefs > presented allegorically in Plato’s _Timæus_, the prototypes of our > races were all enclosed in the microcosmic tree which grew and > developed within and under the great mundane or macrocosmic tree. > Divine spirit being considered a unity, however numerous the rays of > the great spiritual sun, man has still had his origin like all other > forms, whether organic or otherwise, in this one Fount of Eternal > Light. Were we even to reject the hypothesis of an androgynous man, in > connection with physical evolution, the significance of the allegory > in its spiritual sense, would remain unimpaired. So long as the first > god-man, symbolizing the two first principles of creation, the dual > male and female element, had no thought of good and evil he could > not hypostasize “woman,” for she was in him as he was in her. It was > only when, as a result of the evil hints of the serpent, _matter_, > the latter condensed itself and cooled on the spiritual man in its > contact with the elements, that the fruits of the man-tree—who is > himself that tree of knowledge—appeared to his view. From this moment > the androgynal union ceased, man evolved out of himself the woman as a > separate entity. They have broken the thread between pure spirit and > pure matter. Henceforth they will create no more _spiritually_, and > by the sole power of their will; man has become a physical creator, > and the kingdom of spirit can be won only by a long imprisonment in > matter. The meaning of Gogard, the Hellenic tree of life, the sacred {298} > oak among whose luxuriant branches a serpent dwells, and _cannot_ be > dislodged,[486] thus becomes apparent. Creeping out from the primordial > _ilus_, the mundane snake grows more material and waxes in strength and > power with every new evolution. > > The Adam Primus, or Kadmon, the Logos of the Jewish mystics, is the > same as the Grecian Prometheus, who seeks to rival with the divine > wisdom; he is also the Pimander of Hermes, or the POWER OF THE THOUGHT > DIVINE, in its most spiritual aspect, for he was less hypostasized by > the Egyptians than the two former. These all create men, but fail in > their final object. Desiring to endow man with an immortal spirit, in > order that by linking the trinity in one, he might gradually return to > his primal spiritual state without losing his individuality, Prometheus > fails in his attempt to steal the _divine_ fire, and is sentenced to > expiate his crime on Mount Kazbeck. Prometheus is also the _Logos_ of > the ancient Greeks, as well as Herakles. In the _Codex Nazaræus_[487] > we see Bahak-Zivo deserting the heaven of his father, confessing that > though he is the father of the genii, he is unable to “construct > creatures,” for he is equally unacquainted with Orcus as with “the > consuming fire which is wanting in light.” And Fetahil, one of the > “powers,” sits in the “mud” (matter) and wonders why the living fire is > so changed. > > All of these _Logoi_ strove to endow man with the immortal spirit, > failed, and nearly all are represented as being punished for the > attempt by severe sentences. Those of the early Christian Fathers > who like Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, were well versed in Pagan > symbology, having begun their careers as philosophers, felt very much > embarrassed. They could not deny the anticipation of their doctrines in > the oldest myths. The latest _Logos_, according to their teachings, had > also appeared in order to show mankind the way to immortality; and in > his desire to endow the world with eternal life through the Pentecostal > fire, had lost his life agreeably to the traditional programme. Thus > was originated the very awkward explanation of which our modern clergy > freely avail themselves, that all these mythic types show the prophetic > spirit which, through the Lord’s mercy, was afforded even to the > heathen idolaters! The Pagans, they assert, had presented in their > imagery the great drama of Calvary—hence the resemblance. On the other > hand, the philosophers maintained, with unassailable logic, that the > pious fathers had simply helped themselves to a ready-made groundwork, > either finding it easier than to exert their own imagination, or > because of the greater number of ignorant proselytes who were attracted {299} > to the new doctrine by such an extraordinary resemblance with > their mythologies, at least as far as the outward form of the most > fundamental doctrines goes. > > The allegory of the Fall of man and the fire of Prometheus is also > another version of the myth of the rebellion of the proud Lucifer, > hurled down to the bottomless pit—Orcus. In the religion of the > Brahmans, Moisasure, the Hindu Lucifer, becomes envious of the > Creator’s resplendent light, and at the head of a legion of inferior > spirits rebels against Brahma, and declares war against him. Like > Hercules, the faithful Titan, who helps Jupiter and restores to him his > throne, Siva, the third person of the Hindu trinity, hurls them all > from the celestial abode in Honderah, the region of eternal darkness. > But here the fallen angels are made to repent of their evil deed, > and in the Hindu doctrine they are all afforded the opportunity to > progress. In the Greek fiction, Hercules, the Sun-god, descends to > Hades to deliver the victims from their tortures; and the Christian > Church also makes her incarnate god descend to the dreary Plutonic > regions and overcome the rebellious ex-archangel. In their turn the > kabalists explain the allegory in a semi-scientific way. Adam the > second, or the first-created race which Plato calls gods, and the Bible > the Elohim, was not triple in his nature like the earthly man: _i.e._, > he was not composed of soul, spirit, and body, but was a compound of > sublimated astral elements into which the “Father” had breathed an > immortal, divine spirit. The latter, by reason of its godlike essence, > was ever struggling to liberate itself from the bonds of even that > flimsy prison; hence the “sons of God,” in their imprudent efforts, > were the first to trace a future model for the cyclic law. But, man > must not be “like one of us,” says the Creative Deity, one of the > Elohim “intrusted with the fabrication of the lower animal.”[488] And > thus it was, when the men of the first race had reached the summit of > the first cycle, they lost their balance, and their second envelope, > the grosser clothing (astral body), dragged them down the opposite arc. > > This kabalistic version of the sons of God (or of light) is given in > the _Codex Nazaræus_. Bahak-Zivo, the “father of genii, is ordered to > ‘construct creatures.’” But, as he is “ignorant of Orcus,” he fails to > do so and calls in Fetahil a still purer spirit to his aid, who fails > still worse. > > Then steps on the stage of creation the “spirit”[489] (which properly > ought to be translated “soul,” for it is the _anima mundi_, and which {300} > with the Nazarenes and the Gnostics was _feminine_), and perceiving > that for Fetahil,[490] the _newest man_ (the latest), the splendor > was “changed,” and that for splendor existed “decrease and damage,” > awakes Karabtanos,[491] “who was frantic and _without sense and > judgment_,” and says to him: “Arise; see, the splendor (light) of the > _newest_ man (Fetahil) has failed (to produce or create men), the > decrease of this splendor is visible. Rise up, come with thy MOTHER > (the _spiritus_) and free thee from limits by which thou art held, > and those more ample than the whole world.” After which follows the > union of the frantic and blind matter, guided by the insinuations of > the spirit (not the _Divine_ breath, but the _Astral_ spirit, which > by its double essence is already tainted with matter) and the offer > of the MOTHER being accepted the Spiritus conceives “Seven Figures,” > which Irenæus is disposed to take for the seven _stellars_ (planets) > but which represent the seven _capital sins_, the progeny of an astral > soul separated from its divine source (spirit) and _matter_, the blind > demon of concupiscence. Seeing this, Fetahil extends his hand toward > the abyss of matter, and says: ‘Let the earth exist, just as the abode > of the powers has existed.’” Dipping his hand in the chaos, which he > condenses, he creates our planet.[492] > > Then the _Codex_ proceeds to tell how Bahak-Zivo was separated from > the Spiritus, and the genii, or angels, from the rebels.[493] Then > Mano[494] (the greatest), who dwells with the _greatest_ FERHO, calls > Kebar-Zivo (known also by the name of Nebat-Iavar bar Iufin-Ifafin), > Helm and _Vine_ of the food of life,[495] he being the _third life_, > and, commiserating the rebellious and foolish genii, on account of the > magnitude of their ambition, says: “Lord of the genii[496] (Æons), > see what the genii, the rebellious angels do, and about what they are > consulting.[497] They say, “Let us call forth the world, and let us > call the ‘powers’ into existence. The genii are the _Principes_, the > ‘sons of Light,’ but thou art the ‘_Messenger of Life_.’”[498] > > And in order to counteract the influence of the seven “badly disposed” {301} > principles, the progeny of _Spiritus_, CABAR ZIO, the mighty Lord > of Splendor, procreates _seven other lives_ (the cardinal virtues) > who shine in their own form and light “from on high”[499] and thus > reëstablishes the balance between good and evil, light and darkness. > > But this creation of beings, without the requisite influx of divine > pure breath in them, which was known among the kabalists as the “Living > Fire,” produced but creatures of matter and astral light.[500] Thus > were generated the animals which preceded man on this earth. The > spiritual beings, the “sons of light,” those who remained faithful to > the great _Ferho_ (the First Cause of all), constitute the celestial or > angelic hierarchy, the Adonim, and the legions of the _never-embodied_ > spiritual men. The followers of the rebellious and foolish genii, and > the descendants of the “witless” seven spirits begotten by “Karabtanos” > and the “spiritus,” became, in course of time, the “men of our > planet,”[501] after having previously passed through every “creation” > of every one of the elements. From this stage of life they have been > traced by Darwin, who shows us how our _highest_ forms have been > evolved out of the _lowest_. Anthropology dares not follow the kabalist > in his metaphysical flights _beyond_ this planet, and it is doubtful if > its teachers have the courage to search for the _missing link_ in the > old kabalistic manuscripts. > > Thus was set in motion the _first cycle_, which in its rotations > _downward_, brought an infinitesimal part of the created _lives_ to our > planet of _mud_. Arrived at the lowest point of the arc of the cycle > which directly preceded life on this earth, the pure divine spark still > lingering in the Adam made an effort to separate itself from the astral > spirit, for “man was falling gradually into generation,” and the fleshy > coat was becoming with every action more and more dense. > > And now comes a mystery, a _Sod_;[502] a secret which Rabbi {302} > Simeon[503] imparted but to very few initiates. It was enacted once > every seven years during the Mysteries of Samothrace, and the records > of it are found self-printed on the leaves of the Thibetan sacred tree, > the mysterious KOUNBOUM, in the Lamasery of the holy adepts.[504] > > In the shoreless ocean of space radiates the central, spiritual, > and _Invisible_ sun. The universe is his body, spirit and soul; and > after this ideal model are framed ALL THINGS. These three emanations > are the three lives, the three degrees of the gnostic _Pleroma_, > the three “Kabalistic Faces,” for the ANCIENT of the ancient, the > holy of the aged, the great En-Soph, “has a form and then he has no > form.” The invisible “assumed a form when he called the universe into > existence,”[505] says the _Sohar_, the Book of splendor. The _first_ > light is His soul, the Infinite, Boundless, and Immortal breath; under > the efflux of which the universe heaves its mighty bosom, infusing > _Intelligent_ life throughout creation. The _second_ emanation > condenses cometary matter and produces forms within the cosmic circle; > sets the countless worlds floating in the electric space, and infuses > the _unintelligent_, blind life-principle into every form. The third, > produces the whole universe of physical matter; and as it keeps > gradually receding from the Central Divine Light its brightness wanes > and it becomes DARKNESS and the BAD—pure matter, the “gross purgations > of the celestial fire” of the Hermetists. > > When the Central Invisible (the Lord Ferho) saw the efforts of the > divine _Scintilla_, unwilling to be dragged lower down into the > degradation of matter, to liberate itself, he permitted it to shoot > out from itself a _monad_, over which, attached to it as by the finest > thread, the Divine Scintilla (the soul) had to watch during its > ceaseless peregrinations from one form to another. Thus the monad was > shot down into the first form of matter and became encased in stone; > then, in course of time, through the combined efforts of _living fire_ > and _living water_, both of which shone their _reflection_ upon the > stone, the monad crept out of its prison to sunlight as a lichen. From > change to change it went higher and higher; the monad, with every > new transformation borrowing more of the radiance of its parent, > _Scintilla_, which approached it nearer at every transmigration. > For “the First Cause, had willed it to proceed in this order;” and > destined it to creep on higher until its physical form became once more > the Adam _of dust_, shaped in the image of the Adam Kadmon. Before > undergoing its last earthly transformation, the external covering of > the monad, from the moment of its conception as an embryo, passes in > turn, once more, through the phases of the several kingdoms. In its {303} > fluidic prison it assumes a vague resemblance at various periods of the > gestation to plant, reptile, bird, and animal, until it becomes a human > embryo.[506] At the birth of the future man, the monad, radiating with > all the glory of its immortal parent which watches it from the seventh > sphere, becomes _senseless_.[507] It loses all recollection of the > past, and returns to consciousness but gradually, when the instinct of > childhood gives way to reason and intelligence. After the separation > between the life-principle (astral spirit) and the body takes place, > the liberated soul—Monad, exultingly rejoins the mother and father > spirit, the radiant Augoeides, and the two, merged into one, forever > form, with a glory proportioned to the spiritual purity of the past > earth-life, the Adam who has completed the circle of necessity, and is > freed from the last vestige of his physical encasement. Henceforth, > growing more and more radiant at each step of his upward progress, he > mounts the shining path that ends at the point from which he started > around the GRAND CYCLE. > > The whole Darwinian theory of natural selection is included in the > first six chapters of the book of _Genesis_. The “Man” of chapter i. > is radically different from the “Adam” of chapter ii., for the former > was created “male and female” that is, bi-sexed—and in the image of God; > while the latter, according to verse seven, was formed of the dust of > the ground, and became “a living soul,” after the Lord God “breathed > into his nostrils the breath of life.” Moreover, _this Adam_ was a > male being, and in verse twenty we are told that “there was not found > a helpmeet for him.” The Adonai, being pure spiritual entities, had no > sex, or rather had both sexes united in themselves, like their Creator; > and the ancients understood this so well that they represented many of > their deities as of dual sex. The Biblical student must either accept > this interpretation, or make the passages in the two chapters alluded > to absurdly contradict each other. It was such literal acceptance of > passages that warranted the atheists in covering the Mosaic account > with ridicule, and it is the dead letter of the old text that begets > the materialism of our age. Not only are these two races of beings thus > clearly indicated in _Genesis_, but even a third and a fourth one are > ushered before the reader in chapter iv., where the “sons of God” and > the race of “giants” are spoken of. > > As we write, there appears in an American paper, _The Kansas City > Times_, an account of important discoveries of the remains of a > prehistorical _race of giants_, which corroborates the statements of > the kabalists and the Bible allegories at the same time. It is worth > preserving: > > “In his researches among the forests of Western Missouri, Judge E. {304} > P. West has discovered a number of conical-shaped mounds, similar > in construction to those found in Ohio and Kentucky. These mounds > are found upon the high bluffs overlooking the Missouri River, the > largest and more prominent being found in Tennessee, Mississippi, and > Louisiana. Until about three weeks ago it was not suspected that the > mound builders had made this region their home in the prehistoric > days; but now it is discovered that this strange and extinct race once > occupied this land, and have left an extensive graveyard in a number of > high mounds upon the Clay County bluffs. > > “As yet, only one of these mounds has been opened. Judge West > discovered a skeleton about two weeks ago, and made a report to other > members of the society. They accompanied him to the mound, and not far > from the surface excavated and took out the remains of two skeletons. > The bones are very large—so large, in fact, when compared with an > ordinary skeleton of modern date, they appear to have formed part of > a giant. The head bones, such as have not rotted away, are monstrous > in size. The lower jaw of one skeleton is in a state of preservation, > and is double the size of the jaw of a civilized person. The teeth in > this jaw-bone are large, and appear to have been ground down and worn > away by contact with roots and carnivorous food. The jaw-bone indicates > immense muscular strength. The thigh-bone, when compared with that of > an ordinary modern skeleton, looks like that of a horse. The length, > thickness, and muscular development are remarkable. But the most > peculiar part about the skeleton is the frontal bone. It is very low, > and differs radically from any ever seen in this section before. It > forms one thick ridge of bone about one inch wide, extending across the > eyes. It is a narrow but rather heavy ridge of bone which, instead of > extending upward, as it does now in these days of civilization, receded > back from the eyebrows, forming a flat head, and thus indicates a very > low order of mankind. It is the opinion of the scientific gentlemen > who are making these discoveries that these bones are the remains of > a prehistoric race of men. They do not resemble the present existing > race of Indians, nor are the mounds constructed upon any pattern or > model known to have been in use by any race of men now in existence in > America. The bodies are discovered in a sitting posture in the mounds, > and among the bones are found stone weapons, such as flint knives, > flint scrapers, and all of them different in shape to the arrow-heads, > war-hatchets, and other stone tools and weapons known to have been > in use by the aboriginal Indians of this land when discovered by the > whites. The gentlemen who have these curious bones in charge have > deposited them with Dr. Foe, on Main street. It is their intention > to make further and closer researches in the mounds on the bluffs {305} > opposite this city. They will make a report of their labors at the next > meeting of the Academy of Science, by which time they expect to be > able to make some definite report as to their opinions. It is pretty > definitely settled, however, that the skeletons are those of a race of > men not now in existence.” > > The author of a recent and very elaborate work[508] finds some cause > for merriment over the union of the sons of God with the “daughters of > men,” who _were fair_, as alluded to in _Genesis_, and described at > great length in that wonderful legend, the _Book of Enoch_. More is > the pity, that our most learned and liberal men do not employ their > close and merciless logic to repair its one-sidedness by seeking > the true spirit which dictated these allegories of old. This spirit > was certainly more _scientific_ than skeptics are yet prepared to > admit. But with every year some new discovery may corroborate their > assertions, until the whole of antiquity is vindicated. > > One thing, at least, has been shown in the Hebrew text, viz.: that > there was one race of purely physical creatures, another purely > spiritual. The evolution and “transformation of species” required to > fill the gap between the two has been left to abler anthropologists. > We can only repeat the philosophy of men of old, which says that the > union of these two races produced a third—the Adamite race. Sharing > the natures of both its parents, it is equally adapted to an existence > in the material and spiritual worlds. Allied to the physical half of > man’s nature is reason, which enables him to maintain his supremacy > over the lower animals, and to subjugate nature to his uses. Allied > to his spiritual part is his _conscience_, which will serve as his > unerring guide through the besetments of the senses; for conscience is > that instantaneous perception between right and wrong, which can only > be exercised by the spirit, which, being a portion of the Divine Wisdom > and Purity, is absolutely pure and wise. Its promptings are independent > of reason, and it can only manifest itself clearly, when unhampered by > the baser attractions of our dual nature. > > Reason being a faculty of our physical brain, one which is justly > defined as that of deducing inferences from premises, and being > wholly dependent on the evidence of other senses, cannot be a quality > pertaining directly to our divine spirit. The latter _knows_—hence, > all reasoning which implies discussion and argument would be useless. > So an entity, which, if it must be considered as a direct emanation > from the eternal Spirit of wisdom, has to be viewed as possessed of {306} > the same attributes as the essence or the whole of which it is a > part. Therefore, it is with a certain degree of logic that the ancient > theurgists maintained that the _rational_ part of man’s soul (spirit) > never entered wholly into the man’s body, but only overshadowed him > more or less through the _irrational_ or astral soul, which serves > as an intermediatory agent, or a medium between spirit and body. The > man who has conquered matter sufficiently to relieve the direct light > from his shining _Augoeides_, feels truth intuitionally; he could not > err in his judgment, notwithstanding all the sophisms suggested by > cold reason, for he is ILLUMINATED. Hence, prophecy, vaticination, > and the so-called Divine inspiration are simply the effects of this > illumination from above by our own immortal spirit. > > Swedenborg, following the mystical doctrines of the Hermetic > philosophers, devoted a number of volumes to the elucidation of > the “internal sense” of _Genesis_. Swedenborg was undoubtedly a > “natural-born magician,” a seer; he was _not_ an _adept_. Thus, however > closely he may have followed the apparent method of interpretation > used by the alchemists and mystic writers, he partially failed; the > more so, that the model chosen by him in this method was one who, > albeit a great alchemist, was no more of an adept than the Swedish > seer himself, in the fullest sense of the word. Eugenius Philalethes > had never attained “the highest pyrotechny,” to use the diction of the > mystic philosophers. But, although both have missed the whole truth in > its details, Swedenborg has virtually given the same interpretation > of the first chapter of _Genesis_ as the Hermetic philosophers. > The seer, as well as the initiates, notwithstanding their veiled > phraseology, clearly show that the first chapters of _Genesis_ relate > to the _regeneration_, or a new birth of man, not to the creation of > our universe and its crown work—MAN. The fact that the terms of the > alchemists, such as _salt_, _sulphur_, and _mercury_ are transformed by > Swedenborg into _ens_, _cause_, and _effect_,[509] does not affect the > underlying idea of solving the problems of the Mosaic books by the only > possible method—that used by the Hermetists—that of correspondences. > > His doctrine of correspondence, or Hermetic symbolism, is that > of Pythagoras and of the kabalists—“as above, so below.” It is > also that of the Buddhist philosophers, who, in their still more > abstract metaphysics, inverting the usual mode of definition > given by our _erudite_ scholars, call the invisible types the > only reality, and everything else the effects of the causes, or > visible prototypes—_illusions_. However contradictory their various > elucidations of the _Pentateuch_ may appear _on their surface_, every > one of them tends to show that the sacred literature of every country, > the _Bible_ as much as the _Vedas_ or the Buddhist _Scriptures_, can {307} > only be understood and thoroughly sifted by the light of Hermetic > philosophy. The great sages of antiquity, those of the mediæval ages, > and the mystical writers of our more modern times also, were all > _Hermetists_. Whether the light of truth had illuminated them through > their faculty of intuition, or as a consequence of study and regular > initiation, virtually, they had accepted the method and followed the > path traced to them by such men as Moses, Gautama-Buddha, and Jesus. > The truth, symbolized by some alchemists as _dew from heaven_, had > descended into their hearts, and they had all gathered it upon the > _tops of mountains_, after having spread CLEAN _linen cloths_ to > receive it; and thus, in one sense, they had secured, each for himself, > and in his own way, the _universal solvent_. How much they were allowed > to share it with the public is another question. That veil, which is > alleged to have covered the face of Moses, when, after descending from > Sinai, he taught his people the Word of God, cannot be withdrawn at > the will of the teacher only. It depends on the listeners, whether > they will also remove the veil which is “upon their hearts.” Paul says > it plainly; and his words addressed to the Corinthians can be applied > to every man or woman, and of any age in the history of the world. If > “their minds are blinded” by the shining skin of divine truth, whether > the Hermetic veil be withdrawn or not from the face of the teacher, it > cannot be taken away from their heart unless “it _shall turn to the > Lord_.” But the latter appellation must not be applied to either of the > three anthropomorphized personages of the Trinity, but to the “Lord,” > as understood by Swedenborg and the Hermetic philosophers—the Lord, who > is Life and MAN. > > The everlasting conflict between the world-religions—Christianity, > Judaism, Brahmanism, Paganism, Buddhism, proceeds from this one source: > Truth is known but to the few; the rest, unwilling to withdraw the > veil from their own hearts, imagine it blinding the eyes of their > neighbor. The god of every exoteric religion, including Christianity, > notwithstanding its pretensions to mystery, is an idol, a fiction, > and cannot be anything else. Moses, _closely-veiled_, speaks to > the stiff-necked multitudes of Jehovah, the cruel, anthropomorphic > deity, as of the highest God, burying deep in the bottom of his > heart that truth which cannot be “either spoken of or revealed.” > Kapila cuts with the sharp sword of his sarcasms the Brahman-Yoggins, > who in their mystical visions pretend to see the HIGHEST _one_. > Gautama-Buddha conceals, under an impenetrable cloak of metaphysical > subtilties, the verity, and is regarded by posterity as _an atheist_. > Pythagoras, with his allegorical mysticism and metempsychosis, is > held for a clever impostor, and is succeeded in the same estimation > by other philosophers, like Apollonius and Plotinus, who are > generally spoken of as visionaries, if not charlatans. Plato, whose {308} > writings were never read by the majority of our _great_ scholars but > superficially, is accused by many of his translators of absurdities > and puerilities, and even of being ignorant of his own language;[510] > most likely for saying, in reference to the Supreme, that “a matter > of that kind cannot be expressed by words, like other things to be > learned;”[511] and making Protagoras lay too much stress on the use > of “veils.” We could fill a whole volume with names of misunderstood > sages, whose writings—only because our materialistic critics feel > unable to lift the “veil,” which shrouds them—pass off in a current > way for mystical absurdities. The most important feature of this > seemingly imcomprehensible mystery lies perhaps in the inveterate > habit of the majority of readers to judge a work by its words and > insufficiently-expressed ideas, leaving the spirit of it out of > the question. Philosophers of quite different schools may be often > found to use a multitude of different expressions, some dark and > metaphorical—all figurative, and yet treating of the same subject. > Like the thousand divergent rays of a globe of fire, every ray leads, > nevertheless, to the central point, so every mystic philosopher, > whether he be a devotedly pious enthusiast like Henry More; an > irascible alchemist, using a Billingsgate phraseology—like his > adversary, Eugenius Philalethes; or an _atheist_ (?) like Spinoza, > all had one and the same object in view—MAN. It is Spinoza, however, > who furnishes perhaps the truest key to a portion of this unwritten > secret. While Moses forbids “graven images” of Him whose name is not > to be taken in vain, Spinoza goes farther. He clearly infers that God > must not be so much as _described_. Human language is totally unfit to > give an idea of this “Being” who is altogether unique. Whether it is > Spinoza or the Christian theology that is more right in their premises > and conclusion, we leave the reader to judge for himself. Every attempt > to the contrary leads a nation to anthropomorphize the deity in whom > it believes, and the result is that given by Swedenborg. Instead of > stating that God made man after his own image, we ought in truth to say > that “man _imagines_ God after his image,”[512] forgetting that he has > set up his own reflection for worship. > > Where, then, lies the true, real secret so much talked about by the > Hermetists? That there was and there is a secret, no candid student > of esoteric literature will ever doubt. Men of genius—as many of the > Hermetic philosophers undeniably were—would not have made fools of > themselves by trying to fool others for several thousand consecutive > years. That this great secret, commonly termed “the philosopher’s > stone,” had a spiritual as well as a physical meaning attached to > it, was suspected in all ages. The author of _Remarks on Alchemy > and the Alchemists_ very truly observes that the subject of the {309} > Hermetic art is MAN, and the object of the art is the perfection of > man.[513] But we cannot agree with him that only those whom he terms > “money-loving sots,” ever attempted to carry a purely _moral_ design > (of the alchemists) into the field of physical science. The fact > alone that man, in their eyes, is a trinity, which they divide into > _Sol_, water of _mercury_, and _sulphur_, which is the _secret fire_, > or, to speak plain, into _body_, _soul_, and _spirit_, shows that > there is a physical side to the question. Man is the philosopher’s > _stone_ spiritually—“_a triune or trinity in unity_,” as Philalethes > expresses it. But he is also that stone physically. The latter is but > the effect of the cause, and the cause is the universal solvent of > everything—divine spirit. Man is a correlation of chemical physical > forces, as well as a correlation of spiritual powers. The latter react > on the physical powers of man in proportion to the development of the > earthly man. “The work is carried to perfection according to the virtue > of a body, soul, and spirit,” says an alchemist; “for the body would > never be penetrable were it not for the _spirit_, nor would the spirit > be permanent in its supra-perfect _tincture_, were it not for the body; > nor could these two act one upon another without the soul, _for the > spirit is an invisible thing_, nor doth it ever appear without another > GARMENT, which garment is the SOUL.”[514] > > The “philosophers by fire” asserted, through their chief, Robert > Fludd, that sympathy is the offspring of light, and “antipathy hath > its beginning from darkness.” Moreover, they taught, with other > kabalists, that “contrarieties in nature doth proceed from one eternal > essence, or from the root of all things.” Thus, the first cause is the > parent-source of good as well as of evil. The creator—who is _not_ > the Highest God—is the father of matter, which is _bad_, as well as > of spirit, which, emanating from the highest, invisible cause, passes > through him like through a vehicle, and pervades the whole universe. > “It is most certain,” remarks Robertus di Fluctibus (Robert Fludd), > “that, as there are an infinity of _visible_ creatures, so there > is an endless variety of invisible ones, of divers natures, in the > universal machine. Through the mysterious name of God, which Moses was > so desirous of him (Jehova) to hear and know, when he received from > him this answer, _Jehova is my everlasting name_. As for the other > name, it is so pure and simple that it _cannot be articulated, or > compounded, or truly expressed by man’s voice_ ... all the other names > are wholly comprehended within it, for it contains the property as well > of _Nolunty_ as _volunty_, of privation as position, of death as life, > of cursing as blessing, of evil as good (though nothing ideally is {310} > bad in him), of hatred and discord, and consequently of sympathy and > antipathy.”[515] > > Lowest in the scale of being are those invisible creatures called by > the kabalists the “elementary.” There are three distinct classes of > these. The highest, in intelligence and cunning, are the so-called > terrestrial spirits, of which we will speak more categorically in other > parts of this work. Suffice to say, for the present, that they are the > _larvæ_, or shadows of those who have lived on earth, have refused > all spiritual light, remained and died deeply immersed in the mire of > matter, and from whose sinful souls the immortal spirit has gradually > separated. The second class is composed of the invisible antitypes of > the men _to be_ born. No form can come into objective existence—from > the highest to the lowest—before the abstract ideal of this form—or, as > Aristotle would call it, the _privation_ of this form—is called forth. > Before an artist paints a picture every feature of it exists already in > his imagination; to have enabled us to discern a watch, this particular > watch must have existed in its abstract form in the watchmaker’s mind. > So with future men. > > According to Aristotle’s doctrine, there are three principles of > natural bodies: privation, matter, and form. These principles may be > applied in this particular case. The privation of the child which is to > be we will locate in the invisible mind of the great Architect of the > Universe—privation not being considered in the Aristotelic philosophy > as a principle in the composition of bodies, but as an external > property in their production; for the production is a change by which > the matter passes from the shape it has not to that which it assumes. > Though the privation of the unborn child’s form, as well as of the > future form of the unmade watch, is that which is neither substance > nor extension nor quality as yet, nor any kind of existence, it is > still something which _is_, though its outlines, in order to be, must > acquire an objective form—the abstract must become concrete, in short. > Thus, as soon as this privation of matter is transmitted by energy to > universal ether, it becomes a material form, however sublimated. If > modern science teaches that _human_ thought “affects the matter of > another universe simultaneously with this,” how can he who believes in > an Intelligent First Cause, deny that the divine thought is equally > transmitted, by the same law of energy, to our common mediator, the > universal ether—the world-soul? And, if so, then it must follow that > once there the divine thought manifests itself objectively, energy > faithfully reproducing the outlines of that whose “privation” was first > born in the divine mind. Only it must not be understood that this > _thought_ creates matter. No; it creates but the design for the future {311} > form; the matter which serves to make this design having always been > in existence, and having been prepared to form a human body, through > a series of progressive transformations, as the result of evolution. > Forms pass; ideas that created them and the material which gave them > objectiveness, remain. These models, as yet devoid of immortal spirits, > are “elementals,“properly speaking, _psychic embryos_—which, when > their time arrives, die out of the invisible world, and are born into > this visible one as human infants, receiving in _transitu_ that divine > breath called spirit which completes the perfect man. This class cannot > communicate _objectively_ with men. > > The third class are the “elementals” proper, which never evolve into > human beings, but occupy, as it were, a specific step of the ladder > of being, and, by comparison with the others, may properly be called > nature-spirits, or cosmic agents of nature, each being confined to its > own element and never transgressing the bounds of others. These are > what Tertullian called the “princes of the powers of the air.” > > This class is believed to possess but one of the three attributes of > man. They have neither immortal spirits nor tangible bodies; only > astral forms, which partake, in a distinguishing degree, of the element > to which they belong and also of the ether. They are a combination > of sublimated matter and a rudimental mind. Some are changeless, but > still have no separate individuality, acting collectively, so to say. > Others, of certain elements and species, change form under a fixed law > which kabalists explain. The most solid of their bodies is ordinarily > just immaterial enough to escape perception by our physical eyesight, > but not so unsubstantial but that they can be perfectly recognized by > the inner, or clairvoyant vision. They not only exist and can all live > in ether, but can handle and direct it for the production of physical > effects, as readily as we can compress air or water for the same > purpose by pneumatic and hydraulic apparatus; in which occupation they > are readily helped by the “human elementary.” More than this; they can > so condense it as to make to themselves tangible bodies, which by their > Protean powers they can cause to assume such likeness as they choose, > by taking as their models the portraits they find stamped in the memory > of the persons present. It is not necessary that the sitter should be > thinking at the moment of the one represented. His image may have faded > many years before. The mind receives indelible impression even from > chance acquaintance or persons encountered but once. As a few seconds > exposure of the sensitized photograph plate is all that is requisite to > preserve indefinitely the image of the sitter, so is it with the mind. > > According to the doctrine of Proclus, the uppermost regions from the > zenith of the universe to the moon belonged to the gods or planetary {312} > spirits, according to their hierarchies and classes. The highest among > them were the twelve _ŭper-ouranioi_, or supercelestial gods, having > whole legions of subordinate demons at their command. They are followed > next in rank and power by the _egkosmioi_, the intercosmic gods, each > of these presiding over a great number of demons, to whom they impart > their power and change it from one to another at will. These are > evidently the personified forces of nature in their mutual correlation, > the latter being represented by the third class or the “elementals” we > have just described. > > Further on he shows, on the principle of the Hermetic axiom—of types, > and prototypes—that the lower spheres have their subdivisions and > classes of beings as well as the upper celestial ones, the former > being always subordinate to the higher ones. He held that the four > elements are all filled with _demons_, maintaining with Aristotle > that the universe is full, and that there is no void in nature. > The demons of the earth, air, fire, and water are of an elastic, > ethereal, semi-corporeal essence. It is these classes which officiate > as intermediate agents between the gods and men. Although lower in > intelligence than the _sixth_ order of the higher demons, these beings > preside directly over the elements and organic life. They direct > the growth, the inflorescence, the properties, and various changes > of plants. They are the personified ideas or virtues shed from the > heavenly _ulê_ into the inorganic matter; and, as the vegetable > kingdom is one remove higher than the mineral, these emanations from > the celestial gods take form and being in the plant, they become _its > soul_. It is that which Aristotle’s doctrine terms the _form_ in the > three principles of natural bodies, classified by him as privation, > matter, and form. His philosophy teaches that besides the original > matter, another principle is necessary to complete the triune nature > of every particle, and this is form; an invisible, but still, in an > ontological sense of the word, a substantial being, really distinct > from matter proper. Thus, in an animal or a plant, besides the bones, > the flesh, the nerves, the brains, and the blood, in the former, and > besides the pulpy matter, tissues, fibres, and juice in the latter, > which blood and juice, by circulating through the veins and fibres, > nourishes all parts of both animal and plant; and besides the animal > spirits, which are the principles of motion; and the chemical energy > which is transformed into vital force in the green leaf, there must be > a substantial form, which Aristotle called in the horse, the _horse’s > soul_; Proclus, the _demon_ of every mineral, plant, or animal, and the > mediæval philosophers, the _elementary spirits_ of the four kingdoms. > > All this is held in our century as metaphysics and gross superstition. > Still, on strictly ontological principles, there is, in these old > hypotheses, some shadow of probability, some clew to the perplexing {313} > “missing links” of exact science. The latter has become so dogmatical > of late, that all that lies beyond the ken of _inductive_ science > is termed imaginary; and we find Professor Joseph Le Conte stating > that some of the best scientists “ridicule the use of the term ‘vital > force,’ or vitality, as a remnant _of superstition_.”[516] De Candolle > suggests the term “vital movement,” instead of vital force;[517] > thus preparing for a final scientific leap which will transform the > immortal, thinking man, into an automaton with a clock-work inside him. > “But,” objects Le Conte, “can we conceive of movement without force? > And if the movement is peculiar, so also is _the form of force_.” > > In the Jewish _Kabala_, the nature-spirits were known under the > general name of _Shedim_ and divided into four classes. The Persians > called them all _devs_; the Greeks, indistinctly designated them as > _demons_; the Egyptians knew them as _afrites_. The ancient Mexicans, > says Kaiser, believed in numerous spirit-abodes, into one of which the > shades of innocent children were placed until final disposal; into > another, situated in the sun, ascended the valiant souls of heroes; > while the hideous spectres of incorrigible sinners were sentenced to > wander and despair in subterranean caves, held in the bonds of the > earth atmosphere, unwilling and unable to liberate themselves. They > passed their time in communicating with mortals, and frightening those > who could see them. Some of the African tribes know them as _Yowahoos_. > In the Indian Pantheon there are no less than 330,000,000 of various > kinds of spirits, including elementals, which latter were termed by > the Brahmans the Daityas. These beings are known by the adepts to be > attracted toward certain quarters of the heavens by something of the > same mysterious property which makes the magnetic needle turn toward > the north, and certain plants to obey the same attraction. The various > races are also believed to have a special sympathy with certain human > temperaments, and to more readily exert power over such than others. > Thus, a bilious, lymphatic, nervous, or sanguine person would be > affected favorably or otherwise by conditions of the astral light, > resulting from the different aspects of the planetary bodies. Having > reached this general principle, after recorded observations extending > over an indefinite series of years, or ages, the adept astrologer > would require only to know what the planetary aspects were at a given > anterior date, and to apply his knowledge of the succeeding changes in > the heavenly bodies, to be able to trace, with approximate accuracy, > the varying fortunes of the personage whose horoscope was required, {314} > and even to predict the future. The accuracy of the horoscope would > depend, of course, no less upon the astrologer’s knowledge of the > occult forces and races of nature, than upon his astronomical erudition. > > Eliphas Levi expounds with reasonable clearness, in his _Dogme et > Rituel de la Haute Magie_, the law of reciprocal influences between > the planets and their combined effect upon the mineral, vegetable, and > animal kingdoms, as well as upon ourselves. He states that the astral > atmosphere is as constantly changing from day to day, and from hour > to hour, as the air we breathe. He quotes approvingly the doctrine > of Paracelsus that every man, animal, and plant bears external and > internal evidences of the influences dominant at the moment of germinal > development. He repeats the old kabalistic doctrine, that nothing is > unimportant in nature, and that even so small a thing as the birth > of one child upon our insignificant planet has its effect upon the > universe, as the whole universe has its own reäctive influence upon him. > > “The stars,” he remarks, “are linked to each other by attractions which > hold them in equilibrium and cause them to move with regularity through > space. This net-work of light stretches from all the spheres to all > the spheres, and there is not a point upon any planet to which is not > attached one of these indestructible threads. The precise locality, as > well as the hour of birth, should then be calculated by the true adept > in astrology; then, when he shall have made the exact calculation of > the astral influences, it remains for him to count the chances of his > position in life, the helps or hindrances he is likely to encounter ... > and his natural impulses toward the accomplishment of his destiny.” He > also asserts that the individual force of the person, as indicating his > ability to conquer difficulties and subdue unfavorable propensities, > and so carve out his fortune, or to passively await what blind fate may > bring, must be taken into account. > > A consideration of the subject from the standpoint of the ancients, > affords us, it will be seen, a very different view from that taken > by Professor Tyndall in his famous Belfast address. “To supersensual > beings,” says he, “which, however potent and invisible, were nothing > but species of _human creatures_, perhaps raised from among mankind, > and retaining all human passions and appetites, were handed over the > rule and governance of natural phenomena.” > > To enforce his point, Mr. Tyndall conveniently quotes from Euripides > the familiar passage in Hume: “The gods toss all into confusion, mix > everything with its reverse, that all of us, from our ignorance and > uncertainty, may pay them the more worship and reverence.” Although > enunciating in _Chrysippus_ several Pythagorean doctrines, Euripides > is considered by every ancient writer as heterodox, therefore the {315} > quotation proceeding from this philosopher does not at all strengthen > Mr. Tyndall’s argument. > > As to the _human_ spirit, the notions of the older philosophers and > mediæval kabalists while differing in some particulars, agreed on the > whole; so that the doctrine of one may be viewed as the doctrine of the > other. The most substantial difference consisted in the location of the > immortal or divine spirit of man. While the ancient Neo-platonists held > that the Augoeides never descends hypostatically into the living man, > but only sheds more or less its radiance on the inner man—the astral > soul—the kabalists of the middle ages maintained that the spirit, > detaching itself from the ocean of light and spirit, entered into man’s > soul, where it remained through life imprisoned in the astral capsule. > This difference was the result of the belief of Christian kabalists, > more or less, in the dead letter of the allegory of the fall of man. > The soul, they said, became, through the fall of Adam, contaminated > with the world of matter, or Satan. Before it could appear with its > enclosed divine spirit in the presence of the Eternal, it had to > purify itself of the impurities of darkness. They compared “the spirit > imprisoned within the soul to a drop of water enclosed within a capsule > of gelatine and thrown in the ocean; so long as the capsule remains > whole the drop of water remains isolated; break the envelope and the > drop becomes a part of the ocean—its individual existence has ceased. > So it is with the spirit. As long as it is enclosed in its plastic > mediator, or soul, it has an individual existence. Destroy the capsule, > a result which may occur from the agonies of withered conscience, > crime, and moral disease, and the spirit returns back to its original > abode. Its individuality is gone.” > > On the other hand, the philosophers who explained the “fall into > generation” in their own way, viewed spirit as something wholly > distinct from the soul. They allowed its presence in the astral capsule > only so far as the spiritual emanations or rays of the “shining > one” were concerned. Man and soul had to conquer their immortality > by ascending toward the unity with which, if successful, they were > finally linked, and into which they were absorbed, so to say. The > individualization of man after death depended on the spirit, not on > his soul and body. Although the word “personality,” in the sense in > which it is usually understood, is an absurdity, if applied literally > to our immortal essence, still the latter is a distinct entity, > immortal and eternal, _per se_; and, as in the case of criminals beyond > redemption, when the shining thread which links the spirit to the > soul, from the moment of the birth of a child, is violently snapped, > and the disembodied entity is left to share the fate of the lower > animals, to gradually dissolve into ether, and have its individuality > annihilated—even then the spirit remains a distinct being. It becomes {316} > a planetary spirit, an angel; for _the gods of the Pagan or the > archangels of the Christian_, the direct emanations of the First Cause, > notwithstanding the hazardous statement of Swedenborg, _never were or > will be men_, on our planet, at least. > > This specialization has been in all ages the stumbling-block of > metaphysicians. The whole esoterism of the Buddhistical philosophy > is based on this mysterious teaching, understood by so few persons, > and so totally misrepresented by many of the most learned scholars. > Even metaphysicians are too inclined to confound the effect with the > cause. A person may have won his immortal life, and remain the same > _inner-self_ he was on earth, throughout eternity; but this does not > imply necessarily that he must either remain the Mr. Smith or Brown he > was on earth, or lose his individuality. Therefore, the astral soul and > terrestrial body of man may, in the dark Hereafter, be absorbed into > the cosmical ocean of sublimated elements, and cease to feel his _ego_, > if this _ego_ did not deserve to soar higher; and the divine spirit > still remain an unchanged entity, though this terrestrial experience of > his emanations may be totally obliterated at the instant of separation > from the unworthy vehicle. > > If the “spirit,” or the divine portion of the soul, is preëxistent as > a distinct being from all eternity, as Origen, Synesius, and other > Christian fathers and philosophers taught, and if it is the same, and > nothing more than the metaphysically-objective soul, how can it be > otherwise than eternal? And what matters it in such a case, whether man > leads an animal or a pure life, if, do what he may, he can never lose > his individuality? This doctrine is as pernicious in its consequences > as that of vicarious atonement. Had the latter dogma, in company with > the false idea that we are all immortal, been demonstrated to the > world in its true light, humanity would have been bettered by its > propagation. Crime and sin would be avoided, not for fear of earthly > punishment, or of a ridiculous hell, but for the sake of that which > lies the most deeply rooted in our inner nature—the desire of an > individual and distinct life in the hereafter, the positive assurance > that we cannot win it unless we “take the kingdom of heaven by > violence,” and the conviction that neither human prayers nor the blood > of another man will save us from individual destruction after death, > unless we firmly link ourselves during our terrestrial life with our > own immortal spirit—our GOD. > > Pythagoras, Plato, Timæus of Locris, and the whole Alexandrian school > derived the soul from the universal World-Soul; and the latter was, > according to their own teachings—ether; something of such a fine nature > as to be perceived only by our inner sight. Therefore, it cannot be the > essence of the Monas, or _cause_, because the _anima mundi_ is but the > effect, the objective emanation of the former. Both the human spirit {317} > and soul are preëxistent. But, while the former exists as a distinct > entity, an individualization, the soul exists as preëxisting matter, an > unscient portion of an intelligent whole. Both were originally formed > from the Eternal Ocean of Light; but as the theosophists expressed > it, there is a visible as well as invisible spirit in fire. They > made a difference between the _anima bruta_ and the _anima divina_. > Empedocles firmly believed all men and animals to possess two souls; > and in Aristotle we find that he calls one the reasoning soul—νοῦς, > and the other, the animal soul—ψυχή. According to these philosophers, > the reasoning soul comes from _without_ the universal soul, and the > other from _within_. This divine and superior region, in which they > located the invisible and supreme deity, was considered by them (by > Aristotle himself) as a fifth element, purely spiritual and divine, > whereas the _anima mundi_ proper was considered as composed of a > fine, igneous, and ethereal nature spread throughout the universe, in > short—ether. The Stoics, the greatest materialists of ancient days, > excepted the Invisible God and Divine Soul (Spirit) from any such a > corporeal nature. Their modern commentators and admirers, greedily > seizing the opportunity, built on this ground the supposition that the > Stoics believed in neither God nor soul. But Epicurus, whose doctrine > militating directly against the agency of a Supreme Being and gods, > in the formation or government of the world, placed him far above the > Stoics in atheism and materialism, taught, nevertheless, that the soul > is of a fine, tender essence, formed from the smoothest, roundest, and > finest atoms, which description still brings us to the same sublimated > ether. Arnobius, Tertullian, Irenæus, and Origen, notwithstanding their > Christianity, believed, with the more modern Spinoza and Hobbes, that > the soul was corporeal, though of a very fine nature. > > This doctrine of the possibility of losing one’s soul and, hence, > individuality, militates with the ideal theories and progressive ideas > of some spiritualists, though Swedenborg fully adopts it. They will > never accept the kabalistic doctrine which teaches that it is only > through observing the law of harmony that individual life hereafter can > be obtained; and that the farther the inner and outer man deviate from > this fount of harmony, whose source lies in our divine spirit, the more > difficult it is to regain the ground. > > But while the spiritualists and other adherents of Christianity have > little if any perception of this fact of the possible death and > obliteration of the human personality by the separation of the immortal > part from the perishable, the Swedenborgians fully comprehend it. One > of the most respected ministers of the New Church, the Rev. Chauncey > Giles, D.D., of New York, recently elucidated the subject in a public > discourse as follows: Physical death, or the death of the body, was a {318} > provision of the divine economy for the benefit of man, a provision > by means of which he attained the higher ends of his being. But there > is another death which is the interruption of the divine order and > the destruction of every human element in man’s nature, and every > possibility of human happiness. This is the spiritual death, which > takes place before the dissolution of the body. “There may be a vast > development of man’s natural mind without that development being > accompanied by a particle of love of God, or of unselfish love of > man.” When one falls into a love of self and love of the world, with > its pleasures, losing the divine love of God and of the neighbor, he > falls from life to death. The higher principles which constitute the > essential elements of his humanity perish, and he lives only on the > natural plane of his faculties. Physically he exists, spiritually > he is dead. To all that pertain to the higher and the only enduring > phase of existence he is as much dead as his body becomes dead to all > the activities, delights, and sensations of the world when the spirit > has left it. This spiritual death results from disobedience of the > laws of spiritual life, which is followed by the same penalty as the > disobedience of the laws of the natural life. But the spiritually dead > have still their delights; they have their intellectual endowments and > power, and intense activities. All the animal delights are theirs, and > to multitudes of men and women these constitute the highest ideal of > human happiness. The tireless pursuit of riches, of the amusements and > entertainments of social life; the cultivation of graces of manner, > of taste in dress, of social preferment, of scientific distinction, > intoxicate and enrapture these dead-alive; but, the eloquent preacher > remarks, “these creatures, with all their graces, rich attire, and > brilliant accomplishments, are dead in the eye of the Lord and the > angels, and when measured by the only true and immutable standard have > no more genuine life than skeletons whose flesh has turned to dust.” A > high development of the intellectual faculties does not imply spiritual > and true life. Many of our greatest scientists are but animate > corpses—they have no spiritual sight because their spirits have left > them. So we might go through all ages, examine all occupations, weigh > all human attainments, and investigate all forms of society, and we > would find these _spiritually dead_ everywhere. > > Pythagoras taught that the entire universe is one vast system > of mathematically correct combinations. Plato shows the deity > _geometrizing_. The world is sustained by the same law of equilibrium > and harmony upon which it was built. The centripetal force could not > manifest itself without the centrifugal in the harmonious revolutions > of the spheres; all forms are the product of this dual force in > nature. Thus, to illustrate our case, we may designate the spirit as > the centrifugal, and the soul as the centripetal, spiritual energies. {319} > When in perfect harmony, both forces produce one result; break or > damage the centripetal motion of the earthly soul tending toward the > centre which attracts it; arrest its progress by clogging it with a > heavier weight of matter than it can bear, and the harmony of the > whole, which was its life, is destroyed. Individual life can only be > continued if sustained by this two-fold force. The least deviation from > harmony damages it; when it is destroyed beyond redemption the forces > separate and the form is gradually annihilated. After the death of the > depraved and the wicked, arrives the critical moment. If during life > the ultimate and desperate effort of the inner-self to reunite itself > with the faintly-glimmering ray of its divine parent is neglected; if > this ray is allowed to be more and more shut out by the thickening > crust of matter, the soul, once freed from the body, follows its > earthly attractions, and is magnetically drawn into and held within the > dense fogs of the material atmosphere. Then it begins to sink lower > and lower, until it finds itself, when returned to consciousness, in > what the ancients termed _Hades_. The annihilation of such a soul is > never instantaneous; it may last centuries, perhaps; for nature never > proceeds by jumps and starts, and the astral soul being formed of > elements, the law of evolution must bide its time. Then begins the > fearful law of compensation, the _Yin-youan_ of the Buddhists. > > This class of spirits are called the “terrestrial” or “_earthly_ > elementary,” in contradistinction to the other classes, as we have > shown in the introductory chapter. In the East they are known as the > “Brothers of the Shadow.” Cunning, low, vindictive, and seeking to > retaliate their sufferings upon humanity, they become, until final > annihilation, vampires, ghouls, and prominent actors. These are the > leading “stars” on the great spiritual stage of “materialization,” > which phenomena they perform with the help of the more intelligent of > the genuine-born “elemental” creatures, which hover around and welcome > them with delight in their own spheres. Henry Kunrath, the great German > kabalist, has on a plate of his rare work, _Amphitheatri Sapientiæ > Æternæ_, representations of the four classes of these human “elementary > spirits.” Once past the threshold of the sanctuary of initiation, once > that an adept has lifted the “Veil of Isis,” the mysterious and jealous > goddess, he has nothing to fear; but till then he is in constant danger. > > Although Aristotle himself, anticipating the modern physiologists, > regarded the human mind as a material substance, and ridiculed the > hylozoïsts, nevertheless he fully believed in the existence of a > “double” soul, or spirit and soul.[518] He laughed at Strabo for > believing that any particles of matter, _per se_, could have life {320} > and intellect in themselves sufficient to fashion by degrees such a > multiform world as ours.[519] Aristotle is indebted for the sublime > morality of his Nichomachean Ethics to a thorough study of the > _Pythagoric Ethical Fragments_; for the latter can be easily shown to > have been the source at which he gathered his ideas, though he might > not have sworn “by him who the tetractys found.”[520] Finally, what > do we know so certain about Aristotle? His philosophy is so abstruse > that he constantly leaves his reader to supply by the imagination > the missing links of his logical deductions. Moreover, we know that > before his works ever reached our scholars, who delight in his > seemingly atheistical arguments in support of his doctrine of fate, > these works passed through too many hands to have remained immaculate. > From Theophrastus, his legator, they passed to Neleus, whose heirs > kept them mouldering in subterranean caves for nearly 150 years;[521] > after which, we learn that his manuscripts were copied and much > augmented by Apellicon of Theos, who supplied such paragraphs as had > become illegible, by conjectures of his own, probably many of these > drawn from the depths of his inner consciousness. Our scholars of the > nineteenth century might certainly profit well by Aristotle’s example, > were they as anxious to imitate him practically as they are to throw > his inductive method and materialistic theories at the head of the > Platonists. We invite them to collect _facts_ as carefully as he did, > instead of denying those they know nothing about. > > What we have said in the introductory chapter and elsewhere, of mediums > and the tendency of their mediumship, is not based upon conjecture, > but upon actual experience and observation. There is scarcely one > phase of mediumship, of either kind, that we have not seen exemplified > during the past twenty-five years, in various countries. India, Thibet, > Borneo, Siam, Egypt, Asia Minor, America (North and South), and other > parts of the world, have each displayed to us its peculiar phase of > mediumistic phenomena and magical power. Our varied experience has > taught us two important truths, viz.: that for the exercise of the > latter personal purity and the exercise of a trained and indomitable > will-power are indispensable; and that spiritualists can never assure > themselves of the genuineness of mediumistic manifestations, unless > they occur in the light and under such reasonable test conditions as > would make an attempted fraud instantly noticed. > > For fear of being misunderstood, we would remark that while, as a rule, > physical phenomena are produced by the nature-spirits, of their own {321} > motion and to please their own fancy, still good disembodied human > spirits, under _exceptional_ circumstances, such as the aspiration > of a pure heart or the occurrence of some favoring emergency, can > manifest their presence by any of the phenomena _except personal > materialization_. But it must be a mighty attraction indeed to draw a > pure, disembodied spirit from its radiant home into the foul atmosphere > from which it escaped upon leaving its earthly body. > > Magi and theurgic philosophers objected most severely to the “evocation > of souls.” “Bring her (the soul) not forth, lest in departing she > retain something,” says Psellus.[522] > > “It becomes you not to behold them _before your body is initiated_, > Since, by always alluring, they seduce the souls of the uninitiated,” > > says the same philosopher, in another passage.[523] > > They objected to it for several good reasons. 1. “It is extremely > difficult to distinguish a good dæmon from a bad one,” says Iamblichus. > 2. If a human soul succeeds in penetrating the density of the earth’s > atmosphere—always oppressive to her, often hateful—still there is a > danger the soul is unable to come into proximity with the material > world without that she cannot avoid; “departing, she _retains_ > something,” that is to say, contaminating her purity, for which she > has to suffer more or less after her departure. Therefore, the true > theurgist will avoid causing any more suffering to this pure denizen > of the higher sphere than is absolutely required by the interests of > humanity. It is only the practitioner of black magic who compels the > presence, by the powerful incantations of necromancy, of the tainted > souls of such as have lived bad lives, and are ready to aid his selfish > designs. Of intercourse with the Augoeides, through the mediumistic > powers of _subjective_ mediums, we elsewhere speak. The theurgists > employed chemicals and mineral substances to chase away evil spirits. > Of the latter, a stone called Μνίζουριν was one of the most powerful > agents. > > “When you shall see a _terrestrial_ demon approaching, > Exclaim, and sacrifice the stone Mnizurin,” > > exclaims a Zoroastrian oracle (_Psel._, 40). > > And now, to descend from the eminence of theurgico-magian poetry to the > “unconscious” magic of our present century, and the prose of a modern > kabalist, we will review it in the following: > > In Dr. Morin’s _Journal de Magnétisme_, published a few years since {322} > in Paris, at a time when the “table-turning” was raging in France, a > curious letter was published. > > “Believe me, sir,” wrote the anonymous correspondent, “that there are > no spirits, no ghosts, no angels, no demons _enclosed in a table_; but, > all of these can be found there, nevertheless, for that depends on _our > own wills_ and our imaginations.... This MENSAbulism[524] is an ancient > phenomenon ... misunderstood by us moderns, but natural, for all that, > and which pertains to physics and psychology; unfortunately, it had > to remain incomprehensible until the discovery of electricity and > heliography, as, to explain a fact of spiritual nature, we are obliged > to base ourselves on a corresponding fact of a material order.... > > “As we all know, the daguerreotype-plate may be impressed, not only > by objects, but also by their reflections. Well, the phenomenon in > question, which ought to be named _mental photography_, produces, > besides _realities_, the dreams of our imagination, with such a > fidelity that very often we become unable to distinguish a copy taken > from _one present_, from a negative obtained of an _image_.... > > “The _magnetization_ of a table or of a person is absolutely identical > in its results; it is the saturation of a foreign body by either the > _intelligent_ vital electricity, or the thought of the magnetizer and > those present.” > > Nothing can give a better or a more just idea of it than the electric > battery gathering the fluid on its conductor, to obtain thereof a > _brute_ force which manifests itself in sparks of light, etc. Thus, > the electricity accumulated on an isolated body acquires a power > of reaction equal to the action, either for charging, magnetizing, > decomposing, inflaming, or for discharging its vibrations far away. > These are the visible effects of the _blind_, or crude electricity > produced by blind elements—the word blind being used by the table > itself in contradistinction to the _intelligent_ electricity. But there > evidently exists a corresponding electricity produced by the cerebral > pile of man; this _soul-electricity_, this spiritual and universal > ether, which is the _ambient, middle nature of the metaphysical > universe_, or rather of the _incorporeal_ universe, has to be studied > before it is admitted by science, which, having no idea of it, will > never know anything of the great phenomenon of life until she does. > > “It appears that to manifest itself the cerebral electricity requires > the help of the ordinary statical electricity; when the latter is > lacking in the atmosphere—when the air is very damp, for instance—you > can get little or nothing of either tables or mediums.... > > “There is no need for the ideas to be formulated very precisely in the {323} > brains of the persons present; the _table_ discovers and formulates > them _itself_, in either prose or verse, but always correctly; the > table requires time to compose a verse; it begins, then it erases a > word, corrects it, and sometimes sends back the epigram to our address > ... if the persons present are in sympathy with each other, _it_ jokes > and laughs with us as any living person could. As to the things of the > exterior world, it has to content itself with conjectures, as well as > ourselves; _it_ (the table) composes little philosophical systems, > discusses and maintains them as the most cunning rhetorician might. In > short, it creates itself a conscience and a reason properly belonging > to itself, but with the materials it finds in us.... > > “The Americans are persuaded that they talk with their dead; some think > (more truly) that these are _spirits_; others take them for angels; > others again for devils ... (the _intelligence_) assuming the shape > which fits the conviction and preconceived opinion of every one; so > did the initiates of the temples of Serapis, of Delphi, and other > theurgico-medical establishments of the same kind. They were convinced > beforehand that they would communicate with their gods; and _they_ > never failed. > > “We, who well know the value of the phenomenon ... are perfectly sure > that after having charged the table with our magnetic _efflux_, we have > called to life, or created an intelligence analogous to our own, which > like ourselves is endowed with a free will, can talk and discuss with > us, with a degree of superior lucidity, considering that the resultant > is stronger than the individual, or rather the whole is larger than a > part of it.... We must not accuse Herodotus of telling us fibs when he > records the most extraordinary circumstances, for we must hold them to > be as true and correct as the rest of historical facts which are to be > found in all the Pagan writers of antiquity.... > > “The phenomenon is as old as the world.... The priests of India and > China practiced it before the Egyptians and the Greeks. The savages > and the Esquimaux know it well. It is the phenomenon of Faith, sole > source of every prodigy,” and it will be done to you according to _your > faith_. The one who enunciated this profound doctrine was verily the > incarnated word of Truth; he neither deceived himself, nor wanted to > deceive others; he expounded an axiom which we now repeat, without much > hope of seeing it accepted. > > “Man is a microcosm, or a little world; he carries in him a fragment of > the great _All_, in a chaotic state. The task of our half-gods is to > disentangle from it the share belonging to them by an incessant mental > and material labor. They have their task to do, the perpetual invention > of new products, of new moralities, and the proper arrangement of the > crude and formless material furnished them by the Creator, who created {324} > them in His own image, that they should create in their turn and so > complete here the work of the Creation; an immense labor which can be > achieved only when the _whole_ will become so perfect, that it will be > like unto God Himself, and thus able to survive to itself. We are very > far yet from that final moment, for we can say that everything is to be > done, to be undone, and _outdone_ as yet on our globe, institutions, > machinery, and products. > > “_Mens non solum agitat sed creat molem._ > > “We live in this life, in an ambient, intellectual centre, which > entertains between human beings and things a necessary and perpetual > solidarity; every brain is a ganglion, a station of a universal > _neurological_ telegraphy in constant rapport with the central and > other stations by the vibrations of thought. > > “The spiritual sun shines for souls as the material sun shines for > bodies, for the universe _is double_ and follows the law of couples. > The ignorant operator interprets erroneously the divine dispatches, and > often delivers them in a false and ridiculous manner. Thus study and > true science alone can destroy the superstitions and nonsense spread by > the ignorant interpreters placed at the _stations of teaching_ among > every people in this world. These blind interpreters of the _Verbum_, > the WORD, have always tried to impose on their pupils the obligation to > swear to everything without examination in _verba magistri_. > > “Alas! we could wish for nothing better were they to translate > correctly the _inner_ voices, which voices never deceive but those who > have _false spirits_ in them. ‘It is our duty,’ they say, ‘to interpret > oracles; it is we who have received the exclusive mission for it from > heaven, _spiritus flat ubi vult_, and it blows on us alone....’ > > “It blows _on every one_, and the rays of the spiritual light > illuminate every conscience; and when all the bodies and all the minds > will reflect equally this dual light, people will see a great deal > clearer than they do now.” > > We have translated and quoted the above fragments for their great > originality and truthfulness. We know the writer; fame proclaims him a > great kabalist, and a few friends know him as a truthful and honest man. > > The letter shows, moreover, that the writer has well and carefully > studied the chameleon-like nature of the intelligences presiding over > spiritual circles. That they are of the same kind and race as those > so frequently mentioned in antiquity, admits of as little doubt as > that the present generation of men are of the same nature as were > human beings in the days of Moses. Subjective manifestations proceed, {325} > under harmonious conditions, from those beings which were known as > the “good demons” in days of old. Sometimes, but rarely, the planetary > spirits—beings of another race than our own—produce them; sometimes the > spirits of our translated and beloved friends; sometimes nature-spirits > of one or more of the countless tribes; but most frequently of all > terrestrial elementary spirits, disembodied evil men, the Diakka of A. > Jackson Davis. > > We do not forget what we have elsewhere written about _subjective_ and > _objective_ mediumistic phenomena. We keep the distinction always in > mind. There are good and bad of both classes. An impure medium will > attract to his impure inner self, the vicious, depraved, malignant > influences as inevitably as one that is pure draws only those that are > good and pure. Of the latter kind of medium where can a nobler example > be found than the gentle Baroness Adelma von Vay, of Austria (born > Countess Wurmbrandt), who is described to us by a correspondent as “the > Providence of her neighborhood?” She uses her mediumistic power to heal > the sick and comfort the afflicted. To the rich she is a phenomenon; > but to the poor a ministering angel. For many years she has seen and > recognized the nature-spirits or cosmic elementaries, and found them > always friendly. But this was because she was a pure, good woman. Other > correspondents of the Theosophical Society have not fared so well at > the hands of these apish and impish beings. The Havanna case, elsewhere > described, is an example. > > Though spiritualists discredit them ever so much, these nature-spirits > are realities. If the gnomes, sylphs, salamanders, and undines > of the Rosicrucians existed in their days, they must exist now. > Bulwer-Lytton’s _Dweller of the Threshold_, is a modern conception, > modelled on the ancient type of the _Sulanuth_[525] of the Hebrews and > Egyptians, which is mentioned in the _Book of Jasher_.[526] > > The Christians call them “devils,” “imps of Satan,” and like > characteristic names. They are nothing of the kind, but simply > creatures of ethereal matter, irresponsible, and neither good nor bad, > unless influenced by a superior intelligence. It is very extraordinary {326} > to hear devout Catholics abuse and misrepresent the nature-spirits, > when one of their greatest authorities, Clement the Alexandrinian, > disposed of them, by describing these creatures as they really are. > Clement, who perhaps had been a theurgist as well as a Neo-platonist, > thus arguing upon good authority, remarks, that it is absurd to call > them devils,[527] for they are only _inferior_ angels, “the powers > which inhabit elements, move the winds and distribute showers, and > as such are agents and subject to God.”[528] Origen, who before he > became a Christian also belonged to the Platonic school, is of the same > opinion. Porphyry describes these dæmons more carefully than any one > else. > > When the possible nature of the manifesting intelligences, which > science believes to be a “psychic force,” and spiritualists the > identical spirits of the dead, is better known, then will academicians > and believers turn to the old philosophers for information. > > Let us for a moment imagine an intelligent orang-outang or some African > anthropoid ape disembodied, _i. e._, deprived of its physical and in > possession of an astral, if not an immortal body. We have found in > spiritual journals many instances where apparitions of departed pet > dogs and other animals have been seen. Therefore, upon spiritualistic > testimony, we must think that such animal “spirits” do appear although > we reserve the right of concurring with the ancients that the forms > are but tricks of the elementals. Once open the door of communication > between the terrestrial and the spiritual world, what prevents the > ape from producing physical phenomena such as he sees human spirits > produce. And why may not these excel in cleverness of ingenuity many of > those which have been witnessed in spiritual circles? Let spiritualists > answer. The orang-outang of Borneo is little, if any, inferior to the > savage man in intelligence. Mr. Wallace and other great naturalists > give instances of its wonderful acuteness, although its brains are > inferior in cubic capacity to the most undeveloped of savages. These > apes lack but speech to be men of low grade. The sentinels placed by > monkeys; the sleeping chambers selected and built by orang-outangs; > their prevision of danger and calculations, which show more than > instinct; their choice of leaders whom they obey; and the exercise of > many of their faculties, certainly entitle them to a place at least > on a level with many a flat-headed Australian. Says Mr. Wallace, “The > mental requirements of savages, and the faculties actually exercised by > them, are very little above those of the animals.” > > Now, people assume that there can be no apes in the other world, > because apes have no “souls.” But apes have as much intelligence, it {327} > appears, as some men; why, then, should these men, in no way superior > to the apes, have immortal spirits, and the apes none? The materialists > will answer that neither the one nor the other has a spirit, but that > annihilation overtakes each at physical death. But the spiritual > philosophers of all times have agreed that man occupies a step one > degree higher than the animal, and is possessed of that something > which it lacks, be he the most untutored of savages or the wisest of > philosophers. The ancients, as we have seen, taught that while man is a > trinity of body, astral spirit, and immortal soul, the animal is but a > duality—a being having a physical body and an astral spirit animating > it. Scientists can distinguish no difference in the elements composing > the bodies of men and brutes; and the kabalists agree with them so > far as to say that the astral bodies (or, as the physicists would > call it, “the life-principle”) of animals and men are _identical_ in > essence. Physical man is but the highest development of animal life. > If, as the scientists tell us, even _thought_ is matter, and every > sensation of pain or pleasure, every transient desire is accompanied > by a disturbance of ether; and those bold speculators, the authors of > the _Unseen Universe_ believe that thought is conceived “to affect the > matter of another universe simultaneously with this;” why, then, should > not the gross, brutish thought of an orang-outang, or a dog, impressing > itself on the ethereal waves of the astral light, as well as that of > man, assure the animal a continuity of life after death, or “a future > state?” > > The kabalists held, and now hold, that it is unphilosophical to admit > that the astral body of man can survive corporeal death, and at the > same time assert that the astral body of the ape is resolved into > independent molecules. That which survives as an _individuality_ > after the death of the body is the _astral soul_, which Plato, in the > _Timæus_ and _Gorgias_, calls the _mortal_ soul, for, according to > the Hermetic doctrine, it throws off its more material particles at > every progressive change into a higher sphere. Socrates narrates to > Callicles[529] that this _mortal_ soul retains all the characteristics > of the body after the death of the latter; so much so, indeed, that a > man marked with the whip will have his astral body “full of the prints > and scars.” The astral spirit is a faithful duplicate of the body, > both in a physical and spiritual sense. The Divine, the highest and > _immortal_ spirit, can be neither punished nor rewarded. To maintain > such a doctrine would be at the same time absurd and blasphemous, for > it is not merely a flame lit at the central and inexhaustible fountain > of light, but actually a portion of it, and of identical essence. It > assures immortality to the individual astral being in proportion to the > willingness of the latter to receive it. So long as the _double_ man, {328} > _i. e._, the man of flesh and spirit, keeps within the limits of the > law of spiritual continuity; so long as the divine spark lingers in > him, however faintly, he is on the road to an immortality in the future > state. But those who resign themselves to a materialistic existence, > shutting out the divine radiance shed by their spirit, at the beginning > of the earthly pilgrimage, and stifling the warning voice of that > faithful sentry, the conscience, which serves as a focus for the light > in the soul—such beings as these, having left behind conscience and > spirit, and crossed the boundaries of matter, will of necessity have to > follow its laws. > > Matter is as indestructible and eternal as the immortal spirit itself, > but only in its particles, and not as organized forms. The body of > so grossly materialistic a person as above described, having been > deserted by its spirit before physical death, when that event occurs, > the plastic material, astral soul, following the laws of blind matter, > shapes itself thoroughly into the mould which vice has been gradually > preparing for it through the earth-life of the individual. Then, as > Plato says, it assumes the form of that “animal to which it resembled > in its evil ways”[530] during life. “It is an ancient saying,” he tells > us, “that the souls departing hence exist in Hades and return hither > again and _are produced from the dead_[531].... But those who are found > to have lived an eminently holy life, these are they who arrive at the > pure abode ABOVE and DWELL ON THE UPPER PARTS of the earth”[532] (the > ethereal region). In _Phædrus_, again, he says that when man has ended > his _first_ life (on earth), some go to places of punishment _beneath_ > the earth.[533] This region _below_ the earth, the kabalists do not > understand as a place inside the earth, but maintain it to be a sphere, > far inferior in perfection to the earth, and far more material. > > Of all the modern speculators upon the seeming incongruities of the > _New Testament_, alone the authors of the _Unseen Universe_ seem to > have caught a glimpse of its kabalistic truths, respecting the gehenna > of the universe.[534] This gehenna, termed by the occultists the > _eighth_ sphere (numbering inversely), is merely a planet like our > own, _attached to the latter and following it in its penumbra_; a kind > of dust-hole, a “place where all its garbage and filth is consumed,” > to borrow an expression of the above-mentioned authors, and on which > all the dross and scorification of the cosmic matter pertaining to our > planet is in a continual state of remodelling. > > The secret doctrine teaches that man, if he wins immortality, will > remain forever the trinity that he is in life, and will continue so {329} > throughout all the spheres. The astral body, which in this life is > covered by a gross physical envelope, becomes—when relieved of that > covering by the process of corporeal death—in its turn the shell of > another and more ethereal body. This begins developing from the moment > of death, and becomes perfected when the astral body of the earthly > form finally separates from it. This process, they say, is repeated > at every new transition from sphere to sphere. But the immortal > soul, “the silvery spark,” observed by _Dr. Fenwick_ in _Margrave’s_ > brain,[535] and not found by him in the animals, never changes, but > remains indestructible “by aught that shatters its tabernacle.” The > descriptions by Porphyry and Iamblichus and others, of the spirits of > animals, which inhabit the astral light, are corroborated by those of > many of the most trustworthy and intelligent clairvoyants. Sometimes > the animal forms are even made visible to every person present at a > spiritual circle, by being materialized. In his _People from the Other > World_, Colonel H. S. Olcott describes a materialized squirrel which > followed a spirit-woman into the view of the spectators, disappeared > and reappeared before their eyes several times, and finally followed > the spirit into the cabinet. > > Let us advance another step in our argument. If there is such a thing > as existence in the spiritual world after corporeal death, then it > must occur in accordance with the law of evolution. It takes man from > his place at the apex of the pyramid of matter, and lifts him into a > sphere of existence where the same inexorable law follows him. And if > it follows him, why not everything else in nature? Why not animals and > plants, which have all a life-principle, and whose gross forms decay > like his, when that life-principle leaves them? If his astral body > becomes more ethereal upon attaining the other sphere, why not theirs? > They, as well as he, have been evolved out of condensed cosmic matter, > and our physicists cannot see the slightest difference between the > molecules of the four kingdoms of nature, which are thus specified by > Professor Le Conte: > > 4. _Animal Kingdom._ > 3. Vegetable Kingdom. > 2. Mineral Kingdom. > 1. Elements. > > The progress of matter from each of these planes to the plane above is > continuous; and, according to Le Conte, there is no force in nature {330} > capable of raising matter at once from No. 1 to No. 3, or from No. 2 > to No. 4, without stopping and receiving an accession of force of a > different kind on the intermediate plane. > > Now, will any one presume to say that out of a given number of > molecules, _originally and constantly homogeneous, and all energized > by the same principle of evolution_, a certain number can be carried > through those four kingdoms to the final result of evolving immortal > man, and the others not be allowed to progress beyond planes 1, 2, and > 3? Why should not _all_ these molecules have an equal future before > them; the mineral becoming plant, the plant, animal, and the animal, > man—if not upon _this_ earth, at least somewhere in the boundless > realms of space? The harmony which geometry and mathematics—the only > exact sciences—demonstrate to be the law of the universe, would be > destroyed if evolution were perfectly exemplified in man alone and > limited in the subordinate kingdoms. What logic suggests, psychometry > proves; and, as we said before, it is not unlikely that a monument will > one day be erected by men of science to Joseph R. Buchanan, its modern > discoverer. If a fragment of mineral, fossilized plant, or animal form > gives the psychometer as vivid and accurate pictures of their previous > conditions, as a fragment of human bone does of those of the individual > to which it belonged, it would seem as if the same subtile spirit > pervaded all nature, and was inseparable from organic or inorganic > substances. If anthropologists, physiologists, and psychologists are > equally perplexed by primal and final causes, and by finding in matter > so much similarity in all its forms, but in spirit such abysses of > difference, it is, perhaps, because their inquiries are limited to our > visible globe, and that they cannot, or dare not, go beyond. The spirit > of a mineral, plant, or animal, may begin to form here, and reach its > final development millions of ages hereafter, on other planets, known > or unknown, visible or invisible to astronomers. For, who is able to > controvert the theory previously suggested, that the earth itself will, > like the living creatures to which it has given birth, ultimately, and > after passing through its own stage of death and dissolution, become an > etherealized astral planet? “As above, so below;” harmony is the great > law of nature. > > Harmony in the physical and mathematical world of sense, is _justice_ > in the spiritual one. Justice produces harmony, and injustice, discord; > and discord, on a cosmical scale, means chaos—annihilation. > > If there is a developed immortal spirit in man, it must be in every > thing else, at least in a latent or germinal state, and it can only be > a question of time for each of these germs to become fully developed. > What gross injustice it would be for an impenitent criminal man, the > perpetrator of a brutal murder when in the exercise of his free will, {331} > to have an immortal spirit which in time may be washed clean of > sin, and enjoying perfect happiness, while a poor horse, innocent of > all crime, should toil and suffer under the merciless torture of his > master’s whip during a whole life, and then be annihilated at death? > Such a belief implies a brutal injustice, and is only possible among > people taught in the dogma that everything is created for man, and he > alone is the sovereign of the universe;—a sovereign so mighty that to > save him from the consequences of his own misdeeds, it was not too much > that the God of the universe should die to placate his own just wrath. > > If the most abject savage, with a brain “very little inferior to that > of a philosopher”[536] (the latter developed physically by ages of > civilization), is still, as regards the actual exercise of his mental > faculties, very little superior to an animal, is it just to infer > that both he and the ape will not have the opportunity to become > philosophers; the ape in this world, the man on some other planet > peopled equally with beings created in _some other image_ of God? > > Says Professor Denton, when speaking of the future of psychometry: > “Astronomy will not disdain the assistance of this power. As new forms > of organic being are revealed, when we go back to the earlier geologic > periods, so new groupings of the stars, new constellations, will be > displayed, when the heavens of those early periods are examined by the > piercing gaze of future psychometers. An accurate map of the starry > heavens during the Silurian period may reveal to us many secrets that > we have been unable to discover.... Why may we not indeed be able to > read the history of the various heavenly bodies ... their geological, > their natural, and, perchance, their human history?... I have good > reason to believe that trained psychometers will be able to travel from > planet to planet, and read their present condition minutely, and their > past history.”[537] > > Herodotus tells us that in the eighth of the towers of Belus, in > Babylon, used by the sacerdotal astrologers, there was an uppermost > room, a sanctuary, where the prophesying priestesses slept to receive > communications from the god. Beside the couch stood a table of gold, > upon which were laid various stones, which Manetho informs us were all > aërolites. The priestesses developed the prophetic vision in themselves > by pressing one of these sacred stones against their heads and bosoms. > The same took place at Thebes, and at Patara, in Lycia.[538] > > This would seem to indicate that psychometry was known and extensively > practiced by the ancients. We have somewhere seen it stated that the {332} > profound knowledge possessed, according to Draper, by the ancient > Chaldean astrologers, of the planets and their relations, was obtained > more by the divination of the betylos, or the meteoric stone, than > by astronomical instruments. Strabo, Pliny, Helancius—all speak of > the electrical, or electro-magnetic power of the betyli. They were > worshipped in the remotest antiquity in Egypt and Samothrace, as > magnetic stones, “containing souls which had fallen from heaven;” and > the priests of Cybelè wore a small betylos on their bodies. How curious > the coincidence between the practice of the priests of Belus and the > experiments of Professor Denton! > > As Professor Buchanan truthfully remarks of psychometry, it will enable > us “ ... to detect vice and crime. No criminal act ... can escape the > detection of psychometry, when its powers are properly brought forth > ... the sure detection of guilt by psychometry (no matter how secret > the act) will nullify all concealment.”[539] > > Speaking of the elementary, Porphyry says: “These invisible beings > have been receiving from men honors as gods ... a universal belief > makes them capable of becoming very malevolent: it proves that their > wrath is kindled against those who neglect to offer them a legitimate > worship.”[540] > > Homer describes them in the following terms: “Our _gods_ appear to us > when we offer them sacrifice ... _sitting themselves at our tables, > they partake of our festival meals_. Whenever they meet on his travels > a solitary Phœnician, they _serve to him as guides_, and otherwise > manifest their presence. We can say that _our piety_ approaches us > to them as much as crime and bloodshed unite the Cyclopes and the > ferocious race of giants.”[541] The latter proving that these gods were > kind and beneficent _dæmons_, and that, whether they were _disembodied_ > spirits or elementary beings, they were no _devils_. > > The language of Porphyry, who was himself a direct disciple of > Plotinus, is still more explicit as to the nature of these spirits. > “Demons,” he says, “are invisible; but they know _how to clothe > themselves_ with forms and configurations subjected to numerous > variations, which can be explained by their nature _having much of the > corporeal in itself_. Their abode is in the neighborhood of the earth > ... and _when they can escape the vigilance of the good dæmons, there > is no mischief they will not dare commit_. One day they will employ > brute force; another, cunning.”[542] Further, he says: “It is a child’s {333} > play for them to arouse in us vile passions, to impart to societies > and nations turbulent doctrines, provoking wars, seditions, and other > public calamities, and then tell you ‘that all of these is the work of > the gods.’ ... These spirits pass their time in cheating and deceiving > mortals, creating around them illusions and prodigies; _their greatest > ambition_ is to pass as _gods_ and _souls_ (disembodied spirits).”[543] > > Iamblichus, the great theurgist of the Neo-platonic school, a man > skilled in sacred magic, teaches that “good dæmons appear to us _in > reality_, while the bad ones can manifest themselves but under the > _shadowy forms of phantoms_.” Further, he corroborates Porphyry, and > tells that “ ... the _good ones fear not the light_, while the wicked > _ones require darkness_.... The sensations they excite in us make us > believe in the presence and reality of things they show, though these > things be absent.”[544] > > Even the most practiced theurgists found danger sometimes in their > dealings with certain elementaries, and we have Iamblichus stating > that, “The gods, the angels, and the dæmons, as well as the _souls_, > may be summoned through evocation and prayer.... But when, during > theurgic operations, a mistake is made, beware! Do not imagine that > you are communicating with beneficent divinities, who have answered > your earnest prayer; no, for they are bad dæmons, only under the guise > of good ones! For the elementaries often clothe themselves with the > similitude of the good, and assume a rank very much superior to that > they really occupy. Their boasting betrays them.”[545] > > Some twenty years since, Baron Du Potet, disgusted with the > indifference of the scientists, who persisted in seeing in the greatest > psychological phenomena only the result of clever trickery, gave vent > to his indignation in the following terms: > > “Here am I, on my way, I may truly say, to the land of marvels! I am > preparing to shock every opinion, and provoke laughter in our most > illustrious scientists ... for I am convinced that _agents of an > immense potency_ exist _outside of us_; that they can _enter in us_; > move our limbs and organs; and use us as they please. It was, after > all, the belief of our fathers and of the whole of antiquity. Every > religion admitted the reality of _spiritual agents_.... Recalling > innumerable phenomena which I have produced in the sight of thousands > of persons, seeing the _beastly indifference_ of _official_ science, in > presence of a discovery which transports the mind into the regions of > the unknown [sic]; an old man, at the very _moment when I ought to be {334} > just being born_.... I am not sure if it would not have been better > for me to have shared the common ignorance. > > “I have suffered calumnies to be written without refuting them.... > At one time it is simple ignorance which speaks, and I am silent; at > another still, superficiality, raising its voice, makes a bluster, and > I find myself hesitating whether or not to speak. Is this indifference > or laziness? Has fear the power to paralyze my spirit? No; none of > these causes affect me; I know simply that it is necessary to prove > what one asserts, and this restrains me. For, in justifying my > assertions, in showing the living FACT, which proves my sincerity and > the truth, I translate OUTSIDE THE PRECINCTS OF THE TEMPLE the sacred > inscription, WHICH NO PROFANE EYE SHOULD EVER READ. > > “You doubt sorcery and magic? O, truth! thy possession is a heavy > burden!”[546] > > With a bigotry which one might search for in vain outside the church in > whose interest he writes, des Mousseaux quotes the above language, as > proof positive that this devoted savant, and all who share his belief, > have given themselves over to the dominion of the _Evil One_! > > Self-complacency is the most serious obstacle to the enlightenment > of the modern spiritualist. His thirty years’ experience with the > phenomena seem to him sufficient to have established intermundane > intercourse upon an unassailable basis. His thirty years have not only > brought to him the conviction that the dead communicate and thus prove > the spirit’s immortality, but also settled in his mind an idea that > little or nothing can be learned of the other world, except through > mediums. > > For the spiritualists, the records of the past either do not exist, > or if they are familiar with its gathered treasures, they regard > them as having no bearing upon their own experiences. And yet, the > problems which so vex them, were solved thousands of years ago by the > theurgists, who have left the keys to those who will search for them > in the proper spirit and with knowledge. Is it possible that nature > has changed her work, and that we are encountering different spirits > and different laws from those of old? Or can any spiritualist imagine > that he knows more, or even as much about mediumistic phenomena or > the nature of various spirits, as a priest-caste who spent their > lives in theurgical practice, which had been known and studied for > countless centuries? If the narratives of Owen and Hare, of Edmonds, > and Crookes, and Wallace are credible, why not those of Herodotus, > the “Father of History,” of Iamblichus, and Porphyry, and hundreds of {335} > other ancient authors? If the spiritualists have their phenomena under > test-conditions, so had the old theurgists, whose records, moreover, > show that they could produce and vary them at will. The day when > this fact shall be recognized, and profitless speculations of modern > investigators shall give place to patient study of the works of the > theurgists, will mark the dawn of new and important discoveries in the > field of psychology. > > CHAPTER X. {336} > > Τῆς δὲ γὰρ ἐκ τριάδος πᾶν πνεῦμα πατὴρ—ἐκέρασε. > —TAY.: _Lyd. de Mens._, 20. > > “The more powerful souls perceive truth through themselves, and > are of a more inventive nature. Such souls are saved through > their own strength, according to the oracle.”—PROCLUS in 1 Alc. > > “Since the soul perpetually runs and _passes through all > things_ in a certain space of time, which being performed, it > is presently compelled to run back again through all things, > and unfold the same web of generation in the world ... for > as often as the same causes return, the same effects will in > like manner be returned.”—FICIN. _de Im. An._, 129, _Chaldean > Oracles_. > > “If not to some peculiar end assign’d, > Study’s the specious trifling of the mind.”—YOUNG. > > From the moment when the fœtal embryo is formed until the old man, > gasping his last, drops into the grave, neither the beginning nor the > end is understood by scholastic science; all before us is a blank, > all after us chaos. For it there is no evidence as to the relations > between spirit, soul, and body, either before or after death. The mere > life-principle itself presents an unsolvable enigma, upon the study > of which materialism has vainly exhausted its intellectual powers. > In the presence of a corpse the skeptical physiologist stands dumb > when asked by his pupil whence came the former tenant of that empty > box, and whither it has gone. The pupil must either, like his master, > rest satisfied with the explanation that protoplasm made the man, and > force vitalized and will now consume his body, or he must go outside > the walls of his college and the books of its library to find an > explanation of the mystery. > > It is sometimes as interesting as instructive to follow the two great > rivals, science and theology, in their frequent skirmishes. Not all > of the sons of the Church are as unsuccessful in their attempts at > advocacy as the poor Abbé Moigno, of Paris. This respectable, and no > doubt well-meaning divine, in his fruitless attempt to refute the > free-thinking arguments of Huxley, Tyndall, Du Bois-Raymond, and many > others, has met with a sad failure. In his antidotal arguments his > success was more than doubtful, and, as a reward for his trouble, the > “Congregation of the Index” forbids the circulation of his book among > the faithful. > > It is a dangerous experiment to engage in a single-handed duel with > scientists on topics which are well demonstrated by experimental > research. In what they do _know_ they are unassailable, and until the > old formula is destroyed by their own hands and replaced by a more > newly-discovered one, there is no use fighting against Achilles—unless, {337} > indeed, one is fortunate enough to catch the swift-footed god by his > vulnerable heel. This heel is—what they confess they do not know! > > That was a cunning device to which a certain well-known preacher > resorted to reach this mortal part. Before we proceed to narrate the > extraordinary though well authenticated facts with which we intend > to fill this chapter, it will be good policy to show once more how > fallible is modern science as to every fact in nature which can > be tested neither by retort nor crucible. The following are a few > fragments from a series of sermons by F. Felix, of Notre Dame, entitled > _Mystery and Science_. They are worthy to be translated for and quoted > in a work which is undertaken in precisely the same spirit as that > exhibited by the preacher. For once the Church silenced for a time > the arrogance of her traditional enemy, in the face of the learned > academicians. > > It was known that the great preacher, in response to the general > desire of the faithful, and perhaps to the orders of ecclesiastical > superiors, had been preparing himself for a great oratorical effort, > and the historic cathedral was filled with a monster congregation. > Amid a profound silence he began his discourse, of which the following > paragraphs are sufficient for our purpose: > > “A portentous word has been pronounced against us to confront progress > with Christianity—SCIENCE. Such is the formidable evocation with > which they try to appall us. To all that we can say to base progress > upon Christianity, they have always a ready response: that is not > _scientific_. We say revelation; revelation is not scientific. We say > miracle; a miracle is not scientific. > > “Thus antichristianism, faithful to its tradition, and now more than > ever, pretends to kill us by science. Principle _of darkness_, it > threatens us with light. It proclaims itself the light.... > > “A hundred times I asked myself, What is, then, that terrible science > which is making ready to devour us?... Is it mathematical science?... > but we also have our mathematicians. Is it physics? Astronomy? > Physiology? Geology? But we number in Catholicism astronomers, > physicists, geologists,[547] and physiologists, who make somewhat of > a figure in the scientific world, who have their place in the Academy > and their name in history. It would appear that what is to crush us is > neither this nor that science, but science in general. > > “And why do they prophesy the overthrow of Christianity by science? > Listen: ... we must perish by science because we teach mysteries, and > because the Christian mysteries are in radical antagonism with modern {338} > science.... Mystery is the negation of common sense; science repels it; > science condemns it; she has spoken—Anathema! > > “Ah! you are right; if Christian mystery is what you proclaim it, then > in the name of science hurl the anathema at it. Nothing is antipathetic > to science like the absurd and contradictory. But, glory be to the > truth! such is not the mystery of Christianity. If it were so, it > would remain for you to explain the most inexplicable of mysteries: > how comes it that, during nearly 2,000 years, so many superior minds > and rare geniuses have embraced our mysteries, without thinking to > repudiate science or abdicate reason?[548] Talk as much as you like > of your modern science, modern thought, and modern genius, there were > scientists before 1789. > > “If our mysteries are so manifestly absurd and contradictory, how is it > that such mighty geniuses should have accepted them without a single > doubt?... But God preserve me from insisting upon demonstrating that > mystery implies no contradiction with science!... Of what use to prove, > by metaphysical abstractions, that science can reconcile itself with > mystery, when all the realities of creation show unanswerably that > mystery everywhere baffles science? You ask that we should show you, > beyond doubt, that exact science cannot admit mystery; I answer you > decidedly that she cannot escape it. Mystery is the FATALITY of science. > > “Shall we choose our proofs? First, then, look around at the purely > material world, from the smallest atom to the most majestic sun. There, > if you try to embrace in the unity of a single law all these bodies > and their movements, if you seek the word which explains, in this vast > panorama of the universe, this prodigious harmony, where all seems to > obey the empire of a single force, you pronounce a word to express it, > and say _Attraction_!... Yes, attraction, this is the sublime epitome > of the science of the heavenly bodies. You say that throughout space > these bodies recognize and attract each other; you say that they > attract in proportion to their mass, and in inverse ratio with the > squares of their distances. And, in fact, until the present moment, > nothing has happened to give the lie to this assertion, but everything > has confirmed a formula which now reigns sovereign in the EMPIRE OF > HYPOTHESIS, and therefore it must henceforth enjoy the glory of being > an invincible truism. > > “Gentlemen, with all my heart I make my scientific obeisances to the > sovereignty of attraction. It is not I who would desire to obscure a > light in the world of matter which reflects upon the world of spirits. {339} > The empire of attraction, then, is palpable; it is sovereign; it > stares us in the face! > > “But, what is this attraction? who has seen attraction? who has met > attraction? who has touched attraction? How do these mute bodies, > _intelligent_, insensible, exercise upon each other unconsciously > this reciprocity of action and reaction which holds them in a common > equilibrium and unanimous harmony? _Is this force_ which draws sun > to sun, and atom to atom, an invisible mediator which goes from one > to another? And, in such case what is this mediator? whence comes to > itself this force which mediates, and this power which embraces, from > which the sun can no more escape than the atom. But is this force > nothing different from the elements themselves which attract each > other?... Mystery! Mystery! > > “Yes, gentlemen, this attraction which shines with such brightness > throughout the material world, remains to you at bottom an impenetrable > mystery.... Well! because of its mystery, will you deny its reality, > which touches you, and its domination, which subjugates you?... And > again, remark if you please, mystery is so much at the foundation of > all science that if you should desire to exclude mystery, you would > be compelled to suppress science itself. _Imagine whatever science > you will_, follow the magnificent sweep of its deductions ... when > you arrive at its parent source, you come face to face with the > _unknown_.[549] > > “Who has been able to penetrate the secret of the formation of a body, > the generation of a single atom? What is there I will not say at the > centre of a sun, but at the centre of an atom? who has sounded to the > bottom the abyss in a grain of sand? The grain of sand, gentlemen, > has been studied four thousand years by science, she has turned and > returned it; she divides it and subdivides it; she torments it with > her experiments; she vexes it with her questions to snatch from it > the final word as to its secret constitution; she asks it, with an > insatiable curiosity: ‘Shall I divide thee infinitesimally?’ Then, > suspended over this abyss, science hesitates, she stumbles, she feels > dazzled, she becomes dizzy, and, in despair says: I DO NOT KNOW! > > “But if you are so fatally ignorant of the genesis and hidden nature of > a grain of sand, how should you have an intuition as to the generation > of a single living being? Whence in the living being does life come? > Where does it commence? What is the life-principle?”[550] > > Can the scientists answer the eloquent monk? Can they escape from his {340} > pitiless logic? Mystery certainly does bound them on every side; and > the _Ultima Thule_, whether of Herbert Spencer, Tyndall, or Huxley, has > written upon the closed portals the words INCOMPREHENSIBLE, UNKNOWABLE. > For the lover of metaphor, science may be likened to a twinkling > star shining with resplendent brightness through rifts in a bank of > densely-black clouds. If her votaries cannot define that mysterious > attraction which draws into concrete masses the material particles > which form the smallest pebble on the ocean-beach, how can they define > the limits at which the possible stops and the impossible begins? > > Why should there be an attraction between the molecules of matter, and > none between those of spirit? If, out of the material portion of the > ether, by virtue of the inherent restlessness of its particles, the > forms of worlds and their species of plants and animals can be evolved, > why, out of the spiritual part of the ether, should not successive > races of beings, from the stage of monad to that of man, be developed; > each lower form unfolding a higher one until the work of evolution is > completed on our earth, in the production of immortal man? It will be > seen that, for the moment, we entirely put aside the accumulated facts > which prove the case, and submit it to the arbitrament of logic. > > By whatsoever name the physicists may call the energizing principle > in matter is of no account; it is a subtile something apart from the > matter itself, and, as it escapes their detection, it must be something > besides matter. If the law of attraction is admitted as governing the > one, why should it be excluded from influencing the other? Leaving > logic to answer, we turn to the common experience of mankind, and there > find a mass of testimony corroborative of the immortality of the soul, > if we judge but from analogies. But we have more than that—we have > the unimpeachable testimony of thousands upon thousands, that there > is a regular science of the soul, which, notwithstanding that it is > now denied the right of a place among other sciences, _is_ a science. > This science, by penetrating the arcana of nature far deeper than our > modern philosophy ever dreamed possible, teaches us how to force the > _invisible_ to become visible; the existence of elementary spirits; the > nature and magical properties of the astral light; the power of living > men to bring themselves into communication with the former through > the latter. Let them examine the proofs with the lamp of experience, > and neither the Academy nor the Church, for which Father Felix so > persuasively spoke, can deny them. > > Modern science is in a dilemma; it must concede our hypothesis to be > correct, or admit the possibility of miracle. To do so, is to say > that there can be an infraction of natural law. If this can happen {341} > in one case, what assurance have we that it may not be repeated > indefinitely, and so destroy that fixity of law, that perfect balance > of forces by which the universe is governed. This is a very ancient > and an unanswerable argument. To deny the appearance, in our midst, > of supersensual beings, when they have been seen, at various times > and in various countries, by not merely thousands, but millions of > persons, is unpardonable obstinacy; to say that, in any one instance, > the apparition has been produced by a miracle, fatal to the fundamental > principle of science. What will they do? What can they do, when they > shall have awakened from the benumbing stupor of their pride, but > collect the facts, and try to enlarge the boundaries of their field of > investigations? > > The existence of spirit in the common mediator, the ether, is denied > by materialism; while theology makes of it a personal god, the > kabalist holds that both are wrong, saying that in ether, the elements > represent but matter—the blind cosmic forces of nature; and Spirit, the > intelligence which directs them. The Hermetic, Orphic, and Pythagorean > cosmogonical doctrines, as well as those of Sanchoniathon and Berosus, > are all based upon one irrefutable formula, viz.: that the ether and > chaos, or, in the Platonic language, mind and matter, were the two > primeval and eternal principles of the universe, utterly independent of > anything else. The former was the all-vivifying intellectual principle; > the chaos, a shapeless, liquid principle, without “form or sense,” from > the union of which two, sprung into existence the universe, or rather, > the universal world, the first androgenous deity—the chaotic matter > becoming its body, and ether the soul. According to the phraseology of > a _Fragment of Hermias_, “chaos, from this union with spirit, obtaining > _sense_, shone with pleasure, and thus was produced the _Protogonos_ > (the first-born) light.”[551] This is the universal trinity, based > on the metaphysical conceptions of the ancients, who, reasoning by > analogy, made of man, who is a compound of intellect and matter, the > microcosm of the macrocosm, or great universe. > > If we now compare this doctrine with the speculations of science, which > comes to a full stop at the Borderland of the unknown, and, while > incompetent to solve the mystery, will allow no one else to speculate > upon the subject; or, with the great theological dogma, that the world > was called into existence by a heavenly trick of prestidigitation; we > do not hesitate to believe that, in the absence of better proof, the > Hermetic doctrine is by far the more reasonable, highly metaphysical > as it may appear. The universe is there, and we know that we exist; > but how did it come, and how did we appear in it? Denied an answer {342} > by the rpresentatives of physical learning, and excommunicated and > anathematized for our blasphemous curiosity by the spiritual usurpers, > what can we do, but turn for information to the sages who meditated > upon the subject ages before the molecules of our philosophers > aggregated in ethereal space? > > This visible universe of spirit and matter, they say, is but the > concrete image of the ideal abstraction; it was built on the model > of the first divine IDEA. Thus our universe existed from eternity in > a latent state. The soul animating this purely spiritual universe is > the central sun, the highest deity itself. It was not himself who > built the concrete form of his idea, but his first-begotten; and as it > was constructed on the geometrical figure of the dodecahedron,[552] > the first-begotten “was pleased to employ twelve thousand years in > its creation.” The latter number is expressed in the Tyrrhenian > cosmogony,[553] which shows man created in the sixth millennium. This > agrees with the Egyptian theory of 6,000 “years,”[554] and with the > Hebrew computation. Sanchoniathon,[555] in his _Cosmogony_, declares > that when the wind (spirit) became enamored of its own principles (the > chaos), an intimate union took place, which connection was called > _pothos_, and from this sprang the seed of all. And the chaos knew not > its own production, for it was _senseless_; but from its embrace with > the wind was generated môt, or the ilus (mud).[556] From this proceeded > the spores of creation and the generation of the universe. > > The ancients, who named but four elements, made of æther a fifth one. > On account of its essence being made divine by the unseen presence > it was considered as a medium between this world and the next. They > held that when the directing intelligences retired from any portion of > ether, one of the four kingdoms which they are bound to superintend, > the space was left in possession of _evil_. An adept who prepared to > converse with the “invisibles,” had to know well his ritual, and be > perfectly acquainted with the conditions required for the perfect > equilibrium of the four elements in the astral light. First of all, he > must purify the essence, and within the circle in which he sought to > attract the pure spirits, equilibrize the elements, so as to prevent > the ingress of the elementaries into their respective spheres. But woe > to the imprudent inquirer who ignorantly trespasses upon forbidden > ground; danger will beset him at every step. He evokes powers that he > cannot control; he arouses sentries which allow only their masters to > pass. For, in the words of the immortal Rosicrucian, “Once that thou > hast resolved to become a coöperator with the spirit of the _living_ {343} > God, take care not to hinder Him in His work; for, if thy heat exceeds > the natural proportion thou hast stirr’d the wrath of the _moyst[557] > natures_, and they will stand up against the _central fire_, and the > central fire against them, and there will be a terrible division in > the _chaos_.”[558] The spirit of harmony and union will depart from > the elements, disturbed by the imprudent hand; and the currents of > blind forces will become immediately infested by numberless creatures > of matter and instinct—the bad dæmons of the theurgists, the devils > of theology; the gnomes, salamanders, sylphs, and undines will assail > the rash performer under multifarious aërial forms. Unable to invent > anything, they will search your memory to its very depths; hence the > nervous exhaustion and mental oppression of certain sensitive natures > at spiritual circles. The elementals will bring to light long-forgotten > remembrances of the past; forms, images, sweet mementos, and familiar > sentences, long since faded from our own remembrance, but vividly > preserved in the inscrutable depths of our memory and on the astral > tablets of the imperishable “BOOK OF LIFE.” > > Every organized thing in this world, visible as well as invisible, > has an element appropriate to itself. The fish lives and breathes in > the water; the plant consumes carbonic acid, which for animals and > men produces death; some beings are fitted for rarefied strata of > air, others exist only in the densest. Life, to some, is dependent on > sunlight, to others, upon darkness; and so the wise economy of nature > adapts to each existing condition some living form. These analogies > warrant the conclusion that, not only is there no unoccupied portion of > universal nature, but also that for each thing that has life, special > conditions are furnished, and, being furnished, they are necessary. > Now, assuming that there is an invisible side to the universe, the {344} > fixed habit of nature warrants the conclusion that this half is > occupied, like the other half; and that each group of its occupants > is supplied with the indispensable conditions of existence. It is as > illogical to imagine that identical conditions are furnished to all, > as it would be to maintain such a theory respecting the inhabitants of > the domain of visible nature. That there are spirits implies that there > is a diversity of spirits; for men differ, and human spirits are but > disembodied men. > > To say that all spirits are alike, or fitted to the same atmosphere, or > possessed of like powers, or governed by the same attractions—electric, > magnetic, odic, astral, it matters not which—is as absurd as though > one should say that all planets have the same nature, or that all > animals are amphibious, or all men can be nourished on the same food. > It accords with reason to suppose that the grossest natures among the > spirits will sink to the lowest depths of the spiritual atmosphere—in > other words, be found nearest to the earth. Inversely, the purest would > be farthest away. In what, were we to coin a word, we should call the > _Psychomatics_ of Occultism, it is as unwarrantable to assume that > either of these grades of spirits can occupy the place, or subsist in > the conditions, of the other, as in hydraulics it would be to expect > that two liquids of different densities could exchange their markings > on the scale of Beaume’s hydrometer. > > Görres, describing a conversation he had with some Hindus of the > Malabar coast, reports that upon asking them whether they had ghosts > among them, they replied, “Yes, but we know them to be _bad spirits_ > ... good ones can hardly ever appear at all. They are principally > the spirits of _suicides_ and _murderers_, or of those who die > violent deaths. They constantly flutter about and appear as phantoms. > Night-time is favorable to them, they seduce the feeble-minded and > tempt others in a thousand different ways.”[559] > > Porphyry presents to us some hideous facts whose verity is > substantiated in the experience of every student of magic. “The > _soul_,”[560] says he, “having even after death a certain affection for > its body, an affinity proportioned to the violence with which their > union was broken, we see many spirits hovering in despair about their > earthly remains; we even see them eagerly seeking the putrid remains > of other bodies, but above all freshly-spilled blood, which seems to > impart to them for the moment some of the faculties of life.”[561] > > Let spiritualists who doubt the theurgist, try the effect of about half {345} > a pound of freshly-drawn human blood at their next materializing seance! > > “The gods and the angels,” says Iamblichus, “appear to us among peace > and harmony; the bad demons, in tossing everything in confusion.... As > to the _ordinary souls_, we can perceive them more rarely, etc.”[562] > > “The human soul (the astral body) is a demon that our language may > name genius,” says Apuleius.[563] “She is an _immortal god_, though in > a certain sense she is born at the same time as the man in whom she > is. Consequently, we may say that she dies in the same way that she is > born.” > > “The soul is born in this world upon leaving _another world_ (_anima > mundi_), in which her existence precedes the one we all know (on > earth). Thus, the gods who consider her proceedings in all the phases > of various existences and as a whole, punish her sometimes for sins > committed during an anterior life. She dies when she separates herself > from a body in which she crossed this life as in a frail bark. And this > is, if I mistake not, the secret meaning of the tumulary inscription, > so simple for the initiate: “_To the gods manes who lived._” But this > kind of death does not annihilate the soul, it only transforms it > into a _lemure_. Lemures are the manes or ghosts, which we know under > the name of lares. When they keep away and _show us a beneficient > protection_, we honor in them the protecting divinities of the family > hearth; but, if their crimes sentence them to err, we call them > _larvæ_. They become a plague for the wicked, and the _vain terror_ of > the good.” > > This language can hardly be called ambiguous, and yet, the > Reïncarnationists quote Apuleius in corroboration of their theory that > man passes through a succession of physical human births upon this > planet, until he is finally purged from the dross of his nature. But > Apuleius distinctly says that we come upon this earth from another one, > where we had an existence, the recollection of which has faded away. As > the watch passes from hand to hand and room to room in a factory, one > part being added here, and another there, until the delicate machine is > perfected, according to the design conceived in the mind of the master > before the work was begun; so, according to ancient philosophy, the > first divine conception of man takes shape little by little, in the > several departments of the universal workshop, and the perfect human > being finally appears on our scene. > > This philosophy teaches that nature never leaves her work {346} > unfinished; if baffled at the first attempt, she tries again. When > she evolves a human embryo, the intention is that a man shall be > perfected—physically, intellectually, and spiritually. His body is > to grow mature, wear out, and die; his mind unfold, ripen, and be > harmoniously balanced; his divine spirit illuminate and blend easily > with the _inner_ man. No human being completes its grand cycle, or > the “circle of necessity,” until all these are accomplished. As the > laggards in a race struggle and plod in their first quarter while the > victor darts past the goal, so, in the race of immortality, some souls > outspeed all the rest and reach the end, while their myriad competitors > are toiling under the load of matter, close to the starting-point. Some > unfortunates fall out entirely, and lose all chance of the prize; some > retrace their steps and begin again. This is what the Hindu dreads > above all things—_transmigration_ and _reïncarnation_; only on other > and inferior planets, never on this one. But there is a way to avoid > it, and Buddha taught it in his doctrine of poverty, restriction of > the senses, perfect indifference to the objects of this earthly vale > of tears, freedom from passion, and frequent intercommunication with > the Atma—soul-contemplation. The cause of reïncarnation is ignorance > of our senses, and the idea that there is any reality in the world, > anything except abstract existence. From the organs of sense comes the > “hallucination” we call contact; “from contact, desire; from desire, > sensation (which also is a deception of our body); from sensation, the > cleaving to existing bodies; from this cleaving, reproduction; and from > reproduction, disease, decay, and death.” > > Thus, like the revolutions of a wheel, there is a regular succession of > death and birth, the moral cause of which is the cleaving to existing > objects, while the instrumental cause is _karma_ (the power which > controls the universe, prompting it to activity), merit and demerit. > “It is, therefore, the great desire of all beings who would be released > _from the sorrows of successive birth_, to seek the destruction of the > moral cause, the cleaving to existing objects, or evil desire.” They, > in whom evil desire is entirely destroyed, are called _Arhats_.[564] > Freedom from evil desire insures the possession of a _miraculous_ > power. At his death, the Arhat is never reïncarnated; he invariably > attains Nirvana—a word, by the bye, falsely interpreted by the > Christian scholars and skeptical commentators. Nirvana is the world > of _cause_, in which all deceptive effects or delusions of our senses > disappear. Nirvana is the highest attainable sphere. The _pitris_ (the > pre-Adamic spirits) are considered as _reïncarnated_, by the Buddhistic > philosopher, though in a degree far superior to that of the man of > earth. Do they not die in their turn? Do not their astral bodies {347} > suffer and rejoice, and feel the same curse of illusionary feelings as > when embodied? > > What Buddha taught in the sixth century, B.C., in India, Pythagoras > taught in the fifth, in Greece and Italy. Gibbon shows how deeply the > Pharisees were impressed with this belief in the transmigration of > souls.[565] The Egyptian circle of necessity is ineffaceably stamped > on the hoary monuments of old. And Jesus, when healing the sick, > invariably used the following expression: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” > This is a pure Buddhistical doctrine. “The Jews said to the blind > man: Thou wast _altogether born in sins_, and dost thou teach us? The > doctrine of the disciples (of Christ) is analogous to the ‘Merit and > Demerit’ of the Buddhists; for the sick recovered, _if their sins were > forgiven_.”[566] But, this _former life_ believed in by the Buddhists, > is not a life _on this_ planet, for, more than any other people, the > Buddhistical philosopher appreciated the great doctrine of cycles. > > The speculations of Dupuis, Volney, and Godfrey Higgins on the secret > meaning of the cycles, or the _kalpas_ and the yogs of the Brahmans > and Buddhists, amounted to little, as they did not have the key to the > esoteric, spiritual doctrine therein contained. No philosophy ever > speculated on God as an _abstraction_, but considered Him under His > various manifestations. The “First Cause” of the Hebrew Bible, the > Pythagorean “Monad,” the “One Existence” of the Hindu philosopher, > and the kabalistic “En-Soph” the _Boundless_—are identical. The Hindu > Bhagavant does not create; he enters the egg of the world, and > emanates from it as Brahm, in the same manner as the Pythagorean > Duad evolves from the highest and solitary Monas.[567] The Monas of {348} > the Samian philosopher is the Hindu Monas (mind), “who has no first > cause (apûrva, or material cause), nor is liable to destruction.”[568] > Brahma, as Prajâpati, manifests himself first of all as “twelve > bodies,” or attributes, which are represented by the twelve gods, > symbolizing 1, Fire; 2, the Sun; 3, Soma, which gives omniscience; 4, > all living Beings; 5, Vayn, or material Ether; 6, Death, or breath of > destruction—Siva; 7, Earth; 8, Heaven; 9, Agni, the Immaterial Fire; > 10, Aditya, the immaterial and female invisible Sun; 11, Mind; 12, the > great Infinite Cycle, “which is not to be stopped.”[569] After that, > Brahma dissolves himself into the Visible Universe, every atom of which > is himself. When this is done, the not-manifested, indivisible, and > indefinite Monas retires into the undisturbed and majestic solitude > of its unity. _The_ manifested deity, a duad at first, now becomes a > triad; its triune quality emanates incessantly spiritual powers, who > become immortal gods (souls). Each of these souls must be united in > its turn with a human being, and from the moment of its consciousness > it commences a series of births and deaths. An Eastern artist has > attempted to give pictorial expression to the kabalistic doctrine of > the cycles. The picture covers a whole inner wall of a subterranean > temple in the neighborhood of a great Buddhistic pagoda, and is > strikingly suggestive. Let us attempt to convey some idea of the > design, as we recall it. > > Imagine a given point in space as the primordial one; then with > compasses draw a circle around this point; where the beginning and > the end unite together, emanation and reabsorption meet. The circle > itself is composed of innumerable smaller circles, like the rings > of a bracelet, and each of these minor rings forms the belt of > the goddess which represents that sphere. As the curve of the arc > approaches the ultimate point of the semi-circle—the nadir of the > grand cycle—at which is placed our planet by the mystical painter, the > face of each successive goddess becomes more dark and hideous than > European imagination is able to conceive. Every belt is covered with > the representations of plants, animals, and human beings, belonging > to the fauna, flora, and anthropology of that particular sphere. > There is a certain distance between each of the spheres, purposely > marked; for, after the accomplishment of the circles through various {349} > transmigrations, the soul is allowed a time of temporary nirvana, > during which space of time the atma loses all remembrance of past > sorrows. The intermediate ethereal space is filled with strange beings. > Those between the highest ether and the earth below are the creatures > of a “middle nature;” nature-spirits, or, as the kabalists term it > sometimes, the elementary. > > This picture is either a copy of the one described to posterity > by Berosus, the priest of the temple of Belus, at Babylon, or the > original. We leave it to the shrewdness of the modern archæologist > to decide. But the wall is covered with precisely such creatures > as described by the semi-demon, or half-god, Oannes, the Chaldean > man-fish,[570] “ ... hideous beings, which were produced of a two-fold > principle” the astral light and the grosser matter. > > Even remains of architectural relics of the earliest races have been > sadly neglected by antiquarians, until now. The caverns of Ajunta, > which are but 200 miles from Bombay, in the Chandor range, and the > ruins of the ancient city of Aurungabad, whose crumbling palaces and > curious tombs have lain in desolate solitude for many centuries, > have attracted attention but very recently. Mementos of long bygone > civilization, they were allowed to become the shelter of wild beasts > for ages before they were found worthy of a scientific exploration, > and it is only recently that the _Observer_ gave an enthusiastic > description of these archaic ancestors of Herculaneum and Pompeii. > After justly blaming the local government which “has provided a > bungalow where the traveller may find shelter and safety, but that is > all,” it proceeds to narrate the wonders to be seen in this retired > spot, in the following words: > > “In a deep glen away up the mountain there is a group of cave-temples > which are the most wonderful caverns on the earth. It is not known at > the present age how many of these exist in the deep recesses of the > mountains; but twenty-seven have been explored, surveyed, and, to some > extent, cleared of rubbish. There are, doubtless, many others. It is > hard to realize with what indefatigable toil these wonderful caves have > been hewn from the solid rock of amygdaloid. They are said to have been > wholly Buddhist in their origin, and were used for purposes of worship > and asceticism. They rank very high as works of art. They extend over > 500 feet along a high cliff, and are carved in the most curious manner, > exhibiting, in a wonderful degree, the taste, talent, and persevering > industry of the Hindu sculptors. > > “These cave-temples are beautifully cut and carved on the outside; but {350} > inside they were finished most elaborately, and decorated with a vast > profusion of sculptures and paintings. These long-deserted temples have > suffered from dampness and neglect, and the paintings and frescoes are > not what they were hundreds of years ago. But the colors are still > brilliant, and scenes gay and festive still appear upon the walls. > Some of the figures cut in the rock are taken for marriage-processions > and scenes in domestic life that are represented as joyful. The female > figures are beautiful, delicate, and fair as Europeans. Every one of > these representations is artistic, and all of them are unpolluted > by any grossness or obscenity generally so prominent in Brahmanical > representations of a similar character. > > “These caves are visited by a great number of antiquarians, who are > striving to decipher the hieroglyphics inscribed on the walls and > determine the age of these curious temples. > > “The ruins of the ancient city of Aurungabad are not very far from > these caves. It was a walled city of great repute, but is now deserted. > There are not only broken walls, but crumbling palaces. They were built > of immense strength, and some of the walls appear as solid as the > everlasting hills. > > “There are a great many places in this vicinity where there are Hindu > remains, consisting of deep caves and rock-cut temples. Many of > these temples are surrounded by a circular enclosure, which is often > adorned with statues and columns. The figure of an elephant is very > common, placed before or beside the opening of a temple, as a sort of > sentinel. Hundreds and thousands of niches are beautifully cut in the > solid rock, and when these temples were thronged with worshippers, > each niche had a statue or image, usually in the florid style of these > Oriental sculptures. It is a sad truth that almost every image here > is shamefully defaced and mutilated. It is often said that no Hindu > will bow down to an imperfect image, and that the Mahometans, knowing > this, purposely mutilated all these images to prevent the Hindus from > worshipping them. This is regarded by the Hindus as sacrilegious and > blasphemous, awakening the keenest animosities, which every Hindu > inherits from his father, and which centuries have not been able to > efface. > > “Here also are the remains of buried cities—sad ruins—generally > without a single inhabitant. In the grand palaces where royalty once > gathered and held festivals, wild beasts find their hiding-places. In > several places the track of the railway has been constructed over or > through these ruins, and the material has been used for the bed of the > road.... Enormous stones have remained in their places for thousands of > years, and probably will for thousands of years to come. These rock {351} > cut temples, as well as these mutilated statues, show a workmanship > that no work now being done by the natives can equal.[571] It is very > evident that hundreds of years since these hills were alive with a vast > multitude, where now it is all utter desolation, without cultivation or > inhabitants, and given over to wild beasts. > > “It is good hunting ground, and, as the English are mighty hunters, > they may prefer to have these mountains and ruins remain without > change.” > > We fervently hope they will. Enough vandalism was perpetrated in > earlier ages to permit us the hope that at least in this century of > exploration and learning, science, in its branches of archæology and > philology, will not be deprived of these most precious records, wrought > on imperishable tablets of granite and rock. > > We will now present a few fragments of this mysterious doctrine of > reïncarnation—as distinct from metempsychosis—which we have from > an authority. Reïncarnation, _i.e._, the appearance of the same > individual, or rather of his astral monad, twice on the same planet, > is not a rule in nature; it is an exception, like the teratological > phenomenon of a two-headed infant. It is preceded by a violation of > the laws of harmony of nature, and happens only when the latter, > seeking to restore its disturbed equilibrium, violently throws back > into earth-life the astral monad which had been tossed out of the > circle of necessity by crime or accident. Thus, in cases of abortion, > of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and incurable > idiocy, nature’s original design to produce a perfect human being has > been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these > several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death, through > the vast realm of being, the immortal spirit and astral monad of the > individual—the latter having been set apart to animate a frame and the > former to shed its divine light on the corporeal organization—must try > a second time to carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence. > > If reason has been so far developed as to become active and > discriminative, there is no reïncarnation on this earth, for the three > parts of the triune man have been united together, and he is capable > of running the race. But when the new being has not passed beyond the > condition of monad, or when, as in the idiot, the trinity has not been > completed, the immortal spark which illuminates it, has to reënter on > the earthly plane as it was frustrated in its first attempt. Otherwise, {352} > the mortal or astral, and the immortal or divine, souls, could not > progress in unison and pass onward to the sphere above. Spirit follows > a line parallel with that of matter; and the spiritual evolution goes > hand in hand with the physical. As in the case exemplified by Professor > Le Conte (vide chap, ix.), “there is no force in nature” and the rule > applies to the spiritual as well as to the physical evolution—“which > is capable of raising at once spirit or matter from No. 1 to No. 3, or > from 2 to 4, without stopping and receiving an accession of force of a > different kind _on the intermediate plane_.” That is to say, the monad > which was imprisoned in the elementary being—the rudimentary or lowest > astral form of the future man—after having passed through and quitted > the _highest_ physical shape of a dumb animal—say an orang-outang, > or again an elephant, one of the most intellectual of brutes—that > monad, we say, cannot skip over the physical and intellectual sphere > of the terrestrial man, and be suddenly ushered into the spiritual > sphere above. What reward or punishment can there be in that sphere > of disembodied human entities for a fœtus or a human embryo which had > not even time to breathe on this earth, still less an opportunity to > exercise the divine faculties of the spirit? Or, for an irresponsible > infant, whose senseless monad remaining dormant within the astral and > physical casket, could as little prevent him from burning himself as > another person to death? Or for one idiotic from birth, the number of > whose cerebral circumvolutions is only from twenty to thirty per cent. > of those of sane persons;[572] and who therefore is irresponsible for > either his disposition, acts, or the imperfections of his vagrant, > half-developed intellect? > > No need to remark that if even hypothetical, this theory is no more > ridiculous than many others considered as strictly orthodox. We must > not forget that either through the inaptness of the specialists or some > other reason, physiology itself is the least advanced or understood of > sciences, and that some French physicians, with Dr. Fournié, positively > despair of ever progressing in it beyond pure hypotheses. > > Further, the same occult doctrine recognizes another possibility; > albeit so rare and so vague that it is really useless to mention it. > Even the modern Occidental occultists deny it, though it is universally > accepted in Eastern countries. When, through vice, fearful crimes > and animal passions, a disembodied spirit has fallen to the eighth > sphere—the allegorical Hades, and the _gehenna_ of the Bible—the > nearest to our earth—he can, with the help of that glimpse of reason > and consciousness left to him, repent; that is to say, he can, by > exercising the remnants of his will-power, strive upward, and like a {353} > drowning man, struggle once more to the surface. In the _Magical and > Philosophical Precepts_ of Psellus, we find one which, warning mankind, > says: > > “Stoop not down, for a precipice lies below the earth, > Drawing _under a descent of_ SEVEN _steps_, beneath which > Is the throne of dire necessity.”[573] > > A strong aspiration to retrieve his calamities, a pronounced desire, > will draw him once more into the earth’s atmosphere. Here he will > wander and suffer more or less in dreary solitude. His instincts will > make him seek with avidity contact with living persons.... These > spirits are the invisible but too tangible magnetic vampires; the > _subjective_ dæmons so well known to mediæval ecstatics, nuns, and > monks, to the “witches” made so famous in the _Witch-Hammer_; and to > certain sensitive clairvoyants, according to their own confessions. > They are the blood-dæmons of Porphyry, the _larvæ_, and _lemures_ of > the ancients; the fiendish instruments which sent so many unfortunate > and weak victims to the rack and stake. Origen held all the dæmons > which possessed the demoniacs mentioned in the _New Testament_ to be > _human_ “spirits.” It is because Moses knew so well what they were, > and how terrible were the consequences to weak persons who yielded > to their influence, that he enacted the cruel, murderous law against > such would-be “witches;” but Jesus, full of justice and divine love to > humanity, _healed_ instead of _killing_ them. Subsequently our clergy, > the pretended exemplars of Christian principles, followed the law of > Moses, and quietly ignored the law of Him whom they call their “one > living God,” by burning dozens of thousands of such pretended “witches.” > > Witch! mighty name, which in the past contained the promise of > ignominious death; and in the present has but to be pronounced to > raise a whirlwind of ridicule, a tornado of sarcasms! How is it then > that there have always been men of intellect and learning, who never > thought that it would disgrace their reputation for learning, or lower > their dignity, to publicly affirm the possibility of such a thing as > a “witch,” in the correct acceptation of the word. One such fearless > champion was Henry More, the learned scholar of Cambridge, of the > seventeenth century. It is well worth our while to see how cleverly he > handled the question. > > It appears that about the year 1678, a certain divine, named John > Webster, wrote _Criticisms and Interpretations of Scripture_, against > the existence of witches, and other “superstitions.” Finding the work > “a weak and impertinent piece,” Dr. More criticised it in a letter to > Glanvil, the author of _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, and as an appendix {354} > sent a treatise on witchcraft and explanations of the word witch, > itself. This document is very rare, but we possess it in a fragmentary > form in an old manuscript, having seen it mentioned besides only in an > insignificant work of 1820, on _Apparitions_, for it appears that the > document itself was long since out of print. > > The words _witch_ and _wizard_, according to Dr. More, signify no more > than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word _wizard_, it is plain at > the very sight; and “the most plain and least operose deduction of the > name witch, is from _wit_, whose derived adjective might be _wittigh_ > or _wittich_, and by contraction, afterwards witch; as the noun wit is > from the verb to _weet_, which is, to know. So that a witch, thus far, > is no more than a knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latin > word _saga_, according to that of Festus, _sagæ dictæ anus quæ multa > sciunt_!” > > This definition of the word appears to us the more plausible, as it > exactly answers the evident meaning of the Slavonian-Russian names for > witches and wizards. The former is called _vyèdma_, and the latter > _vyèdmak_, both from the verb to _know_, _védat_ or _vyedât_; the root, > moreover, being positively Sanscrit. “Veda,” says Max Müller, in his > _Lecture on the Vedas_, “means originally knowing, or knowledge. Veda > is the same word which appears in Greek οἶδα, I know [the digamma, > _vau_ being omitted], and in the English wise, wisdom, to wit.”[574] > Furthermore, the Sanscrit word _vidma_, answering to the German _wir > wissen_, means literally “_we know_.” It is a great pity that the > eminent philologist, while giving in his lecture the Sanscrit, Greek, > Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, and German comparative roots of this word, has > neglected the Slavonian. > > Another Russian appellation for _witch_ and _wizard_, the former being > purely Slavonian, is _znâhâr_ and _znâharka_ (feminine) from the same > verb _znât_ to know. Thus Dr. More’s definition of the word, given in > 1678, is perfectly correct, and coincides in every particular with > modern philology. > > “Use,” says this scholar, “questionless had appropriated the word to > such a kind of skill and knowledge as was out of the common road or > extraordinary. _Nor did this peculiarity imply any unlawfulness._ But > there was after a further restriction, in which alone now-a-days the > words _witch_ and _wizard_ are used. And that is, for one that has the > knowledge and skill of doing or telling things in an extraordinary > way, and that in virtue of either an express or implicit sociation or > confederacy with some _bad spirits_.” In the clause of the severe law > of Moses, so many names are reckoned up with that of witch, that it > is difficult as well as useless to give here the definition of every > one of them as found in Dr. More’s able treatise. “There shall not be {355} > found among you any one that useth divination, or an observer of time, > or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar > spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer,” says the text. We will show, > further on, the real object of such severity. For the present, we will > remark that Dr. More, after giving a learned definition of every one > of such appellations, and showing the value of their real meaning in > the days of Moses, proves that there is a vast difference between the > “enchanters,” “observers of time,” etc., and a witch. “So many names > are reckoned up in this prohibition of Moses, that, as in our common > law, the sense may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that > the name of ‘witch’ is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common > jugglers, that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but > that it is the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s > sight, and so are most certainly witches—women and men who have a _bad > spirit_ in them. ‘Thou shalt not suffer’ מכשפה _mecassephah_, that is, > ‘a witch, to live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather > cruelty, against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain.” > > Thus, it is but the sixth appellation, that of a consulter with > familiar spirits or a witch, that had to incur the greatest penalty > of the law of Moses, for it is only a _witch_ which must _not_ be > suffered to live, while all the others are simply enumerated as such > with whom the people of Israel were forbidden to communicate on account > of their idolatry or rather religious views and learning chiefly. This > sixth word is שאיל אוב, _shoel aub_, which our English translation > renders, “a consulter with familiar spirits;” but which the Septuagint > translates, Εγγαστριμυθος, one that has a familiar spirit _inside_ him, > one possessed with the spirit of divination, which was considered to > be Python by the Greeks, and _obh_ by the Hebrews, the old serpent; in > its esoteric meaning the spirit of concupiscence and _matter_; which, > according to the kabalists, is always an elementary _human_ spirit of > the eighth sphere. > > “_Shoel obh_, I conceive,” says Henry More, “is to be understood of > the witch herself who asks counsel of her or his familiar. The reason > of the name _obh_, was taken first from that spirit that was in the > body of the party, and swelled it to a protuberancy, the voice always > seeming to come out as from a bottle, for which reason they were named > _ventriloquists_. _Ob_ signifies as much as _Pytho_, which at first > took its name from the _pythii vates_, a spirit that tells hidden > things, or things to come. In _Acts_ XVI. 16, πνεύμα πὺθωνος, when > “Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I command thee, in > the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he came out at the > same hour.” Therefore, the words obsessed or _possessed_ are synonyms > of the word _witch_; nor could this _pytho_ of the eighth sphere come {356} > out of her, unless it was a spirit distinct from her. And so it is that > we see in _Leviticus_ XX. 27: “A man also or woman that hath a familiar > spirit, or that is a wizard (an irresponsible _jidegnoni_) shall surely > be put _to death_, they shall stone them with stones, _their blood > shall be_ upon them.” > > A cruel and unjust law beyond doubt, and one which gives the lie to > a recent utterance of “Spirits,” by the mouth of one of the most > popular _inspirational_ mediums of the day, to the effect that modern > philological research proves that the Mosaic law never contemplated > the killing of the poor “mediums” or _witches_ of the _Old Testament_, > but that the words, “thou shalt not suffer a witch _to live_,” meant > to live by their mediumship, that is, to gain their livelihood! An > interpretation no less ingenius than novel. Certainly, nowhere short > of the source of such _inspiration_ could we find such philological > profundity![575] > > “Shut the door in the face of the dæmon,” says the _Kabala_, “and he > will keep running away from you, as if you pursued him,” which means, > that you must not give a hold on you to such spirits of obsession by > attracting them into an atmosphere of congenial sin. > > These dæmons seek to introduce themselves into the bodies of the > simple-minded and idiots, and remain there until dislodged therefrom > by a powerful and _pure_ will. Jesus, Apollonius, and some of the > apostles, had the power to cast out _devils_, by purifying the > atmosphere _within_ and _without_ the patient, so as to force the > unwelcome tenant to flight. Certain volatile salts are particularly > obnoxious to them; and the effect of the chemicals used in a saucer, > and placed under the bed by Mr. Varley, of London,[576] for the purpose {357} > of keeping away some disagreeable physical phenomena at night, are > corroborative of this great truth. Pure or even simply inoffensive > human spirits fear nothing, for having rid themselves of _terrestrial_ > matter, terrestrial compounds can affect them in no wise; such spirits > are like a _breath_. Not so with the earth-bound souls and the > nature-spirits. > > It is for these carnal terrestrial _larvæ_, degraded human spirits, > that the ancient kabalists entertained a hope of _reïncarnation_. But > when, or how? At a fitting moment, and if helped by a sincere desire > for his amendment and repentance by some strong, sympathizing person, > or the will of an adept, or even a desire emanating from the erring > spirit himself, provided it is powerful enough to make him throw off > the burden of sinful matter. Losing all consciousness, the once bright > monad is caught once more into the vortex of our terrestrial evolution, > and it repasses the subordinate kingdoms, and again breathes as a > living child. To compute the time necessary for the completion of this > process would be impossible. Since there is no perception of time in > eternity, the attempt would be a mere waste of labor. > > As we have said, but few kabalists believe in it, and this doctrine > originated with certain astrologers. While casting up the nativities > of certain historical personages renowned for some peculiarities of > disposition, they found the conjunction of the planets answering > perfectly to remarkable oracles and prophesies about other persons > born ages later. Observation, and what would now be termed “remarkable > coincidences,” added to revelation during the “sacred sleep” of the > neophyte, disclosed the dreadful truth. So horrible is the thought that > even those who ought to be convinced of it prefer ignoring it, or at > least avoid speaking on the subject. > > This way of obtaining oracles was practiced in the highest antiquity. > In India, this sublime lethargy is called “the sacred sleep of * * *.” > It is an oblivion into which the subject is thrown by certain magical > processes, supplemented by draughts of the juice of the soma. The body > of the sleeper remains for several days in a condition resembling > death, and by the power of the adept is purified of its earthliness and {358} > made fit to become the temporary receptacle of the brightness of the > immortal Augoeides. In this state the torpid body is made to reflect > the glory of the upper spheres, as a burnished mirror does the rays > of the sun. The sleeper takes no note of the lapse of time, but upon > awakening, after four or five days of trance, imagines he has slept > but a few moments. What his lips utter he will never know; but as it > is the spirit which directs them they can pronounce nothing but divine > truth. For the time being the poor helpless clod is made the shrine > of the sacred presence, and converted into an oracle a thousand times > more infallible than the asphyxiated Pythoness of Delphi; and, unlike > her mantic frenzy, which was exhibited before the multitude, this holy > sleep is witnessed only within the sacred precinct by those few of the > adepts who are worthy to stand in the presence of the ADONAI. > > The description which Isaiah gives of the purification necessary for a > prophet to undergo before he is worthy to be the mouthpiece of heaven, > applies to the case in point. In customary metaphor he says: “Then flew > one of the seraphim unto me having a live coal in his hand, which he > had taken with the tongs from off the altar ... and he laid it upon my > mouth and said, Lo! this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is > taken away.” > > The invocation of his own Augoeides, by the purified adept, is > described in words of unparalleled beauty by Bulwer-Lytton in _Zanoni_, > and there he gives us to understand that the slightest touch of mortal > passion unfits the hierophant to hold communion with his spotless soul. > Not only are there few who can successfully perform the ceremony, but > even these rarely resort to it except for the instruction of some > neophytes, and to obtain knowledge of the most solemn importance. > > And yet how little is the knowledge treasured up by these hierophants > understood or appreciated by the general public! “There is another > collection of writings and traditions bearing the title of _Kabala_, > attributed to Oriental scholars,” says the author of _Art-Magic_; “but > as this remarkable work is of little or no value without a key, which > _can only be furnished by Oriental fraternities_, its transcript would > be of no value to the general reader.”[577] And how they are ridiculed > by every Houndsditch commercial traveller who wanders through India in > pursuit of “orders” and writes to the _Times_, and misrepresented by > every nimble-fingered trickster who pretends to show by legerdemain, to > the gaping crowd, the feats of true Oriental magicians! > > But, notwithstanding his unfairness in the Algerian affair, Robert > Houdin, an authority on the art of prestidigitation, and Moreau-Cinti, {359} > another, gave honest testimony in behalf of the French mediums. They > both testified, when cross-examined by the Academicians, that none but > the “mediums” could possibly produce the phenomena of table-rapping and > levitation without a suitable preparation and furniture adapted for > the purpose. They also showed that the so-called “levitations without > contact” were feats utterly beyond the power of the _professional_ > juggler; that for them, such levitations, unless produced in a room > supplied with secret machinery and concave mirrors, was _impossible_. > They added moreover, that the simple apparition of a diaphanous hand, > in a place in which confederacy would be rendered impossible, the > medium having been previously searched, would be a demonstration that > it was the work _of no human agency_, whatever else that agency might > be. The _Siècle_, and other Parisian newspapers immediately published > their suspicions that these two professional and very clever gentlemen > had become the confederates of the spiritists! > > Professor Pepper, director of the Polytechnic Institute of London, > invented a clever apparatus to produce spiritual appearances on the > stage, and sold his patent in 1863, in Paris, for the sum of 20,000 > francs. The phantoms looked real and were evanescent, being but an > effect produced by the reflection of a highly-illuminated object upon > the surface of plate-glass. They seemed to appear and disappear, to > walk about the stage and play their parts to perfection. Sometimes one > of the phantoms placed himself on a bench; after which, one of the > living actors would begin quarrelling with him, and, seizing a heavy > hatchet, would part the head and body of the ghost in two. But, joining > his two parts again, the spectre would reappear, a few steps off, > to the amazement of the public. The contrivance worked marvellously > well, and nightly attracted large crowds. But to produce these ghosts > required a stage-apparatus, and more than one confederate. There were > nevertheless some reporters who made this exhibition the pretext for > ridiculing the _spiritists_—as though the two classes of phenomena had > the slightest connection! > > What the Pepper ghosts pretended to do, genuine disembodied human > spirits, when their reflection is materialized by the elementals, can > actually perform. They will permit themselves to be perforated with > bullets or the sword, or to be dismembered, and then instantly form > themselves anew. But the case is different with both cosmic and human > elementary spirits, for a sword or dagger, or even a pointed stick, > will cause them to vanish in terror. This will seem unaccountable to > those who do not understand of what a material substance the elementary > are composed; but the kabalists understand perfectly. The records of > antiquity and of the middle ages, to say nothing of the modern wonders > at Cideville, which have been judicially attested for us, corroborate > these facts. > > Skeptics, and even skeptical spiritualists, have often unjustly accused {360} > mediums of fraud, when denied what they considered their inalienable > right to test the spirits. But where there is one such case, there > are fifty in which spiritualists have permitted themselves to be > practiced upon by tricksters, while they neglected to appreciate > genuine manifestations procured for them by their mediums. Ignorant of > the laws of mediumship, such do not know that when an honest medium is > once taken possession of by spirits, whether disembodied or elemental, > he is no longer his own master. He cannot control the actions of the > spirits, nor even his own. They make him a puppet to dance at their > pleasure while they pull the wires behind the scenes. The false medium > may seem entranced, and yet be playing tricks all the while; while the > real medium may appear to be in full possession of his senses, when in > fact he is far away, and his body is animated by his “Indian guide,” > or “control.” Or, he may be entranced in his cabinet, while his astral > body (double) or _doppelganger_, is walking about the room moved by > another intelligence. > > Among all the phenomena, that of _re-percussion_, closely allied with > those of bi-location and aërial “travelling,” is the most astounding. > In the middle ages it was included under the head of sorcery. De > Gasparin, in his refutations of the miraculous character of the marvels > of Cideville, treats of the subject at length; but these pretended > explanations were all in their turn exploded by de Mirville and des > Mousseaux, who, while failing in their attempt to trace the phenomena > back to the Devil, did, nevertheless, prove their spiritual origin. > > “The prodigy of re-percussion,” says des Mousseaux, “occurs when a > blow aimed at the spirit, visible or otherwise, of an absent _living_ > person, or at the phantom which represents him, strikes this person > himself, at the same time, and in the very place at which the spectre > or his double is touched! We must suppose, therefore, that the blow is > re-percussed, and that it reaches, as if rebounding, from the image of > the living person—his phantasmal[578] duplicate—the original, wherever > he may be, in flesh and blood. > > “Thus, for instance, an individual appears before me, or, remaining > invisible, declares war, threatens, and causes me to be threatened with > obsession. I strike at the place where I perceive his phantom, where I > hear him moving, where I feel _somebody_, something which molests and > resists me. I strike; the blood will appear sometimes on this place, > and occasionally a scream may be heard; _he_ is wounded—perhaps, dead! > It is done, and I have explained the fact.”[579] > > “Notwithstanding that, at the moment I struck him, his presence in {361} > another place is authentically proved; ... I saw—yes, I saw plainly > the phantom hurt upon the cheek or shoulder, and this same wound is > found precisely on the living person, re-percussed upon his cheek or > shoulder. Thus, it becomes evident that the facts of re-percussion have > an intimate connection with those of bi-location or _duplication_, > either spiritual or corporeal.” > > The history of the Salem witchcraft, as we find it recorded in the > works of Cotton Mather, Calef, Upham, and others, furnishes a curious > corroboration of the fact of the double, as it also does of the > effects of allowing elementary spirits to have their own way. This > tragical chapter of American history has never yet been written in > accordance with the truth. A party of four or five young girls had > become “developed” as mediums, by sitting with a West Indian negro > woman, a practitioner of _Obeah_. They began to suffer all kinds of > physical torture, such as pinching, having pins stuck in them, and the > marks of bruises and teeth on different parts of their bodies. They > would declare that they were hurt by the spectres of various persons, > and we learn from the celebrated _Narrative of Deodat Lawson_ (London, > 1704), that “some of them confessed that they did afflict the sufferers > (_i. e._, these young girls), according to the time and manner they > were accused thereof; and, being asked what they did to afflict them, > some said that they pricked pins into poppets, made with rags, wax, > and other materials. One that confessed after the signing of her > death-warrant, said she used to afflict them by clutching and pinching > her hands together, and _wishing_ in what part and after what manner > she would have them afflicted, and _it was done_.”[580] > > Mr. Upham tells us that Abigail Hobbs, one of these girls, acknowledged > that she had confederated with the Devil, who “came to her in the shape > of a man,” and commanded her to afflict the girls, bringing images > made of wood in their likeness, with thorns for her to prick into the > images, which she did; whereupon, the girls cried out that they were > hurt by her.” > > How perfectly these facts, the validity of which was proven by {362} > unimpeachable testimony in court, go to corroborate the doctrine of > Paracelsus. It is surpassingly strange that so ripe a scholar as Mr. > Upham should have accumulated into the 1,000 pages of his two volumes > such a mass of legal evidence, going to show the agency of earth-bound > souls and tricksy nature-spirits in these tragedies, without suspecting > the truth. > > Ages ago, the old Ennius was made by Lucretius to say: > > “Bis duo sunt hominis, manes, caro, _spiritus_ umbra; > Quatuor ista loci bis duo suscipirent; > Terra tegit carnem;—tumulum circumvolat umbra, > Orcus habet manes.” > > In this present case, as in every similar one, the scientists, being > unable to explain the fact, assert that _it cannot exist_. > > But we will now give a few historical instances going to show that > some daimons, or elementary spirits, are afraid of sword, knife, or > any thing sharp. We do not pretend to explain the reason. That is the > province of physiology and psychology. Unfortunately, physiologists > have not yet been able to even establish the relations between speech > and thought, and so, have handed it over to the metaphysicians, who, > in their turn, according to Fournié, have done nothing. Done nothing, > we say, but claimed everything. No fact could be presented to some of > them, that was too large for these learned gentlemen to at least try > to stuff into their pigeon-holes, labelled with some fancy Greek name, > expressive of everything else but the true nature of the phenomenon. > > “Alas, alas! my son!” exclaims the wise Muphti, of Aleppo, to his > son Ibrahim, who choked himself with the head of a huge fish. “When > will you realize that your stomach is smaller than the ocean?” Or, > as Mrs. Catherine Crowe remarks in her _Night-Side of Nature_, when > will our scientists admit that “their intellects are no measure of God > Almighty’s designs?” > > We will not ask which of the ancient writers mention facts of > seemingly-_supernatural_ nature; but rather which of them does not? > In Homer, we find Ulysses evoking the spirit of his friend, the > soothsayer Tiresias. Preparing for the ceremony of the “festival of > blood,” Ulysses draws his sword, and thus frightens away the thousands > of phantoms attracted by the sacrifice. The friend himself, the > so-long-expected Tiresias, dares not approach him so long as Ulysses > holds the dreaded weapon in his hand.[581] Æneas prepares to descend to > the kingdom of the shadows, and as soon as they approach its entrance, {363} > the Sibyl who guides him utters her warning to the Trojan hero, and > orders him to draw his sword and clear himself a passage through the > dense crowd of flitting forms: > > “_Tuque invade viam, vaginâque eripe ferrum._”[582] > > Glanvil gives a wonderful narrative of the apparition of the “Drummer > of Tedworth,” which happened in 1661; in which the _scin-lecca_, > or double, of the drummer-sorcerer was evidently very much afraid > of the sword. Psellus, in his work,[583] gives a long story of his > sister-in-law being thrown into a most fearful state by an elementary > _daimon_ taking possession of her. She was finally cured by a conjurer, > a foreigner named Anaphalangis, who began by threatening the invisible > occupant of her body with a _naked sword_, until he finally dislodged > him. Psellus introduces a whole catechism of demonology, which he gives > in the following terms, as far as we remember: > > “You want to know,” asked the conjurer, “whether the bodies of the > spirits can be hurt by sword or any other weapon?[584] Yes, they can. > Any hard substance striking them can make them sensible to pain; and > though their bodies be made neither of solid nor firm substance, they > feel it the same, for in beings endowed with sensibility it is not > their nerves only which possess the faculty of feeling, but likewise > also the spirit which resides in them ... the body of a spirit can be > sensible in its _whole_, as well as in each one of its parts. Without > the help of any physical organism the spirit sees, hears, and if you > touch him feels your touch. If you divide him in two, he will feel > the pain as would any living man, for he is _matter_ still, though so > refined as to be generally invisible to our eye.... One thing, however, > distinguishes him from the living man, viz.: that when a man’s limbs > are once divided, their parts cannot be reunited very easily. But, > cut a _demon_ in two, and you will see him immediately join himself > together. As water or air closes in behind a solid body[585] passing > through it, and no trace is left, so does the body of a demon condense > itself again, when the penetrative weapon is withdrawn from the wound. > But every rent made in it causes him pain nevertheless. _That is why > daimons_ dread the point of a sword or any sharp weapon. Let those who > want to see them flee try the experiment.” > > One of the most learned scholars of his century, Bodin, the {364} > Demonologian, held the same opinion, that both the human and cosmical > elementaries “were sorely afraid of swords and daggers.” It is also > the opinion of Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Plato. Plutarch mentions > it several times. The practicing theurgists knew it well and acted > accordingly; and many of the latter assert that “the demons suffer from > any rent made in their bodies.” Bodin tells us a wonderful story to > this effect, in his work _On the Dæmons_, p. 292. > > “I remember,” says the author, “that in 1557 an elemental demon, one > of those who are called _thundering_, fell down _with the lightning_, > into the house of Poudot, the shoemaker, and immediately began > flinging stones all about the room. We picked up so many of them that > the landlady filled a large chest full, after having securely closed > the windows and doors and locked the chest itself. But it did not > prevent the demon in the least from introducing other stones into the > room, but without injuring any one for all that. Latomi, who was then > _Quarter-President_,[586] came to see what was the matter. Immediately > upon his entrance, the spirit knocked the cap off his head and made > him run away. It had lasted for over six days, when M. Jean Morgnes, > Counsellor at the _Presidial_, came to fetch me to see the mystery. > When I entered the house, some one advised the master of it to pray to > God with all his heart and to wheel round a sword in the air about the > room; he did so. On that following day the landlady told us, that from > that very moment they did not hear the least noise in the house; but > that during the seven previous days that it lasted they could not get a > moment’s rest.” > > The books on the witchcraft of the middle ages are full of such > narratives. The very rare and interesting work of Glanvil, called > _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, ranks with that of Bodin, above mentioned, > as one of the best. But we must give space now to certain narratives of > the more ancient philosophers, who explain at the same time that they > describe. > > And first in rank for wonders comes Proclus. His list of facts, most > of which he supports by the citation of witnesses—sometimes well-known > philosophers—is staggering. He records many instances in his time of > dead persons who were found to have changed their recumbent positions > in the sepulchre, for one of either sitting or standing, which he > attributes to their being _larvæ_, and which he says “is related by > the ancients of Aristius, Epimenides, and Hermodorus.” He gives five > such cases from the history of Clearchus, the disciple of Aristotle. > 1. Cleonymus, the Athenian. 2. Polykritus, an illustrious man among > the Æolians. It is related by the historian Nomachius, that Polykritus > died, and returned in the ninth month after his death. “Hiero, the {365} > Ephesian, and other historians,” says his translator, Taylor, “testify > to the truth of this.” 3. In Nicopolis, the same happened to one > Eurinus. The latter revived on the fifteenth day after his burial, and > lived for some time after that, leading an exemplary life. 4. Rufus, a > priest of Thessalonica, restored to life the third day after his death, > for the purpose of performing certain sacred ceremonies according to > promise; he fulfilled his engagement, and died again to return no more. > 5. This is the case of one Philonæa, who lived under the reign of > Philip. She was the daughter of Demostratus and Charito of Amphipolos. > Married against her wish to one Kroterus, she died soon after. But > in the sixth month after her death, she revived, as Proclus says: > “through her love of a youth named Machates, who came to her father > Demostratus, from Pella.” She visited him for many nights successively, > but when this was finally discovered, she, or rather the vampire that > represented her, died of rage. Previous to this she declared that she > acted in this manner according to the will of _terrestrial demons_. > Her dead body was seen at this second death by every one in the town, > lying in her father’s house. On opening the vault, where her body had > been deposited, it was found empty by those of her relatives, who being > incredulous upon that point, went to ascertain the truth. The narrative > is corroborated by the _Epistles of Hipparchus_ and those of Arridæus > to Philip.[587] > > Says Proclus: “Many other of the ancients have collected a history of > those that have apparently died, and afterward revived. Among these is > the natural philosopher Demokritus. In his writings concerning Hades, > he affirms that [in a certain case under discussion] death was not, > as it seemed, an entire desertion of the whole life of the body, but > a cessation caused by some blow, or perhaps a wound; but the bonds of > the soul yet remained rooted about the marrow, and the heart contained > in its profundity the empyreuma of life; and this remaining, it again > acquired the life, which had been extinguished, in consequence of being > adapted to animation.” > > He says again, “That it is possible for the soul to depart from and > enter into the body, is evident from him, who, according to Clearchus, > used a _soul-attracting wand_ on a sleeping boy; and who persuaded > Aristotle, as Clearchus relates in his _Treatise on Sleep_, that the > soul may be separated from the body, and that it enters into a body and > uses it as a lodging. For, striking the boy with the wand, he drew out, > and, as it were, led his soul, for the purpose of evincing that the {366} > body was immovable when the soul (astral body) was at a distance from > it, and that it was preserved uninjured; but the soul being again led > into the body by means of the wand, after its entrance, narrated every > particular. From this circumstance, therefore, both the spectators and > Aristotle were persuaded that the soul is separate from the body.” > > It may be considered quite absurd to recall so often the facts of > witchcraft, in the full light of the nineteenth century. But the > century itself is getting old; and as it gradually approaches the fatal > end, it seems as if it were falling into dotage; not only does it > refuse to recollect how abundantly the facts of witchcraft were proven, > but it refuses to realize what has been going on for the last thirty > years, all over the wide world. After a lapse of several thousand > years we may doubt the magic powers of the Thessalonian priests and > their “sorceries,” as mentioned by Pliny;[588] we may throw discredit > upon the information given us by Suidas, who narrates Medea’s journey > through the air, and thus forget that magic was the highest knowledge > of natural philosophy; but how are we to dispose of the frequent > occurrence of precisely such journeys “through the air” when they > happen before our own eyes, and are corroborated by the testimony of > hundreds of apparently sane persons? If the universality of a belief > be a proof of its truth, few facts have been better established than > that of sorcery. “Every people, from the rudest to the most refined, we > may also add in every age, have believed in the kind of supernatural > agency, which we understand by this term,” says Thomas Wright, the > author of _Sorcery and Magic_, and a skeptical member of the National > Institute of France. “It was founded on the equally extensive creed, > that, besides our own visible existence, we live in an invisible world > of spiritual beings, by which our actions _and even our thoughts_ > are often guided, and which have a certain degree of power over the > elements and over the ordinary course of organic life.” Further, > marvelling how this mysterious science flourished everywhere, and > noticing several famous schools of magic in different parts of Europe, > he explains the time-honored belief, and shows the difference between > sorcery and magic as follows: “The magician differed from the witch in > this, that, _while the latter was an ignorant instrument in the hands > of the demons, the former had become their master by the powerful > intermediation of Science_, which was only within reach of the few, > and which these beings were unable to disobey.”[589] This delineation, > established and known since the days of Moses, the author gives as > derived from “the most authentic sources.” > > If from this unbeliever we pass to the authority of an adept in that {367} > mysterious science, the anonymous author of _Art-Magic_, we find him > stating the following: “The reader may inquire wherein consists the > difference between a medium and a magician?... The medium is one > through whose astral spirit other spirits can manifest, making their > presence known by various kinds of phenomena. Whatever these consist > in, the medium is only a passive agent in their hands. He can _neither > command_ their presence, nor _will_ their absence; can never compel the > performance of any special act, nor direct its nature. The magician, > on the contrary, _can summon and dismiss spirits at will_; can perform > many feats of occult power through his own spirit; can compel the > presence and assistance of spirits of lower grades of being than > himself, and effect transformations in the realm of nature upon animate > and inanimate bodies.”[590] > > This learned author forgot to point out a marked distinction in > mediumship, with which he must have been entirely familiar. Physical > phenomena are the result of the manipulation of forces through the > physical system of the medium, by the unseen intelligences, of > whatever class. In a word, physical mediumship depends on a peculiar > organization of the _physical_ system; spiritual mediumship, which > is accompanied by a display of subjective, intellectual phenomena, > depends upon a like peculiar organization of the _spiritual_ nature > of the medium. As the potter from one lump of clay fashions a vessel > of dishonor, and from another a vessel of honor, so, among physical > mediums, the plastic astral spirit of one may be prepared for a certain > class of objective phenomena, and that of another for a different > one. Once so prepared, it appears difficult to alter the phase of > mediumship, as when a bar of steel is forged into a certain shape, > it cannot be used for any other than its original purpose without > difficulty. As a rule, mediums who have been developed for one class of > phenomena rarely change to another, but repeat the same performance _ad > infinitum_. > > Psychography, or the direct writing of messages by spirits, partakes of > both forms of mediumship. The writing itself is an objective physical > fact, while the sentiments it contains may be of the very noblest > character. The latter depend entirely on the moral state of the medium. > It does not require that he should be educated, to write philosophical > treatises worthy of Aristotle, nor a poet, to write verses that would > reflect honor upon a Byron or a Lamartine; but it does require that > the soul of the medium shall be pure enough to serve as a channel for > spirits who are capable of giving utterance to such lofty sentiments. > > In _Art-Magic_, one of the most delightful pictures presented to us {368} > is that of an innocent little child-medium, in whose presence, during > the past three years, four volumes of MSS., in the ancient Sanscrit, > have been written by the spirits, without pens, pencils, or ink. “It > is enough,” says the author, “to lay the blank sheets on a tripod, > carefully screened from the direct rays of light, but still dimly > visible to the eyes of attentive observers. The child sits on the > ground and lays her head on the tripod, embracing its supports with her > little arms. In this attitude she most commonly sleeps for an hour, > during which time the sheets lying on the tripod are filled up with > exquisitely formed characters in the ancient Sanscrit.” This is so > remarkable an instance of psychographic mediumship, and so thoroughly > illustrates the principle we have above stated, that we cannot refrain > from quoting a few lines from one of the Sanscrit writings, the more so > as it embodies that portion of the Hermetic philosophy relating to the > antecedent state of man, which elsewhere we have less satisfactorily > described. > > “Man lives on many earths before he reaches this. Myriads of > worlds swarm in space where the soul in rudimental states performs > its pilgrimages, ere he reaches the large and shining planet > named the Earth, the glorious function of which is to confer > _self-consciousness_. At this point only is he man; at every other > stage of his vast, wild journey he is but an embryonic being—a > fleeting, temporary shape of matter—a creature in which a _part_, but > only a part, of the high, imprisoned soul shines forth; a rudimental > shape, with rudimental functions, ever living, dying, sustaining a > flitting spiritual existence as rudimental as the material shape from > whence it emerged; a butterfly, springing up from the chrysalitic > shell, but ever, as it onward rushes, in new births, new deaths, new > incarnations, anon to die and live again, but still stretch upward, > still strive onward, still rush on the giddy, dreadful, toilsome, > rugged path, until it awakens once more—once more to live and be a > material shape, a thing of dust, a creature of flesh and blood, but > now—_a man_.”[591] > > We witnessed once in India a trial of psychical skill between a > holy _gossein_[592] and a sorcerer,[593] which recurs to us in this > connection. We had been discussing the relative powers of the fakir’s > Pitris,—pre-Adamite spirits, and the juggler’s invisible allies. A > trial of skill was agreed upon, and the writer was chosen as a referee. > We were taking our noon-day rest, beside a small lake in Northern > India. Upon the surface of the glassy water floated innumerable aquatic > flowers, and large shining leaves. Each of the contestants plucked a > leaf. The fakir, laying his against his breast, folded his hands across {369} > it, and fell into a momentary trance. He then laid the leaf, with its > surface downward, upon the water. The juggler pretended to control the > “water-master,” the spirit dwelling in the water; and boasted that > he would compel the _power_ to prevent the Pitris from manifesting > any phenomena upon the fakir’s leaf in _their_ element. He took his > own leaf and tossed it upon the water, after going through a form > of barbarous incantation. It at once exhibited a violent agitation, > while the other leaf remained perfectly motionless. After the lapse > of a few seconds, both leaves were recovered. Upon that of the fakir > were found—much to the indignation of the juggler—something that > looked like a symmetrical design traced in milk-white characters, as > though the juices of the plant had been used as a corrosive writing > fluid. When it became dry, and an opportunity was afforded to examine > the lines with care, it proved to be a series of exquisitely-formed > Sanscrit characters; the whole composed a sentence embodying a high > moral precept. The fakir, let us add, could neither read nor write. > Upon the juggler’s leaf, instead of writing, was found the tracing of > a most hideous, impish face. Each leaf, therefore, bore an impression > or allegorical reflection of the character of the contestant, and > indicated the quality of spiritual beings with which he was surrounded. > But, with deep regret, we must once more leave India, with its blue sky > and mysterious past, its religious devotees and its weird sorcerers, > and on the enchanted carpet of the historian, transport ourselves back > to the musty atmosphere of the French Academy. > > To appreciate the timidity, prejudice, and superficiality which > have marked the treatment of psychological subjects in the past, we > propose to review a book which lies before us. It is the _Histoire du > Merveilleux dans les Temps Modernes_. The work is published by its > author, the learned Dr. Figuier, and teems with quotations from the > most conspicuous authorities in physiology, psychology, and medicine. > Dr. Calmeil, the well-known director-in-chief of Charenton, the > famous lunatic asylum of France, is the robust Atlas on whose mighty > shoulders rests this world of erudition. As the ripe fruit of the > thought of 1860 it must forever keep a place among the most curious of > works of _art_. Moved by the restless demon of science, determined to > kill superstition—and, as a consequence, spiritism—at one blow, the > author affords us a summary view of the most remarkable instances of > mediumistic phenomena during the last two centuries. > > The discussion embraces the Prophets of Cevennes, the Camisards, the > Jansenists, the Abbé Paris, and other historical epidemics, which, > as they have been described during the last twenty years by nearly > every writer upon the modern phenomena, we will mention as briefly > as possible. It is not _facts_ that we desire to bring again under {370} > discussion, but merely the way in which such facts were regarded and > treated by those who, as physicians and recognized authorities, had the > greater responsibility in such questions. If this prejudiced author is > introduced to our readers at this time, it is only because his work > enables us to show what occult facts and manifestations may expect from > orthodox science. When the most world-renowned psychological epidemics > are so treated, what will induce a materialist to seriously study > other phenomena as well authenticated and as interesting, but still > less popular? Let it be remembered that the reports made by various > committees to their respective academies at that time, as well as the > records of the judicial tribunals, are still in existence, and may be > consulted for purposes of verification. It is from such unimpeachable > sources that Dr. Figuier compiled his extraordinary work. We must give, > at least, in substance, the unparalleled arguments with which the > author seeks to demolish every form of supernaturalism, together with > the commentaries of the demonological des Mousseaux, who, in one of his > works,[594] pounces upon his skeptical victim like a tiger upon his > prey. > > Between the two champions—the materialist and the bigot—the unbiassed > student may glean a good harvest. > > We will begin with the Convulsionaires of Cevennes, the epidemic of > whose astounding phenomena occurred during the latter part of 1700. The > merciless measures adopted by the French Catholics to extirpate the > spirit of prophecy from an entire population, is historical, and needs > no repetition here. The fact alone that a mere handful of men, women, > and children, not exceeding 2,000 persons in number, could withstand > for years king’s troops, which, with the militia, amounted to 60,000 > men, is a miracle in itself. The marvels are all recorded, and the > _procès verbaux_ of the time preserved in the Archives of France until > this day. There is in existence an official report among others, which > was sent to Rome by the ferocious Abbé Chayla, the prior of Laval, in > which he complains that the _Evil One_ is so powerful, that no torture, > no amount of inquisitory exorcism, is able to dislodge him from the > Cevennois. He adds, that he closed their hands upon burning coals, and > they were not even singed; that he had wrapped their whole persons in > _cotton soaked with oil, and had set them on fire_, and in many cases > did not find one blister on their skins; that balls were shot at them, > and found flattened between the skin and clothes, without injuring > them, etc., etc. > > Accepting the whole of the above as a solid groundwork for his > learned arguments, this is what Dr. Figuier says: “Toward the close > of the seventeenth century, an old maid imports into Cevennes the {371} > spirit of prophecy. She communicates it (?) to young boys and girls, > who transpire it in their turn, and spread it in the surrounding > atmosphere.... Women and children become the most sensitive to the > infection” (vol. ii., p. 261). “Men, women, and _babies_ speak under > inspiration, not in ordinary _patois_, but in the purest French—a > language at that time utterly unknown in the country. Children of > twelve months, and even less, as we learn from the _procès verbaux_, > who previously could hardly utter a few short syllables, spoke > fluently, and prophesied.” “Eight thousand prophets,” says Figuier, > “were scattered over the country; doctors and eminent physicians were > sent for.” Half of the medical schools of France, among others, the > Faculty of Montpellier, hastened to the spot. Consultations were held, > and the physicians declared themselves “delighted, lost in wonder and > admiration, upon hearing young girls and boys, ignorant and illiterate, > deliver discourses on things _they had never learned_.”[595] The > sentence pronounced by Figuier against these treacherous professional > brethren, for being so delighted with the young prophets, is that they > “did not understand, themselves, what they saw.”[596] Many of the > prophets forcibly communicated their spirit to those who tried to break > the spell.[597] A great number of them were _between three and twelve > years_ of age; still others _were at the breast_, and spoke French > distinctly and correctly.[598] These discourses, which often lasted for > several hours, would have been impossible to the little orators, were > the latter in their natural or normal state.[599] > > “Now,” asks the reviewer, “what was the meaning of such a series of > prodigies, all of them freely admitted in Figuier’s book? No meaning > at all! It was nothing,” he says, “except the effect of a ‘momentary > exaltation of the intellectual faculties.’”[600] “These phenomena,” he > adds, “are observable in many of the cerebral affections.” > > “_Momentary exaltation_, lasting for many hours _in the brains of > babies under one year old_, not weaned yet, speaking good French before > they had learned to say one word in their own _patois_! Oh, miracle of > physiology! _Prodigy_ ought to be thy name!” exclaims des Mousseaux. > > “Dr. Calmeil, in his work on insanity,” remarks Figuier, “when > reporting on the ecstatic _theomania_ of the Calvinists, concludes > that the disease must be attributed “in the simpler cases to HYSTERIA, > and in those of more serious character to _epilepsy_.... We rather > incline to the opinion,” says Figuier, “that it was a disease _sui {372} > generis_, and in order to have an appropriate name for such a disease, > we must be satisfied with the one of the Trembling Convulsionaires of > Cevennes.”[601] > > _Theomania_ and _hysteria_, again! The medical corporations must > themselves be possessed with an incurable _atomomania_; otherwise why > should they give out such absurdities for science, and hope for their > acceptance? > > “Such was the fury for exorcising and _roasting_,” continues Figuier, > “that monks saw possessions by demons everywhere when they felt in need > of miracles to either throw more light on the omnipotency of the Devil, > or keep their dinner-pot boiling at the convent.”[602] > > For this sarcasm the pious des Mousseaux expresses a heartfelt > gratitude to Figuier; for, as he remarks, “he is _in France_ one of > the first writers whom we find, to our surprise, _not denying_ the > phenomena which have been made long since _undeniable_. Moved by a > sense of lofty superiority and even disdain for the method used by his > predecessors. Dr. Figuier desires his readers to know that he does > _not_ follow the same path as they. ‘We will not reject,’ says he, ‘as > being unworthy of credit, _facts_ only because they are embarrassing > for our system. On the contrary, we will collect all of the facts that > the same historical evidence has transmitted to us ... and which, > consequently, are entitled to the same credence, and it is upon the > whole mass of such facts that we will base the _natural explanation_, > which we have to offer, in our turn, as a sequel to those of the > savants who have preceded us on this subject.’”[603] > > Thereupon, Dr. Figuier proceeds.[604] He takes a few steps, and, > placing himself right in the midst of the Convulsionaires of St. > Medard, he invites his readers to scrutinize, under his direction, > _prodigies_ which are for him but simple effects of nature. > > But before we proceed, in our turn, to show Dr. Figuier’s opinion, we > must refresh the reader’s memory as to what the Jansenist miracles > comprised, according to historical evidence. > > Abbé Paris was a Jansenist, who died in 1727. Immediately after his > decease the most surprising phenomena began to occur at his tomb. The > churchyard was crowded from morning till night. Jesuits, exasperated at > seeing heretics perform wonders in healing, and other works, got from > the magistrates an order to close all access to the tomb of the Abbé. > But, notwithstanding every opposition, the wonders lasted for over > twenty years. Bishop Douglas, who went to Paris for that sole purpose > in 1749, visited the place, and he reports that the miracles were > still going on among the Convulsionaires. When every endeavor to stop > them failed, the Catholic clergy were forced to admit their reality, {373} > but screened themselves, as usual, behind the Devil. Hume, in his > _Philosophical Essays_, says: “There surely never was so great a number > of miracles ascribed to one person as those which were lately said to > have been wrought in France upon the tomb of the Abbé Paris. The curing > of the sick, giving hearing to the deaf and sight to the blind, were > everywhere talked of as the effects of the holy sepulchre. But, what > is more extraordinary, many of the miracles were immediately proved > _upon the spot_, before judges of unquestioned credit and distinction, > in a learned age, and on the most eminent theatre that is now in the > world ... nor were the Jesuits, though a learned body, supported by the > civil magistrates, and determined enemies to those opinions in whose > favor the miracles were said to have been wrought, ever able distinctly > to refute or detect them ... such is historic evidence.”[605] Dr. > Middleton, in his _Free Enquiry_, a book which he wrote at a period > when the manifestations were already decreasing, _i. e._, about > nineteen years after they had first begun, declares that the evidence > of these miracles is fully as strong as that of the wonders recorded of > the Apostles. > > The phenomena so well authenticated by thousands of witnesses before > magistrates, and in spite of the Catholic clergy, are among the most > wonderful in history. Carré de Montgeron, a member of parliament > and a man who became famous for his connection with the Jansenists, > enumerates them carefully in his work. It comprises four thick quarto > volumes, of which the first is dedicated to the king, under the title: > “_La Verité des Miracles operés par l’Intercession de M. de Paris, > demontrée contre l’Archeveque de Sens. Ouvrage dedié au Roi, par M. > de Montgeron, Conseiller au Parlement._” The author presents a vast > amount of personal and official evidence to the truthfulness of every > case. For speaking _disrespectfully_ of the Roman clergy, Montgeron was > thrown into the Bastile, but his work was accepted. > > And now for the views of Dr. Figuier upon these remarkable and > unquestionably historical phenomena. “A Convulsionary bends back into > an arc, her loins supported by the sharp point of a peg,” quotes the > learned author, from the _procès verbaux_. “The pleasure that she begs > for is to be pounded by a stone weighing fifty pounds, and suspended > by a rope passing over a pulley fixed to the ceiling. The stone, being > hoisted to its extreme height, falls with all its weight upon the > patient’s stomach, her back resting all the while on the sharp point of > the peg. Montgeron and numerous other witnesses testified to the fact > that neither the flesh nor the skin of the back were ever marked in the > least, and that the girl, to show she suffered no pain whatever, kept > crying out, ‘Strike harder—harder!’ > > “Jeanne Maulet, a girl of twenty, leaning with her back against a wall, {374} > received upon her stomach one hundred blows of a hammer weighing thirty > pounds; the blows, administered by a very strong man, were so terrible > that they shook the wall. To test the force of the blows, Montgeron > tried them on the stone wall against which the girl was leaning.... He > gets one of the instruments of the Jansenist healing, called the ‘GRAND > SECOURS.’ At the twenty-fifth blow,” he writes, “the stone upon which I > struck, which had been shaken by the preceding efforts, suddenly became > loose and fell on the other side of the wall, making an aperture more > than half a foot in size.” When the blows are struck with violence > upon an iron drill held against the stomach of a Convulsionaire (who, > sometimes, is but a weak woman), “it seems,” says Montgeron, “as if > it would penetrate through to the spine and rupture all the entrails > under the force of the blows” (vol. i., p. 380). “But, so far from that > occurring, the Convulsionaire cries out, with an expression of perfect > rapture in her face, ‘Oh, how delightful! Oh, that does me good! > Courage, brother; strike twice as hard, if you can!’ It now remains,” > continues Dr. Figuier, “to try to explain the strange phenomena which > we have described.” > > “We have said, in the introduction to this work, that at the middle of > the nineteenth century one of the most famous epidemics of possession > broke out in Germany: that of the _Nonnains_, who performed all the > miracles most admired since the days of St. Medard, and even some > greater ones; who turned summersaults, who CLIMBED DEAD WALLS, and > spoke FOREIGN LANGUAGES.”[606] > > The official report of the wonders, which is more full than that of > Figuier, adds such further particulars as that “the affected persons > would stand on their heads for hours together, and correctly describe > distant events, even such as were happening in the homes of the > committee-men; as it was subsequently verified. Men and women were held > suspended in the air, by an invisible force, and the combined efforts > of the committee were insufficient to pull them down. Old women climbed > perpendicular walls thirty feet in height with the agility of wild > cats, etc., etc.” > > Now, one should expect that the learned critic, the eminent physician > and psychologist, who not only credits such incredible phenomena but > himself describes them minutely, and _con amore_, so to say, would > necessarily startle the reading public with some explanation so > extraordinary that his scientific views would cause a real hegira to > the unexplored fields of psychology. Well, he does startle us, for to {375} > all this he quietly observes: “Recourse _was had to marriage_ to bring > to a stop these disorders of the Convulsionaires!”[607] > > For once des Mousseaux had the best of his enemy: “Marriage, do you > understand this?” he remarks. “Marriage cures them of this faculty > of climbing dead-walls like so many flies, and of speaking foreign > languages. Oh! the curious properties of marriage in those remarkable > days!” > > “It should be added,” continues Figuier, “that with the fanatics of St. > Medard, the blows were never administered except during the convulsive > crisis; and that, therefore, as Dr. Calmeil suggests, meteorism of > the abdomen, the _state of spasm_ of the uterus of women, of the > alimentary canal in all cases, the state of _contraction, of erethism, > of turgescence of the carneous envelopes of the muscular coats_ which > protect and cover the abdomen, chest, and principal vascular masses and > the osseous surfaces, _may have singularly contributed toward reducing, > and even destroying_, the force of the blows!” > > “The astounding resistance that the skin, the areolar tissue, the > surface of the bodies and limbs of the Convulsionaires offered to > things which seem as if they ought to have torn or crushed them, is of > a nature to excite more surprise. Nevertheless, it can be explained. > This resisting force, this insensibility, seems to partake of the > extreme changes in sensibility which can occur in the animal economy > during a time of great exaltation. Anger, fear, in a word, every > passion, provided that it be carried to a paroxysmal point, can produce > this insensibility.”[608] > > “Let us remark, besides,” rejoins Dr. Calmeil, quoted by Figuier, “that > for striking upon the bodies of the Convulsionaires use was made either > of massive objects with flat or rounded surfaces, or of cylindrical > and blunt shapes.[609] The action of such physical agents is not to be > compared, in respect to the danger which attaches to it, with that of > cords, supple or flexible instruments, and those having a sharp edge. > In fine, the contact and the shock of the blows produced upon the > Convulsionaires _the effect of a salutary shampooing_, and reduced the > violence of the tortures of HYSTERIA.” > > The reader will please observe that this is not intended as a joke, but > is the sober theory of one of the most eminent of French physicians, > hoary with age and experience, the Director-in-Chief of the Government > Insane Asylum at Charenton. Really, the above explanation might lead > the reader to a strange suspicion. We might imagine, perhaps, that Dr. {376} > Calmeil has kept company with the patients under his care a few more > years than was good for the healthy action of his own brain. > > Besides, when Figuier talks of massive objects, of cylindrical and > blunt shapes, he surely forgets the sharp swords, pointed iron pegs, > and the hatchets, of which he himself gave a graphic description on > page 409 of his first volume. The brother of Elie Marion is shown by > him striking his stomach and abdomen with the sharp point of a knife, > with tremendous force, “his body all the while resisting as if it were > made of iron.” > > Arrived at this point, des Mousseaux loses all patience, and > indignantly exclaims: > > “Was the learned physician quite awake when writing the above > sentences?... If, perchance, the Drs. Calmeil and Figuier should > seriously maintain their assertions and insist on their theory, we are > ready to answer them as follows: ‘We are perfectly willing to believe > you. But before such a superhuman effort of condescension, will you not > demonstrate to us the truth of your theory in a more practical manner? > Let us, for example, develop in you a violent and terrible passion; > anger—rage if you choose. You shall permit us for a single moment to be > in your sight irritating, rude, and insulting. Of course, we will be so > only at _your request_ and in the interest of science and your cause. > Our duty under the contract will consist in humiliating and provoking > you to the last extremity. Before a public audience, who shall know > nothing of our agreement, but whom you must satisfy as to your > assertions, we will insult you; ... we will tell you that your writings > are an ambuscade to truth, an insult to common sense, a disgrace which > paper only can bear; but which the public should chastise. We will add > that _you lie to science_, you lie to the ears of the ignorant and > stupid fools gathered around you, open-mouthed, like the crowd around > a peddling quack.... And when, transported beyond yourself, your face > ablaze, and anger _tumefying_, you shall have _displaced your fluids_; > when your fury has reached the point of bursting, we will cause your > _turgescent_ muscles to be struck with powerful blows; your friends > shall show us the most insensible places; we will let a perfect shower, > an avalanche of stones fall upon them ... for so was treated the flesh > of the convulsed women whose appetite for such blows could never be > satisfied. But, in order to procure for you the gratification of a > _salutary shampooing_—as you deliciously express it—your limbs shall > only be pounded with objects having _blunt surfaces and cylindrical > shapes_, with clubs and sticks devoid of suppleness, and, if you prefer > it, neatly turned in a lathe.” > > So liberal is des Mousseaux, so determined to accommodate his > antagonists with every possible chance to prove their theory, that he {377} > offers them the choice to substitute for themselves in the experiment > their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters, “since,” he says, “you > have remarked that the weaker sex is the strong and resistant sex in > these disconcerting trials.” > > Useless to remark that des Mousseaux’s challenge remained unanswered. > > CHAPTER XI. {378} > > “Strange condition of the human mind, which seems to require > that it should long exercise itself in Error, before it dare > approach the Truth.”—MAGENDIE. > > “La verité que je defends est empreinte sur tous les monuments > du passé. Pour comprendre l’histoire, il faut etudier les > symboles anciens, les signes sacrés du sacerdoce, et l’art de > guerir dans les temps primitifs, art oublié aujourd’hui.” > —BARON DU POTET. > > “It is a truth perpetually, that accumulated facts, lying in > disorder, begin to assume some order if an hypothesis is thrown > among them.”—HERBERT SPENCER. > > And now we must search Magical History for cases similar to those > given in the preceding chapter. This insensibility of the human body > to the impact of heavy blows, and resistance to penetration by sharp > points and musket-bullets, is a phenomenon sufficiently familiar in the > experience of all times and all countries. While science is entirely > unable to give any reasonable explanation of the mystery, the question > appears to offer no difficulty to mesmerists, who have well studied > the properties of the fluid. The man, who by a few passes over a limb > can produce a local paralysis so as to render it utterly insensible > to burns, cuts, and the prickings of needles, need be but very little > astonished at the phenomena of the Jansenists. As to the adepts of > magic, especially in Siam and the East Indies, they are too familiar > with the properties of the _akasa_, the mysterious life-fluid, to > even regard the insensibility of the Convulsionaires as a very great > phenomenon. The astral fluid can be compressed about a person so as > to form an elastic shell, absolutely non-penetrable by any physical > object, however great the velocity with which it travels. In a word, > this fluid can be made to equal and even excel in resisting-power, > water and air. > > In India, Malabar, and some places of Central Africa, the conjurers > will freely permit any traveller to fire his musket or revolver at > them, without touching the weapon themselves or selecting the balls. > In Laing’s _Travels among Timanni, the Kourankos, and the Soulimas_, > occurs a description by an English traveller, the first white man to > visit the tribe of the Soulimas, near the sources of the Dialliba, of > a very curious scene. A body of picked soldiers fired upon a chief who > had nothing to defend himself with but certain talismans. Although > their muskets were properly loaded and aimed, not a ball could strike > him. Salverte gives a similar case in his _Philosophy of Occult > Sciences_: “In 1568, the Prince of Orange condemned a Spanish prisoner > to be shot at Juliers; the soldiers tied him to a tree and fired, but {379} > he was invulnerable. They at last stripped him to see what armor he > wore, but found only an _amulet_. When this was taken from him, _he > fell dead at the first shot_.” > > This is a very different affair from the dexterous trickery resorted > to by Houdin in Algeria. He prepared balls himself of tallow, > blackened with soot, and by sleight of hand exchanged them for the > real bullets, which the Arab sheiks supposed they were placing in the > pistols. The simple-minded natives, knowing nothing but real magic, > which they had inherited from their ancestors, and which consists in > each case of some one thing that they can do without knowing why or > how, and seeing Houdin, as they thought, accomplish the same results > in a more impressive manner, fancied that he was a greater magician > than themselves. Many travellers, the writer included, have witnessed > instances of this invulnerability where deception was impossible. A > few years ago, there lived in an African village, an Abyssinian who > passed for a sorcerer. Upon one occasion a party of Europeans, going > to Soudan, amused themselves for an hour or two in firing at him with > their own pistols and muskets, a privilege which he gave them for a > trifling fee. As many as five shots were fired simultaneously, by > a Frenchman named Langlois, and the muzzles of the pieces were not > above two yards distant from the sorcerer’s breast. In each case, > simultaneously with the flash, the bullet would appear just beyond > the muzzle, quivering in the air, and then, after describing a short > parabola, fall harmlessly to the ground. A German of the party, who was > going in search of ostrich feathers, offered the magician a five-franc > piece if he would allow him to fire his gun with the muzzle touching > his body. The man at first refused; but, finally, after appearing to > hold conversation with somebody inside the ground, consented. The > experimenter carefully loaded, and pressing the muzzle of the weapon > against the sorcerer’s body, after a moment’s hesitation, fired ... > the barrel burst into fragments as far down as the stock, and the man > walked off unhurt. > > This quality of invulnerability can be imparted to persons both by > living adepts and by spirits. In our own time several well-known > mediums have frequently, in the presence of the most respectable > witnesses, not only handled blazing coals and actually placed their > face upon a fire without singeing a hair, but even laid flaming coals > upon the heads and hands of by-standers, as in the case of Lord Lindsay > and Lord Adair. The well-known story of the Indian chief, who confessed > to Washington that at Braddock’s defeat he had fired his rifle at him > seventeen times at short range without being able to touch him, will > recur to the reader in this connection. In fact, many great commanders > have been believed by their soldiers to bear what is called “a charmed {380} > life;” and Prince Emile von Sayn-Wittgenstein, a general of the > Russian army, is said to be one of these. > > This same power which enables one to compress the astral fluid so > as to form an impenetrable shell around one, can be used to direct, > so to speak, a bolt of the fluid against a given object, with fatal > force. Many a dark revenge has been taken in that way; and in such > cases the coroner’s inquest will never disclose anything but sudden > death, apparently resulting from heart-disease, an apoplectic fit, or > some other natural, but still not veritable cause. Many persons firmly > believe that certain individuals possess the power of the evil eye. The > _mal’occhio_, or _jettatura_ is a belief which is prevalent throughout > Italy and Southern Europe. The Pope is held to be possessed—perchance > unconsciously—of that disagreeable gift. There are persons who can > kill toads by merely looking at them, and can even slay individuals. > The malignance of their desire brings evil forces to a focus, and the > death-dealing bolt is projected, as though it were a bullet from a > rifle. > > In 1864, in the French province of Le Var, near the little village of > Brignoles, lived a peasant named Jacques Pelissier, who made a living > by killing birds by simple _will-power_. His case is reported by the > well-known Dr. d’Alger, at whose request the singular hunter gave > exhibitions to several scientific men, of his method of proceeding. The > story is told as follows: “At about fifteen or twenty paces from us, > I saw a charming little meadow-lark which I showed to Jacques. ‘Watch > him well, monsieur,’ said he, ‘he is mine.’ Instantly stretching his > right hand toward the bird, he approached him gently. The meadow-lark > stops, raises and lowers his pretty head, spreads his wings, but cannot > fly; at last he cannot make a step further and suffers himself to > be taken, only moving his wings with a feeble fluttering. I examine > the bird; his eyes are tightly closed and his body has a corpse-like > stiffness, although the pulsations of the heart are very distinct; it > is a true cataleptic sleep, and all the phenomena incontestably prove a > magnetic action. Fourteen little birds were taken in this way, within > the space of an hour; none could resist the power of Master Jacques, > and all presented the same cataleptic sleep; a sleep which, moreover, > terminates at the will of the hunter, whose humble slaves these little > birds have become. > > “A hundred times, perhaps, I asked Jacques to restore life and movement > to his prisoners, to charm them only half way, so that they might hop > along the ground, and then again bring them completely under the charm. > All my requests were exactly complied with, and not one single failure > was made by this remarkable Nimrod, who finally said to me: ‘If you > wish it, I will kill those which you designate without touching them.’ > I pointed out two for the experiment, and, at twenty-five or thirty {381} > paces distance, he accomplished in less than five minutes what he had > promised.”[610] > > A most curious feature of the above case is, that Jacques had complete > power only over sparrows, robins, goldfinches, and meadow-larks; he > could sometimes charm skylarks, but, as he says, “they often escape me.” > > This same power is exercised with greater force by persons known as > wild beast tamers. On the banks of the Nile, some of the natives can > charm the crocodiles out of the water, with a peculiarly melodious, > low whistle, and handle them with impunity; while others possess such > powers over the most deadly snakes. Travellers tell of seeing the > charmers surrounded by multitudes of the reptiles which they dispatch > at their leisure. > > Bruce, Hasselquist, and Lemprière,[611] testify to the fact that they > have seen in Egypt, Morocco, Arabia, and especially in the Senaar, > some natives utterly disregarding the bites of the most poisonous > vipers, as well as the stings of scorpions. They handle and play with > them, and throw them at will into a state of stupor.“In vain do the > Latin and Greek writers,” says Salverte, “assure us that the gift of > charming venomous reptiles was hereditary in certain families from time > immemorial, that in Africa the same gift was enjoyed by the Psylli; > that the Marses in Italy, and the Ophiozenes in Cyprus possessed it.” > The skeptics forget that, in Italy, even at the commencement of the > sixteenth century, men, claiming to be descended from the family of > Saint Paul, braved, like the Marses, the bites of serpents.”[612] > > “Doubts upon this subject,” he goes on to say, “were removed forever at > the time of the expedition of the French into Egypt, and the following > relation is attested by thousands of eye-witnesses. The Psylli, who > pretended, as Bruce had related, to possess that faculty ... went > from house to house to destroy serpents of every kind.... A wonderful > instinct drew them at first toward the place in which the serpents > were hidden; furious, howling, and foaming, they seized and tore them > asunder with their nails and teeth.” > > “Let us place,” says Salverte, inveterate skeptic himself, “to the > account of charlatanism, the howling and the fury; still, the instinct > which warned the Psylli of the presence of the serpents, has in it {382} > something more real.” In the Antilles, the negroes discover, by its > odor, a serpent which they do not see.[613] “In Egypt, the same tact, > formerly possessed, is still enjoyed by men brought up to it from > infancy, and born as with an assumed hereditary gift to hunt serpents, > and to discover them even at a distance too great for the effluvia to > be perceptible to the dull organs of a European. The principal fact > above all others, the faculty of rendering dangerous animals powerless, > merely by touching them, remains well verified, and we shall, perhaps, > never understand better the nature of this secret, celebrated in > antiquity, and preserved to our time by the most ignorant of men.”[614] > > Music is delightful to every person. Low whistling, a melodious > chant, or the sounds of a flute will invariably attract reptiles in > countries where they are found. We have witnessed and verified the > fact repeatedly. In Upper Egypt, whenever our caravan stopped, a > young traveller, who believed he excelled on the flute, amused the > company by playing. The camel-drivers and other Arabs invariably > checked him, having been several times annoyed by the unexpected > appearance of various families of the reptile tribe, which generally > shirk an encounter with men. Finally, our caravan met with a party, > among whom were professional serpent-charmers, and the virtuoso was > then invited, for experiment’s sake, to display his skill. No sooner > had he commenced, than a slight rustling was heard, and the musician > was horrified at suddenly seeing a large snake appear in dangerous > proximity with his legs. The serpent, with uplifted head and eyes fixed > on him, slowly, and, as if unconsciously, crawled, softly undulating > its body, and following his every movement. Then appeared at a distance > another one, then a third, and a fourth, which were speedily followed > by others, until we found ourselves quite in a select company. Several > of the travellers made for the backs of their camels, while others > sought refuge in the _cantinier’s_ tent. But it was a vain alarm. The > charmers, three in number, began their chants and incantations, and, > attracting the reptiles, were very soon covered with them from head > to foot. As soon as the serpents approached the men, they exhibited > signs of torpor, and were soon plunged in a deep catalepsy. Their eyes > were half closed and glazed, and their heads drooping. There remained > but one recalcitrant, a large and glossy black fellow, with a spotted > skin. This _meloman_ of the desert went on gracefully nodding and > leaping, as if it had danced on its tail all its life, and keeping > time to the notes of the flute. This snake would not be enticed by the > “charming” of the Arabs, but kept slowly moving in the direction of {383} > the flute-player, who at last took to his heels. The modern Psyllian > then took out of his bag a half-withered plant, which he kept waving > in the direction of the serpent. It had a strong smell of mint, and as > soon as the reptile caught its odor, it followed the Arab, still erect > upon its tail, but now approaching the plant. A few more seconds, and > the “traditional enemy” of man was seen entwined around the arm of his > charmer, became torpid in its turn, and the whole lot were then thrown > together in a pool, after having their heads cut off. > > Many believe that all such snakes are prepared and trained for the > purpose, and that they are either deprived of their fangs, or have > their mouths sewed up. There may be, doubtless, some inferior jugglers, > whose trickery has given rise to such an idea. But the _genuine_ > serpent-charmer has too well established his claims in the East, to > resort to any such cheap fraud. They have the testimony on this subject > of too many trustworthy travellers, including some scientists, to be > accused of any such charlatanism. That the snakes, which are charmed > to dance and to become harmless, are still poisonous, is verified by > Forbes. “On the music stopping too suddenly,” says he, “or from some > other cause, the serpent, who had been dancing within a circle of > country-people, darted among the spectators, and inflicted a wound > in the throat of a young woman, who died in agony, in half an hour > afterward.”[615] > > According to the accounts of many travellers the negro women of Dutch > Guiana, the Obeah women, excel in taming very large snakes called > _amodites_, or _papa_; they make them descend from the trees, follow, > and obey them by merely speaking to them.[616] > > We have seen in India a small brotherhood of fakirs settled round a > little lake, or rather a deep pool of water, the bottom of which was > literally carpeted with enormous alligators. These amphibious monsters > crawl out, and warm themselves in the sun, a few feet from the fakirs, > some of whom may be motionless, lost in prayer and contemplation. So > long as one of these holy beggars remains in view, the crocodiles are > as harmless as kittens. But we would never advise a foreigner to risk > himself alone within a few yards of these monsters. The poor Frenchman > Pradin found an untimely grave in one of these terrible Saurians, > commonly called by the Hindus _Moudela_.[617] (This word should be > _nihang_ or _ghariyāl_.) > > When Iamblichus, Herodotus, Pliny, or some other ancient writer tells > us of priests who caused asps to come forth from the altar of Isis, > or of thaumaturgists taming with a glance the most ferocious animals, {384} > they are considered liars and ignorant imbeciles. When modern > travellers tell us of the same wonders performed in the East, they are > set down as enthusiastic jabberers, or _untrustworthy_ writers. > > But, despite materialistic skepticism, man does possess such a power, > as we see manifested in the above instances. When psychology and > physiology become worthy of the name of sciences, Europeans will be > convinced of the weird and formidable potency existing in the human > will and imagination, whether exercised consciously or otherwise. And > yet, how easy to realize such power in _spirit_, if we only think of > that grand truism in nature that every most insignificant atom in it > is moved by _spirit_, which is _one_ in its essence, for the least > particle of it represents the _whole_; and that matter is but the > concrete copy of the abstract idea, after all. In this connection, let > us cite a few instances of the imperial power of even the _unconscious_ > will, to create according to the imagination or rather the faculty of > discerning images in the astral light. > > We have but to recall the very familiar phenomenon of _stigmata_, or > birth-marks, where effects are produced by the involuntary agency of > the maternal imagination under a state of excitement. The fact that > the mother can control the appearance of her unborn child was so well > known among the ancients, that it was the custom among wealthy Greeks > to place fine statues near the bed, so that she might have a perfect > model constantly before her eyes. The cunning trick by which the > Hebrew patriarch Jacob caused ring-streaked and speckled calves to be > dropped, is an illustration of the law among animals; and Aricante > tells “of four successive litters of puppies, born of healthy parents, > some of which, in each litter, were well formed, whilst the remainder > were without anterior extremities and had hair lip.” The works of > Geoffroi St. Hilaire, Burdach, and Elam, contain accounts of great > numbers of such cases, and in Dr. Prosper Lucas’s important volume, > _Sur l’Heredité Naturelle_, there are many. Elam quotes from Prichard > an instance where the child of a negro and white was marked with black > and white color upon separate parts of the body. He adds, with laudable > sincerity, “These are singularities of which, in the present state > of science, no explanation can be given.”[618] It is a pity that his > example was not more generally imitated. Among the ancients Empedocles, > Aristotle, Pliny, Hippocrates, Galen, Marcus Damascenus, and others > give us accounts quite as wonderful as our contemporary authors. > > In a work published in London, in 1659,[619] a powerful argument is {385} > made in refutation of the materialists by showing the potency of > the human mind upon the subtile forces of nature. The author, Dr. > More, views the fœtus as if it were a plastic substance, which can > be fashioned by the mother to an agreeable or disagreeable shape, to > resemble some person or in part several persons, and to be stamped > with the effigies, or as we might more properly call it, _astrograph_, > of some object vividly presented to her imagination. These effects > may be produced by her voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or > unconsciously, feebly or forcibly, as the case may be. It depends upon > her ignorance or knowledge of the profound mysteries of nature. Taking > women in the mass, the marking of the embryo may be considered more > accidental than the result of design; and as each person’s atmosphere > in the astral light is peopled with the images of his or her immediate > family, the sensitive surface of the fœtus, which may almost be likened > to the collodionized plate of a photograph, is as likely as not to be > stamped with the image of a near or remote ancestor, whom the mother > never saw, but which, at some critical moment, came as it were into the > focus of nature’s camera. Says Dr. Elam, “Near me is seated a visitor > from a distant continent, where she was born and educated. The portrait > of a remote ancestress, far back in the last century, hangs upon the > wall. In every feature, one is an accurate presentment of the other, > although the one never left England, and the other was an American by > birth and half parentage.” > > The power of the imagination upon our physical condition, even after > we arrive at maturity, is evinced in many familiar ways. In medicine, > the intelligent physician does not hesitate to accord to it a curative > or morbific potency greater than his pills and potions. He calls it > the _vis medicatrix naturæ_, and his first endeavor is to gain the > confidence of his patient so completely, that he can cause nature > to extirpate the disease. Fear often kills; and grief has such a > power over the subtile fluids of the body as not only to derange the > internal organs but even to turn the hair white. Ficinus mentions the > _signature_ of the fœtus with the marks of cherries and various fruits, > colors, hairs, and excrescences, and acknowledges that the imagination > of the mother may transform it into a resemblance of an ape, pig, or > dog, or any such animal. Marcus Damascenus tells of a girl covered with > hair and, like our modern Julia Pastrana, furnished with a full beard; > Gulielmus Paradinus, of a child whose skin and nails resembled those of > a bear; Balduinus Ronsæus of one born with a turkey’s wattles; Pareus, > of one with a head like a frog; and Avicenna, of chickens with hawks’ > heads. In this latter case, which perfectly exemplifies the power of > the same imagination in animals, the embryo must have been stamped at > the instant of conception when the hen’s imagination saw a hawk either {386} > in fact or in fancy. This is evident, for Dr. More, who quotes this > case on the authority of Avicenna, remarks very appropriately that, as > the egg in question might have been hatched a hundred miles distant > from the hen, the microscopic picture of the hawk impressed upon the > embryo must have enlarged and perfected itself with the growth of the > chicken quite independently of any subsequent influence from the hen. > > Cornelius Gemma tells of a child that was born with his forehead > wounded and running with blood, the result of his father’s threats > toward his mother “... with a drawn sword which he directed toward her > forehead;” Sennertius records the case of a pregnant woman who, seeing > a butcher divide a swine’s head with his cleaver, brought forth her > child with his face cloven in the upper jaw, the palate, and upper lip > to the very nose. In Van Helmont’s _De Injectis Materialibus_, some > very astonishing cases are reported: The wife of a tailor at Mechlin > was standing at her door and saw a soldier’s hand cut off in a quarrel, > which so impressed her as to bring on premature labor, and her child > was born with only one hand, the other arm bleeding. In 1602, the wife > of Marcus Devogeler, a merchant of Antwerp, seeing a soldier who had > just lost his arm, was taken in labor and brought forth a daughter > with one arm struck off and bleeding as in the first case. Van Helmont > gives a third example of another woman who witnessed the beheading of > thirteen men by order of the Duc d’Alva. The horror of the spectacle > was so overpowering that she “suddainly fell into labour and brought > forth a perfectly-formed infant, onely the head was wanting, but the > neck bloody as their bodies she beheld that had their heads cut off. > And that which does still advance the wonder is, that the _hand_, > _arme_, and _head_ of these infants were none of them to be found.”[620] > > If it was possible to conceive of such a thing as a miracle in nature, > the above cases of the sudden disappearance of portions of the unborn > human body might be designated. We have looked in vain through the > latest authorities upon human physiology for any sufficient theory > to account for the least remarkable of fœtal signatures. The most > they can do is to record instances of what they call “spontaneous > varieties of type,” and then fall back either upon Mr. Proctor’s > “curious coincidences” or upon such candid confessions of ignorance > as are to be found in authors not entirely satisfied with the sum > of human knowledge. Magendie acknowledges that, despite scientific > researches, comparatively little is known of fœtal life. At page 518 > of the American edition of his _Precis Elementaire de Physiologie_ > he instances “a case where the umbilical cord was ruptured and {387} > perfectly cicatrized;” and asks “How was the circulation carried on > in this organ?” On the next page, he says: “Nothing is at present > known respecting the use of digestion in the fœtus;” and respecting > its nutrition, propounds this query: “What, then, can we say of the > nutrition of the fœtus? Physiological works contain only _vague > conjectures_ on this point.” On page 520, the following language > occurs: “In consequence of some _unknown cause_, the different parts of > the fœtus sometimes develop themselves in a preternatural manner.” With > singular inconsistency with his previous admissions of the ignorance of > science upon all these points which we have quoted, he adds: “_There > is no reason for believing that the imagination of the mother can have > any influence in the formation of these monsters_; besides, productions > of this kind are daily observed in the offspring of other animals and > even in plants.” How perfect an illustration is this of the methods of > scientific men!—the moment they pass beyond their circle of observed > facts, their judgment seems to become entirely perverted. Their > deductions from their own researches are often greatly inferior to > those made by others who have to take the facts at second hand. > > The literature of science is constantly furnishing examples of this > truth; and when we consider the reasoning of materialistic observers > upon psychological phenomena, the rule is strikingly manifest. > Those who are _soul-blind_ are as constitutionally incapable of > distinguishing psychological causes from material effects as the > color-blind are to select scarlet from black. > > Elam, without being in the least a spiritualist, nay, though an enemy > to it, represents the belief of honest scientists in the following > expressions: “it is certainly inexplicable how matter and mind can act > and react one upon the other; the mystery is acknowledged by all to be > insoluble, and will probably ever remain so.” > > The great English authority upon the subject of malformation is _The > Science and Practice of Medicine_, by Wm. Aitken, M.D., Edinburgh, > and Professor of Pathology in the Army Medical School; the American > edition of which, by Professor Meredith Clymer, M.D., of the University > of Pennsylvania, has equal weight in the United States. At page 233 > of vol. i. we find the subject treated at length. The author says, > “The superstition, absurd notions, and strange causes assigned to the > occurrence of such malformations, are now fast disappearing before > the lucid expositions of those famous anatomists who have made the > development and growth of the ovum a subject of special study. It is > sufficient to mention here the names, J. Muller, Rathke, Bischoff, > St. Hilaire, Burdach, Allen Thompson, G. & W. Vrolick, Wolff, Meckel, > Simpson, Rokitansky, and Von Ammon as sufficient evidence that the > truths of science will in time dispel the mists of ignorance and {388} > superstition.” One would think, from the complacent tone adopted by > this eminent writer that we were in possession if not of the means of > readily solving this intricate problem at least of a clew to guide us > through the maze of our difficulties. But, in 1872, after profiting > by all the labors and ingenuity of the illustrious pathologists above > enumerated, we find him making the same confession of ignorance as that > expressed by Magendie in 1838. “Nevertheless,” says he, “much mystery > still enshrouds the origin of malformation; the origin of them may be > considered in two main issues, namely: 1, are they due to original > malformation of the germ? 2, or, are they due to subsequent deformities > of the embryo by causes operating on its development? With regard > to the first issue, it is believed that the germ may be originally > malformed, or defective, owing to _some influence proceeding either > from the female, or from the male_, as in case of repeated procreation > of the same kind of malformation by the same parents, deformities on > either side being transmitted as an inheritance.” > > Being unsupplied with any philosophy of their own to account for the > lesions, the pathologists, true to professional instinct, resort to > negation. “That such deformity may be produced by mental impressions > on pregnant women there is an absence of positive proof,” they say. > “Moles, mothers’ marks, and cutaneous spots as ascribed to morbid > states of the coats of the ovum.... A very generally-recognized > cause of malformation consists in impeded development of the fœtus, > _the cause of which is not always obvious, but is for the most part > concealed.... Transient forms of the human fœtus are comparable to > persistent forms of many lower animals._” Can the learned professor > explain why? “_Hence malformations resulting from arrest of development > often acquire an animal-like appearance._” > > Exactly; but why do not pathologists inform us why it is so? Any > anatomist who has made the development and growth of the embryo and > fœtus “a subject of special study,” can tell, without much brain-work, > what daily experience and the evidence of his own eyes show him, viz.: > that up to a certain period, the human embryo is a fac-simile of a > young batrachian in its first remove from the spawn—a tadpole. But > no physiologist or anatomist seems to have had the idea of applying > to the development of the human being—from the first instant of its > physical appearance as a germ to its ultimate formation and birth—the > Pythagorean esoteric doctrine of metempsychosis, so erroneously > interpreted by critics. The meaning of the kabalistic axiom: “A stone > becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a beast a man, etc.,” was mentioned > in another place in relation to the spiritual and physical evolution of > man on this earth. We will now add a few words more to make the idea > clearer. > > What is the primitive shape of the future man? A grain, a corpuscle, {389} > say some physiologists; a molecule, an ovum of the ovum, say others. > If it could be analyzed—by the spectroscope or otherwise—of what ought > we to expect to find it composed? Analogically, we should say, of a > nucleus of inorganic matter, deposited from the circulation at the > germinating point, and united with a deposit of organic matter. In > other words, this infinitesimal nucleus of the future man is composed > of the same elements as a stone—of the same elements as the earth, > which the man is destined to inhabit. Moses is cited by the kabalists > as authority for the remark, that it required earth and water to make a > living being, and thus it may be said that man first appears as a stone. > > At the end of three or four weeks the ovum has assumed a plant-like > appearance, one extremity having become spheroidal and the other > tapering, like a carrot. Upon dissection it is found to be composed, > like an onion, of very delicate laminæ or coats, enclosing a liquid. > The laminæ approach each other at the lower end, and the embryo hangs > from the root of the umbilicus almost like a fruit from the bough. The > stone has now become changed, by metempsychosis, into a plant. Then the > embryonic creature begins to shoot out, from the inside outward, its > limbs, and develops its features. The eyes are visible as two black > dots; the ears, nose, and mouth form depressions, like the points of > a pineapple, before they begin to project. The embryo develops into > an animal-like fœtus—the shape of a tadpole—and like an amphibious > reptile lives in water, and develops from it. Its monad has not yet > become either human or immortal, for the kabalists tell us that that > only comes at the “fourth hour.” One by one the fœtus assumes the > characteristics of the human being, the first flutter of the immortal > breath passes through his being; he moves; nature opens the way for > him; ushers him into the world; and the divine essence settles in the > infant frame, which it will inhabit until the moment of physical death, > when man becomes a spirit. > > This mysterious process of a nine-months formation the kabalists > call the completion of the “individual cycle of evolution.” As the > fœtus develops from the _liquor amnii_ in the womb, so the earths > germinate from the universal ether, or astral fluid, in the womb of > the universe. These cosmic children, like their pigmy inhabitants, are > first nuclei; then ovules; then gradually mature; and becoming mothers > in their turn, develop mineral, vegetable, animal, and human forms. > From centre to circumference, from the imperceptible vesicle to the > uttermost conceivable bounds of the cosmos, these glorious thinkers, > the kabalists, trace cycle merging into cycle, containing and contained > in an endless series. The embryo evolving in its pre-natal sphere, > the individual in his family, the family in the state, the state in {390} > mankind, the earth in our system, that system in its central universe, > the universe in the cosmos, and the cosmos in the First Cause:—the > Boundless and Endless. So runs their philosophy of evolution: > > “All are but parts of one stupendous whole, > Whose body Nature is; and God the Soul.” > > “Worlds without number > Lie in this bosom like children.” > > While unanimously agreeing that physical causes, such as blows, > accidents, and bad quality of food for the mother, effect the fœtus > in a way which endangers its life; and while admitting again that > moral causes, such as fear, sudden terror, violent grief, or even > extreme joy, may retard the growth of the fœtus or even kill it, many > physiologists agree with Magendie in saying, “there is no reason for > believing that the imagination of the mother can have any influence > in the formation of monsters;” and only because “productions of this > kind are daily observed in the production of other animals and even in > plants.” > > In this opinion he is supported by the leading teratologists of our > day. Although Geoffroi St. Hilaire gave its name to the new science, > its facts are based upon the exhaustive experiments of Bichat, who, in > 1802, was recognized as the founder of analytical and philosophical > anatomy. One of the most important contributions to teratological > literature is the monograph of G. J. Fisher, M. D., of Sing Sing, N. > Y., entitled _Diploteratology; an Essay on Compound Human Monsters_. > This writer classifies monstrous fœtal growths into their genera and > species, accompanying the cases with reflections suggested by their > peculiarities. Following St. Hilaire, he divides the history of the > subject into the fabulous, the positive, and the scientific periods. > > It suffices for our purpose to say that in the present state of > scientific opinion two points are considered as established: 1, that > the maternal, mental condition has no influence in the production of > monstrosities; 2, that most varieties of monstrosity may be accounted > for on the theory of _arrest_ and _retardation_ of development. Says > Fisher, “By a careful study of the laws of development and the order > in which the various organs are evolved in the embryo, it has been > observed that monsters by defect or arrest of development, are, to a > certain extent, permanent embryos. The abnormal organs merely represent > the primitive condition of formation as it existed in an early stage of > embryonic or fœtal life.”[621] > > With physiology in so confessedly chaotic a state as it is at present, {391} > it seems a little like hardihood in any teratologist, however great his > achievements in anatomy, histology, or embryology, to take so dangerous > a position as that the mother has no influence upon her offspring. > While the microscopes of Haller and Prolik, Dareste and Laraboulet have > disclosed to us many interesting facts concerning the single or double > primitive traces on the vitelline membrane, what remains undiscovered > about embryology by modern science appears greater still. If we grant > that monstrosities are the result of an arrest of development—nay, if > we go farther, and concede that the fœtal future may be prognosticated > from the vitelline tracings, where will the teratologists take us > to learn the _antecedent_ psychological cause of either? Dr. Fisher > may have carefully studied some hundreds of cases, and feel himself > authorized to construct a new classification of their genera and > species; but facts are facts, and outside the field of his observation > it appears, even if we judge but by our own personal experience, in > various countries, that there are abundant attainable proofs that the > violent maternal emotions are often reflected in tangible, visible, > and permanent disfigurements of the child. And the cases in question > seem, moreover, to contradict Dr. Fisher’s assertion that monstrous > growths are due to causes traceable to “the early stages of embryonic > or fœtal life.” One case was that of a Judge of an Imperial Court at > Saratow, Russia, who always wore a bandage to cover a mouse-mark on > the left side of his face. It was a perfectly-formed mouse, whose body > was represented in high relief upon the cheek, and the tail ran upward > across the temple and was lost in his hair. The body seemed glossy, > gray, and quite natural. According to his own account, his mother had > an unconquerable repugnance to mice, and her labor was prematurely > brought on by seeing a mouse jump out from her workbox. > > In another instance, of which the writer was a witness, a pregnant > lady, within two or three weeks of her accouchement, saw a bowl of > raspberries, and was seized with an irresistible longing for some, but > denied. She excitedly clasped her right hand to her neck in a somewhat > theatrical manner, and exclaimed that she _must_ have them. The child > born under our eyes, three weeks later, had a perfectly-defined > raspberry on the right side of his neck; to this day, when that fruit > ripens, his birth-mark becomes of a deep crimson, while, during the > winter, it is quite pale. > > Such cases as these, which are familiar to many mothers of families, > either in their personal experience or that of friends, carry > conviction, despite the theories of all the teratologists of Europe and > America. Because, forsooth, animals and plants are observed to produce > malformations of their species as well as human beings, Magendie and > his school infer that the human malformations of an identical character {392} > are not at all due to maternal imagination, _since the former are > not_. If physical causes produce physical effects in the subordinate > kingdoms, the inference is that the same rule must hold with ourselves. > > But an entirely original theory was broached by Professor Armor, > of the Long Island Medical College, in the course of a discussion > recently held in the Detroit Academy of Medicine. In opposition to > the orthodox views which Dr. Fisher represents, Professor Armor > says that malformations result from either one of two causes—1, a > deficiency or abnormal condition in the generative matter from which > the fœtus is developed, or 2, morbid influences acting on the _fœtus > in utero_. He maintains that the generative matter represents in its > composition every tissue, structure, and form, and that there may be > such a transmission of _acquired_ structural peculiarities as would > make the generative matter incapable of producing a healthy and > equally-developed offspring. On the other hand, the generative matter > may be perfect in itself, but being subjected to morbid influences > during the process of gestation, the offspring will, of necessity, be > monstrous. > > To be consistent, this theory must account for diploteratological cases > (double-headed or double-membered monsters), which seems difficult. We > might, perhaps, admit that in defective generative matter, the head > of the embryo might not be represented, or any other part of the body > be deficient; but, it hardly seems as if there could be two, three, > or more representatives of a single member. Again, if the generative > matter have hereditary taint, it seems as if _all_ the resulting > progeny should be equally monstrous; whereas the fact is that in many > cases the mother has given birth to a number of healthy children before > the monster made its appearance, all being the progeny of one father. > Numerous cases of this kind are quoted by Dr. Fisher; among others > he cites the case of Catherine Corcoran,[622] a “very healthy woman, > thirty years of age and who, previously to giving birth to this monster > had born five well-formed children, no two of which were twins ... it > had a head at either extremity, two chests, with arms complete, two > abdominal and two pelvic cavities united end to end, with four legs > placed two at either side, where the union between the two occurred.” > Certain parts of the body, however, were not duplicated, and therefore > this cannot be claimed as a case of the growing together of twins. > > Another instance is that of Maria Teresa Parodi.[623] This woman, who > had previously given birth to eight well-formed children, was delivered > of a female infant the upper part of which only was double. Instances {393} > in which _before_ and _after_ the production of a monster the children > were perfectly healthy are numerous, and if, on the other hand, the > fact that monstrosities are as common with animals as they are with > mankind is a generally-accepted argument against the popular theory > that these malformations are due to the imagination of the mother; and > that other fact—that there is no difference between the ovarian cell of > a mammifer and a man, be admitted, what becomes of Professor Armor’s > theory? In such a case an instance of an animal-malformation is as good > as that of a human monster; and this is what we read in Dr. Samuel L. > Mitchell’s paper _On two-headed Serpents_: “A female snake was killed, > together with her whole brood of young ones, amounting to 120, of these > _three were monsters_. One with two distinct heads; one with a double > head and only three eyes; and one with a double skull, furnished with > three eyes, and a single lower jaw; this last had two bodies.”[624] > Surely the _generative matter_ which produced these _three monsters_ > was identical with that which produced the other 117? Thus the _Armor_ > theory is as imperfect as all the rest. > > The trouble proceeds from the defective method of reasoning usually > adopted—_Induction_; a method which claims to collect by _experiment_ > and observation all the facts _within_ its reach, the former being > rather that of collecting and examining experiments and drawing > conclusions therefrom; and, according to the author of _Philosophical > Inquiry_, “as this conclusion cannot be extended beyond what is > warranted by the experiments, the Induction is an instrument of proof > and _limitation_.” Notwithstanding this limitation is to be found in > every scientific inquiry, it is rarely confessed, but hypotheses are > constructed for us as though the experimenters had found them to be > mathematically-proved theorems, while they are, to say the most, simple > approximations. > > For a student of occult philosophy, who rejects in his turn the method > of induction on account of these perpetual limitations, and fully > adopts the Platonic division of causes—namely, the Efficient, the > Formal, the Material, and the Final, as well as the Eleatic method of > examining any given proposition, it is but natural to reason from the > following standpoint of the Neo-platonic school: 1. The subject either > _is_ as it is supposed or _is not_. Therefore, we will inquire: Does > the universal ether, known by the kabalists as the “astral light,” > contain electricity and magnetism, or does it not? The answer must > be in the affirmative, for “exact science” herself teaches us that > these two convertible agents saturating both the air and the earth, > there is a constant interchange of electricity and magnetism between {394} > them. The question No. 1 being settled, we will have now to examine > _what happens_—1st. To _it_ with respect to _itself_. 2d. To _it_ > with respect to _all other_ things. 3d. With all _other things_, > with respect _to it_. 4th. To all _other things_ with respect to > _themselves_. > > ANSWERS: 1st. With respect to _itself_. That inherent properties > previously latent in electricity, become active under favoring > conditions; and that at one time the form of magnetic force is assumed > by the subtile, all-pervading agent; at another, the form of electric > force is assumed. > > 2d. With respect to all other things. By all other things for which it > has an affinity, it is attracted, by all others repelled. > > 3d. With all other things with respect to it. It happens that whenever > they come in contact with electricity, they receive its impress in > proportion to their conductivity. > > 4th. To all other things with respect to themselves. That under the > impulse received from the electric force, and in proportion to its > intensity, their molecules change their relations with each other; that > either they are wrenched asunder, so as to destroy the object—organic > or inorganic—which they formed, or, if previously disturbed, are > brought into equilibrium (as in cases of disease); or the disturbance > may be but superficial, and the object may be stamped with the image of > some other object encountered by the fluid before reaching them. > > To apply the above propositions to the case in point: There are > several well-recognized principles of science, as, for instance, that > a pregnant woman is physically and mentally in a highly impressible > state. Physiology tells us that her intellectual faculties are > weakened, and that she is affected to an unusual degree by the most > trifling events. Her pores are opened, and she exudes a peculiar > cutaneous perspiration; she seems to be in a receptive condition for > all the influences in nature. Reichenbach’s disciples assert that her > _odic_ condition is very intense. Du Potet warns against incautiously > mesmerizing her, for fear of affecting the offspring. Her diseases > are imparted to it, and often it absorbs them entirely to itself; her > pains and pleasures react upon its temperament as well as its health; > great men proverbially have great mothers, and _vice versa_. “_It is > true that her imagination has an influence upon the fœtus_,” admits > Magendie, thus contradicting what he asserts in another place; and he > adds that “sudden terror may cause the death of the fœtus, _or retard > its growth_.”[625] > > In the case recently reported in the American papers, of a boy who > was killed by a stroke of lightning, upon stripping the body, there > was found imprinted upon his breast the faithful picture of a tree {395} > which grew near the window which he was facing at the time of the > catastrophe, and which was also felled by the lightning. Now, this > electrical photography, which was accomplished by the blind forces > of nature, furnishes an analogy by which we may understand how the > mental images of the mother are transmitted to the unborn child. Her > _pores_ are opened; she exudes an _odic_ emanation which is but another > form of the _akasa_, the electricity, or life-principle, and which, > according to Reichenbach, produces mesmeric sleep, and consequently > is _magnetism_. Magnetic currents develop themselves into electricity > upon their exit from the body. An object making a violent impression > on the mother’s mind, its image is instantly projected into the astral > light, or the universal ether, which Jevons and Babbage, as well as > the authors of the _Unseen Universe_, tell us is the repository of the > _spiritual_ images of all forms, and even human thoughts. Her magnetic > emanations attract and unite themselves with the descending current > which already bears the image upon it. It rebounds, and re-percussing > more or less violently, impresses itself upon the fœtus, according to > the very formula of physiology which shows how every maternal feeling > reacts on the offspring. Is this kabalistic theory more _hypothetical_ > or incomprehensible than the teratological doctrine taught by the > disciples of Geoffroi St. Hilaire? The doctrine, of which Magendie so > justly observes, “is found convenient and easy from its _vagueness_ > and obscurity,” and which “pretends to nothing less than the creation > of a new science, the theory of which reposes on certain laws not very > intelligible, as that of _arresting_, that of _retarding_, that of > _similar_ or _eccentric_ position, especially the _great law_, as it is > called, of _self for self_.”[626] > > Eliphas Levi, who is certainly one of the best authorities on certain > points among kabalists, says: “Pregnant women are, more than others, > under the influence of the astral light, which assists in the formation > of their child, and constantly presents to them the reminiscences of > forms with which it is filled. It is thus that very virtuous women > deceive the malignity of observers by equivocal resemblances. They > often impress upon the fruit of their marriage an image which has > struck them in a dream, and thus are the same physiognomies perpetuated > from age to age.” > > “The kabalistic use of the pentagram can therefore determine the > countenance of unborn infants, and an initiated woman might give to her > son the features of Nereus or Achilles, as well as those of Louis XV. > or Napoleon.”[627] > > If it should confirm another theory than that of Dr. Fisher, he should > be the last to complain, for as he himself makes the confession, which {396} > his own example verifies:[628] “One of the most formidable obstacles > to the advancement of science ... has ever been a _blind submission > to authority_.... To untrammel the mind from the influence of mere > authority, that it may have free scope in the investigation of facts > and laws which exist and are established in nature, is the grand > antecedent necessary to scientific discovery and permanent progress.” > > If the maternal imagination can stunt the growth or destroy the > life of the fœtus, why cannot it influence its physical appearance? > There are some surgeons who have devoted their lives and fortunes to > find the cause for these malformations, but have only reached the > opinion that they are mere “coincidences.” It would be also highly > unphilosophical to say that animals are not endowed with imagination; > and, while it might be considered the acme of metaphysical speculation > to even formulate the idea that members of the vegetable kingdom—say > the _mimosas_ and the group of insect-catchers—have an instinct and > even rudimentary imagination of their own, yet the idea is not without > its advocates. If great physicists like Tyndall are forced to confess > that even in the case of intelligent and speaking man they are unable > to bridge the chasm between mind and matter, and define the powers of > the imagination, how much greater must be the mystery about what takes > place in the brain of a dumb animal. > > What is imagination? _Psychologists tell us that it is the plastic or > creative power of the soul_; but materialists confound it with fancy. > The radical difference between the two, was however, so thoroughly > indicated by Wordsworth, in the preface to his _Lyrical Ballads_, > that it is no longer excusable to interchange the words. Imagination, > Pythagoras maintained to be the remembrance of precedent spiritual, > mental, and physical states, while fancy is the disorderly production > of the material brain. > > From whatever aspect we view and question matter, the world-old > philosophy that it was vivified and fructified by the eternal idea, > or imagination—the abstract outlining and preparing the model for the > concrete form—is unavoidable. If we reject this doctrine, the theory > of a cosmos evolving gradually out of its chaotic disorder becomes an > absurdity; for it is highly unphilosophical to imagine inert matter, > solely moved by blind force, and directed by intelligence, forming > itself spontaneously into a universe of such admirable harmony. If the > soul of man is really an outcome of the essence of this universal soul, > an infinitesimal fragment of this first creative principle, it must > of necessity partake in degree of all the attributes of the demiurgic > power. As the creator, breaking up the chaotic mass of dead, inactive {397} > matter, shaped it into form, so man, if he knew his powers, could, > to a degree, do the same. As Pheidias, gathering together the loose > particles of clay and moistening them with water, could give plastic > shape to the sublime idea evoked by his creative faculty, so the mother > who knows her power can fashion the coming child into whatever form she > likes. Ignorant of his powers, the sculptor produces only an inanimate > though ravishing figure of inert matter; while the soul of the mother, > violently affected by her imagination, blindly projects into the astral > light an image of the object which impressed it, and, by re-percussion, > that is stamped upon the fœtus. Science tells us that the law of > gravitation assures us that any displacement which takes place in the > very heart of the earth will be felt throughout the universe, “and we > may even imagine that the same thing will hold true of those molecular > motions which accompany thought.”[629] Speaking of the transmission > of energy throughout the universal ether or astral light, the same > authority says: “Continual photographs of all occurrences are thus > produced and retained. A large portion of the energy of the universe > may thus be said to be invested in such pictures.” > > Dr. Fournié, of the National Deaf and Dumb Institute of France, in > chapter ii. of his work,[630] in discussing the question of the fœtus, > says that the most powerful microscope is unable to show us the > slightest difference between the ovarian cell of a mammifer and a man; > and, respecting the first or last movement of the ovule, asks: “What is > it? has it particular characters which distinguish it from every other > ovule?” and justly answers thus: “Until now, science has not replied to > these questions, and, without being a pessimist, I do not think _that > she ever will reply_; from the day when her methods of investigation > will permit her to surprise the hidden mechanism of the conflict of > the principle of life with matter, she will know life itself, and > be able to produce it.” If our author had read the sermon of Père > Felix, how appropriately he might utter his Amen! to the priest’s > exclamation—MYSTERY! MYSTERY! > > Let us consider the assertion of Magendie in the light of recorded > instances of the power of imagination in producing monstrous > deformities, where the question does not involve pregnant women. He > admits that these occur daily in the offspring of the lower animals; > how does he account for the hatching of chickens with hawk-heads, > except upon the theory that the appearance of the hereditary enemy > acted upon the hen’s imagination, which, in its turn, imparted to the > matter composing the germ a certain motion which, before expanding > itself, produced the monstrous chicks? We know of an analogous case, {398} > where a tame dove, belonging to a lady of our acquaintance, was > frightened daily by a parrot, and in her next brood of young there > were two squabs with parrots’ heads, the resemblance even extending to > the color of the feathers. We might also cite Columella, Youatt, and > other authorities, together with the experience of all animal breeders, > to show that by exciting the imagination of the mother, the external > appearance of the offspring can be largely controlled. These instances > in no degree affect the question of heredity, for they are simply > special variations of type artificially caused. > > Catherine Crowe discusses at considerable length the question of the > power of the mind over matter, and relates, in illustration, many > well-authenticated instances of the same.[631] Among others, that most > curious phenomenon called the _stigmata_ have a decided bearing upon > this point. These marks come upon the bodies of persons of all ages, > and always as the result of exalted imagination. In the cases of the > Tyrolese ecstatic, Catherine Emmerich, and many others, the wounds of > the crucifixion are said to be as perfect as nature. A certain Mme. B. > von N. dreamed one night that a person offered her a red and a white > rose, and that she chose the latter. On awaking, she felt a burning > pain in her arm, and by degrees there appeared the figure of a rose, > perfect in form and color; it was rather raised above the skin. The > mark increased in intensity till the eighth day, after which it faded > away, and by the fourteenth, was no longer perceptible. Two young > ladies, in Poland, were standing by an open window during a storm; a > flash of lightning fell near them, and the gold necklace on the neck of > one of them was melted. A perfect image of it was impressed upon the > skin, and remained throughout life. The other girl, appalled by the > accident to her companion, stood transfixed with horror for several > minutes, and then fainted away. Little by little the same mark of a > necklace as had been instantaneously imprinted upon her friend’s body, > appeared upon her own, and remained there for several years, when it > gradually disappeared. > > Dr. Justinus Kerner, the distinguished German author, relates a still > more extraordinary case. “At the time of the French invasion, a Cossack > having pursued a Frenchman into a _cul-de-sac_, an alley without an > outlet, there ensued a terrible conflict between them, in which the > latter was severely wounded. A person who had taken refuge in this > close, and could not get away, was so dreadfully frightened, that when > he reached home there broke out on his body the very same wounds that > the Cossack had inflicted on his enemy!” > > In this case, as in those where organic disorders, and even physical {399} > death result from a sudden excitement of the mind reacting upon the > body, Magendie would find it difficult to attribute the effect to > any other cause than the imagination; and if he were an occultist, > like Paracelsus, or Van Helmont, the question would be stripped of > its mystery. He would understand the power of the human will and > imagination—the former conscious, the latter involuntary—on the > universal agent to inflict injury, physical and mental, not only > upon chosen victims, but also, by reflex action, upon one’s self and > unconsciously. It is one of the fundamental principles of magic, that > if a current of this subtile fluid is not impelled with sufficient > force to reach the objective point, it will react upon the individual > sending it, as an India-rubber ball rebounds to the thrower’s hand from > the wall against which it strikes without being able to penetrate it. > There are many cases instanced where _would-be sorcerers_ fell victims > themselves. Van Helmont says: “The imaginative power of a woman vividly > excited produces an idea, which is the connecting medium between the > body and spirit. This transfers itself to the being with whom the woman > stands in the most immediate relation, and impresses upon it that image > which the most agitated herself.” > > Deleuze has collected, in his _Bibliothèque du Magnétisme_ Animal, a > number of remarkable facts taken from Van Helmont, among which we will > content ourselves with quoting the following as pendants to the case > of the bird-hunter, Jacques Pelissier. He says that “men by looking > steadfastly at animals _oculis intentis_ for a quarter of an hour may > cause their death; which Rousseau confirms from his own experience in > Egypt and the East, as having killed several toads in this manner. But > when he at last tried this at Lyons, the toad, finding it could not > escape from his eye, turned round, blew itself up, and stared at him so > fiercely, without moving its eyes, that a weakness came over him even > to fainting, and he was for some time thought to be dead.” > > But to return to the question of teratology. Wierus tells, in his _De > Prœstigiis Demonum_, of a child born of a woman who not long before > its birth was threatened by her husband, he saying that she had the > devil in her and that he would kill him. The mother’s fright was such > that her offspring appeared “well-shaped from the middle downward, but > upward spotted with blackened red spots, with eyes in his forehead, a > mouth like a Satyr, ears like a dog, and bended horns on its head like > a goat.” In a demonological work by Peramatus, there is a story of a > monster born at St. Lawrence, in the West Indies, in the year 1573, the > genuineness of which is certified to by the Duke of Medina-Sidonia. > The child, “besides the horrible deformity of its mouth, ears, and > nose, had two horns on the head, like those of young goats, long hair > on his body, a fleshy girdle about his middle, double, from whence {400} > hung a piece of flesh like a purse, and a bell of flesh in his left > hand like those the Indians use when they dance, white boots of flesh > on his legs, doubled down. In brief, the whole shape was horrid and > diabolical, and conceived to proceed from some fright the mother had > taken from the antic dances of the Indians.”[632] Dr. Fisher rejects > all such instances as unauthenticated and fabulous. > > But we will not weary the reader with further selections from the > multitude of teratological cases to be found recorded in the works > of standard authors; the above suffice to show that there is reason > to attribute these aberrations of physiological type to the mutual > reaction of the maternal mind and the universal ether upon each other. > Lest some should question the authority of Van Helmont, as a man of > science, we will refer them to the work of Fournié, the well-known > physiologist, where (at page 717) the following estimate of his > character will be found: “Van Helmont was a highly distinguished > chemist; he had particularly studied aëriform fluids, and gave them > the name of _gaz_; at the same time he pushed his piety to mysticism, > abandoning himself exclusively to a contemplation of the divinity.... > Van Helmont is distinguished above all his predecessors by connecting > _the principle of life_, directly and in some sort experimentally, as > he tells us, with the most minute movements of the body. It is the > incessant action of this entity, in no way associated by him with the > material elements, but forming a distinct individuality, that we cannot > understand. Nevertheless, it is upon this entity that a famous school > has laid its principal foundation.” > > Van Helmont’s “principle of life,” or _archæus_, is neither more nor > less than the astral light of all the kabalists, and the universal > ether of modern science. If the more unimportant signatures of the > fœtus are not due to the imaginations of the mother, to what other > cause would Magendie attribute the formation of horny scales, the horns > of goats and the hairy coats of animals, which we have seen in the > above instances marking monstrous progeny? Surely there were no latent > germs of these distinguishing features of the animal kingdom capable of > being developed under a sudden impulse of the maternal fancy. In short, > the only possible explanation is the one offered by the adepts in the > occult sciences. > > Before leaving the subject, we wish to say a few words more respecting > the cases where the head, arm, and hand were instantly dissolved, > though it was evident that in each instance the entire body of the > child had been perfectly formed. Of what is a child’s body composed at > its birth? The chemists will tell us that it comprises a dozen pounds > of solidified gas, and a few ounces of ashy residuum, some water, {401} > oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbonic acid, a little lime, magnesia, > phosphorus, and a few other minerals; that is all! Whence came they? > How were they gathered together? How were these particles which Mr. > Proctor tells us are drawn in from “the depths of space surrounding > us on all sides,” formed and fashioned into the human being? We have > seen that it is useless to ask the dominant school of which Magendie > is an illustrious representative; for he confesses that they know > nothing of the nutrition, digestion, or circulation of the fœtus; and > physiology teaches us that while the ovule is enclosed in the Graafian > vesicle it participates—forms an integral part of the general structure > of the mother. Upon the rupture of the vesicle, it becomes almost as > independent of her for what is to build up the body of the future > being as the germ in a bird’s egg after the mother has dropped it in > the nest. There certainly is very little in the demonstrated facts of > science to contradict the idea that the relation of the embryonic child > to the mother is much different from that of the tenant to the house, > upon whose shelter he depends for health, warmth, and comfort. > > According to Demokritus, the soul[633] results from the aggregation of > atoms, and Plutarch describes his philosophy as follows: “That there > are substances infinite in number, indivisible, undisturbed, which are > without differences, without qualities, and which move in space, where > they are disseminated; that when they approach each other, they unite, > interlock, and form by their aggregation water, fire, a plant, or a > man.” That all these substances, which he calls _atoms_ by reason of > their solidity, can experience neither change nor alteration. “But,” > adds Plutarch, “we cannot make a color of that which is colorless, nor > a substance or soul of that which is without soul and without quality.” > Professor Balfour Stewart says that this doctrine, in the hands of > John Dalton, “has enabled the human mind to lay hold of the laws which > regulate chemical changes, as well as to picture to itself what is > there taking place.” After quoting, with approbation, Bacon’s idea that > men are perpetually investigating the extreme limits of nature, he then > erects a standard which he and his brother philosophers would do well > to measure their behavior by. “Surely we ought,” says he, “to be very > cautious before we dismiss any branch of knowledge or train of thought > as essentially unprofitable.”[634] > > Brave words, these. But how many are the men of science who put them > into practice? > > Demokritus of Abdera shows us space crammed with atoms, and our {402} > contemporary astronomers allow us to see how these atoms form into > worlds, and afterward into the races, our own included, which people > them. Since we have indicated the existence of a power in the human > will, which, by concentrating currents of those atoms upon an objective > point, can create a child corresponding to the mother’s fancy, why is > it not perfectly credible that this same power put forth by the mother, > can, by an intense, albeit unconscious reversal of those currents, > dissipate and obliterate any portion or even the whole of the body of > her unborn child? And here comes in the question of false pregnancies, > which have so often completely puzzled both physician and patient. > If the head, arm, and hand of the three children mentioned by Van > Helmont could disappear, as a result of the emotion of horror, why > might not the same or some other emotion, excited in a like degree, > cause the entire extinction of the fœtus in so-called false pregnancy? > Such cases are rare, but they do occur, and moreover baffle science > completely. There certainly is no chemical solvent in the mother’s > circulation powerful enough to dissolve her child, without destroying > herself. We commend the subject to the medical profession, hoping that > as a class they will not adopt the conclusion of Fournié, who says: > “In this succession of phenomena we must confine ourselves _to the > office of historian_, as we have not even tried to explain the whys and > wherefores of these things, for there lie the inscrutable mysteries of > life, and in proportion as we advance in our exposition, we will be > obliged to recognize that this is to us _forbidden ground_.”[635] > > Within the limits of his intellectual capabilities the true philosopher > knows no forbidden ground, and should be content to accept no mystery > of nature as inscrutable or inviolable. > > No student of Hermetic philosophy, nor any spiritualist, will object > to the abstract principle laid down by Hume that a _miracle_ is > impossible; for to suppose such a possibility would make the universe > governed through special instead of general laws. This is one of the > fundamental contradictions between science and theology. The former, > reasoning upon universal experience, maintains that there is a general > uniformity of the course of nature, while the latter assumes that the > Governing Mind can be invoked to suspend general law to suit special > emergencies. Says John Stuart Mill,[636] “If we do not already believe > in supernatural agencies, no miracle can prove to us their existence. > The miracle itself, considered merely as an extraordinary fact, may be > satisfactorily certified by our senses or by testimony; but nothing {403} > can ever prove that it is a miracle. There is still another possible > hypothesis, that of its being the result of some unknown natural cause; > and this possibility cannot be so completely shut out as to leave no > alternative but that of admitting the existence and intervention of a > being superior to nature.” > > This is the very point which we have sought to bring home to our > logicians and physicists. As Mr. Mill himself says, “We cannot admit > a proposition as a law of nature, and yet believe a fact in real > contradiction to it. We must disbelieve the alleged fact, or believe > that we were mistaken in admitting the supposed law.” Mr. Hume cites > the “firm and _unalterable_ experience” of mankind, as establishing > the laws whose operation _ipso facto_ makes miracles impossible. The > difficulty lies in his use of the adjective which is Italicized, for > this is an assumption that our experience will never change, and > that, as a consequence, we will always have the same experiments and > observations upon which to base our judgment. It also assumes that > all philosophers will have the same facts to reflect upon. It also > entirely ignores such collected accounts of philosophical experiment > and scientific discovery as we may have been temporarily deprived of. > Thus, by the burning of the Alexandrian Library and the destruction of > Nineveh, the world has been for many centuries without the necessary > data upon which to estimate the real knowledge, esoteric and exoteric, > of the ancients. But, within the past few years, the discovery of the > Rosetta stone, the Ebers, d’Aubigney, Anastasi, and other _papyri_, > and the exhumation of the tile-libraries, have opened a field of > archæological research which is likely to lead to radical changes in > this “firm and unalterable experience.” The author of _Supernatural > Religion_ justly observes that “a person who believes anything > contradictory to a complete induction, merely on the strength of an > assumption which is incapable of proof, is simply credulous; but such > an assumption cannot affect the real evidence for that thing.” > > In a lecture delivered by Mr. Hiram Corson, Professor of Anglo-Saxon > Literature at the Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., before the alumni > of St. John’s College, Annapolis, in July, 1875, the lecturer thus > deservedly rebukes science: > > “There are things,” he says, “which Science can never do, and which > it is arrogant in attempting to do. There was a time when Religion > and the Church went beyond their legitimate domain, and invaded and > harried that of Science, and imposed a burdensome tribute upon the > latter; but it would seem that their former relations to each other are > undergoing an entire change, and Science has crossed its frontiers and > is invading the domain of Religion and the Church, and instead of a > Religious Papacy, we are in danger of being brought under a Scientific > Papacy—we are in fact already brought under such a Papacy; and as {404} > in the sixteenth century a protest was made, in the interests of > intellectual freedom, against a religious and ecclesiastical despotism, > so, in this nineteenth century, the spiritual and eternal interests of > man demand that a protest should be made against a rapidly-developing > scientific despotism, and that Scientists should not only keep within > their legitimate domain of the phenomenal and the conditioned, but > should ‘reëxamine their stock in trade, so that we may make sure how > far the stock of bullion in the cellar—on the faith of whose existence > so much paper has been circulating—is really the solid gold of Truth.’ > > “If this is not done in science as well as in ordinary business, > scientists are apt to put their capital at too high a figure, and > accordingly carry on a dangerously-inflated business. Even since Prof. > Tyndall delivered his Belfast Address, it has been shown, by the many > replies it has elicited, that the capital of the Evolution-School of > Philosophy to which he belongs, is not near so great as it was before > vaguely supposed to be by many of the non-scientific but intelligent > portion of the world. It is quite surprising to a non-scientific > person to be made aware of the large purely hypothetical domain which > surrounds that of established science, and of which scientists often > boast, as a part of their settled and available conquests.” > > Exactly; and at the same time denying the same privilege to others. > They protest against the “miracles” of the Church, and repudiate, with > as much logic, modern phenomena. In view of the admission of such > scientific authorities as Dr. Youmans and others that modern science is > passing through a transitional period, it would seem that it is time > that people should cease to consider certain things incredible only > because they are marvellous, and because they seem to oppose themselves > to what we are accustomed to consider universal laws. There are not a > few well-meaning men in the present century who, desiring to avenge > the memory of such martyrs of science as Agrippa, Palissy, and Cardan, > nevertheless fail, through lack of means, to understand their ideas > rightly. They erroneously believe that the Neo-platonists gave more > attention to transcendental philosophy than to exact science. > > “The failures that Aristotle himself so often exhibits,” remarks > Professor Draper, “are no proof of the unreliability of his method, but > rather of its trustworthiness. They are failures arising from want of a > sufficiency of facts.”[637] > > What facts? we might inquire. A man of science cannot be expected > to admit that these facts can be furnished by occult science, since > he does not believe in the latter. Nevertheless, the future may {405} > demonstrate this verity. Aristotle has bequeathed his inductive method > to our scientists; but until they supplement it with “the universals > of Plato,” they will experience still more “failures” than the great > tutor of Alexander. The universals are a matter of faith only so long > as they cannot be demonstrated by reason and based on uninterrupted > experience. Who of our present-day philosophers can prove by this > same inductive method that the ancients did _not_ possess such > demonstrations as a consequence of their esoteric studies? Their own > negations, unsupported as they are by proof, sufficiently attest that > they do not always pursue the inductive method they so much boast of. > Obliged as they are to base their theories, _nolens volens_, on the > groundwork of the ancient philosophers, their modern discoveries are > but the shoots put forth by the germs planted by the former. And yet > even these discoveries are generally incomplete, if not abortive. Their > cause is involved in obscurity and their ultimate effect unforeseen.“ > We are not,” says Professor Youmans, “to regard past theories as mere > exploded errors, nor present theories as final. The living and growing > body of truth has only mantled its old integuments in the progress > to a higher and more vigorous state.”[638] This language, applied to > modern chemistry by one of the first philosophical chemists and most > enthusiastic scientific writers of the day, shows the transitional > state in which we find modern science; but what is true of chemistry is > true of all its sister sciences. > > Since the advent of spiritualism, physicians and pathologists are > more ready than ever to treat great philosophers like Paracelsus and > Van Helmont as superstitious quacks and charlatans, and to ridicule > their notions about the _archæus_, or _anima mundi_, as well as the > importance they gave to a knowledge of the machinery of the stars. And > yet, how much of substantial progress has medicine effected since the > days when Lord Bacon classed it among the _conjectural_ sciences? > > Such philosophers as Demokritus, Aristotle, Euripides, Epicurus, or > rather his biographer, Lucretius, Æschylus, and other ancient writers, > whom the materialists so willingly quote as authoritative opponents of > the dreamy Platonists, were only theorists, not adepts. The latter, > when they did write, either had their works burned by Christian mobs > or they worded them in a way to be intelligible only to the initiated. > Who of their modern detractors can warrant that he knows _all_ about > what they knew? Diocletian alone burned whole libraries of works upon > the “secret arts;” not a manuscript treating on the art of making > gold and silver escaped the wrath of this unpolished tyrant. Arts and > civilization had attained such a development at what is now termed {406} > the archaic ages that we learn, through Champollion, that Athothi, > the _second_ king of the _first_ dynasty, wrote a work on anatomy, > and the king Necho on astrology and astronomy. Blantasus and Cynchrus > were two learned geographers of those pre-Mosaic days. Ælian speaks of > the Egyptian Iachus, whose memory was venerated for centuries for his > wonderful achievements in medicine. He stopped the progress of several > epidemics, merely with certain _fumigations_. A work of Apollonides, > surnamed Orapios, is mentioned by Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, > entitled the _Divine Book_, and giving the secret biography and origin > of all the gods of Egypt; and Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of a secret > work in which was noted the _precise age of the bull Apis_—a key to > many a mystery and cyclic calculation. What has become of all these > books, and who knows the treasures of learning they may have contained? > We know but one thing for a certainty, and that is, that Pagan and > Christian Vandals destroyed such literary treasures _wherever they > could find them_; and that the emperor Alexander Severus went all over > Egypt to collect the sacred books on mysticism and mythology, pillaging > every temple; and that the Ethiopians—old as were the Egyptians in > arts and sciences—claimed a priority of antiquity as well as of > learning over them; as well they might, for they were known in India > at the earliest dawn of history. We also know that Plato learned more > secrets in Egypt than he was allowed to mention; and that, according > to Champollion, all that is really good and scientific in Aristotle’s > works—so prized in our day by our modern inductionists—is due to his > _divine_ Master; and that, as a logical sequence, Plato having imparted > the profound secrets he had learned from the priests of Egypt to > his initiated disciples orally—who in their turn passed it from one > generation to another of adepts—the latter _know more_ of the occult > powers of nature than our philosophers of the present day. > > And here we may as well mention the works of Hermes Trismegistus. > Who, or how many have had the opportunity to read them as they were > in the Egyptian sanctuaries? In his _Egyptian Mysteries_, Iamblichus > attributes to Hermes 1,100 books, and Seleucus reckons no less than > 20,000 of his works before the period of Menes. Eusebius saw but > forty-two of these “in his time,” he says, and the last of the six > books on medicine treated on that art as practiced in the darkest {407} > ages;[639] and Diodorus says that it was the oldest of the legislators > Mnevis, the third successor of _Menes_, who received them from Hermes. > > Of such manuscripts as have descended to us, most are but Latin > retranslations of Greek translations, made principally by the > Neo-platonists from the original books preserved by some adepts. > Marcilius Ficinus, who was the first to publish them in Venice, in > 1488, has given us mere extracts, and the most important portions > seemed to have been either overlooked, or purposely omitted as too > dangerous to publish in those days of _Auto da fé_. And so it happens > now, that when a kabalist who has devoted his whole life to studying > occultism, and has conquered the great secret, ventures to remark > that the _Kabala_ alone leads to the knowledge of the Absolute in > the Infinite, and the Indefinite in the Finite, he is laughed at by > those who because they know the impossibility of squaring the circle > as a physical problem, deny the possibility of its being done in the > metaphysical sense. > > Psychology, according to the greatest authorities on the subject, is a > department of science hitherto almost unknown. Physiology, according > to Fournié, one of its French authorities, is in so bad a condition as > to warrant his saying in the preface to his erudite work _Physiologie > du Système Nerveux_, that “we perceive at last that not only is the > physiology of the brain not worked out, but also that _no physiology > whatever of the nervous system exists_.” Chemistry has been entirely > remodelled within the past few years; therefore, like all new sciences, > the infant cannot be considered as very firm on its legs. Geology > has not yet been able to tell anthropology how long man has existed. > Astronomy, the most exact of sciences, is still speculating and > bewildered about cosmic energy, and many other things as important. > In anthropology, Mr. Wallace tells us, there exists a wide difference > of opinion on some of the most vital questions respecting the nature > and origin of man. Medicine has been pronounced by various eminent > physicians to be nothing better than scientific guess-work. Everywhere > incompleteness, nowhere perfection. When we look at these earnest men > groping around in the dark to find the missing links of their broken > chains, they seem to us like persons starting from a common, fathomless > abyss by divergent paths. Each of these ends at the brink of a chasm {408} > which they cannot explore. On the one hand they lack the means to > descend into its hidden depths, and on the other they are repulsed at > each attempt by jealous sentries, who will not let them pass. And so > they go on watching the lower forces of nature and from time to time > initiating the public into their _great_ discoveries. Did they not > actually pounce upon vital force and catch her playing in her game of > correlation with chemical and physical forces? Indeed they did. But if > we ask them whence this vital force? How is it that they who had so > firmly believed, but a short time since, that matter was destructible > and passed out of existence, and now have learned to believe as firmly > that it does not, are unable to tell us more about it? Why are they > forced in this case as in many others to return to a doctrine taught > by Demokritus twenty-four centuries ago?[640] Ask them, and they will > answer: “Creation or destruction of matter, increase or diminution > of matter, lies _beyond the domain of science_ ... her domain is > confined entirely to the changes of matter ... the domain of science > lies within the limits of these changes—creation and annihilation lie > outside of her domain.”[641] Ah! no, they lie only outside the grasp of > materialistic _scientists_. But why affirm the same of science? And if > they say that “force is incapable of destruction, except by the same > power which created it,” then they tacitly admit the existence of such > a _power_, and have therefore _no right_ to throw obstacles in the way > of those who, bolder than themselves, try to penetrate _beyond_, and > find that they can only do so by _lifting the Veil of Isis_. > > But, surely among all these inchoate branches of science, there must > be some one at least complete! It seems to us that we heard a great > clamor of applause, “as the voice of many waters,” over the discovery > of protoplasm. But, alas! when we turned to read Mr. Huxley, the > learned parent of the new-born infant is found saying: “In perfect > strictness, it is true that chemical investigation can tell us _little_ > or _nothing_, directly, of the composition of living matter, and ... it > is also in strictness, true, that WE KNOW NOTHING about the composition > of any body whatever, as it is!” > > This is a sad confession, indeed. It appears, then, that the > Aristotelian method of induction is a failure in some cases, after all. > This also seems to account for the fact that this model philosopher, > with all his careful study of particulars before rising to universals, > taught that the earth was _in the centre_ of the universe; while Plato, {409} > who lost himself in the maze of Pythagorean “vagaries,” and started > from general principles, was perfectly versed in the heliocentric > system. We can easily prove the fact, by availing ourselves of the > said inductive method for Plato’s benefit. We know that the _Sodalian_ > oath of the initiate into the Mysteries prevented his imparting his > knowledge to the world in so many plain words. “It was the dream of his > life,” says Champollion, “to write a work and record in it in full the > doctrines taught by the Egyptian hierophants; he often talked of it, > but found himself compelled to abstain on account of the ‘solemn oath.’” > > And now, judging our modern-day philosophers on the _vice versa_ > method—namely, arguing from _universals_ to _particulars_, and laying > aside scientists as individuals to merely give our opinion of them, > viewed as a whole—we are forced to suspect this highly respectable > association of extremely petty feelings toward their elder, ancient, > and archaic brothers. It really seems as if they bore always in mind > the adage, “Put out the _sun_, and the _stars_ will shine.” > > We have heard a French Academician, a man of profound learning, remark, > that he would gladly sacrifice his own reputation to have the record of > the many ridiculous mistakes and failures of his colleagues obliterated > from the public memory. But these failures cannot be recalled _too_ > often in considering our claims and the subject we advocate. The time > will come when the children of men of science, unless they inherit > the soul-blindness of their skeptical parents, will be ashamed of the > degrading materialism and narrow-mindedness of their fathers. To use an > expression of the venerable William Howitt, “They hate new truths as > the owl and the thief hate the sun.... Mere intellectual enlightenment > cannot recognize the spiritual. As the sun puts out a fire, so spirit > puts out the eyes of mere intellect.” > > It is an old, old story. From the days when the preacher wrote, “the > eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing,” > scientists have deported themselves as if the saying were written to > describe their own mental condition. How faithfully Lecky, himself a > rationalist, unconsciously depicts this propensity in men of science > to deride all new things, in his description of the manner in which > “educated men” receive an account of a miracle having taken place! > “They receive it,” says he, “with an absolute and even derisive > incredulity, which dispenses with all examination of the evidences!” > Moreover, so saturated do they become with the fashionable skepticism > after once having fought their way into the Academy, that they turn > about and enact the role of persecutors in their turn. “It is a > curiosity of science,” says Howitt, “that Benjamin Franklin, who had > himself experienced the ridicule of his countrymen for his attempts {410} > to identify lightning and electricity, should have been one of the > Committee of Savants, in Paris, in 1778, who examined the claims of > mesmerism, and condemned it as absolute quackery!”[642] > > If men of science would confine themselves to the discrediting of new > discoveries, there might be some little excuse for them on the score > of their tendency to a conservatism begotten of long habits of patient > scrutiny; but they not only set up claims to originality not warranted > by fact, but contemptuously dismiss all allegations that the people of > ancient times knew as much and even more than themselves. Pity that > in each of their laboratories there is not suspended this text from > _Ecclesiastes_: “Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this > _is_ new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”[643] > In the verse which follows the one here quoted, the wise man says, > “There is no remembrance of former things;” so that this utterance > may account for every new denial. Mr. Meldrum may exact praise for > his meteorological observation of Cyclones in the Mauritius, and Mr. > Baxendell, of Manchester, talk learnedly of the convection-currents of > the earth, and Dr. Carpenter and Commander Maury map out for us the > equatorial current, and Professor Henry show us how the moist wind > deposits its burden to form rivulets and rivers, only to be again > rescued from the ocean and returned to the hill-tops—but hear what > Koheleth says: “The wind goeth toward the south, and _turneth about_ > unto the north; it _whirleth about_ continually, and the wind returneth > again according to his circuits.”[644] > > “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the > place from whence the rivers come, _thither they return again_.”[645] > > The philosophy of the distribution of heat and moisture by means of > ascending and descending currents between the equator and the poles, > has a very recent origin; but here has the hint been lying unnoticed > in our most familiar book, for nearly three thousand years. And even > now, in quoting it, we are obliged to recall the fact that Solomon was > a kabalist, and in the above texts, simply repeats what was written > thousands of years before his time. > > Cut off as they are from the accumulation of facts in one-half of the > universe, and that the most important, modern scholars are naturally > unable to construct a system of philosophy which will satisfy > themselves, let alone others. They are like men in a coal mine, > who work all day and emerge only at night, being thereby unable to > appreciate or understand the beauty and glory of the sunshine. Life to > them measures the term of human activity, and the future presents to {411} > their intellectual perception only an abyss of darkness. No hope of an > eternity of research, achievement, and consequent pleasure, softens the > asperities of present existence; and no reward is offered for exertion > but the bread-earning of to-day, and the shadowy and profitless fancy > that their names may not be forgotten for some years after the grave > has closed over their remains. Death to them means extinction of the > flame of life, and the dispersion of the fragments of the lamp over > boundless space. Said Berzelius, the great chemist, at his last hour, > as he burst into tears: “Do not wonder that I weep. You will not > believe me a weak man, nor think I am alarmed by what the doctor has to > announce to me. I am prepared for all. But I have _to bid farewell to > science_; and you ought not to wonder that it costs me dear.”[646] > > How bitter must be the reflections of such a great student of nature > as this, to find himself forcibly interrupted midway toward the > accomplishment of some great study, the construction of some great > system, the discovery of some mystery which had baffled mankind for > ages, but which the dying philosopher had dared hope that he might > solve! Look at the world of science to-day, and see the atomic > theorists, patching the tattered robes which expose the imperfections > of their separate specialties! See them mending the pedestals upon > which to set up again the idols which had fallen from the places where > they had been worshipped before this revolutionary theory had been > exhumed from the tomb of Demokritus by John Dalton! In the ocean of > material science they cast their nets, only to have the meshes broken > when some unexpected and monstrous problem comes their way. Its water > is like the Dead Sea—bitter to the taste; so dense, that they can > scarcely immerse themselves in it, much less dive to its bottom, having > no outlet, and no life beneath its waves, or along its margin. It is a > dark, forbidding, trackless waste; yielding nothing worth the having, > because what it yields is without life and without soul. > > There was a period of time when the learned Academics made themselves > particularly merry at the simple enunciation of some marvels which the > ancients gave as having occurred under their own observations. What > poor dolts—perhaps liars, these appeared in the eyes of an enlightened > century! Did not they actually describe horses and other animals, the > feet of which presented some resemblance to the hands and feet of > men? And in A.D. 1876, we hear Mr. Huxley giving learned lectures in > which the _protohippus_, rejoicing in a quasi-human fore-arm, and the > _orohippus_ with his four toes and Eocene origin, and the hypothetical > _pedactyl equus_, maternal grand-uncle of the present horse, play {412} > the most important part. The marvel is corroborated! Materialistic > Pyrrhonists of the nineteenth century avenge the assertions of > superstitious Platonists; the antediluvian _gobe-mouches_. And before > Mr. Huxley, Geoffroi St. Hilaire has shown an instance of a horse which > positively had fingers separated by membranes.[647] When the ancients > spoke of a pigmy race in Africa, they were taxed with falsehood. And > yet, pigmies like these were seen and examined by a French scientist > during his voyage in the Tenda Maia, on the banks of the Rio Grande in > 1840;[648] by Bayard Taylor at Cairo, in 1874; and by M. Bond, of the > Indian Trigonometrical Survey, who discovered a wild dwarfish race, > living in the hill-jungles of the western Galitz, to the southwest > of the Palini Hills, a race, though often heard of, no trace of > which had previously been found by the survey. “This is a new pigmy > race, resembling the African Obongos of du Chaillu, the Akkas of > Schweinfurth, and the Dokos of Dr. Krapf, in their size, appearance, > and habits.”[649] > > Herodotus was regarded as a lunatic for speaking of a people _who he > was told_ slept during a night which lasted six months. If we explain > the word “slept” by an easy misunderstanding it will be more than > easy to account for the rest as an allusion to the night of the Polar > Regions.[650] Pliny has an abundance of facts in his work, which until > very recently, were rejected as fables. Among others, he mentions a > race of small animals, the _males_ of which _suckle their young ones_. > This assertion afforded much merriment among our _savants_. In his > _Report of the Geological Survey of the Territories_, for 1872, Mr. C. > H. Merriam describes a rare and wonderful species of rabbit (_Lepus > Bairdi_) inhabiting the pine-regions about the head-waters of the Wind > and Yellowstone Rivers, in Wyoming.[651] Mr. Merriam secured five > specimens of this animal, “which ... are _the first individuals of the > species that have been brought before the scientific world_. One very > curious fact is that _all the males have teats_, and _take part in > suckling their young_! ... Adult males had large teats full of milk, > and the hair around the nipple of one was wet, and stuck to it, showing > that, when taken, he had been engaged in nursing his young.” In the > Carthaginian account of the early voyages of Hanno,[652] was found a > long description of “savage people ... whose bodies were hairy and whom > the interpreters called _gorillæ_;” ἄνθρωποι ἄγριοι, as the text reads, {413} > clearly implying thereby that these wild men were monkeys. Until > our present century, the statement was considered an idle story, and > Dodwell rejected altogether the authenticity of the manuscript and its > contents.[653] The celebrated _Atlantis_ is attributed by the latest > modern commentator and translator of Plato’s works to one of Plato’s > “noble lies.”[654] Even the frank admission of the philosopher, in the > _Timæus_, that “_they say_, that in their time ... the inhabitants > of this island (Poseidon) preserved _a tradition_ handed down by > their ancestors concerning the existence of the Atlantic island of a > prodigious magnitude ... etc.”[655] does not save the great teacher > from the imputation of falsehood, by the “infallible modern school.” > > Among the great mass of peoples plunged deep in the superstitious > ignorance of the mediæval ages, there were but a few students of the > Hermetic philosophy of old, who, profiting by what it had taught them, > were enabled to forecast discoveries which are the boast of our present > age; while at the same time the ancestors of our modern high-priests of > the temple of the Holy Molecule, were yet discovering the hoof-tracks > of Satan in the simplest natural phenomenon. Says Professor A. Wilder: > “Roger Bacon (sixteenth century), in his treatise on the _Admirable > Force of Art and Nature_, devotes the first part of his work to > natural facts. He gives us hints of gunpowder and predicts the use of > steam as a propelling power. The hydraulic press, the diving bell and > kaleidoscope are all described.”[656] > > The ancients speak of waters metamorphosed _into blood_; of blood-rain, > of snow-storms during which the earth was covered to the extent of > many miles with snow _of blood_. This fall of crimson particles has > been proved, like everything else, to be but a natural phenomenon. It > has occurred at different epochs, but the cause of it remains a puzzle > until the present day. > > De Candolle, one of the most distinguished botanists of this century, > sought to prove in 1825, at the time when the waters of the lake of > Morat had apparently turned into a thick blood, that the phenomenon > could be easily accounted for. He attributed it to the development of > myriads of those half vegetable, half-infusory animals which he terms > _Oscellatoria rubescens_, and which form the link between animal and > vegetable organisms.[657] Elsewhere we give an account of the red snow {414} > which Captain Ross observed in the Arctic regions. Many memoirs have > been written on the subject by the most eminent naturalists, but no two > of them agree in their hypotheses. Some call it “pollen powder of a > species of pine;” others, small insects; and Professor Agardt confesses > very frankly that he is at a loss to either account for the cause of > such phenomena, or to explain the nature of the red substance.[658] > > The unanimous testimony of mankind is said to be an irrefutable proof > of truth; and about what was ever testimony more unanimous than > that for thousands of ages among civilized people as among the most > barbarous, there has existed a firm and unwavering belief in magic? > The latter implies a contravention of the laws of nature only in > the minds of the ignorant; and if such ignorance is to be deplored > in the ancient uneducated nations, why do not our civilized and > _highly_-educated classes of fervent Christians, deplore it also in > themselves? The mysteries of the Christian religion have been no more > able to stand a crucial test than biblical miracles. Magic alone, in > the true sense of the word, affords a clew to the wonders of Aaron’s > rod, and the feats of the magi of Pharaoh, who opposed Moses; and it > does that without either impairing the general truthfulness of the > authors of the _Exodus_, or claiming more for the prophet of Israel > than for others, or allowing the possibility of a single instance in > which a “miracle” can happen in contravention of the laws of nature. > Out of many “miracles,” we may select for our illustration that of the > “river turned into blood.” The text says: “Take thy _rod_ and stretch > out thine hand (with the _rod_ in it) upon the waters, streams, etc.... > that they may become blood.” > > We do not hesitate to say that we have seen the same thing repeatedly > done on a small scale, the experiment not having been applied to > a river in these cases. From the time of Van Helmont, who, in the > seventeenth century, despite the ridicule to which he exposed > himself, was willing to give the true directions for the so-called > production of eels, frogs, and infusoria of various kinds, down to > the champions of spontaneous generation of our own century, it has > been known that such a quickening of germs is possible without calling > in the aid of miracle to contravene natural law. The experiments of > Pasteur and Spallanzani, and the controversy of the panspermists > with the heterogenists—disciples of Buffon, among them Needham—have > too long occupied public attention to permit us to doubt that beings > may be called into existence whenever there is air and favorable > conditions of moisture and temperature. The records of the official > meetings of the Academy of Sciences of Paris[659] contain accounts {415} > of frequent appearances of such showers of blood-red snow and water. > These blood-spots were called _lepra vestuum_, and were but these > lichen-infusoria. They were first observed in 786 and 959, in both > of which years occurred great plagues. Whether these _zoöcarps_ were > plants or animals is undetermined to this day, and no naturalist would > risk stating as a certainty to what division of the organic kingdom > of nature they belong. No more can modern chemists deny that such > germs can be quickened, in a congenial element, in an incredibly short > space of time. Now, if chemistry has, on the one hand, found means of > depriving the air of its floating germs, and under opposite conditions > can develop, or allow these organisms to develop, why could not the > magicians of Egypt do so “with their _enchantments_?” It is far easier > to imagine that Moses, who, on the authority of Manetho, had been > an Egyptian priest, and had learned all the secrets of the land of > _Chemia_, produced “miracles” according to natural laws, than that God > Himself violated the established order of His universe. We repeat that > we have seen this sanguification of water produced by Eastern adepts. > It can be done in either of two ways: In one case the experimenter > employed a magnetic _rod_ strongly electrified, which he passed over a > quantity of water in a metallic basin, following a prescribed process, > which we have no right to describe more fully at present; the water > threw up in about ten hours a sort of reddish froth, which after two > hours more became a kind of lichen, like the _lepraria kermasina_ of > Baron Wrangel. It then changed into a blood-red jelly, which made of > the water a crimson liquid that, twenty-four hours later, swarmed with > living organisms. The second experiment consisted in thickly strowing > the surface of a sluggish brook, having a muddy bottom, with the powder > of a plant that had been dried in the sun and subsequently pulverized. > Although this powder was seemingly carried off by the stream, some > of it must have settled to the bottom, for on the following morning > the water thickened at the surface and appeared covered with what de > Candolle describes as _Oscellatoria rubescens_, of a crimson-red color, > and which he believes to be the connecting link between vegetable and > animal life. > > Taking the above into consideration, we do not see why the learned > alchemists and physicists—_physicists_, we say—of the Mosaic period > should not also have possessed the natural secret of developing in a > few hours myriads of a kind of these bacteria, whose spores are found > in the air, the water, and most vegetable and animal tissues. The _rod_ > plays as important a part in the hands of Aaron and Moses as it did in > all so-called “magic mummeries” of kabalist-magicians in the middle > ages, that are now considered superstitious foolery and charlatanism. > The rod of Paracelsus (his kabalistic trident) and the famous wands of {416} > Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Henry Kunrath, are no more to be > ridiculed than the graduating-rod of our electro-magnetic physicians. > Things which appeared preposterous and impossible to the ignorant > quacks and even learned scientists of the last century, now begin to > assume the shadowy outlines of probability, and in many cases are > accomplished facts. Nay, some learned quacks and ignorant scientists > even begin to admit this truth. > > In a fragment preserved by Eusebius, Porphyry, in his _Letter to > Anebo_, appeals to Chœremon, the “hierogrammatist,” to prove that > the doctrine of the magic arts, whose adepts “could terrify even the > gods,” was really countenanced by Egyptian sages.[660] Now, bearing > in mind the rule of historical evidence propounded by Mr. Huxley, > in his Nashville address, two conclusions present themselves with > irresistible force: First, Porphyry, being in such unquestioned repute > as a highly moral and honorable man, not given to exaggeration in his > statements, was incapable of telling a lie about this matter, and > _did not_ lie; and second, that being so learned in every department > of human knowledge about which he treats,[661] it was most unlikely > that he should be imposed upon as regards the magic “arts,” and he was > _not_ imposed upon. Therefore, the doctrine of chances supporting the > theory of Professor Huxley, compels us to believe, 1, That there was > really such a thing as magic “arts;” and, 2, That they were known and > practiced by the Egyptian magicians and priests, whom even Sir David > Brewster concedes to have been men of profound scientific attainments. > > CHAPTER XII. {417} > > “You never hear the really philosophical defenders of the > doctrine of uniformity speaking of _impossibilities_ in > nature. They never say what they are constantly charged with > saying, that it is impossible for the Builder of the universe > to alter his work.... No theory upsets them (the English > clergy).... Let the most destructive hypothesis be stated _only > in the language current among gentlemen_, and they look it > in the face.”—TYNDALL: _Lecture on the Scientific Use of the > Imagination_. > > “The world will have a religion of some kind, even though > it should fly for it to the intellectual _whoredom of > Spiritualism_.”—TYNDALL: _Fragments of Science_. > > “But first on earth as vampire sent > Thy corpse shall from its tomb be rent, ... > And suck the blood of all thy race.”—LORD BYRON: _Giaour_. > > We are now approaching the hallowed precincts of that Janus-god—the > molecular Tyndall. Let us enter them barefoot. As we pass the sacred > adyta of the temple of learning, we are nearing the blazing sun of the > Huxleyocentric system. Let us cast down our eyes, lest we be blinded. > > We have discussed the various matters contained in this book, with > such moderation as we could command in view of the attitude which the > scientific and theological world have maintained for centuries toward > those from whom they have inherited the broad foundations of all the > actual knowledge which they possess. When we stand at one side, and, as > a spectator, see how much the ancients knew, and how much the moderns > think they know, we are amazed that the unfairness of our contemporary > schoolmen should pass undetected. > > Every day brings new admissions of scientists themselves, and the > criticisms of well-informed lay observers. We find the following > illustrative paragraph in a daily paper: > > “It is curious to note the various opinions which prevail among > scientific men in regard to some of the most ordinary natural > phenomena. The aurora is a notable case in point. Descartes considered > it a meteor falling from the upper regions of the atmosphere. Halley > attributed it to the magnetism of the terrestrial globe, and Dalton > agreed with this opinion. Coates supposed that the aurora was derived > from the fermentation of a matter emanating from the earth. Marion > held it to be a consequence of a contact between the bright atmosphere > of the sun and the atmosphere of our planet. Euler thought the aurora > proceeded from the vibrations of the ether among the particles of the > terrestrial atmosphere. Canton and Franklin regarded it as a purely {418} > electrical phenomenon, and Parrot attributed it to the conflagration > of hydrogen-carbonide escaping from the earth in consequence of the > putrefaction of vegetable substances, and considered the shooting > stars as the initial cause of such conflagration. De la Rive and > Oersted concluded it to be an electro-magnetic phenomenon, but purely > terrestrial. Olmsted suspected that a certain nebulous body revolved > around the sun in a certain time, and that when this body came into the > neighborhood of the earth, a part of its gaseous material mixed with > our atmosphere, and that this was the origin of the phenomenon of the > aurora.” And so we might say of every branch of science. > > Thus, it would seem that even as to the most ordinary natural > phenomena, scientific opinion is far from being unanimous. There is > not an experimentalist or theologian, who, in dealing with the subtile > relations between mind and matter, their genesis and ultimate, does not > draw a magical circle, the plane of which he calls _forbidden ground_. > Where faith permits a clergyman to go, he goes; for, as Tyndall says, > “they do not lack the positive element—namely, the love of truth; > but the negative element, the fear of error, preponderates.” But the > trouble is, that their dogmatic creed weighs down the nimble feet > of their intellect, as the ball and chain does the prisoner in the > trenches. > > As to the advance of scientists, their very learning, moreover, > is impeded by these two causes—their constitutional incapacity to > understand the spiritual side of nature, and their dread of public > opinion. No one has said a sharper thing against them than Professor > Tyndall, when he remarks, “in fact, the greatest cowards of the > present day are not to be found among the clergy, but within the pale > of science itself.”[662] If there had been the slightest doubt of the > applicability of this degrading epithet, it was removed by the conduct > of Professor Tyndall himself; for, in his Belfast address, as President > of the British Association, he not only discerned in matter “_the > promise and potency_ of every form and quality of life,” but pictured > science as “wresting from theology the entire domain of cosmological > theory;” and then, when confronted with an angry public opinion, > issued a revised edition of the address in which he had modified his > expression, substituting for the words “_every form and quality of > life_,” _all terrestrial life_. This is more than cowardly—it is an > ignominious surrender of his professed principles. At the time of > the Belfast meeting, Mr. Tyndall had two pet aversions—Theology and > Spiritualism. What he thought of the former has been shown; the latter > he called “a degrading belief.” When hard pressed by the Church for > alleged atheism, he made haste to disclaim the imputation, and sue for {419} > peace; but, as his agitated “nervous centres” and “cerebral molecules” > had to equilibrate by expanding their force in some direction, he turns > upon the helpless, because pusillanimous, spiritualists, and in his > _Fragments of Science_ insults their belief after this fashion: “The > world will have a religion of some kind, even though it should fly for > it to the intellectual _whoredom of Spiritualism_.” What a monstrous > anomaly, that some millions of intelligent persons should permit > themselves to be thus reviled by a leader in science, who, himself, has > told us that “the thing to be repressed both in science and out of it > is ‘dogmatism!’” > > We will not encroach upon space by discussing the etymological value > of the epithet. While expressing the hope that it may not be adopted > in future ages by science as a _Tyndallism_, we will simply remind > the benevolent gentleman of a very characteristic feature in himself. > One of our most intelligent, honorable, and erudite spiritualists, > an author of no small renown,[663] has pointedly termed this feature > as “his (Tyndall’s) simultaneous coquetry with opposite opinions.” > If we are to accept the epithet of Mr. Tyndall in all its coarse > signification, it applies less to spiritualists, who are faithful to > their belief, than to the atheistical scientist who quits the loving > embraces of materialism to fling himself in the arms of a despised > theism; only because he finds his profit in it. > > We have seen how Magendie frankly confesses the ignorance of > physiologists as to some of the most important problems of life, > and how Fournié agrees with him. Professor Tyndall admits that the > evolution-hypothesis does not solve, does not profess to solve, the > ultimate mystery. > > We have also given as much thought as our natural powers will permit to > Professor Huxley’s celebrated lecture _On the Physical Basis of Life_, > so that what we may say in this volume as to the tendency of modern > scientific thought may be free from ignorant misstatement. Compressing > his theory within the closest possible limits, it may be formulated > thus: Out of cosmic matter all things are created; dissimilar forms > result from different permutations and combinations of this matter; > matter has “devoured spirit,” hence spirit does not exist; thought is > a property of matter; existing forms die that others may take their > place; the dissimilarity in organism is due only to varying chemical > action in the same life-matter—all protoplasm being identical. > > As far as chemistry and microscopy goes, Professor Huxley’s system may > be faultless, and the profound sensation caused throughout the world > by its enunciation can be readily understood. But its defect is that > the thread of his logic begins nowhere, and ends in a void. He has > made the best possible use of the available material. Given a universe {420} > crowded with molecules, endowed with active force, and containing in > themselves the principle of life, and all the rest is easy; one set of > inherent forces impel to aggregate into worlds, and another to evolve > the various forms of plant and animal organism. But what gave the > first impulse to those molecules and endowed them with that mysterious > faculty of life? What is this occult property which causes the > protoplasms of man, beast, reptile, fish, or plant, to differentiate, > each ever evolving its own kind, and never any other? And after the > physical body gives up its constituents to the soil and air, “whether > fungus or oak, worm or man,” what becomes of the life which once > animated the frame? > > Is the law of evolution, so imperative in its application to the method > of nature, from the time when cosmic molecules are floating, to the > time when they form a human brain, to be cut short at that point, and > not allowed to develop more perfect entities out of this “preëxistent > law of form?” Is Mr. Huxley prepared to assert the impossibility of > man’s attainment to a state of existence after physical death, in > which he will be surrounded with new forms of plant and animal life, > the result of new arrangements of now sublimated matter?[664] He > acknowledges that he knows nothing about the phenomena of gravitation; > except that, in all human experience, as “stones, unsupported, have > fallen to the ground, there is no reason for believing that any stone > so circumstanced will not fall to the ground.” But, he utterly repels > any attempt to change this probability into a necessity, and in fact > says: “I utterly repudiate and anathematize the intruder. Facts I > know, and Law I know; but what is this necessity, save an empty shadow > of my own mind’s throwing?” It is this, only, that everything which > happens in nature is the result of necessity, and a law once operative > will continue to so operate indefinitely until it is neutralized by > an opposing law of equal potency. Thus, it is natural that the stone > should fall to the ground in obedience to one force, and it is equally > natural that it should not fall, or that having fallen, it should > rise again, in obedience to another force equally potent; which Mr. > Huxley may, or may not, be familiar with. It is natural that a chair > should rest upon the floor when once placed there, and it is equally > natural (as the testimony of hundreds of competent witnesses shows) {421} > that it should rise in the air, untouched by any visible, mortal hand. > Is it not Mr. Huxley’s duty to first ascertain the reality of this > phenomenon, and then invent a new scientific name for the force behind > it? > > “Facts I know,” says Mr. Huxley, “and Law I know.” Now, by what means > did he become acquainted with Fact and Law? Through his own senses, > no doubt; and these vigilant servants enabled him to discover enough > of what he considers truth to construct a system which he himself > confesses “appears almost shocking to common sense.” If his testimony > is to be accepted as the basis for a general reconstruction of > religious belief, when they have produced only a theory after all, > why is not the cumulative testimony of millions of people as to the > occurrence of phenomena which undermine its very foundations, worthy > of a like respectful consideration? Mr. Huxley is _not interested_ > in these phenomena, but these millions are; and while he has been > digesting his “bread and mutton-protoplasms,” to gain strength for > still bolder metaphysical flights, they have been recognizing the > familiar handwriting of those they loved the best, traced by spiritual > hands, and discerning the shadowy simulacra of those who, having lived > here, and passed through the change of death, give the lie to his pet > theory. > > So long as science will confess that her domain lies _within_ the > limits of these changes of matter; and that chemistry will certify that > matter, by changing its form “from the solid or liquid, to the gaseous > condition,” only changes from the visible to the _invisible_; and > that, amid all these changes, the same quantity of matter remains, she > has _no right_ to dogmatize. She is incompetent to say either yea or > nay, and must abandon the ground to persons more intuitional than her > representatives. > > High above all other names in his Pantheon of Nihilism, Mr. Huxley > writes that of David Hume. He esteems that philosopher’s great service > to humanity to be his irrefragable demonstration of “the limits of > philosophical inquiry,” outside which lie the fundamental doctrines “of > spiritualism,” and other “_isms_.” It is true that the tenth chapter of > Hume’s _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ was so highly esteemed > by its author, that he considered that “with the wise and learned” it > would be an “everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,” > which with him was simply a convertible term to represent a belief in > some phenomena previously unfamiliar and by him arbitrarily classified > as miracle. But, as Mr. Wallace justly observes, Hume’s apothegm, that > “a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature,” is imperfect; for in > the first place it assumes that we know all the laws of nature; and, > second, that an unusual phenomenon is a miracle. Mr. Wallace proposes > that a miracle should be defined as: “any act or event necessarily {422} > implying the existence and agency of superhuman intelligences.” Now > Hume himself says that “a uniform experience amounts to a proof,” and > Huxley, in this famous essay of his, admits that all we can know of > the existence of the law of gravitation is that since, in all human > experience, stones unsupported have fallen to the ground, there is no > reason for believing that the same thing will not occur again, under > the same circumstances, but, on the contrary, every reason to believe > that it will. > > If it were certain that the limits of human experience could never be > enlarged, then there might be some justice in Hume’s assumption that > he was familiar with all that could happen under natural law, and some > decent excuse for the contemptuous tone which marks all of Huxley’s > allusions to spiritualism. But, as it is evident from the writings of > both these philosophers, that they are ignorant of the possibilities of > psychological phenomena, too much caution cannot be used in according > weight to their dogmatic assertions. One would really suppose that > a person who should permit himself such rudeness of criticism upon > spiritualistic manifestations had qualified himself for the office of > censor by an adequate course of study; but, in a letter addressed to > the London Dialectical Society, Mr. Huxley, after saying that he had no > time to devote to the subject, and that it does not interest him, makes > the following confession, which shows us upon what slight foundation > modern scientists sometimes form very positive opinions. “_The only > case of spiritualism_,” he writes, “_I ever had the opportunity of > examining into_ for myself, was as gross an imposture as ever came > under my notice.” > > What would this protoplasmic philosopher think of a spiritualist who, > having had but one opportunity to look through a telescope, and upon > that sole occasion had had some deception played upon him by a tricky > assistant at the observatory, should forthwith denounce astronomy as > a “degrading belief?” This fact shows that scientists, as a rule, are > useful only as collectors of physical facts; their generalizations from > them are often feebler and far more illogical than those of their lay > critics. And this also is why they misrepresent ancient doctrines. > > Professor Balfour Stewart pays a very high tribute to the philosophical > intuition of Herakleitus, the Ephesian, who lived five centuries before > our era: the “crying” philosopher who declared that “fire was the > great cause, and that all things were in a perpetual flux.” “It seems > clear,” says the professor, “that Herakleitus must have had a vivid > conception of the innate restlessness and energy of the universe, a > conception allied in character to, and _only less precise_ than that > of modern philosophers who regard matter as essentially dynamical.” He > considers the expression _fire_ as very vague; and quite naturally, for > the evidence is wanting to show that either Prof. Balfour Stewart (who {423} > seems less inclined to materialism than some of his colleagues) or any > of his contemporaries understand in what sense the word fire was used. > > His opinions about the origin of things were the same as those of > Hippocrates. Both entertained the same views of a supreme power,[665] > and, therefore, if their notions of primordial fire, regarded as a > material force, in short, as one akin to Leibnitz’s _dynamism_, were > “less precise” than those of modern philosophers, a question which > remains to be settled yet, on the other hand their metaphysical views > of it were far more philosophical and rational than the one-sided > theories of our present-day scholars. Their ideas of fire were > precisely those of the later “fire-philosophers,” the Rosicrucians, > and the earlier Zoroastrians. They affirmed that the world was created > of fire, the _divine spirit_ of which was an omnipotent and omniscient > GOD. Science has condescended to corroborate their claims as to the > physical question. > > Fire, in the ancient philosophy of all times and countries, including > our own, has been regarded as a triple principle. As water comprises a > visible fluid with invisible gases lurking within, and, behind all the > spiritual principle of nature, which gives them their dynamic energy, > so, in fire, they recognized: 1st. Visible flame; 2d. Invisible, or > astral fire—invisible when inert, but when active producing heat, > light, chemical force, and electricity, the molecular powers; 3d. > Spirit. They applied the same rule to each of the elements; and > everything evolved from their combinations and correlations, man > included, was held by them to be triune. Fire, in the opinion of the > Rosicrucians, who were but the successors of the theurgists, was the > source, not only of the material atoms, but also of the forces which > energize them. When a visible flame is extinguished it has disappeared, > not only from the sight but also from the conception of the > materialist, forever. But the Hermetic philosopher follows it through > the “partition-world of the knowable, across and out on the other side > into the unknowable,” as he traces the disembodied human spirit, “vital > spark of heavenly flame,” into the Æthereum, beyond the grave.[666] > > This point is too important to be passed by without a few words of > comment. The attitude of physical science toward the spiritual half of > the cosmos is perfectly exemplified in her gross conception of fire. > In this, as in every other branch of science, their philosophy does > not contain one sound plank: every one is honeycombed and weak. The > works of their own authorities teeming with humiliating confessions, {424} > give us the right to say that the floor upon which they stand is > so unstable, that at any moment some new discovery, by one of their > own number, may knock away the props and let them all fall in a heap > together. They are so anxious to drive spirit out of their conceptions > that, as Balfour Stewart says: “There is a tendency to rush into the > opposite extreme, and to work physical conceptions to an excess.” > He utters a timely warning in adding: “Let us be cautious that, in > avoiding Scylla, we do not rush into Charybdis. For the universe has > more than one point of view, and there are possibly regions which will > not yield their treasures to the most determined physicists, armed only > with kilogrammes and meters and standard clocks.”[667] In another place > he confesses: “We know nothing, or next to nothing, of the ultimate > structure and properties of matter, whether organic or inorganic.” > > As to the other great question—we find in Macaulay, a still more > unreserved declaration: “The question what becomes of man after > death—we do not see that a highly educated European, left to his > unassisted reason, is more likely to be in the right than a Blackfoot > Indian. Not a single one of the many sciences in which we surpass the > Blackfoot Indians throws the smallest light on the state of the soul > after the animal life is extinct. In truth, all the philosophers, > ancient and modern, who have attempted, without the help of revelation, > to prove the immortality of man, from Plato down to Franklin, appear to > us to have failed deplorably.” > > There are revelations of the spiritual senses of man which may be > trusted far more than all the sophistries of materialism. What was a > demonstration and a success in the eyes of Plato and his disciples is > now considered the overflow of a spurious philosophy and a failure. > The scientific methods are reversed. The testimony of the men of > old, who were nearer to truth, for they were nearer to the spirit > of nature—the only aspect under which the Deity will allow itself > to be viewed and understood—and their demonstrations, are rejected. > Their speculations—if we must believe the modern thinkers—are but > the expression of a redundance of the unsystematic opinions of men > unacquainted with the scientific method of the present century. They > foolishly based the little they knew of physiology on well-demonstrated > psychology, while the scholar of our day bases psychology—of which > he confesses himself utterly ignorant—on physiology, which to him > is as yet a closed book, and has not even a method of its own, as > Fournié tells us. As to the last objection in Macaulay’s argument, it > was answered by Hippocrates centuries ago: “All knowledge, all arts {425} > are to be found in nature,” he says; “if we question her _properly_ > she will reveal to us the truths to pertain to each of these and to > ourselves. What is nature in operation but the very divinity itself > manifesting its presence? How are we to interrogate her; and how is she > to answer us? We must proceed with _faith_, with the firm assurance > of discovering at last the whole of the truth; and nature will let us > know her answer, through our _inner_ sense, which with the help of our > knowledge of a certain _art_ or _science_, reveals to us the truth so > clearly that further doubt becomes impossible.”[668] > > Thus, in the case in hand, the instinct of Macaulay’s Blackfoot Indian > is more to be trusted than the most instructed and developed reason, > as regards man’s _inner_ sense which assures him of his immortality. > Instinct is the universal endowment of nature by the Spirit of the > Deity itself; reason the slow development of our physical constitution, > an evolution of our adult material brain. Instinct, as a divine spark, > lurks in the unconscious nerve-centre of the ascidian mollusk, and > manifests itself at the first stage of action of its nervous system > as what the physiologist terms the reflex action. It exists in the > lowest classes of the acephalous animals as well as in those that have > distinct heads; it grows and develops according to the law of the > double evolution, physically and spiritually; and entering upon its > conscious stage of development and progress in the cephalous species > already endowed with a sensorium and symmetrically-arranged ganglia, > this reflex action, whether men of science term it _automatic_, as in > the lowest species, or _instinctive_, as in the more complex organisms > which act under the guidance of the sensorium and the stimulus > originating in distinct sensation, is still one and the same thing. > It is the _divine instinct_ in its ceaseless progress of development. > This instinct of the animals, which act from the moment of their birth > each in the confines prescribed to them by nature, and which know how, > save in accident proceeding from a higher instinct than their own, to > take care of themselves unerringly—this instinct may, for the sake of > exact definition, be termed automatic; but it must have either within > the animal which possesses it or _without_, something’s or some one’s > _intelligence_ to guide it. > > This belief, instead of clashing with the doctrine of evolution and > gradual development held by eminent men of our day, simplifies and > completes it, on the contrary. It can readily dispense with special > creation for each species; for, where the first place must be allowed > to formless spirit, form and material substance are of a secondary > importance. Each perfected species in the physical evolution only > affords more scope to the directing intelligence to act within the {426} > improved nervous system. The artist will display his waves of harmony > better on a royal Erard than he could have done on a spinet of the > sixteenth century. Therefore whether this _instinctive_ impulse was > directly impressed upon the nervous system of the first insect, or > each species has gradually had it developed in itself by instinctively > mimicking the acts of its like, as the more perfected doctrine of > Herbert Spencer has it, is immaterial to the present subject. The > question concerns _spiritual_ evolution only. And if we reject this > hypothesis as unscientific and undemonstrated, then will the physical > aspect of evolution have to follow it to the ground in its turn, > because the one is as undemonstrated as the other, and the spiritual > intuition of man is not allowed to dovetail the two, under the pretext > that it is “unphilosophical.” Whether we wish it or not, we will have > to fall back on the old query of Plutarch’s _Symposiacs_, whether it > was the bird or the egg which first made its appearance. > > Now that the Aristotelean authority is shaken to its foundations with > that of Plato; and our men of science reject every authority—nay hate > it, except each his own; and the general estimate of human collective > wisdom is at the lowest discount, mankind, headed by science itself, is > still irrepressibly drawing back to the starting-point of the oldest > philosophies. We find our idea perfectly expressed by a writer in the > _Popular Science Monthly_. “The gods of sects and specialities,” says > Osgood Mason, “may perhaps be failing of their accustomed reverence, > but, in the mean time, there is dawning on the world, with a softer and > serener light, the conception, imperfect though it still may be, of a > conscious, originating, all-pervading active soul—the ‘Over-Soul,’ the > Cause, the Deity; unrevealed through human form or speech, but filling > and inspiring every living soul in the wide universe according to its > measure: _whose temple is Nature_, and whose worship is admiration.” > This is pure Platonism, Buddhism, and the exalted but just views of > the earliest Aryans in their deification of nature. And such is the > expression of the ground-thought of every theosophist, kabalist, and > occultist in general; and if we compare it with the quotation from > Hippocrates, which precedes the above, we will find in it exactly the > same thought and spirit. > > To return to our subject. The child lacks reason, it being as yet > latent in him; and meanwhile he is inferior to the animal as to > instinct proper. He will burn or drown himself before he learns that > fire and water destroy and are dangerous for him; while the kitten will > avoid both instinctively. The little instinct the child possesses fades > away as reason, step by step, develops itself. It may be objected, > perhaps, that instinct cannot be a spiritual gift, because animals > possess it in a higher degree than man, and animals have _no souls_. > Such a belief is erroneous and based upon very insecure foundations. > It came from the fact that the inner nature of the animal could be {427} > fathomed still less than that of man, who is endowed with speech and > can display to us his psychological powers. > > But what proofs other than negative have we that the animal is without > a surviving, if not immortal, soul? On strictly scientific grounds > we can adduce as many arguments _pro_ as _contra_. To express it > clearer, neither man nor animal can offer either proof or disproof of > the survival of their souls after death. And from the point of view > of scientific experience, it is impossible to bring that which has no > objective existence under the cognizance of any exact law of science. > But Descartes and Bois-Raymond have exhausted their imaginations on > the subject, and Agassiz could not realize such a thing as a future > existence not shared by the animals we loved, and even the vegetable > kingdom which surrounds us. And it is enough to make one’s feelings > revolt against the claimed justice of the First Cause to believe that > while a heartless, cold-blooded villain has been endowed with an > immortal spirit, the noble, honest dog, often self-denying unto death; > that protects the child or master he loves at the peril of his life; > that never forgets him, but starves himself on his grave; the animal in > whom the sense of justice and generosity are sometimes developed to an > amazing degree, will be annihilated! No, away with the civilized reason > which suggests such heartless partiality. Better, far better to cling > to one’s _instinct_ in such a case, and believe with the Indian of > Pope, whose “untutored mind” can only picture to himself a heaven where > > “ ... admitted to that equal sky, > His faithful dog shall bear him company.” > > Space fails us to present the speculative views of certain ancient and > mediæval occultists upon this subject. Suffice it that they antedated > Darwin, embraced more or less all his theories on natural selection and > the evolution of species, and largely extended the chain at both ends. > Moreover, these philosophers were explorers as daring in psychology as > in physiology and anthropology. They never turned aside from the double > parallel-path traced for them by their great master Hermes. “As above, > so below,” was ever their axiom; and their physical evolution was > traced out simultaneously with the spiritual one. > > On one point, at least, our modern biologists are quite consistent: > unable, as yet, to demonstrate the existence of a distinct individual > soul in animals, they deny it to man. Reason has brought them to > the brink of Tyndall’s “impassable chasm,” between mind and matter; > instinct alone can teach them to bridge it. When in their despair of {428} > ever being able to fathom the mystery of life, they will have come to > a dead stop, their instinct may reässert itself, and take them across > the hitherto fathomless abyss. This is the point which Professor John > Fiske and the authors of the _Unseen Universe_ seem to have reached; > and Wallace, the anthropologist and ex-materialist, to have been the > first to courageously step over. Let them push boldly on till they > discover that it is not spirit that dwells in matter, but _matter_ > which clings temporarily to spirit; and that the latter alone is an > eternal, imperishable abode for all things visible and invisible. > > Esoteric philosophers held that everything in nature is but a > materialization of spirit. The Eternal First Cause is latent spirit, > they said, and matter from the beginning. “In the beginning was the > word ... and the word was God.” While conceding the idea of such a God > to be an unthinkable abstraction to human reason, they claimed that > the unerring human instinct grasped it as a reminiscence of something > concrete to it though intangible to our physical senses. With the > first idea, which emanated from the double-sexed and hitherto-inactive > Deity, the first motion was communicated to the whole universe, and > the electric thrill was instantaneously felt throughout the boundless > space. Spirit begat force, and force matter; and thus the latent deity > manifested itself as a creative energy. > > When; at what point of the eternity; or how? the question must always > remain unanswered, for human reason is unable to grasp the great > mystery. But, though spirit-matter was from all eternity, it was in the > latent state; the evolution of our visible universe must have had a > beginning. To our feeble intellect, this beginning may seem so remote > as to appear to us eternity itself—a period inexpressible in figures > or language. Aristotle argued that the world was eternal, and that it > will always be the same; that one generation of men has always produced > another, without ever having had a beginning that could be determined > by our intellect. In this, his teaching, in its exoteric sense, clashed > with that of Plato, who taught that “there was a time when mankind did > not perpetuate itself;” but in spirit both the doctrines agreed, as > Plato adds immediately: “This was followed by the _earthly human_ race, > in which the primitive history was gradually forgotten and man sank > deeper and deeper;” and Aristotle says: “If there has been a first man > he must have been born without father or mother—which is repugnant to > nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning > to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning > to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg.” The same he held good for all > species, believing, with Plato, that everything before it appeared on > earth had first its being in spirit. > > This mystery of first creation, which was ever the despair of science, {429} > is unfathomable, unless we accept the doctrine of the Hermetists. > Though matter is coëternal with spirit, that matter is certainly > not our visible, tangible, and divisible matter, but its extreme > sublimation. Pure spirit is but one remove higher. Unless we allow man > to have been evolved out of this primordial spirit-matter, how can we > ever come to any reasonable hypothesis as to the genesis of animate > beings? Darwin begins his evolution of species at the lowest point and > traces upward. His only mistake may be that he applies his system at > the wrong end. Could he remove his quest from the visible universe into > the invisible, he might find himself on the right path. But then, he > would be following in the footsteps of the Hermetists. > > That our philosophers—positivists—even the most learned among them, > never understood the spirit of the mystic doctrines taught by the old > philosophers—Platonists—is evident from that most eminent modern work, > _Conflict between Religion and Science_. Professor Draper begins his > fifth chapter by saying that “the Pagan Greeks and Romans believed that > the _spirit_ of man resembles his bodily form, varying its appearance > with his variations, and growing with his growth.” What the ignorant > masses thought is a matter of little consequence, though even they > could never have indulged in such speculations taken _à la lettre_. As > to Greek and Roman philosophers of the Platonic school, they believed > no such thing of the _spirit_ of man, but applied the above doctrine to > his soul, or psychical nature, which, as we have previously shown, is > not the divine spirit. > > Aristotle, in his philosophical deduction _On Dreams_, shows this > doctrine of the two-fold soul, or soul and spirit, very plainly. “It > is necessary for us to ascertain _in what portion_ of the soul dreams > appear,” he says. All the ancient Greeks believed not only a double, > but even a _triple_ soul to exist in man. And even Homer we find > terming the animal soul, or the astral soul, called by Mr. Draper > “spirit,” θύμος, and the _divine_ one νοὺς—the name by which Plato also > designated the higher spirit. > > The Hindu Jainas conceive the soul, which they call _Jiva_, to have > been united from all eternity to even two sublimated ethereal bodies, > one of which is invariable and consists of the divine powers of the > _higher_ mind; the other variable and composed of the grosser passions > of man, his sensual affections, and terrestrial attributes. When the > soul becomes purified after death it joins its _Vaycarica_, or divine > spirit, and becomes a god. The followers of the _Vedas_, the learned > Brahmins, explain the same doctrine in the _Vedanta_. The soul, > according to their teaching, as a portion of the divine universal > spirit or immaterial mind, is capable of uniting itself with the {430} > essence of its highest Entity. The teaching is explicit; the _Vedanta_ > affirms that whoever attains the thorough _knowledge of his god_ > becomes a god while yet in his mortal body, and acquires supremacy over > all things. > > Quoting from the Vedaic theology the verse which says: “There is in > truth but one Deity, the Supreme Spirit; he is of the same nature as > the soul of man,” Mr. Draper shows the Buddhistic doctrines as reaching > Eastern Europe through Aristotle. We believe the assertion unwarranted, > for Pythagoras, and after him Plato, taught them long before Aristotle. > If subsequently the later Platonists accepted in their dialectics the > Aristotelean arguments on emanation, it was merely because his views > coincided in some respect with those of the Oriental philosophers. > The Pythagorean number of harmony and Plato’s esoteric doctrines on > creation are inseparable from the Buddhistic doctrine of emanation; and > the great aim of the Pythagorean philosophy, namely, to free the astral > soul from the fetters of matter and sense, and make it thereby fit for > an eternal contemplation of spiritual things, is a theory identical > with the Buddhistic doctrine of final absorption. It is the Nirvana, > interpreted in its right sense; a metaphysical tenet that just begins > to be suspected now by our latest Sanscrit scholars. > > If the doctrines of Aristotle have exercised on the later > Neo-platonists such a “dominating influence,” how is it that neither > Plotinus, nor Porphyry, nor Proclus ever accepted his theories on > dreams and prophetic soul-visions? While Aristotle held that most of > those who prophesy have “diseases of madness”[669]—thus furnishing some > American plagiarists and specialists with a few reasonable ideas to > disfigure—the views of Porphyry, hence those of Plotinus, were quite > the reverse. In the most vital questions of metaphysical speculations > Aristotle is constantly contradicted by the Neo-platonists. > Furthermore, either the Buddhistic Nirvana is not the nihilistic > doctrine, as it is now represented to be, or the Neo-platonists did > not accept it in this sense. Surely Mr. Draper will not take upon > himself to affirm that either Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, or any > other philosopher of their mystic school, did not believe in the soul’s > immortality? To say that either of them sought ecstasy as a “foretaste > of absorption into the universal mundane soul,” in the sense in which > the Buddhist Nirvana is understood by every Sanscrit scholar, is to > wrong these philosophers. Nirvana is _not_, as Mr. Draper has it, a > “reäbsorption in the _Universal Force_, eternal rest, and bliss;” but, > when taken literally by the said scholars, means the blowing out, _the > extinction_, complete _annihilation_, and not absorption.[670] No one, {431} > so far as we know, has ever taken upon himself to ascertain the _true_ > metaphysical meaning of this word, which is not to be found, even in > the _Lankâvatâra_,[671] which gives the different interpretations > of the Nirvana by the Brahmans—Tîrthakas. Therefore, for one who > reads this passage in Mr. Draper’s work, and bears in mind but the > usually-accepted meaning of the Nirvana, will naturally suppose that > Plotinus and Porphyry were _nihilists_. Such a page in the _Conflict_ > gives us a certain right to suppose that either 1, the learned author > desired to place Plotinus and Porphyry on the same plane with Giordano > Bruno, of whom he makes, very erroneously, an atheist; or, 2, that he > never took the trouble of studying the lives of these philosophers and > their views. > > Now, for one who knows Professor Draper, even by reputation, the > latter supposition is simply absurd. Therefore, we must think, with > deep regret, that his desire was to misrepresent their religious > aspirations. It is decidedly an awkward thing for modern philosophers, > whose sole aim seems to be the elimination of the ideas of God and > the immortal spirit from the mind of humanity, to have to treat with > historical impartiality the most celebrated of the Pagan Platonists. To > have to admit, on the one hand, their profound learning, their genius, > their achievements in the most abstruse philosophical questions, and > therefore their sagacity; and, on the other, their unreserved adhesion > to the doctrine of immortality, of the final triumph of spirit over > matter, and their implicit faith in God and the gods, or spirits; in > the return _of the dead_, apparitions, and other “spiritual” matters, > is a dilemma from which academical human nature could not reasonably be > expected to extricate itself so easily. > > The plan resorted to by Lemprière,[672] in such an emergency as the > above, is coarser than Professor Draper’s, but equally effective. He > charges the ancient philosophers with deliberate falsehood, trickery, > and credulity. After painting to his readers Pythagoras, Plotinus, and > Porphyry as marvels of learning, morality, and accomplishments; as men > eminent for personal dignity, purity of lives, and self-abnegation > in the pursuit of divine truths, he does not hesitate to rank “this > celebrated philosopher” (Pythagoras) among impostors; while to Porphyry > he attributes “credulity, lack of judgment, and dishonesty.” Forced > by the facts of history to give them their just due in the course of > his narrative, he displays his bigoted prejudice in the parenthetical > comments which he allows himself. From this antiquated writer of the > last century we learn that a man may be honest, and at the same time an > impostor; pure, virtuous, and a great philosopher, and yet dishonest, a > liar, and a fool! > > We have shown elsewhere that the “secret doctrine” does not concede {432} > immortality to all men alike. “The eye would never see the sun, if > it were not of the nature of the sun,” said Plotinus. Only “through > the highest purity and chastity we shall approach nearer to God, and > receive in the contemplation of Him, the true knowledge and insight,” > writes Porphyry. If the human soul has neglected during its lifetime to > receive its illumination from its Divine Spirit, our _personal_ God, > then it becomes difficult for the gross and sensual man to survive for > a great length of time his physical death. No more than the misshapen > monster can live long after its physical birth, can the soul, once > that it has become _too_ material, exist after its birth into the > spiritual world. The viability of the astral form is so feeble, that > the particles cannot cohere firmly when once it is slipped out of the > unyielding capsule of the external body. Its particles, gradually > obeying the disorganizing attraction of universal space, finally fly > asunder beyond the possibility of reaggregation. Upon the occurrence > of such a catastrophe, the individual ceases to exist; his glorious > Augoeides has left him. During the intermediary period between his > bodily death and the disintegration of the astral form, the latter, > bound by magnetic attraction to its ghastly corpse, prowls about, > and sucks vitality from susceptible victims. The man having shut out > of himself every ray of the divine light, is lost in darkness, and, > therefore, clings to the earth and the earthy. > > No astral soul, even that of a pure, good, and virtuous man, is > immortal in the strictest sense; “from elements it was formed—to > elements it must return.” Only, while the soul of the wicked vanishes, > and is absorbed without redemption, that of every other person, even > moderately pure, simply changes its ethereal particles for still more > ethereal ones; and, while there remains in it a spark of the _Divine_, > the individual man, or rather, his personal _ego_, cannot die. “After > death,” says Proclus, “the soul (the spirit) continueth to linger in > the aërial body (astral form), till it is entirely purified from all > angry and voluptuous passions ... then doth it put off by a _second > dying_ the aërial body as it did the earthly one. Whereupon, the > ancients say that there is a celestial body always joined with _the > soul_, and which is _immortal_, _luminous_, and _star-like_.” > > But, we will now turn from our digression to further consider the > question of _reason_ and _instinct_. The latter, according to the > ancients, proceeded from the divine, the former from the purely human. > One (the instinct) is the product of the senses, a sagaciousness > shared by the lowest animals, even those who have no reason—it > is the αισθητικον; the other is the product of the reflective > faculties—νοητικόν, denoting judiciousness and human intellectuality. > Therefore, an animal devoid of reasoning powers has in its inherent > instinct an unerring faculty which is but that spark of the divine {433} > which lurks in every particle of inorganic matter—itself materialized > spirit. In the Jewish _Kabala_, the second and third chapters of > _Genesis_ are explained thus: When the second Adam is created “out of > the dust,” matter has become so gross that it reigns supreme. Out of > its lusts evolves woman, and Lilith has the best of spirit. The Lord > God, “walking in the garden in _the cool of the day_” (the sunset of > spirit, or divine light obscured by the shadows of matter) curses not > only them who have committed the sin, but even the ground itself, and > all living things—the tempting serpent-matter above all. > > Who but the kabalists are able to explain this seeming act of > injustice? How are we to understand this cursing of all created things, > innocent of any crime? The allegory is evident. The curse inheres in > matter itself. Henceforth, it is doomed to struggle against its own > grossness for purification; the latent spark of divine spirit, though > smothered, is still there; and its invincible attraction upward compels > it to struggle in pain and labor to free itself. Logic shows us that > as all matter had a common origin, it must have attributes in common, > and as the vital and divine spark is in man’s material body, so it > must lurk in every subordinate species. The latent mentality which, in > the lower kingdoms is recognized as semi-consciousness, consciousness, > and instinct, is largely subdued in man. Reason, the outgrowth of the > physical brain, develops at the expense of instinct—the flickering > reminiscence of a once divine omniscience—spirit. Reason, the badge of > the sovereignty of physical man over all other physical organisms, is > often put to shame by the instinct of an animal. As his brain is more > perfect than that of any other creature, its emanations must naturally > produce the highest results of mental action; but reason avails only > for the consideration of material things; it is incapable of helping > its possessor to a knowledge of spirit. In losing instinct, man loses > his intuitional powers, which are the crown and ultimatum of instinct. > Reason is the clumsy weapon of the scientists—intuition the unerring > guide of the seer. Instinct teaches plant and animal their seasons > for the procreation of their species, and guides the dumb brute to > find his appropriate remedy in the hour of sickness. Reason—the pride > of man—fails to check the propensities of his matter, and brooks no > restraint upon the unlimited gratification of his senses. Far from > leading him to be his _own_ physician, its subtile sophistries lead him > too often to his own destruction. > > Nothing is more demonstrable than the proposition that the perfection > of matter is reached at the expense of instinct. The zoöphyte attached > to the submarine rock, opening its mouth to attract the food that > floats by, shows, proportionately with its physical structure, more > instinct than the whale. The ant, with its wonderful architectural, {434} > social, and political abilities, is inexpressibly higher in the scale > than the subtile royal tiger watching its prey. “With awe and wonder,” > exclaims du Bois-Raymond, “must the student of nature regard that > microscopic molecule of nervous substance which is the seat of the > laborious, constructive, orderly, loyal, dauntless soul of the ant!” > > Like everything else which has its origin in psychological mysteries, > instinct has been too long neglected in the domain of science. “We > see what indicated the way to man to find relief for all his physical > ailings,” says Hippocrates. “It is the instinct of the earlier races, > when cold reason had not as yet obscured man’s inner vision.... Its > indication must never be disdained, for it is to instinct alone that we > owe our first remedies.”[673] Instantaneous and unerring cognition of > an omniscient mind, instinct is in everything unlike the finite reason; > and in the tentative progress of the latter, the godlike nature of > man is often utterly engulfed, whenever he shuts out from himself the > divine light of intuition. The one crawls, the other flies; reason is > the power of the man, intuition the prescience of the woman! > > Plotinus, the pupil of the great Ammonius Saccas, the chief founder > of the Neo-platonic school, taught that human knowledge had three > ascending steps: opinion, science, and _illumination_. He explained > it by saying that “the means or instrument of opinion is sense, or > perception; of science, dialectics; of illumination, _intuition_ (or > divine instinct). To the last, _reason is subordinate_; it is absolute > knowledge founded on the identification of the mind with the object > known.” > > Prayer opens the spiritual sight of man, for prayer is desire, and > desire develops WILL; the magnetic emanations proceeding from the body > at every effort—whether mental or physical—produce self-magnetization > and ecstasy. Plotinus recommended solitude for prayer, as the most > efficient means of obtaining what is asked; and Plato advised those who > prayed to “remain silent in the presence of the divine ones, till they > remove the cloud from thy eyes, and enable thee to see _by the light > which issues from themselves_.” Apollonius always isolated himself from > men during the “conversation” he held with God, and whenever he felt > the necessity for divine contemplation and prayer, he wrapped himself, > head and all, in the drapery of his white woolen mantle. “When thou > prayest _enter into thy closet_, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray > to thy Father in secret,” says the Nazarene, the pupil of the Essenes. > > Every human being is born with the rudiment of the inner sense called > _intuition_, which may be developed into what the Scotch know as {435} > “second sight.” All the great philosophers, who, like Plotinus, > Porphyry, and Iamblichus employed this faculty, taught the doctrine. > “There is a faculty of the human mind,” writes Iamblichus, “which is > superior to all which is born or begotten. Through it we are enabled > to attain union with the superior intelligences, to being transported > beyond the scenes of this world, and to partaking the higher life and > peculiar powers of the heavenly ones.” > > Were there no _inner sight_ or intuition, the Jews would never have had > their _Bible_, nor the Christians Jesus. What both Moses and Jesus gave > to the world was the fruit of their intuition or illumination. What > their subsequent elders and teachers allowed the world to understand > was—dogmatic misrepresentations, too often blasphemy. > > To accept the Bible as a “revelation” and nail belief to a literal > translation, is worse than absurdity—it is a blasphemy against the > Divine majesty of the “Unseen.” If we had to judge of the Deity, and > the world of spirits, by its human interpreters, now that philology > proceeds with giant-strides on the fields of comparative religions, > belief in God and the soul’s immortality could not withstand the > attacks of _reason_ for one century more. That which supports the > faith of man in God and a spiritual life to come is _intuition_; that > divine outcome of our inner-self, which defies the mummeries of the > Roman Catholic priest, and his ridiculous idols; the thousand and one > ceremonies of the Brahman and his idols; and the Jeremiads of the > Protestant preacher, and his desolate and arid creed, with no idols, > but a boundless hell and damnation hooked on at the end. Were it not > for this intuition, undying though often wavering because so clogged > with matter, human life would be a parody and humanity a fraud. This > ineradicable feeling of the presence of some one _outside_ and _inside_ > ourselves is one that no dogmatic contradictions, nor external form of > worship can destroy in humanity, let scientists and clergy do what they > may. Moved by such thoughts of the boundlessness and impersonality of > the Deity, Gautama-Buddha, the Hindu Christ, exclaimed: “As the four > rivers which fall in the Ganges lose their names as soon as they mingle > their waters with the holy river, so all who believe in Buddha cease to > be Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sûdras!” > > The _Old Testament_ was compiled and arranged from oral tradition; the > masses never knew its real meaning, for Moses was ordered to impart the > “hidden truths” but to his seventy elders on whom the “Lord” put of the > _spirit_ which was upon the legislator. Maimonides, whose authority and > whose knowledge of the sacred history can hardly be rejected, says: > “Whoever shall find out the true sense of _the book of Genesis_ ought > to take care not to divulge it.... If a person should discover _the {436} > true meaning of it_ by himself, or by the aid of another, then he ought > to be silent; or, if he speaks of it, he ought to speak of it but > obscurely and in an enigmatical manner.” > > This confession, that what is written in the Holy Writ is but an > allegory, was made by other Jewish authorities besides Maimonides; for > we find Josephus stating that Moses “_philosophized_” (spoke riddles > in figurative allegory), when writing the book of _Genesis_. Therefore > modern science, by neglecting to unriddle the true sense of the > _Bible_, and by allowing the whole of Christendom to go on believing > in the dead letter of the Jewish theology, tacitly constitutes herself > the confederate of the fanatical clergy. She has no right to ridicule > the records of a people who never wrote them with the idea that they > would receive such a strange interpretation at the hands of an inimical > religion. That their holiest texts should be turned against them and > that the dead men’s bones could have smothered the spirit of truth, is > the saddest feature of Christianity! > > “The gods exist,” says Epicurus, “but they are _not_ what the rabble, > οὶ πολλοι, suppose them to be.” And yet Epicurus, judged as usual by > superficial critics, is set down and paraded as a materialist. > > But neither the great First Cause nor its emanation—human, immortal > spirit—have left themselves “without a witness.” Mesmerism and modern > spiritualism are there to attest the great truths. For over fifteen > centuries, thanks to the blindly-brutal persecutions of those great > vandals of early Christian history, Constantine and Justinian, ancient > wisdom slowly degenerated until it gradually sank into the deepest mire > of monkish superstition and ignorance. The Pythagorean “knowledge of > things that are;” the profound erudition of the Gnostics; the world and > time-honored teachings of the great philosophers; all were rejected > as doctrines of Antichrist and Paganism, and committed to the flames. > With the last seven wise men of the Orient, the remnant group of the > Neo-platonists, Hermias, Priscianus, Diogenes, Eulalius, Damaskius, > Simplicius and Isidorus, who fled from the fanatical persecutions of > Justinian, to Persia, the reign of wisdom closed. The books of Thoth, > or (Hermes Trismegistus), which contain within their sacred pages the > spiritual and physical history of the creation and progress of our > world, were left to mould in oblivion and contempt for ages. They > found no interpreters in Christian Europe; the Philaletheians, or > wise “lovers of the truth,” were no more; they were replaced by the > light-fleers, the tonsured and hooded monks of Papal Rome, who dread > truth, in whatever shape and from whatever quarter it appears, if it > but clashes in the least with their dogmas. > > As to skeptics—this is what Professor Alexander Wilder remarks of them {437} > and their followers, in his sketches on _Neo-platonism and Alchemy_: > “A century has passed since the compilers of the French _Encyclopædia_ > infused skepticism into the blood of the civilized world, and made > it disreputable to believe in the actual existence of anything that > cannot be tested in crucibles or demonstrated by critical reasoning. > Even now, it requires candor as well as courage to venture to treat > upon a subject which has been for many years discarded and contemned, > because it has not been well or correctly understood. The person > must be bold who accounts the Hermetic philosophy to be other than a > pretense of science, and so believing, demands for its enunciation a > patient hearing. Yet its professors were once the princes of learned > investigation, and heroes among common men. Besides, nothing is to > be despised which men have reverently believed; and disdain for the > earnest convictions of others is itself the token of ignorance, and of > an ungenerous mind.” > > And now, encouraged by these words from a scholar who is neither a > fanatic nor a conservative, we will recall a few things reported by > travellers as having been seen by them in Thibet and India, and which > are treasured by the natives as practical proofs of the truth of the > philosophy and science handed down by their forefathers. > > First we may consider that most remarkable phenomenon as seen in > the temples of Thibet and the accounts of which have reached Europe > from eye-witnesses other than Catholic missionaries—whose testimony > we will exclude for obvious reasons. Early in the present century a > Florentine scientist, a skeptic and a correspondent of the French > Institute, having been permitted to penetrate in disguise to the > hallowed precincts of a Buddhist temple, where the most solemn of all > ceremonies was taking place, relates the following as having been seen > by himself. An altar is ready in the temple to receive the resuscitated > Buddha, found by the initiated priesthood, and recognized by certain > secret signs to have reïncarnated himself in a new born infant. The > baby, but a few days old, is brought into the presence of the people > and reverentially placed upon the altar. Suddenly rising into a > sitting posture, the child begins to utter in a loud, manly voice, the > following sentences: “I am Buddha, I am his spirit; and I, Buddha, your > Dalai-Lama, have left my old, decrepit body, at the temple of ... and > selected the body of this young babe as my next earthly dwelling.” Our > scientist, being finally permitted by the priests to take, with due > reverence, the baby in his arms, and carry it away to such a distance > from them as to satisfy him that no ventriloquial deception is being > practiced, the infant looks at the grave academician with eyes that > “make his flesh creep,” as he expresses it, and repeats the words he > had previously uttered. A detailed account of this adventure, attested > with the signature of this eye-witness, was forwarded to Paris, but {438} > the members of the Institute, instead of accepting the testimony of a > scientific observer of acknowledged credibility, concluded that the > Florentine _was either suffering under an attack of sunstroke_, or had > been deceived by a clever trick of acoustics. > > Although, according to Mr. Stanislas Julien, the French translator of > the sacred Chinese texts, there is a verse in the Lotus[674] which > says that “A Buddha is as difficult to be found as the flowers of > Udumbara and Palâça,” if we are to believe several eye-witnesses, such > a phenomenon does happen. Of course its occurrence is rare, for it > happens but on the death of every great Dalai-Lama; and these venerable > old gentlemen live proverbially long lives. > > The poor Abbé Huc, whose works of travel in Thibet and China are so > well-known, relates the same fact of the resuscitation of Buddha. He > adds, furthermore, the curious circumstance that the baby-oracle makes > good his claim to being an old mind in a young body by giving to those > who ask him, “and who knew him in his past life, the most exact details > of his anterior earthly existence.” > > It is worthy of notice, that des Mousseaux, who expatiates at length > on the phenomenon, attributing it as a matter of course to the Devil, > gravely remarks of the Abbé himself, that the fact that he had been > unfrocked (_defroqué_) “is an accident which I (he) confess scarcely > tends to strengthen our confidence.” In our humble opinion this little > circumstance strengthens it all the more. > > The Abbé Huc had his work placed on the _Index_ for the truth he told > about the similarity of the Buddhistical rites with the Roman Catholic > ones. He was moreover suspended in his missionary work for being too > _sincere_. > > If this example of infant prodigy stood alone, we might reasonably > indulge in some hesitation as to accepting it; but, to say nothing > of the Camisard prophets of 1707, among whom was the boy of fifteen > months described by Jacques Dubois, who spoke in good French “as though > God were speaking through his mouth;” and of the Cevennes babies, > whose speaking and prophesying were witnessed by the first savants > of France—we have instances in modern times of quite as remarkable a > character. _Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper_, for March, 1875, contained an > account of the following phenomenon: “At Saar-Louis, France, a child > was born. The mother had just been confined, the midwife was holding > forth garrulously ‘on the blessed little creature,’ and the friends > were congratulating the father on his luck, when somebody asked what > time it was. Judge of the surprise of all, on hearing the new-born babe {439} > reply distinctly ‘Two o’clock!’ But this was nothing to what followed. > The company were looking on the infant, with speechless wonder and > dismay, when it opened its eyes, and said: ‘I have been sent into the > world to tell you that 1875 will be a good year, but that 1876 will be > a year of blood.’ Having uttered this prophecy it turned on its side > and expired, aged half-an-hour.” > > We are not aware that this prodigy has received official authentication > by the civil authority—of course we should look for none from the > clergy, since no profit or honor was to be derived from it—but even > if a respectable British commercial journal was not responsible for > the story, the result has given it special interest. The year 1876, > just passed (we write in February, 1877) was emphatically, and, from > the standpoint of March, 1875, unexpectedly—a year of blood. In the > Danubian principalities was written one of the bloodiest chapters of > the history of war and rapine—a chapter of outrages of Moslem upon > Christian that has scarcely been paralleled since Catholic soldiers > butchered the simple natives of North and South America by tens of > thousands, and Protestant Englishmen waded to the Imperial throne > of Delhi, step by step, through rivers of blood. If the Saar-Louis > prophecy was but a mere newspaper sensation, still the turn of events > elevated it into the rank of a fulfilled prediction; 1875 _was_ a year > of great plenty, and 1876, to the surprise of everybody, a year of > carnage. > > But even if it should be found that the baby-prophet never opened > its lips, the instance of the Jencken infant still remains to puzzle > the investigator. This is one of the most surprising cases of > mediumship. The child’s mother is the famous Kate Fox, its father > H. D. Jencken, M.R.I., Barrister-at-law, in London. He was born in > London, in 1873, and before he was three months old showed evidences > of spirit-mediumship. Rappings occurred on his pillow and cradle, and > also on his father’s person, when he held the child in his lap and > Mrs. Jencken was absent from home. Two months later, a communication > of twenty words, exclusive of signature, was written through his hand. > A gentleman, a Liverpool solicitor, named J. Wason, was present at the > time, and united with the mother and nurse in a certificate which was > published in the London _Medium and Daybreak_ of May 8th, 1874. The > professional and scientific rank of Mr. Jencken make it in the highest > degree improbable that he would lend himself to a deception. Moreover, > the child was within such easy reach of the Royal Institution, of which > his father is a member, that Professor Tyndall and his associates had > no excuse for neglecting to examine and inform the world about this > psychological phenomenon. > > The sacred baby of Thibet being so far away, they find their most > convenient plan to be a flat denial, with hints of sunstroke and {440} > acoustical machinery. As for the London baby, the affair is still > easier; let them wait until the child has grown up and learned to > write, and then deny the story point-blank! > > In addition to other travellers, the Abbé Huc gives us an account > of that wonderful tree of Thibet called the _Kounboum_; that is to > say, the tree of the 10,000 images and characters. It will grow in no > other latitude, although the experiment has sometimes been tried; and > it cannot even be multiplied from cuttings. The tradition is that it > sprang from the hair of one of the Avatars (the Lama Son—Ka-pa) one of > the incarnations of Buddha. But we will let the Abbé Huc tell the rest > of the story: “Each of its leaves, in opening, bears either a letter or > a religious sentence, written in sacred characters, and these letters > are, of their kind, of such a perfection that the type-foundries of > Didot contain nothing to excel them. Open the leaves, which vegetation > is about to unroll, and you will there discover, on the point of > appearing, the letters or the distinct words which are the marvel of > this unique tree! Turn your attention from the leaves of the plant > to the bark of its branches, and new characters will meet your eyes! > Do not allow your interest to flag; raise the layers of this bark, > and still OTHER CHARACTERS will show themselves below those whose > beauty had surprised you. For, do not fancy that these superposed > layers repeat the same _printing_. No, quite the contrary; for each > lamina you lift presents to view its distinct type. How, then, can we > suspect jugglery? I have done my best in that direction to discover the > slightest trace of human trick, and my baffled mind could not retain > the slightest suspicion.” > > We will add to M. Huc’s narrative the statement that the characters > which appear upon the different portions of the Kounboum are in the > Sansar (or language of the Sun), characters (ancient Sanscrit); and > that the sacred tree, in its various parts, contains _in extenso_ the > whole history of the creation, and in substance the sacred books of > Buddhism. In this respect, it bears the same relation to Buddhism as > the pictures in the Temple of Dendera, in Egypt, do to the ancient > faith of the Pharaohs. The latter are briefly described by Professor W. > B. Carpenter, President of the British Association, in his Manchester > Lecture on _Egypt_. He makes it clear that the Jewish book of _Genesis_ > is nothing more than an expression of the early Jewish ideas, based > upon the pictorial records of the Egyptians among whom they lived. > But he does not make it clear, except inferentially, whether, he > believes either the Dendera pictures or the Mosaic account to be an > allegory or a pretended historical narrative. How a scientist who > had devoted himself to the most superficial investigation of the > subject can venture to assert that the ancient Egyptians had the same > ridiculous notions about the world’s instantaneous creation as the {441} > early Christian theologians, passes comprehension! How can he say > that because the Dendera picture happens to represent their cosmogony > in one allegory, they intended to show the scene as occurring in six > minutes or six millions of years? It may as well indicate allegorically > six successive epochs or æons, or eternity, as six days. Besides, > the _Books of Hermes_ certainly give no color to the charge, and the > _Avesta_ specifically names six periods, each embracing thousands of > years, instead of days. Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphics contradict > Dr. Carpenter’s theory, and Champollion has avenged the ancients in > many particulars. From what is gone before, it will, we think, be made > clear to the reader that the Egyptian philosophy had no room for any > such crude speculations, if the Hebrews themselves ever believed them; > their cosmogony viewed man as the result of evolution, and his progress > to be marked by immensely lengthened cycles. But to return to the > wonders of Thibet. > > Speaking of pictures, the one described by Huc as hanging in a > certain Lamasery may fairly be regarded as one of the most wonderful > in existence. It is a simple canvas without the slightest mechanical > apparatus attached, as the visitor may prove by examining it at his > leisure. It represents a moon-lit landscape, but the moon is not at all > motionless and dead; quite the reverse, for, according to the abbé, one > would say that our moon herself, or at least her living double, lighted > the picture. Each phase, each aspect, each movement of our satellite, > is repeated in her _fac-simile_, in the movement and progress of the > moon in the sacred picture. “You see this planet in the painting > ride as a crescent, or full, shine brightly, pass behind the clouds, > peep out or set, in a manner corresponding in the most extraordinary > way with the real luminary. It is, in a word, a most servile and > resplendent reproduction of the pale queen of the night, which received > the adoration of so many people in the days of old.” > > When we think of the astonishment that would inevitably be felt by one > of our self-complacent academicians at seeing such a picture—and it is > by no means the only one, for they have them in other parts of Thibet > and Japan also, which represent the sun’s movements—when we think, we > say, of his embarrassment at knowing that if he ventured to tell the > unvarnished truth to his colleagues, his fate would probably be like > that of poor Huc, and he flung out of the academical chair as a liar or > a lunatic, we cannot help recalling the anecdote of Tycho-Brahe, given > by Humboldt in his _Cosmos_.[675] > > “One evening,” says the great Danish astronomer, “as, according to my {442} > usual habit, I was considering the celestial vault, to my indescribable > amazement, I saw, close to the zenith, in Cassiopea, a radiant star > of extraordinary size. Struck with astonishment, I knew not whether > I could believe my own eyes. Some time after that, I learned that in > Germany, cartmen, and other persons of the lower classes had repeatedly > warned the scientists that a great apparition could be seen in the sky; > which fact afforded both the press and public one more opportunity to > indulge in their usual raillery against the men of science, who, in the > cases of several antecedent comets, had not predicted their appearance.” > > From the days of the earliest antiquity, the Brahmans were known to > be possessed of wonderful knowledge in every kind of magic arts. > From Pythagoras, the first philosopher who studied wisdom with the > Gymnosophists, and Plotinus, who was initiated into the mystery of > uniting one’s self with the Deity through abstract contemplation, > down to the modern adepts, it was well known that in the land of the > Brahmans and Gautama-Buddha the sources of “hidden” wisdom are to be > sought after. It is for future ages to discover this grand truth, and > accept it as such, whereas now it is degraded as a low superstition. > What did any one, even the greatest scientists, know of India, > Thibet, and China, until the last quarter of this century? That most > untiring scholar, Max Müller, tells us that before then not a single > original document of the Buddhist religion had been accessible to > European philologists; that fifty years ago “there was not a single > scholar who could have translated a line of the _Veda_, a line of the > _Zend-Avesta_, or a line of the Buddhist _Tripitâka_,” let alone other > dialects or languages. And even now, that science is in possession of > various sacred texts, what they have are but very incomplete editions > of these works, and _nothing_, positively nothing of the secret sacred > literature of Buddhism. And the little that our Sanscrit scholars have > got hold of, and which at first was termed by Max Müller a dreary > “jungle of religious literature—the most excellent hiding-place for > Lamas and Dalai-Lamas,” is now beginning to shed a faint light on > the primitive darkness. We find this scholar stating that that which > appeared at the first glance into the labyrinth of the religions of the > world, all darkness, self deceit, and vanity begin to assume another > form. “It sounds,” he writes, “like a degradation of the very name > of religion, to apply it to the wild ravings of Hindu Yogins, and > the blank blasphemies of Chinese Buddhists.... But, as we slowly and > patiently wend our way through the dreary prisons, our own eyes seem to > expand, _and we perceive a glimmer of light_, where all was darkness at > first.”[676] > > As an illustration of how little even the generation which directly {443} > preceded our own was competent to judge the religions and beliefs of > the several hundred million Buddhists, Brahmans, and Parsees, let the > student consult the advertisement of a scientific work published in > 1828 by a Professor Dunbar, the first scholar who has undertaken to > demonstrate that the _Sanscrit is derived from the Greek_. It appeared > under the following title: > > “_An Inquiry into the structure and affinity of the Greek and Latin > languages; with occasional comparisons of the Sanscrit and Gothic; with > an Appendix, in which_ THE DERIVATION OF THE SANSCRIT FROM THE GREEK > _is endeavoured to be established. By George Dunbar, F.R. S.E., and > Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh. Price, 18s._”[677] > > Had Max Müller happened to fall from the sky at that time, among the > scholars of the day, and with his present knowledge, we would like > to have compiled the epithets which would have been bestowed by the > learned academicians upon the daring innovator! One who, classifying > languages genealogically, says that “Sanscrit, as compared to Greek and > Latin, is an elder sister ... the earliest deposit of Aryan speech.” > > And so, we may naturally expect that in 1976, the same criticisms will > be justly applied to many a scientific discovery, now deemed conclusive > and final by our scholars. That which is now termed the superstitious > _verbiage_ and gibberish of mere heathens and savages, composed many > thousands of years ago, may be found to contain the master-key to all > religious systems. The cautious sentence of St. Augustine, a favorite > name in Max Müller’s lectures, which says that “there is no false > religion which does not contain some elements of truth,” may yet be > triumphantly proved correct; the more so as, far from being original > with the Bishop of Hippo, it was borrowed by him from the works of > Ammonius Saccas, the great Alexandrian teacher. > > This “god-taught” philosopher, the _theodidaktos_, had repeated > these same words to exhaustion, in his numerous works some 140 years > before Augustine. Acknowledging Jesus as “an excellent man, and the > friend of God,” he always maintained that his design was not to > abolish the intercourse with gods and demons (spirits), but simply > to purify the ancient religions; that “the religion of the multitude > went hand in hand with philosophy, and with her had shared the fate > of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with mere human conceits, > superstition, and lies: that it ought therefore to be brought back to > its _original purity_ by purging it of this dross and expounding it {444} > upon philosophical principles; and that the whole which Christ had in > view was to reinstate and restore to its primitive integrity the wisdom > of the ancients.”[678] > > It was Ammonius who first taught that every religion was based on > one and the same truth; which is the wisdom found in the Books of > Thoth (Hermes Trismegistus), from which books Pythagoras and Plato > had learned all their philosophy. And the doctrines of the former he > affirmed to have been identical with the earliest teachings of the > Brahmans—now embodied in the oldest _Vedas_. “The name Thoth,” says > Professor Wilder, “means a college or assembly,”[679] and “it is not > improbable that the books were so named as being the collected oracles > and doctrines of the sacerdotal fraternity of Memphis. Rabbi Wise had > suggested a similar hypothesis in relation to the divine utterances > recorded in the Hebrew Scripture. But the Indian writers assert, that > during the reign of king Kansa, _Yadus_ (_Judeans?_) or sacred tribe > left India and migrated to the West, carrying the four _Vedas_ with > them. There was certainly a great resemblance between the philosophical > doctrines and religious customs of the Egyptians and Eastern Buddhists; > but whether the Hermetic books and the four _Vedas_ were identical, is > not now known.” > > But one thing is certainly known, and that is, that before the word > philosopher was first pronounced by Pythagoras at the court of the > king of the Philiasians, the “secret doctrine” or wisdom was identical > in every country. Therefore it is in the oldest texts—those least > polluted by subsequent forgeries—that we have to look for the truth. > And now that philology has possessed itself of Sanscrit texts which > may be boldly affirmed to be documents by far antedating the Mosaic > Bible, it is the duty of the scholars to present the world with truth, > and _nothing but the truth_. Without regard to either skeptical or > theological prejudice, they are bound to impartially examine both > documents—the oldest _Vedas_ and the _Old Testament_, and then decide > which of the two is the original _Sruti_ or _Revelation_, and which but > the _Smriti_, which, as Max Müller shows, only means recollection or > _tradition_. > > Origen writes that the Brahmans were always famous for the wonderful > cures which they performed by certain words;[680] and in our own > age we find Orioli, a learned corresponding member of the French > Institute,[681] corroborating the statement of Origen in the third > century, and that of Leonard de Vair of the sixteenth, in which the > latter wrote: “There are also persons, who upon pronouncing a certain > sentence—a _charm_, walk bare-footed on red, burning coals, and on > the points of sharp _knives_ stuck in the ground; and, once poised {445} > on them, _on one toe_, they will lift up in the air a heavy man or > any other burden of considerable weight. They will tame wild horses > likewise, and the most furious bulls, with a single word.”[682] > > This word is to be found in the _Mantras_ of the Sanscrit _Vedas_, > say some adepts. It is for the philologists to decide for themselves > whether there is such a word in the _Vedas_. So far as human evidence > goes, it would seem that such magic words _do_ exist. > > It appears that the reverend fathers of the Order of Jesuits have > picked up many such tricks in their missionary travels. Baldinger > gives them full credit for it. The _tschamping_—a Hindu word, from > which the modern word _shampooing_ is derived—is a well-known magical > manipulation in the East Indies. The native _sorcerers_ use it with > success to the present day, and it is from them that the father Jesuits > derived their wisdom. > > Camerarius, in his _Horæ Subscecivæ_, narrates that once upon a > time there existed a great rivalry of “miracles” between the Austin > Friars and the Jesuits. A disputation having taken place between the > father-general of the Austin Friars, who was very learned, and the > general of the Jesuits, who was very _unlearned_, but full of _magical_ > knowledge, the latter proposed to settle the question by trying their > subordinates, and finding out which of them would be the readiest to > obey his superiors. Thereupon, turning to one of his Jesuits, he said: > “Brother Mark, our companions are cold; I command you, in virtue of > the holy obedience you have sworn to me, to bring here instantly out > of the kitchen fire, and in your hands, some burning coals, that they > may warm themselves over your hands.” Father Mark instantly obeyed, and > brought in both his hands a supply of red, burning coals, and held them > till the company present had all warmed themselves, after which he took > them back to the kitchen hearth. The general of the Austin Friars found > himself crestfallen, for none of his subordinates would obey him so far > as that. The triumph of the Jesuits was thus accomplished. > > If the above is looked upon as an anecdote unworthy of credence, we > will inquire of the reader what we must think of some modern “mediums,” > who perform the same while _entranced_. The testimony of several highly > respectable and trustworthy witnesses, such as Lord Adair and Mr. S. > C. Hall, is unimpeachable. “Spirits,” the spiritualists will argue. > Perhaps so, in the case of American and English _fire-proof_ mediums; > but not so in Thibet and India. In the West a “sensitive” has to be > entranced before being rendered invulnerable by the presiding “guides,” > and we defy any “medium,” in his or her normal physical state to bury {446} > the arms to the elbows in glowing coals. But in the East, whether the > performer be a holy lama or a mercenary sorcerer (the latter class > being generally termed “jugglers”) he needs no preparation or abnormal > state to be able to handle fire, red-hot pieces of iron, or melted > lead. We have seen in Southern India these “jugglers” keep their hands > in a furnace of burning coals until the latter were reduced to cinders. > During the religious ceremony of Siva-Râtri, or the vigil-night of > Siva, when the people spend whole nights in watching and praying, > some of the Sivaites called in a Tamil juggler, who produced the most > wonderful phenomena by simply summoning to his help a spirit whom they > call _Kutti-Sâttan_—the little _demon_. But, far from allowing people > to think he was _guided_ or “controlled” by this gnome—for it was a > gnome, if it was anything—the man, while crouching over his fiery > pit, proudly rebuked a Catholic missionary, who took his opportunity > to inform the by-standers that the miserable sinner “had sold himself > to Satan.” Without removing his hands and arms from the burning coals > within which he was coolly refreshing them, the Tamil only turned his > head and gave one arrogant look at the flushed missionary. “My father > and my father’s father,” he said, “had this ‘little one’ at their > command. For two centuries the Kutti is a faithful servant in our home, > and now, sir, you would make people believe that _he_ is my master! But > they know better.” After this, he quietly withdrew his hands from the > fire, and proceeded with other performances. > > As for the wonderful powers of prediction and clairvoyance possessed > by certain Brahmans, they are well known to every European resident > of India. If these upon their return to “civilized” countries, laugh > at such stories, and sometimes even deny them outright, they only > impugn their good faith, not the fact. These Brahmans live principally > in “sacred villages,” and secluded places, principally on the > western coast of India. They avoid populated cities, and especially > Europeans, and it is but rarely that the latter can succeed in making > themselves intimate with the “seers.” It is generally thought that the > circumstance is due to their religious observance of the caste; but we > are firmly convinced that in many cases this is not so. Years, perhaps > centuries, will roll away before the real reason is ascertained. > > As to the lower castes, some of which are termed by the missionaries > devil-worshippers, notwithstanding the pious efforts on the part of > the Catholic missionaries to spread in Europe heart-rending reports of > the misery of these people “sold to the Arch-Enemy;” and like efforts, > perhaps only a trifle less ridiculous and absurd, of Protestant > missionaries, the word devil, in the sense understood by Christians, > is a nonentity for them. They believe in good and bad spirits; but > they neither worship nor dread the Devil. Their “worship” is simply a {447} > ceremonial precaution against “terrestrial” and _human_ spirits, whom > they dread far more than the millions of elementals of various forms. > They use all kinds of music, incense, and perfumes, in their efforts > to drive away the “bad spirits” (the elementary). In this case, they > are no more to be ridiculed than the well-known scientist, a firm > spiritualist, who suggested the keeping of vitriol and powdered nitre > in the room to keep away “unpleasant spirits;” and no more than he, > are they wrong in so doing; for the experience of their ancestors, > extending over many thousands of years has taught them how to proceed > against this vile “spiritual horde.” That they are _human_ spirits is > shown by the fact that very often they try to humor and propitiate the > “larvæ” of their own daughters and relatives, when they have reason > to suspect that the latter did not die in the odor of sanctity and > chastity. Such spirits they name “Kanni,” _bad virgins_. The case was > noticed by several missionaries; Rev. E. Lewis,[683] among others. > But these pious gentlemen usually insist upon it that they worship > devils, whereas, they do nothing of the sort; for they merely try to > remain on good terms with them in order to be left unmolested. They > offer them cakes and fruit, and various kinds of food which they liked > while alive, for many of them have experienced the wickedness of these > returning “dead ones,” whose persecutions are sometimes dreadful. On > this principle likewise they act toward the spirits of all wicked men. > They leave on their tombs, if they were buried, or near the place > where their remains were burnt, food and liquors, with the object of > keeping them near these places, and with the idea that these vampires > will be prevented thereby from returning to their homes. This is no > worship; it is rather a _spiritualism_ of a practical sort. Until 1861, > there prevailed a custom among the Hindus of mutilating the feet of > executed murderers, under the firm belief that thereby the disembodied > soul would be prevented from wandering and doing more mischief. > Subsequently, they were prohibited, by the police, from continuing the > practice. > > Another good reason why the Hindus should not worship the “Devil” > is that they have no word to convey such a meaning. They call these > spirits “_pûttâm_,” which answers rather to our “spook,” or malicious > imp; another expression they use is “_pey_” and the Sanscrit _pesâsu_, > both meaning ghosts or “returning ones” perhaps goblins, in some cases. > The _pûttâm_ are the most terrible, for they are literally “_haunting_ > spooks,” who return on earth to torment the living. They are believed > to visit generally the places where their bodies were burnt. The “fire” > or “Siva-spirits” are identical with the Rosicrucian _gnomes_ and > _salamanders_; for they are pictured as dwarfs of a fiery appearance, {448} > living in earth and fire. The Ceylonese demon called _Dewel_ is a > stout smiling female figure with a white Elizabethan frill around the > neck and a red jacket. > > As Dr. Warton justly observes: “There is no character more strictly > Oriental than the dragons of romance and fiction; they are intermixed > with every tradition of early date and of themselves confer a species > of illustrative evidence of origin.” In no writings are these > characters more marked, than in the details of Buddhism; these record > particulars of the _Nagas_, or kingly snakes, inhabiting the cavities > under the earth, corresponding with the abodes of Tiresias and the > Greek seers, a region of mystery and darkness, wherein revolves much > of the system of divination and oracular response, connected with > inflation, or a sort of possession, designating the spirit of Python > himself, the dragon-serpent slain by Apollo. But the Buddhists no more > believe in the devil of the Christian system—that is, an entity as > distinct from humanity as the Deity itself—than the Hindus. Buddhists > teach that there are inferior gods who have been men either on this or > another planet, but still who were _men_. They believe in the Nagas, > who had been _sorcerers_ on earth, _bad people_, and who give the power > to other bad and yet living men to blight all the fruit they look upon, > and even human lives. When a Cinghalese has the reputation that if he > looks on a tree or on a person both will wither and die, he is said to > have the Naga-Raja, or king-serpent on him. The whole endless catalogue > of bad spirits are not _devils_ in the sense the Christian clergy wants > us to understand, but merely _spiritually incarnated_ sins, crimes, and > human thoughts, if we may so express it. The blue, green, yellow, and > purple god-demons, like the inferior gods of Jugandere, are more of > the kind of presiding genii, and many are as good and beneficient as > the Nat deities themselves, although the Nats reckon in their numbers, > giants, evil genii, and the like which inhabit the desert of Mount > Jugandere. > > The true doctrine of Buddha says that the demons, when nature produced > the sun, moon, and stars, _were human beings_, but, on account of their > sins, they fell from the state of felicity. If they commit greater > sins, they suffer greater punishments, and condemned men are reckoned > by them among the _devils_; while, on the contrary, _demons who die_ > (elemental spirits) and are born or incarnated as men, and commit no > more sin, can arrive at the state of celestial felicity. Which is a > demonstration, remarks Edward Upham, in his _History and Doctrine of > Buddhism_, that all beings, divine as well as human, are subject to > the laws of transmigration, which are operative on all, according to a > scale of moral deeds. This faith then, is a complete test of a code of > moral enactments and motives, applied to the regulation and government {449} > of man an experiment, he adds, “which renders the study of Buddhism an > important and curious subject for the philosopher.” > > The Hindus believe, as firmly as the Servians or Hungarians, in > vampires. Furthermore, their doctrine is that of Pierart, the famous > French spiritist and mesmerizer, whose school flourished some dozen > years ago. “The fact of a spectre returning to suck human blood,” says > this Doctor,[684] “is not so inexplicable as it seems, and here we > appeal to the spiritualists who admit the phenomenon of _bicorporeity_ > or _soul-duplication_. The hands which we have pressed ... these > ‘materialized’ limbs, so palpable ... prove clearly _how much is > possible for astral spectres under favorable conditions_.” > > The honorable physician expresses the theory of the kabalists. The > _Shadim_ are the lowest of the spiritual orders. Maimonides, who > tells us that his countrymen were _obliged_ to maintain an intimate > intercourse with their departed ones, describes the feast of blood they > held on such occasions. They dug a hole, and _fresh blood_ was poured > in, over which was placed a table; after which the “spirits” came and > answered all their questions.[685] > > Pierart, whose doctrine was founded on that of the theurgists, exhibits > a warm indignation against the superstition of the clergy which > requires, whenever a corpse is suspected of vampirism, that a stake > should be driven through the heart. So long as the astral form is not > entirely liberated from the body there is a liability that it may be > forced by magnetic attraction to reënter it. Sometimes it will be only > half-way out, when the corpse, which presents the appearance of death, > is buried. In such cases the terrified astral soul violently reënters > its casket; and then, one of two things happens—either the unhappy > victim will writhe in the agonizing torture of suffocation, or, if > he had been grossly material, he becomes a vampire. The bicorporeal > life begins; and these unfortunate buried cataleptics sustain their > miserable lives by having their astral bodies rob the life-blood from > living persons. The æthereal form can go wherever it pleases; and so > long as it does not break the link which attaches it to the body, it > is at liberty to wander about, either visible or invisible, and feed > on human victims. “According to all appearance, this ‘spirit’ then > transmits through a mysterious and invisible cord of connection, which > perhaps, some day may be explained, the results of the suction to the > material body which lies inert at the bottom of the tomb, aiding it, in > a manner, to perpetuate the state of catalepsy.”[686] > > Brierre de Boismont gives a number of such cases, fully authenticated, {450} > which he is pleased to term “hallucinations.” A recent inquest, > says a French paper, “has established that in 1871 two corpses were > submitted to the infamous treatment of popular superstition, at the > instigation of the clergy ... O blind prejudice!” But Dr. Pierart, > quoted by des Mousseaux, who stoutly adheres to vampirism, exclaims: > “Blind, you say? Yes, blind, as much as you like. But whence sprang > these prejudices? Why are they perpetuated in all ages, and in so many > countries? After a crowd of facts of vampirism so often proved, should > we say that there are no more and that they never had a foundation? > Nothing comes of nothing. Every belief, every custom springs from facts > and causes which gave it birth. If one had never seen appear, in the > bosom of families of certain countries, beings clothing themselves in > the shape of the familiar dead, coming thus to suck the blood of one > or of several persons, and if the death of the victims by emaciation > had not followed, they would never have gone to disinter the corpses > in cemeteries; we would never have had attested the incredible fact > of persons buried for several years being found with the corpse soft, > flexible, the eyes open, with rosy complexions, the mouth and nose > full of blood, and of the blood running in torrents under blows, from > wounds, and when decapitated.”[687] > > One of the most important examples of vampirism figures in the private > letters of the philosopher, the Marquis d’Argens; and, in the _Revue > Britannique_, for March, 1837, the English traveller Pashley describes > some that came under his notice in the island of Candia. Dr. Jobard, > the anti-Catholic and anti-spiritual Belgian _savant_, testifies to > similar experiences.[688] > > “I will not examine,” wrote the Bishop d’Avranches Huet, “whether the > facts of vampirism, which are constantly being reported, are true, > or the fruit of a popular error; but it is certain that they are > testified to by so many authors, able and trustworthy, and _by so many > eye-witnesses_, that no one ought to decide upon the question without a > good deal of caution.”[689] > > The chevalier, who went to great pains to collect materials for his > demonological theory, brings the most thrilling instances to prove that > all such cases are produced by the Devil, who uses graveyard corpses > with which to clothe himself, and roams at night sucking people’s > blood. Methinks we could do very well without bringing this dusky > personage upon the scene. If we are to believe at all in the return of > spirits, there are plenty of wicked sensualists, misers, and sinners {451} > of other descriptions—especially suicides, who could have rivalled > the Devil himself in malice in his best days. It is quite enough to be > actually forced to believe in what we do see, and _know to be a fact_, > namely spirits, without adding to our Pantheon of ghosts the Devil—whom > nobody ever saw. > > Still, there are interesting particulars to be gathered in relation > to vampirism, since belief in this phenomenon has existed in all > countries, from the remotest ages. The Slavonian nations, the Greeks, > the Wallachians, and the Servians would rather doubt the existence of > their enemies, the Turks, than the fact that there are vampires. The > _broucolâk_, or _vourdalak_, as the latter are called, are but too > familiar guests at the Slavonian fireside. Writers of the greatest > ability, men as full of sagacity as of high integrity, have treated of > the subject and believed in it. Whence, then, such a _superstition_? > Whence that unanimous credence throughout the ages, and whence that > identity in details and similarity of description as to that one > particular phenomenon which we find in the testimony—generally sworn > evidence—of peoples foreign to each other and differing widely in > matters concerning other _superstitions_. > > “There are,” says Dom Calmet, a skeptical Benedictine monk of the last > century, “two different ways to destroy the belief in these pretended > ghosts.... The first would be _to explain the_ prodigies of vampirism > by physical causes. The second way is to _deny totally_ the truth of > all such stories; and the latter plan would be undoubtedly the most > certain, as the most wise.”[690] > > The first way—that of explaining it by physical, though occult causes, > is the one adopted by the Pierart school of mesmerism. It is certainly > not the spiritualists who have a right to doubt the plausibility of > this explanation. The second plan is that adopted by scientists and > skeptics. They deny point-blank. As des Mousseaux remarks, there is > no better or surer way, and none exacts less of either philosophy or > science. > > The spectre of a village herdsman, near Kodom, in Bavaria, began > appearing to several inhabitants of the place, and either in > consequence of their fright or some other cause, every one of them > died during the following week. Driven to despair, the peasants > disinterred the corpse, and pinned it to the ground with a long stake. > The same night he appeared again, plunging people into convulsions of > fright, and suffocating several of them. Then the village authorities > delivered the body into the hands of the executioner, who carried it to > a neighboring field and burned it. “The corpse,” says des Mousseaux, > quoting Dom Calmet, “howled like a madman, kicking and tearing as if {452} > he had been alive. When he was run through again with sharp-pointed > stakes, he uttered piercing cries, and vomited masses of crimson blood. > The apparitions of this spectre ceased only after the corpse had been > reduced to ashes.”[691] > > Officers of justice visited the places said to be so haunted; the > bodies were exhumed, and in nearly every case it was observed that the > corpse suspected of vampirism looked healthy and rosy, and the flesh > was in no way decaying. The objects which had belonged to these ghosts > were observed moving about the house without any one touching them. > But the legal authorities generally refused to resort to cremation > and beheading before they had observed the strictest rules of legal > procedure. Witnesses were summoned to appear, and evidence was heard > and carefully weighed. After that the exhumed corpses were examined; > and if they exhibited the unequivocal and characteristic signs of > vampirism, they were handed over to the executioner. > > “But,” argues Dom Calmet,[692] “the principal difficulty consists > in learning _how_ these vampires can quit their tombs, and how they > reënter them, without appearing _to have disturbed the earth in the > least_; how is it that they are seen with their usual clothing; how > can they go about, and walk, and _eat_?... If this is all imagination > on the part of those who believe themselves molested by such vampires, > how happens it that the accused ghosts are subsequently found in their > graves ... exhibiting no signs of decay, full of blood, supple and > fresh? How explain the cause _of their feet found muddy and covered > with dirt on the day following the night_ they had appeared and > frightened their neighbors, while nothing of the sort was ever found on > other corpses buried in the same cemetery?[693] How is it again that > once burned they never reappear? and that these cases should happen > _so often_ in this country that it is found impossible to cure people > from this prejudice; for, instead of being destroyed, daily experience > only fortifies the superstition in the people, and increases belief in > it.”[694] > > There is a phenomenon in nature unknown, and therefore rejected by > physiology and psychology in our age of unbelief. This phenomenon is a > state of _half-death_. Virtually, the body is dead; and, in cases of > persons in whom matter does not predominate over spirit and wickedness > not so great as to destroy spirituality, if left alone, their astral > soul will disengage itself by gradual efforts, and, when the last {453} > link is broken, it finds itself separated forever from its earthly > body. Equal magnetic polarity will violently repulse the ethereal man > from the decaying organic mass. The whole difficulty lies in that 1, > the ultimate moment of separation between the two is believed to be > that when the body is declared _dead_ by science; and 2, a prevailing > unbelief in the existence of either soul or spirit in man, by the same > science. > > Pierart tries to demonstrate that in every case it is dangerous to > bury people too soon, even though the body may show undoubted signs > of putrefaction. “Poor dead cataleptics,” says the doctor, “buried > as if _quite_ dead, in cold and dry spots where _morbid causes are > incapable to effect the destruction of their bodies_, their (astral) > spirit enveloping itself with a _fluidic_ body (ethereal) is prompted > to quit the precincts of its tomb, and to exercise on living beings > acts peculiar to physical life, especially that of _nutrition_, the > result of which, by a mysterious link between soul and body, which > spiritualistic science will explain some day, is forwarded to the > material body lying still in its tomb, and the latter thus helped to > perpetuate its vital existence.”[695] These spirits, in their ephemeral > bodies, have been often seen _coming out from the graveyard_; they are > known to have clung to their living neighbors, and have sucked their > blood. Judicial inquiry has established that from this resulted an > emaciation of the victimized persons, which often terminated in death. > > Thus, following the pious advice of Dom Calmet, we must either go on > denying, or, if human and legal testimonies are worth anything, accept > the only explanation possible. “That souls departed are embodied in > aërial or ætherial vehicles is most fully and plainly proved by those > excellent men, Dr. C. and Dr. More,” says Glanvil, “and they have > largely shown that this was the doctrine of the greatest philosophers > and most ancient and aged fathers.”[696] > > Görres, the German philosopher, says to the same effect, that “God > never created man as a dead corpse, but as an animal _full of life_. > Once He had thus produced him, finding him ready to receive the > immortal breath, He breathed him in the face, and thus man became a > double masterpiece in His hands. It is in the centre of life itself > that this mysterious insufflation took place in the first man (race?); > and thence were united the _animal soul_ issued from earth, and the > _spirit_ emanating from heaven.”[697] > > Des Mousseaux, in company with other Roman Catholic writers, exclaims: > “This proposition is utterly anti-Catholic!” Well, and suppose it is? {454} > It may be archi-anti-Catholic, and still be logic, and offer a solution > for many a psychological puzzle. The sun of science and philosophy > shines for every one; and if Catholics, who hardly number one-seventh > part of the population of the globe, do not feel satisfied, perhaps the > many millions of people of other religions who outnumber them, will. > > And now, before parting with this repulsive subject of vampirism, > we will give one more illustration, without other voucher than the > statement that it was given to us by apparently trustworthy witnesses. > > About the beginning of the present century, there occurred in Russia, > one of the most frightful cases of vampirism on record. The governor of > the Province of Tch—— was a man of about sixty years, of a malicious, > tyrannical, cruel, and jealous disposition. Clothed with despotic > authority, he exercised it without stint, as his brutal instincts > prompted. He fell in love with the pretty daughter of a subordinate > official. Although the girl was betrothed to a young man whom she > loved, the tyrant forced her father to consent to his having her marry > him; and the poor victim, despite her despair, became his wife. His > jealous disposition exhibited itself. He beat her, confined her to > her room for weeks together, and prevented her seeing any one except > in his presence. He finally fell sick and died. Finding his end > approaching, he made her swear never to marry again; and with fearful > oaths, threatened that, in case she did, he would return from his grave > and kill her. He was buried in the cemetery across the river; and the > young widow experienced no further annoyance, until, nature getting the > better of her fears, she listened to the importunities of her former > lover, and they were again betrothed. > > On the night of the customary betrothal-feast, when all had retired, > the old mansion was aroused by shrieks proceeding from her room. The > doors were burst open, and the unhappy woman was found lying on her > bed, in a swoon. At the same time a carriage was heard rumbling out > of the courtyard. Her body was found to be black and blue in places, > as from the effect of pinches, and from a slight puncture on her neck > drops of blood were oozing. Upon recovering, she stated that her > deceased husband had suddenly entered her room, appearing exactly as in > life, with the exception of a dreadful pallor; that he had upbraided > her for her inconstancy, and then beaten and pinched her most cruelly. > Her story was disbelieved; but the next morning, the guard stationed at > the other end of the bridge which spans the river, reported that, just > before midnight, a black coach and six had driven furiously past them, > toward the town, without answering their challenge. > > The new governor, who disbelieved the story of the apparition, took > nevertheless the precaution of doubling the guards across the bridge. {455} > The same thing happened, however, night after night; the soldiers > declaring that the toll-bar at their station near the bridge would > rise of itself, and the spectral equipage sweep by them despite their > efforts to stop it. At the same time every night, the coach would > rumble into the courtyard of the house; the watchers, including the > widow’s family, and the servants, would be thrown into a heavy sleep; > and every morning the young victim would be found bruised, bleeding, > and swooning as before. The town was thrown into consternation. The > physicians had no explanations to offer; priests came to pass the night > in prayer, but as midnight approached, all would be seized with the > terrible lethargy. Finally, the archbishop of the province came, and > performed the ceremony of exorcism in person, but the following morning > the governor’s widow was found worse than ever. She was now brought to > death’s door. > > The governor was finally driven to take the severest measures to stop > the ever-increasing panic in the town. He stationed fifty Cossacks > along the bridge, with orders to stop the spectre-carriage at all > hazards. Promptly at the usual hour, it was heard and seen approaching > from the direction of the cemetery. The officer of the guard, and a > priest bearing a crucifix, planted themselves in front of the toll-bar, > and together shouted: “In the name of God, and the Czar, who goes > there?” Out of the coach-window was thrust a well-remembered head, > and a familiar voice responded: “The Privy Councillor of State and > Governor, C——!” At the same moment, the officer, the priest, and the > soldiers were flung aside as by an electric shock, and the ghostly > equipage passed by them, before they could recover breath. > > The archbishop then resolved, as a last expedient, to resort to the > time-honored plan of exhuming the body, and pinning it to the earth > with an oaken stake driven through its heart. This was done with great > religious ceremony in the presence of the whole populace. The story > is that the body was found gorged with blood, and with red cheeks and > lips. At the instant that the first blow was struck upon the stake, > a groan issued from the corpse, and a jet of blood spurted high into > the air. The archbishop pronounced the usual exorcism, the body was > reïnterred, and from that time no more was heard of the vampire. > > How far the facts of this case may have been exaggerated by tradition, > we cannot say. But we had it years ago from an eye-witness; and at > the present day there are families in Russia whose elder members will > recall the dreadful tale. > > As to the statement found in medical books that there are frequent > cases of inhumation while the subjects are but in a cataleptic state, > and the persistent denials of specialists that such things happen, > except very rarely, we have but to turn to the daily press of every {456} > country to find the horrid fact substantiated. The Rev. H. R. Haweis, > M. A., author of _Ashes to Ashes_,[698] enumerates in his work, written > in advocacy of cremation, some very distressing cases of premature > burial. On page forty-six occurs the following dialogue: > > “But do you know of many cases of premature burial?” > > “Undoubtedly I do. I will not say that in our temperate climate they > are frequent, but they do occur. Hardly a graveyard is opened but > coffins are found containing bodies not only turned, but skeletons > contorted in the last hopeless struggle for life underground. The > turning may be due to some clumsy shaking of the coffin, _but not the > contortion_.” > > After this he proceeds to give the following recent cases: > > “At Bergerac (Dordogne), in 1842, the patient took a sleeping draught > ... but he woke not.... They bled him, and he woke not.... At last they > declared him to be dead, and buried him. After a few days, remembering > the sleeping draught, they opened the grave. The body had turned and > _struggled_.” > > “The _Sunday Times_, December 30, 1838, relates that at Tonneins, Lower > Garonne, a man was buried, when an indistinct noise proceeded from > the coffin; the reckless grave-digger fled.... The coffin was hauled > up and burst open. A face stiffened in terror and despair, a torn > winding-sheet, contorted limbs, told the sad truth—_too late_.” > > “The _Times_, May, 1874, states that in August of 1873, a young lady > died soon after her marriage.... Within a year the husband married > again, and the mother of his first bride resolved to remove her > daughter’s body to Marseilles. They opened the vault and found the > poor girl’s body prostrate, her hair dishevelled, her shroud torn to > pieces.”[699] > > As we will have to refer to the subject once more in connection with > Bible miracles, we will leave it for the present, and return to magical > phenomena. > > If we were to give a full description of the various manifestations > which take place among adepts in India and other countries, we might > fill volumes, but this would be profitless, as there would remain no > space for explanation. Therefore we select in preference such as either > find their parallels in modern phenomena or are authenticated by legal > inquiry. Horst tried to present an idea of certain Persian spirits > to his readers, and failed; for the bare mention of some of them is > calculated to set the brains of a believer in a whirl. There are the > Devs and their specialities; the Darwands and their gloomy tricks; the > Shadim and Djinnas; the whole vast legion of spirits, demons, goblins, {457} > and elves of the Persian calendar; and, on the other hand, the Jewish > Seraphim, Cherubim, Izeds, Amshaspands, Sephiroth, Malachim, Elohim; > and, adds Horst, “the millions of astral and elementary spirits, of > intermediary spirits, ghosts, and imaginary beings of all races and > colors.”[700] > > But the majority of these spirits have naught to do with the phenomena > consciously and deliberately produced by the Eastern magicians. The > latter repudiate such an accusation and leave to sorcerers the help > even of elemental spirits and the elementary spooks. The adept has an > unlimited power over both, but he rarely uses it. For the production of > physical phenomena he summons the nature-spirits as obedient _powers_, > not as intelligences. > > As we always like to strengthen our arguments by testimonies other than > our own, it may be well to present the opinion of a daily paper, the > Boston _Herald_, as to phenomena in general and mediums in particular. > Having encountered sad failures with some dishonest persons, who may or > may not be mediumistic, the writer went to the trouble of ascertaining > as to some wonders said to be produced in India, and compares them with > those of modern thaumaturgy. > > “The medium of the present day,” he says, “bears a closer resemblance, > in methods and manipulations, to the well-known conjurer of history, > than any other representative of the magic art. How far short he still > remains of the performances of his prototypes is illustrated below. In > 1615 a delegation of highly-educated and distinguished men from the > English East India Company visited the Emperor Jehangire. While on > their mission they witnessed many most wonderful performances, almost > causing them to discredit their senses, and far beyond any hint even of > solution. A party of Bengalese conjurers and jugglers, showing their > art before the emperor, were desired to produce upon the spot, and from > seed, ten mulberry trees. They immediately planted ten seeds, which, > in a few minutes produced as many trees. The ground divided over the > spot where a seed was planted, tiny leaves appeared, at once followed > by slender shoots, which rapidly gained elevation, putting out leaves > and twigs and branches, finally spreading wide in the air, budding, > blossoming and yielding fruit, which matured upon the spot, and was > found to be excellent. And this before the beholder had turned away > his eyes. Fig, almond, mango, and walnut trees were at the same time > under like conditions produced, yielding the fruit which belonged to > each. Wonder succeeded wonder. The branches were filled with birds of > beautiful plumage flitting about among the leaves and singing sweet > notes. The leaves turned to russet, fell from their places, branches {458} > and twigs withered, and finally the trees sank back into the earth, > out of which they had all sprang within the hour. > > “Another had a bow and about fifty steel-pointed arrows. He shot an > arrow into the air, when, lo! the arrow became fixed in space at a > considerable height. Another and another arrow was sent off, each > fixing itself in the shaft of the preceding, until all formed a chain > of arrows in the air, excepting the last shot, which, striking the > chain, brought the whole to the ground in detachments. > > “They set up two common tents facing each other, and about a bowshot > apart. These tents were critically examined by the spectators, as are > the cabinets of the mediums, and pronounced empty. The tents were > fastened to the ground all around. The lookers-on were then invited to > choose what animals or birds they would have issue from these tents to > engage in a battle. Khaun-e-Jahaun incredulously asked to see a fight > between ostriches. In a few minutes an ostrich came out from each tent, > rushed to combat with deadly earnestness, and from them the blood soon > began to stream; but they were so nearly matched that neither could > win the victory, and they were at last separated by the conjurers > and conveyed within the tents. After this the varied demands of the > spectators for birds and animals were exactly complied with, always > with the same results. > > “A large cauldron was set, and into it a quantity of rice thrown. > Without the sign of fire this rice soon began to boil, and out from the > cauldron was taken more than one hundred platters of cooked rice, with > a stewed fowl at the top of each. This trick is performed on a smaller > scale by the most ordinary fakirs of the present day. > > “But space fails to give opportunity for illustrating, from the records > of the past, how the miserably tame performances—by comparison—of the > mediums of the present day were pale and overshadowed by those of other > days and more adroit peoples. There is not a wonderful feature in any > of the so-called phenomena or manifestations which was not, nay, which > is not now more than duplicated by other skilful performers, whose > connection with earth, and earth alone, is too evident to be doubted, > even if the fact was not supported by their own testimony.” > > It is an error to say that fakirs or jugglers will always claim that > they are helped by spirits. In quasi-religious evocations, such as > Jacolliot’s Kovindasami is described to have produced before this > French gentleman, when the parties desire to see real “spiritual” > manifestations, they will resort to Pitris, their disembodied > ancestors, and other _pure_ spirits. These they can evoke but through > prayer. As to all other phenomena, they are produced by the magician > and fakir at will. Notwithstanding the state of apparent abjectness in {459} > which the latter lives, he is often an initiate of the temples, and is > as well acquainted with occultism as his richer brethren. > > The Chaldeans, whom Cicero counts among the oldest magicians, placed > the basis of all magic in the inner powers of man’s soul, and by the > discernment of magic properties in plants, minerals, and animals. > By the aid of these they performed the most wonderful “miracles.” > Magic, with them, was synonymous with religion and science. It is but > later that the religious myths of the Magdean dualism, disfigured by > Christian theology and euhemerized by certain fathers of the Church, > assumed the disgusting shape in which we find them expounded by such > Catholic writers as des Mousseaux. The objective reality of the > mediæval incubus and succubus, that abominable superstition of the > middle ages which cost so many human lives, advocated by this author > in a whole volume, is the monstrous production of religious fanaticism > and epilepsy. It can have no _objective_ form; and to attribute its > effects to the Devil is blasphemy: implying that God, after creating > Satan, would allow him to adopt such a course. If we are forced to > believe in vampirism, it is on the strength of two irrefragable > propositions of occult psychological science: 1. The astral soul is > a separable distinct entity of our _ego_, and can roam far away from > the body without breaking the thread of life. 2. The corpse is not > _utterly_ dead, and while it can yet be reëntered by its tenant, the > latter can gather sufficient material emanations from it to enable > itself to appear in a quasi-terrestrial shape. But to uphold, with des > Mousseaux and de Mirville, that the Devil, whom the Catholics endow > with a power which, in antagonism, equals that of the Supreme Deity, > transforms himself into wolves, snakes, and dogs, to satisfy his lust > and procreate monsters, is an idea within which lie hidden the germs > of devil-worship, lunacy, and sacrilege. The Catholic Church, which > not only teaches us to believe in this monstrous fallacy, but forces > her missionaries to preach such a dogma, need not revolt against the > devil-worship of some Parsee and South India sects. Quite the reverse; > for when we hear the Yezides repeat the well-known proverb: “Keep > friends with the demons; give them your property, your blood, your > service, and you need not care about God—_He will not harm you_,” we > find him but consistent with his belief and reverential to the Supreme; > his logic is sound and rational; he reveres God too deeply to imagine > that He who created the universe and its laws is able to hurt him, poor > atom; but the _demons_ are there; they are _imperfect_, and therefore > he has good reasons to dread them. > > Therefore, the Devil, in his various transformations, can be but a > fallacy. When we imagine that we see, and hear, and feel him, it > is but too often the reflection of our own wicked, depraved, and > polluted soul that we see, hear, and feel. Like attracts like, they {460} > say; thus, according to the mood in which our astral form oozes out > during the hours of sleep, according to our thoughts, pursuits, and > daily occupations, all of which are fairly impressed upon the plastic > capsule called the _human soul_, the latter attracts around itself > spiritual beings congenial to itself. Hence some dreams and visions > that are pure and beautiful, others fiendish and beastly. The person > awakes, and either hastens to the confessional, or laughs in callous > indifference at the thought. In the first case, he is promised final > salvation, at the cost of some indulgences (which he has to purchase > from the church), and perhaps a little taste of purgatory, or even > of hell. What matter? is he not safe to be eternal and immortal, do > what he may? It is the Devil. Away with him, with bell, book, and holy > sprinkler! But the “Devil” comes back, and often the true believer is > forced to disbelieve in God, when he clearly perceives that the Devil > has the best of his Creator and Master. Then he is left to the second > emergency. He remains indifferent, and gives himself up entirely to the > Devil. He dies, and the reader has learned the sequel in the preceding > chapters. > > The thought is beautifully expressed by Dr. Ennemoser: “Religion did > not here [Europe and China] strike root so deeply as among the Hindus,” > says he, arguing upon this superstition. “The spirit of the Greeks > and Persians was more volatile.... The philosophical idea in the good > and bad principle, and of the spiritual world ... must have assisted > tradition in forming visions of heavenly and hellish shapes, and the > most frightful distortions, which in India were much more simply > produced by a more enthusiastic fanaticism; there the seer _received by > divine light_; here he lost himself in a multitude of outward objects, > with which he confounded his own identity. Convulsions, accompanied > by the mind’s absence from the body, in distant countries, were here > common, for the imagination was less firm, and also less spiritual. > > “The outward causes are also different; the modes of life, geographical > position, and artificial means producing various modifications. The > mode of life in Western countries has always been very variable, and > therefore disturbs and distorts the occupation of the senses, _and the > outward life is therefore reflected_ upon the inner dream-world. The > spirits, therefore, are of endless varieties of shape, and incline men > to gratify their passions, showing them the means of so doing, and > descending even to the minutest particulars, _which was so far below_ > the elevated natures of Indian seers.” > > Let the student of occult sciences make his own nature as pure and his > thoughts as elevated as those of these Indian seers, and he may sleep > unmolested by vampire, incubus, or succubus. Around the insensible > form of such a sleeper the immortal spirit sheds a power divine that > protects it from evil approaches, as though it were a crystal wall. > > “Hæc murus æneus esto: nil conscire sibi, nulla pallascere culpa.” > > CHAPTER XIII. {461} > > “ALCHYMIST. Thou always speakest riddles. Tell me if thou art > that fountain of which Bernard Lord Trevigan writ? > > “MERCURY. I am not that fountain, but I am the water. The > fountain compasseth me about.” > —SANDIVOGIUS, _New Light of Alchymy_. > > “All that we profess to do is this: to find out the secrets of > the human frame, to know why the parts ossify and the blood > stagnates, and to apply continual preventatives to the effects > of time. _This is not magic_; it is the art of medicine rightly > understood.”—BULWER-LYTTON. > > “Lo, warrior! now the cross of Red > Points to the grave of the mighty dead; > Within it burns a wondrous light, > To chase the spirits that love the night. > That lamp shall burn unquenchably > Until the eternal doom shall be.” > > * * * * * > > “No earthly flame blazed e’er so bright.”—SIR WALTER SCOTT. > > There are persons whose minds would be incapable of appreciating the > intellectual grandeur of the ancients, even in physical science, were > they to receive the most complete demonstration of their profound > learning and achievements. Notwithstanding the lesson of caution which > more than one unexpected discovery has taught them, they still pursue > their old plan of denying, and, what is still worse, of ridiculing > that which they have no means of either proving or disproving. So, for > instance, they will pooh-pooh the idea of talismans having any efficacy > one way or the other. That the seven spirits of the _Apocalypse_ > have direct relation to the seven occult powers in nature, appears > incomprehensible and absurd to their feeble intellects; and the > bare thought of a magician claiming to work wonders through certain > kabalistic rites convulses them with laughter. Perceiving only a > geometrical figure traced upon a paper, a bit of metal, or other > substance, they cannot imagine how any reasonable being should ascribe > to either any occult potency. But those who have taken the pains to > inform themselves know that the ancients achieved as great discoveries > in psychology as in physics, and that their explorations left few > secrets to be discovered. > > For our part, when we realize that a pentacle is a synthetic figure > which expresses in concrete form a profound truth of nature, we can > see nothing more ridiculous in it than in the figures of Euclid, and > nothing half so comical as the symbols in a modern work on chemistry. > What to the uninitiated reader can appear more absurd than that the {462} > symbol NA₂CO₃—means soda! and that C₂H₆O is but another > way of writing alcohol! How very amusing that the alchemists should > express their Azoth, or creative principle of nature (astral light), by > the symbol > > T > │ > │ > O──── ──——A > │ > │ > R[Transcriber’s note: R upside-down, A sideways] > > which embraces three things: 1st, The divine hypothesis; 2d, The > philosophical synthesis; 3d, The physical synthesis—that is to say, a > belief, an idea, and a force. But how perfectly natural that a modern > chemist who wishes to indicate to the students in his laboratory the > reaction of a sodic-carbonate with cream-of-tartar in solution, should > employ the following symbol: > > (Na₂CO₃ + 2HKC₄H₄O₆ + Aq)= > (2NaKC₄H₄O₆ + H₂O + Aq) + CO₂ > > If the uninspired reader may be pardoned for looking aghast at this > abracadabra of chemical science, why should not its teachers restrain > their mirth until they have learned the philosophical value of the > symbolism of the ancients? At least they might spare themselves from > being as ridiculous as Monsieur de Mirville, who, confounding the Azoth > of the Hermetic philosophers with the azote of the chemists, asserted > that the former worshipped nitrogen gas![701] > > Apply a piece of iron to a magnet, and it becomes imbued with its > subtile principle and capable of imparting it to other iron in its > turn. It neither weighs more nor appears different from what it > was before. And yet, one of the most subtile potencies of nature > has entered into its substance. A talisman, in itself perhaps a > worthless bit of metal, a scrap of paper, or a shred of any fabric, > has nevertheless been imbued by the influence of that greatest of > all magnets, the human will, with a potency for good or ill just > as recognizable and as real in its effects as the subtile property > which the iron acquired by contact with the physical magnet. Let > the bloodhound snuff an article of clothing that has been worn by > the fugitive, and he will track him through swamp and forest to > his hiding-place. Give one of Professor Buchanan’s “psychometers” > a manuscript, no matter how old, and he will describe to you the {463} > character of the writer, and perhaps even his personal appearance. > Hand a clairvoyant a lock of hair or some article that has been in > contact with the person of whom it is desired to know something, and > she will come into sympathy with him so intimate that she may trace him > through his whole life. > > Breeders tell us that young animals should not be herded with old > ones; and intelligent physicians forbid parents to have young children > occupy their own beds. When David was old and feeble his vital forces > were recruited by having a young person brought in close contact with > him so that he could absorb her strength. The late Empress of Russia, > the sister of the present German Emperor, was so feeble the last > years of her life that she was seriously advised by her physicians > to keep in her bed at night a robust and healthy young peasant-girl. > Whoever has read the description given by Dr. Kerner of the Seeress > of Prevost, Mme. Hauffe, must well remember her words. She repeatedly > stated that she supported life merely on the atmosphere of the people > surrounding her and their _magnetic emanations_, which were quickened > in an extraordinary way by her presence. The seeress was very plainly > a magnetic _vampire_, who absorbed by drawing to herself the life of > those who were strong enough to spare her their vitality in the shape > of _volatilized_ blood. Dr. Kerner remarks that these persons were all > more or less affected by this forcible loss. > > With these familiar illustrations of the possibility of a subtile fluid > communicated from one individual to another, or to substances which he > touches, it becomes less difficult to understand that by a determined > concentration of the will an otherwise inert object may become imbued > with protective or destructive power according to the purpose directing. > > A magnetic emanation, unconsciously produced, is sure to be overpowered > by any stronger one with which it may come into opposition. But when an > intelligent and powerful will directs the blind force, and concentrates > it upon a given spot, the weaker emanation will often master the > stronger. A human _will_ has the same effect on the _Akâsa_. > > Upon one occasion, we witnessed in Bengal an exhibition of will-power > that illustrates a highly interesting phase of the subject. An adept > in magic made a few passes over a piece of common tin, the inside > of a dish-cover, that lay conveniently by, and while regarding it > attentively for a few moments, seemed to grasp the imponderable fluid > by handfuls and throw it against the surface. When the tin had been > exposed to the full glare of light for about six seconds, the bright > surface was suddenly covered as with a film. Then patches of a darker > hue began coming out on its surface; and when in about three minutes > the tin was handed back to us, we found imprinted upon it a picture, {464} > or rather a photograph, of the landscape that stretched out before us; > faithful as nature itself, and every color perfect. It remained for > about forty-eight hours and then slowly faded away. > > This phenomenon is easily explained. The will of the adept condensed > upon the tin a film of _akâsa_ which made it for the time being like a > sensitized photographic plate. Light did the rest. > > Such an exhibition as this of the potency of the will to effect even > objective physical results, will prepare the student to comprehend its > efficacy in the cure of disease by imparting the desired virtue to > inanimate objects which are placed in contact with the patient. When we > see such psychologists as Maudsley[702] quoting, without contradiction, > the stories of some miraculous cures effected by Swedenborg’s > father—stories which do not differ from hundreds of other cures by > other “fanatics” as he calls them—magicians, and natural healers, and, > without attempting to explain their facts, stooping to laugh at the > intensity of their faith, without asking himself whether the secret of > that healing potency were not in the control given by that faith over > occult forces—we grieve that there should be so much learning and so > little philosophy, in our time. > > Upon our word, we cannot see that the modern chemist is any less a > magician than the ancient theurgist or Hermetic philosopher, except in > this: that the latter, recognizing the duality of nature, had twice as > wide a field for experimental research as the chemist. The ancients > animated statues, and the Hermetists called into being, out of the > elements, the shapes of salamanders, gnomes, undines, and sylphs, which > they did not pretend to create, but simply to make visible by holding > open the door of nature, so that, under favoring conditions, they might > step into view. The chemist brings into contact two elements contained > in the atmosphere, and by developing a latent force of affinity, > creates a new body—water. In the spheroidal and diaphanous pearls which > are born of this union of gases, come the germs of organic life, and > in their molecular interstices lurk heat, electricity, and light, just > as they do in the human body. Whence comes this life into the drop > of water just born of the union of two gases? And what is the water > itself? Have the oxygen and hydrogen undergone some transformation > which obliterates their qualities simultaneously with the obliteration > of their form? Here is the answer of modern science: “Whether the > oxygen and hydrogen exist as such, in the water, or whether they > are produced by some unknown and unconceived transformation of its > substance, is a question about which we may speculate, but in regard to > which we have no knowledge.”[703] Knowing nothing about so simple a {465} > matter as the molecular constitution of water, or the deeper problem of > the appearance of life within it, would it not be well for Mr. Maudsley > to exemplify his own principle, and “maintain a _calm acquiescence in > ignorance until light comes_?”[704] > > The claims of the friends of esoteric science, that Paracelsus > produced, chemically, _homunculi_ from certain combinations as yet > unknown to exact science, are, as a matter of course, relegated to the > storehouse of exploded humbugs. But why should they? If the _homunculi_ > were not made by Paracelsus they were developed by other adepts, and > that not a thousand years ago. They were produced, in fact, upon > exactly the same principle as that by which the chemist and physicist > calls to life his _animalcula_. A few years ago, an English gentleman, > Andrew Crosse, of Somersetshire, produced _acari_ in the following > manner: “Black flint burned to redness and reduced to powder was mixed > with carbonate of potash, and exposed to a strong heat for fifteen > minutes; and the mixture was poured into a blacklead crucible in an air > furnace. It was reduced to powder while warm, mixed with boiling water; > kept boiling for some minutes, and then hydrochloric acid was added to > supersaturation. After being exposed to voltaic action for twenty-six > days, a perfect insect of the _acari_ tribe made its appearance, and > in the course of a few weeks about a hundred more. The experiment was > repeated with other chemical fluids with like results. A Mr. Weeks also > produced the _acari_ in ferrocyanide of potassium. > > This discovery produced a great excitement. Mr. Crosse was now accused > of impiety and aiming at creation. He replied, denying the implication > and saying he considered ”_to create was to form a something out of a > nothing_.”[705] > > Another gentleman, considered by several persons as a man of great > science, has told us repeatedly that he was on the eve of proving that > even unfructified eggs could be hatched by having a negative electric > current caused to pass through them. > > The mandrakes (_dudim_ or love-fruit) found in the field by Reuben, > Jacob’s son, which excited the fancy of Rachel, was the kabalistic > _mandragora_, notwithstanding denial; and the verses which refer to it > belong to the _crudest_ passages, in their esoteric meaning, of the > whole work. The mandrake is a plant having the rudimentary shape of a > human creature; with a head, two arms, and two legs forming roots. The > superstition that when pulled out of the ground it cries with a human > voice, is not utterly baseless. It does produce a kind of squeaking {466} > sound, on account of the resinous substance of its root, which it is > rather difficult to extract; and it has more than one hidden property > in it perfectly unknown to the botanist. > > The reader who would obtain a clear idea of the commutation of forces > and the resemblance between the life-principles of plants, animals, > and human beings, may profitably consult a paper on the correlation > of nervous and mental forces by Professor Alexander Bain, of the > University of Aberdeen. This mandragora seems to occupy upon earth the > point where the vegetable and animal kingdoms touch, as the zoöphites > and polypi do in the sea; the boundary being in each case so indistinct > as to make it almost imperceptible where the one ceases and the other > begins. It may seem improbable that there should be _homunculi_, but > will any naturalist, in view of the recent expansion of science, dare > say it is impossible? “Who,” says Bain, “is to limit the possibilities > of existence?” > > The unexplained mysteries of nature are many and of those presumably > explained hardly one may be said to have become absolutely > intelligible. There is not a plant or mineral which has disclosed the > last of its properties to the scientists. What do the naturalists know > of the intimate nature of the vegetable and mineral kingdoms? How can > they feel confident that for every one of the discovered properties > there may not be many powers concealed in the _inner_ nature of the > plant or stone? And that they are only waiting to be brought in > relation with some other plant, mineral, or force of nature to manifest > themselves in what is termed a “supernatural manner.” Wherever Pliny, > the naturalist, Ælian, and even Diodorus, who sought with such a > laudable perseverance to extricate historical truth from its medley of > exaggerations and fables, have attributed to some plant or mineral an > occult property unknown to our modern botanists and physicists, their > assertions have been laid aside without further ceremony as absurd, and > no more referred to. > > It has been the speculation of men of science from time immemorial > what this vital force or life-principle is. To our mind the “secret > doctrine” alone is able to furnish the clew. Exact science recognizes > only five powers in nature—one _molar_, and four _molecular_; > kabalists, seven; and in these two additional ones is enwrapped > the whole mystery of life. One of these is immortal spirit, whose > reflection is connected by invisible links even with inorganic > matter; the other, we leave to every one to discover for himself. > Says Professor Joseph Le Conte: “What is the nature of the difference > between the living organism and the dead organism? We can detect > _none_, physical or chemical. All the physical and chemical forces > withdrawn from the common fund of nature, and embodied in the living {467} > organism, seem to be still embodied in the dead, until little by > little it is returned by decomposition. Yet the difference is immense, > is inconceivably great. What is the nature of this difference expressed > in the formula of material science? What is that that is gone, and > whither is it gone? There is something here that science cannot yet > understand. Yet it is just this loss which takes place in death, and > before decomposition, which is in the highest sense vital force!”[706] > > Difficult, nay impossible, as it seems to science to find out the > invisible, universal motor of all—_Life_, to explain its nature, or > even to suggest a reasonable hypothesis for the same, the mystery > is but half a mystery, not merely for the great adepts and seers, > but even for true and firm believers in a spiritual world. To the > simple believer, unblessed with a personal organism, the delicate, > nervous sensitiveness of which would enable him—as it enables a > seer—to perceive the visible universe reflected as in a clear glass > in the Invisible one, and, as it were, objectively, there remains > divine _faith_. The latter is firmly rooted in his inner senses; in > his unerring intuition, with which cold reason has naught to do, he > _feels_ it cannot play him false. Let human-born, erroneous dogmas, > and theological sophistry contradict each other; let one crowd off the > other, and the subtile casuistry of one creed fell to the ground the > crafty reasoning of another one; truth remains one, and there is not a > religion, whether Christian or heathen, that is not firmly built upon > the rock of ages—God and immortal spirit. > > Every animal is more or less endowed with the faculty of perceiving, > if not spirits, at least something which remains for the time being > invisible to common men, and can only be discerned by a clairvoyant. We > have made hundreds of experiments with cats, dogs, monkeys of various > kinds, and, once, with a tame tiger. A round black mirror, known as the > “magic crystal,” was strongly mesmerized by a native Hindu gentleman, > formerly an inhabitant of Dindigul, and now residing in a more secluded > spot, among the mountains known as the Western Ghauts. He had tamed > a young cub, brought to him from the Malabar coast, in which part > of India the tigers are proverbially ferocious; and it is with this > interesting animal that we made our experiments. > > Like the ancient Marsi and Psylli, the renowned serpent-charmers, this > gentleman claimed to be possessed of the mysterious power of taming any > kind of animal. The tiger was reduced to a chronic _mental numbness_, > so to say; he had become as inoffensive and harmless as a dog. Children > could tease and pull him by the ears, and he would only shake himself > and howl like a dog. But whenever forced to look into the “magic {468} > mirror,” the poor animal was instantly excited to a sort of frenzy. > His eyes became full of a _human_ terror; howling in despair, unable > to turn away from the mirror to which his gaze seemed riveted as by > a magnetic spell, he would writhe and tremble till he convulsed with > fear at some vision which to us remained unknown. He would then lie > down, feebly groaning but still gazing in the glass. When it was taken > away from him, the animal would lie panting and seemingly prostrated > for about two hours. What did he see? What spirit-picture from his own > invisible, _animal_-world, could produce such a terrific effect on the > wild and naturally ferocious and daring beast? Who can tell? Perhaps > _he_ who produced the scene. > > The same effect on animals was observed during spiritual _seances_ > with some holy mendicants; the same when a Syrian, half-heathen and > half-Christian, from Kunankulam (Cochin State), a reputed sorcerer, who > was invited to join us for the sake of experimenting. > > We were nine persons in all—seven men and two women, one of the > latter a native. Besides us, there were in the room, the young tiger, > intensely occupied on a bone; a _wânderoo_, or lion-monkey, which, > with its black coat and snow-white goatee and whiskers, and cunning, > sparkling eyes, looked the personification of mischief; and a beautiful > golden oriole, quietly cleaning its radiant-colored tail on a perch, > placed near a large window of the veranda. In India, “spiritual” > seances are not held in the dark, as in America; and no conditions, > but perfect silence and harmony, are required. It was in the full > glare of daylight streaming through the opened doors and windows, with > a far-away buzz of life from the neighboring forests, and jungles > sending us the echo of myriads of insects, birds, and animals. We sat > in the midst of a garden in which the house was built, and instead of > breathing the stifling atmosphere of a seance-room, we were amid the > fire-colored clusters of the erythrina—the coral tree—inhaling the > fragrant aromas of trees and shrubs, and the flowers of the bignonia, > whose white blossoms trembled in the soft breeze. In short, we were > surrounded with light, harmony, and perfumes. Large nosegays of flowers > and shrubs, sacred to the native gods, were gathered for the purpose, > and brought into the rooms. We had the sweet basil, the Vishnu-flower, > without which no religious ceremony in Bengal will ever take place; and > the branches of the _Ficus religiosa_, the tree dedicated to the same > bright deity, intermingling their leaves with the rosy blossoms of the > sacred lotos and the Indian tuberose, profusely ornamented the walls. > > While the “blessed one” represented by a very dirty, but, nevertheless, > really holy fakir—remained plunged in self-contemplation, and some > spiritual wonders were taking place under the direction of his will, {469} > the monkey and the bird exhibited but few signs of restlessness. The > tiger alone visibly trembled at intervals, and stared around the > room, as if his phosphorically-shining green orbs were following some > invisible presence as it floated up and down. That which was as yet > unperceived by human eyes, must have therefore been _objective_ to him. > As to the wânderoo, all its liveliness had fled; it seemed drowsy, > and sat crouching and motionless. The bird gave few, if any, signs of > uneasiness. There was a sound as of gently-flapping wings in the air; > the flowers went travelling about the room, displaced by invisible > hands; and, as a glorious azure-tinted flower fell on the folded paws > of the monkey, it gave a nervous start, and sought refuge under its > master’s white robe. These displays lasted for an hour, and it would be > too long to relate all of them; the most curious of all, being the one > which closed that season of wonders. Somebody complaining of the heat, > we had a shower of delicately-perfumed dew. The drops fell fast and > large, and conveyed a feeling of inexpressible refreshment, drying the > instant after touching our persons. > > When the fakir had brought his exhibition of _white_ magic to a close, > the “sorcerer,” or conjurer, as they are called, prepared to display > his power. We were treated to a succession of the wonders that the > accounts of travellers have made familiar to the public; showing, > among other things, the fact that animals naturally possess the > clairvoyant faculty, and even, it would seem, the ability to discern > between the good and the bad spirits. All of the sorcerer’s feats were > preceded by fumigations. He burned branches of resinous trees and > shrubs, which sent up volumes of smoke. Although there was nothing > about this calculated to affright an animal using only his natural > eyes, the tiger, monkey, and bird exhibited an indescribable terror. > We suggested that the animals might be frightened at the blazing > brands, the familiar custom of burning fires round the camp to keep > off wild beasts, recurring to our mind. To leave no doubt upon this > point, the Syrian approached the crouching tiger with a branch of the > Bael-tree[707] (sacred to Siva), and waved it several times over his > head, muttering, meanwhile, his incantations. The brute instantly > displayed a panic of terror beyond description. His eyes started > from their sockets like blazing fire-balls; he foamed at the mouth; > he flung himself upon the floor, as if seeking some hole in which to > hide himself; he uttered scream after scream, that awoke a hundred > responsive echoes from the jungle and the woods. Finally, taking a > last look at the spot from which his eyes had never wandered, he made > a desperate plunge, which snapped his chain, and dashed through the {470} > window of the veranda, carrying a piece of the frame-work with him. The > monkey had fled long before, and the bird fell from the perch as though > paralyzed. > > We did not ask either the fakir or sorcerer for an explanation of > the method by which their respective phenomena were effected. If > we had, unquestionably they would have replied as did a fakir to a > French traveller, who tells his story in a recent number of a New York > newspaper, called the _Franco-Americain_, as follows: > > “Many of these Hindu jugglers who live in the silence of the pagodas > perform feats far surpassing the prestidigitations of Robert Houdin, > and there are many others who produce the most curious phenomena in > magnetism and catalepsy upon the first objects that come across their > way, that I have often wondered whether the Brahmans, with their occult > sciences, have not made great discoveries in the questions which have > recently been agitated in Europe. > > “On one occasion, while I and others were in a café with Sir Maswell, > he ordered his dobochy to introduce the charmer. In a few moments > a lean Hindu, almost naked, with an ascetic face and bronzed color > entered. Around his neck, arms, thighs, and body were coiled serpents > of different sizes. After saluting us, he said, ‘God be with you, I am > Chibh-Chondor, son of Chibh-Gontnalh-Mava.’ > > “‘We desire to see what you can do,’ said our host. > > “‘I obey the orders of Siva, who has sent me here,’ replied the fakir, > squatting down on one of the marble slabs. > > “The serpents raised their heads and hissed, but without showing any > anger. Then taking a small pipe, attached to a wick in his hair, > he produced scarcely audible sounds, imitating the _tailapaca_, a > bird that feeds upon bruised cocoanuts. Here the serpents uncoiled > themselves, and one after another glided to the floor. As soon as > they touched the ground they raised about one-third of their bodies, > and began to keep time to their master’s music. Suddenly the fakir > dropped his instrument and made several passes with his hands over the > serpents, of whom there were about ten, all of the most deadly species > of Indian cobra. His eye assumed a strange expression. We all felt an > undefinable uneasiness, and sought to turn away our gaze from him. At > this moment a small shocra[708] (monkey) whose business was to hand > fire in a small brasier for lighting cigars, yielded to his influence, > lay down, and fell asleep. Five minutes passed thus, and we felt that > if the manipulations were to continue a few seconds more we should all > fall asleep. Chondor then rose, and making two more passes over the > shocra, said to it: ‘Give the commander some fire.’ The young monkey > rose, and without tottering, came and offered fire to its master. {471} > It was pinched, pulled about, till there was no doubt of its being > actually asleep. Nor would it move from Sir Maswell’s side till ordered > to do so by the fakir. > > “We then examined the cobras. Paralyzed by magnetic influence, they lay > at full length on the ground. On taking them up we found them stiff > as sticks. They were in a state of complete catalepsy. The fakir then > awakened them, on which they returned and again coiled themselves round > his body. We inquired whether he could make us feel his influence. He > made a few passes over our legs, and instantly we lost the use of these > limbs; we could not leave our seats. He released us as easily as he had > paralyzed us. > > “Chibh-Chondor closed his seance by experimenting upon inanimate > objects. By mere passes with his hands in the direction of the > object to be acted upon, and without leaving his seat, he paled and > extinguished lights in the furthest parts of the room, moved the > furniture, including the divans upon which we sat, opened and closed > doors. Catching sight of a Hindu who was drawing water from a well in > the garden, he made a pass in his direction, and the rope suddenly > stopped in its descent, resisting all the efforts of the astonished > gardener. With another pass the rope again descended. > > “I asked Chibh-Chondor: ‘Do you employ the same means in acting upon > inanimate objects that you do upon living creatures?’ > > “He replied, ‘I have only one means.’ > > “‘What is it?’ > > “‘The will. Man, who is the end of all intellectual and material > forces, must dominate over all. The Brahmans know nothing besides > this.’” > > “Sanang Setzen,” says Colonel Yule,[709] “enumerates a variety of the > wonderful acts which could be performed through the _Dharani_ (mystic > Hindu charms). Such were sticking a peg into solid rock; restoring the > dead to life; turning a dead body into gold; penetrating everywhere _as > air does_ (in astral form); flying; catching wild beasts with the hand; > reading thoughts; making water flow backward; eating tiles; sitting in > the air with the legs doubled under, etc.” Old legends ascribe to Simon > Magus precisely the same powers. “He made statues to walk; leaped into > the fire without being burned; flew in the air; made bread of stones; > changed his shape; assumed two faces at once; converted himself into a > pillar; caused closed doors to fly open spontaneously; made the vessels > in a house move of themselves, etc.” The Jesuit Delrio laments that {472} > credulous princes, otherwise of pious repute, should have allowed > _diabolical_ tricks to be played before them, “as for example, things > of iron, and silver goblets, or other heavy articles, to be moved by > bounds, from one end of the table to the other, _without the use of a > magnet_, or of any attachment.”[710] We believe WILL-POWER the most > powerful of magnets. The existence of such magical power in certain > persons _is proved_, but the existence of the Devil is a fiction, which > no theology is able to demonstrate. > > “There are certain men whom the Tartars honor above all in the world,” > says Friar Ricold, “viz., the _Baxitæ_, who are a kind of idol-priests. > These are men from India, persons of deep wisdom, _well-conducted and > of the gravest morals_. They are usually with magic arts ... they > exhibit many illusions, and predict future events. For instance, one of > eminence among them was said to fly; but the truth, however, was as it > proved, that he did not fly, but did walk close to the surface of the > ground without touching it; _and would seem to sit down without having > any substance to support him_.[711] This last performance was witnessed > by Ibn Batuta, at Delhi,” adds Colonel Yule, who quotes the friar > in the _Book of Ser Marco Polo_, “in the presence of Sultan Mahomet > Tughlak; and it was professedly exhibited by a Brahman at Madras in > the present century, a descendant doubtless of those Brahmans whom > Apollonius saw walking two cubits from the ground. It is also described > by the worthy Francis Valentyn, as a performance known and practiced in > his own day in India. It is related, he says, that “a man will first > go and sit on three sticks put together so as to form a tripod; after > which, first one stick, then a second, then a third shall be removed > from under him, and the man shall not fall but shall still remain > sitting in the air! Yet I have spoken with two friends who had seen > this at one and the same time; and one of them, I may add, mistrusting > his own eyes, had taken the trouble to feel about with a long stick > if there were nothing on which the body rested; yet, as the gentleman > told me, he could neither feel nor see any such thing. We have stated > elsewhere that the same thing was accomplished last year, before the > Prince of Wales and his suite. > > Such feats as the above are nothing in comparison to what is done by > professed jugglers; “feats,” remarks the above-quoted author, “which > might be regarded as simply inventions if told by one author only, but > which seem to deserve _prominent notice_ from being recounted by a > series of authors, certainly independent of one another, and writing > at long intervals of time and place. Our first witness is Ibn Batuta, {473} > and it will be necessary to quote him as well as the others in full, > in order to show how closely their evidence tallies. The Arab traveller > was present at a great entertainment at the court of the Viceroy of > Khansa. “That same night a juggler, who was one of the Khan’s slaves, > made his appearance, and the Amir said to him, ‘Come and show us some > of your marvels.’ Upon this he took a wooden ball, with several holes > in it, through which long thongs were passed, and laying hold of one of > these, slung it into the air. It went so high that we lost sight of it > altogether.... (We were in the middle of the palace-court.) There now > remained only a little of the end of a thong in the conjurer’s hand, > and he desired one of the boys who assisted him to lay hold of it and > mount. He did so, climbing by the thong, and we lost sight of him also! > The conjurer then called to him three times, but, getting no answer, > he snatched up a knife as if in a great rage, laid hold of the thong, > and disappeared also! By and bye, he threw down one of the boy’s hands, > then a foot, then the other hand, and then the other foot, then the > trunk, and last of all the head! Then he came down himself, puffing and > panting, and with his clothes all bloody kissed the ground before the > Amir, and said something to him in Chinese. The Amir gave some order in > reply, and our friend then took the lad’s limbs, laid them together in > their places, and gave a kick, when, presto! there was the boy, who got > up and stood before us! All this astonished me beyond measure, and I > had an attack of palpitation like that which overcame me once before in > the presence of the Sultan of India, when he showed me something of the > same kind. They gave me a cordial, however, which cured the attack. The > Kaji Afkharuddin was next to me, and quoth he, ‘Wallah! ‘tis my opinion > there has been neither going up nor coming down, neither marring, nor > mending! ’Tis all _hocus-pocus_!’ > > And who doubts but that it is a “hocus-pocus,” an illusion, or _Maya_, > as the Hindus express it? But when such an illusion can be forced on, > say, ten thousand people at the same time, as we have seen it performed > during a public festival, surely the means by which such an astounding > hallucination can be produced merits the attention of science! When > by such _magic_ a man who stands before you, in a room, the doors of > which you have closed and of which the keys are in your hand, suddenly > disappears, vanishes like a flash of light, and you see him _nowhere_ > but hear his voice from different parts of the room addressing you and > laughing at your perplexity, surely such an art is not unworthy either > of Mr. Huxley or Dr. Carpenter. Is it not quite as well worth spending > time over, as the lesser mystery—why barnyard cocks crow at midnight? > > What Ibn Batuta, the Moor, saw in China about the year 1348, Colonel > Yule shows Edward Melton, “an Anglo-Dutch traveller,” witnessing in {474} > Batavia about the year 1670: “One of the same gang” (of conjurers), > says Melton,[712] “took a small ball of cord, and grasping one end of > the cord in his hand slung the other up into the air with such force > that its extremity was beyond reach of our sight. He then climbed up > the cord with indescribable swiftness.... I stood full of astonishment, > not conceiving where he had disappeared; when lo! a leg came tumbling > down out of the air. A moment later a hand came down, etc.... In short, > all the members of the body came successively tumbling from the air and > were cast together by the attendant into the basket. The last fragment > of all was the head, and no sooner had that touched the ground than he > who had snatched up all the limbs and put them in the basket, turned > them all out again topsy turvy. Then straightway we saw _with these > eyes all those limbs creep together_ again, and, in short, form a whole > man, who at once could stand and go just as before without showing the > least damage!... Never in my life was I so astonished ... and I doubted > now no longer that these misguided men did it by the help of the Devil.” > > In the memoirs of the Emperor Jahangire, the performances of seven > jugglers from Bengal, who exhibited before him, are thus described: > “_Ninth._ They produced a man whom they divided limb from limb, > actually severing his head from the body. They scattered these > mutilated members along the ground, and in this state they lay some > time. They then extended a sheet over the spot, and one of the men > putting himself under the sheet, in a few minutes came from below, > followed by the individual supposed to have been cut into joints, > in perfect health and condition.... _Twenty-third._ They produced a > chain of fifty cubits in length, and in my presence threw one end of > it toward the sky, _where it remained as if fastened to something > in the air_. A dog was then brought forward and being placed at the > lower end of the chain, immediately ran up, and reaching the other > end, _immediately disappeared in the air_. In the same manner a hog, a > panther, a lion, and a tiger were successively sent up the chain, and > all equally disappeared at the upper end of the chain. At last they > took down the chain, and put it into the bag, no one ever discovering > in what way the different animals were made to vanish into the air in > the mysterious manner above described.”[713] > > We have in our possession a picture painted from such a Persian > conjurer, with a man, or rather the various limbs of what was a minute > before a man, scattered before him. We have seen such conjurers, and > witnessed such performances more than once and in various places. > > Bearing ever in mind that we repudiate the idea of a miracle and {475} > returning once more to phenomena more serious, we would now ask what > logical objection can be urged against the claim that the reänimation > of the dead was accomplished by many thaumaturgists? The fakir > described in the _Franco-Americain_, might have gone far enough to say > that this will-power of man is so tremendously potential that it can > reänimate a body apparently dead, by drawing back the flitting soul > that has not yet quite ruptured the thread that through life had bound > the two together. Dozens of such fakirs have allowed themselves to be > buried alive before thousands of witnesses, and weeks afterward have > been resuscitated. And if fakirs have the secret of this artificial > process, identical with, or analogous to, hibernation, why not allow > that their ancestors, the Gymnosophists, and Apollonius of Tyana, who > had studied with the latter in India, and Jesus, and other prophets and > seers, who all knew more about the mysteries of life and death than > any of our modern men of science, might have resuscitated dead men > and women? And being quite familiar with that power—that mysterious > _something_ “that science cannot yet understand,” as Professor Le Conte > confesses—knowing, moreover, “whence it came and whither it was going,” > Elisha, Jesus, Paul, and Apollonius, enthusiastic ascetics and learned > initiates, might have recalled to life with ease any man who “was not > dead but sleeping,” and that without any miracle. > > If the molecules of the cadaver are imbued with the physical and > chemical forces of the living organism,[714] what is to prevent them > from being set again in motion, provided we know the nature of the > vital force, and who to command it? The materialist can certainly > offer no objection, for with him it is no question of reïnfusing a > soul. For him the soul has no existence, and the human body may be > regarded simply as a vital engine—a locomotive which will start upon > the application of heat and force, and stop when they are withdrawn. To > the theologian the case offers greater difficulties, for, in his view, > death cuts asunder the tie which binds soul and body, and the one can > no more be returned into the other without miracle than the born infant > can be compelled to resume its fœtal life after parturition and the > severing of the umbilicus. But the Hermetic philosopher stands between > these two irreconcilable antagonists, _master of the situation_. He > knows the nature of the soul—a form composed of nervous fluid and > atmospheric ether—and knows how the vital force can be made active > or passive at will, so long as there is no final destruction of some > necessary organ. The claims of Gaffarilus—which, by the bye, appeared > so preposterous in 1650[715]—were later corroborated by science. He {476} > maintained that every object existing in nature, provided it was not > artificial, when once burned still retained its form in the ashes, in > which it remained till raised again. Du Chesne, an eminent chemist, > assured himself of the fact. Kircher, Digby, and Vallemont have > demonstrated that the forms of plants could be resuscitated from their > ashes. At a meeting of naturalists in 1834, at Stuttgart, a receipt for > producing such experiments was found in a work of Oetinger.[716] Ashes > of burned plants contained in vials, when heated, exhibited again their > various forms. “A small obscure cloud gradually rose in the vial, took > a defined form, and presented to the eye the flower or plant the ashes > consisted of.” “The earthly husk,” wrote Oetinger, “remains in the > retort, while the volatile essence ascends, _like a spirit_, perfect in > form, but void of substance.”[717] > > And, if the astral form of even a plant when its body is dead still > lingers in the ashes, will skeptics persist in saying that the soul of > _man_, the _inner_ ego, is after the death of the grosser form at once > dissolved, and is no more? “At death,” says the philosopher, “the one > body exudes from the other, by osmose and through the brain; it is held > near its old garment by a double attraction, physical and spiritual, > until the latter decomposes; and if the proper conditions are given > the soul can reïnhabit it and resume the suspended life. It does it > in sleep; it does it more thoroughly in trance; most surprisingly at > the command and with the assistance of the Hermetic adept. Iamblichus > declared that a person endowed with such resuscitating powers is ‘full > of God.’ All the subordinate spirits of the upper spheres are at his > command, for he is no longer a mortal, but himself a god. In his > _Epistle to the Corinthians_, Paul remarks that ‘the spirits of the > prophets _are subject to the prophets_.’” > > Some persons have the natural and some the acquired power of > withdrawing the _inner_ from the _outer_ body, at will, and causing it > to perform long journeys, and be seen by those whom it visits. Numerous > are the instances recorded by unimpeachable witnesses of the “doubles” > of persons having been seen and conversed with, hundreds of miles from > the places where the persons themselves were known to be. Hermotimus, > if we may credit Pliny and Plutarch,[718] could at will fall into a > trance and then his _second_ soul proceeded to any distant place he > chose. > > The Abbé Fretheim, the famous author of _Steganographie_, who lived in > the seventeenth century, could converse with his friends by the mere > power of his will. “I can make my thoughts known to the initiated,” {477} > he wrote, “at a distance of many hundred miles, without word, writing, > or cipher, by any messenger. The latter cannot betray me, for he > knows nothing. If needs be, I can dispense with the messenger. If any > correspondent should be buried in the deepest dungeon, I could still > convey to him my thoughts as clearly and as frequently as I chose, and > this quite simply, without superstition, without the aid of spirits.” > Cordanus could also send his spirit, or any messages he chose. When > he did so, he felt “as if a door was opened, and I myself immediately > passed through it, leaving the body behind me.”[719] The case of a high > German official, a counsellor Wesermann, was mentioned in a scientific > paper.[720] He claimed to be able to cause any friend or acquaintance, > at any distance, to dream of every subject he chose, or see any person > he liked. His claims were proved good, and testified to on several > occasions by skeptics and learned professional persons. He could also > cause his double to appear wherever he liked; and be seen by several > persons at one time. By whispering in their ears a sentence prepared > and agreed upon beforehand by unbelievers, and for the purpose, his > power to project the double was demonstrated beyond any cavil. > > According to Napier, Osborne, Major Lawes, Quenouillet, Nikiforovitch, > and many other modern witnesses, fakirs are now proved to be able, > by a long course of diet, preparation, and repose, to bring their > bodies into a condition which enables them to be buried six feet under > ground for an indefinite period. Sir Claude Wade was present at the > court of Rundjit Singh, when the fakir, mentioned by the Honorable > Captain Osborne, was buried alive for six weeks, in a box placed in > a cell three feet below the floor of the room.[721] To prevent the > chance of deception, a guard comprising two companies of soldiers had > been detailed, and four sentries “were furnished and relieved every > two hours, night and day, to guard the building from intrusion.... On > opening it,” says Sir Claude, “we saw a figure enclosed in a bag of > white linen fastened by a string over the head ... the servant then > began pouring warm water over the figure ... the legs and arms of the > body were shrivelled and stiff, the face, full, the head reclining > on the shoulder like that of a corpse. I then called to the medical > gentleman who was attending me, to come down and inspect the body, > which he did, but could discover no pulsation in the heart, the > temples, or the arm. There was, however, _a heat about the region of > the brain_, which no other part of the body exhibited.” > > Regretting that the limits of our space forbid the quotation of the {478} > details of this interesting story, we will only add, that the process > of resuscitation included bathing with hot water, friction, the removal > of wax and cotton pledgets from the nostrils and ears, the rubbing of > the eyelids with ghee or clarified butter, and, what will appear most > curious to many, the application of a hot wheaten cake, about an inch > thick “to the top of the head.” After the cake had been applied for > the third time, the body was violently convulsed, the nostrils became > inflated, the respiration ensued, and the limbs assumed a natural > fulness; but the pulsation was still faintly perceptible.“ The tongue > was then anointed with ghee; the eyeballs became dilated and recovered > their natural color, and the fakir recognized those present and > spoke.” It should be noticed that not only had the nostrils and ears > been plugged, but the tongue had been thrust back so as to close the > gullet, thus effectually stopping the orifices against the admission > of atmospheric air. While in India, a fakir told us that this was done > not only to prevent the action of the air upon the organic tissues, > but also to guard against the deposit of the germs of decay, which in > case of suspended animation would cause decomposition exactly as they > do in any other meat exposed to air. There are also localities in which > a fakir would refuse to be buried; such as the many spots in Southern > India infested with the white ants, which annoying termites are > considered among the most dangerous enemies of man and his property. > They are so voracious as to devour everything they find except perhaps > metals. As to wood, there is no kind through which they would not > burrow; and even bricks and mortar offer but little impediment to their > formidable armies. They will patiently work through mortar, destroying > it particle by particle; and a fakir, however holy himself, and strong > his temporary coffin, would not risk finding his body devoured when it > was time for his resuscitation. > > Then, here is a case, only one of many, substantiated by the testimony > of two English noblemen—one of them an army officer—and a Hindu Prince, > who was as great a skeptic as themselves. It places science in this > embarrassing dilemma: it must either give the lie to many unimpeachable > witnesses, or admit that if one fakir can resuscitate after six > weeks, any other fakir can also; and if a fakir, why not a Lazarus, a > Shunamite boy, or the daughter of Jairus?[722] > > And now, perhaps, it may not be out of place to inquire what assurance {479} > can any physician have, beyond _external_ evidence, that the body > is really dead? The best authorities agree in saying that there are > none. Dr. Todd Thomson, of London,[723] says most positively that “the > immobility of the body, even its cadaverous aspect, the coldness of > surface, the absence of respiration and pulsation, and the sunken state > of the eye, are no unequivocal evidences that life is wholly extinct.” > Nothing but total decomposition is an irrefutable proof that _life_ > has fled for ever and that the tabernacle is tenantless. Demokritus > asserted that there existed no _certain_ signs of real death.[724] > Pliny maintained the same.[725] Asclepiades, a learned physician and > one of the most distinguished men of his day, held that the assurance > was still more difficult in the cases of women than in those of men. > > Todd Thomson, above quoted, gives several remarkable cases of such > a suspended animation. Among others he mentions a certain Francis > Neville, a Norman gentleman, who twice apparently died, and was > twice in the act of being buried. But, at the moment when the coffin > was being lowered in the grave, he spontaneously revived. In the > seventeenth century, Lady Russell, to all appearance died, and was > about to be buried, but as the bell was tolling for her funeral, she > sat up in her coffin and exclaimed, “It is time to go to church!” > Diemerbroese, mentions a peasant who gave no signs of life for three > days, but when placed in his coffin, near the grave, revived and lived > many years afterward. In 1836, a respectable citizen of Brussels > fell into a profound lethargy on a Sunday morning. On Monday, as his > attendants were preparing to screw the lid of the coffin, the supposed > corpse sat up, rubbed his eyes, and called for his coffee and a > newspaper.[726] > > Such cases of apparent death are not very infrequently reported in > the newspaper press. As we write (April, 1877), we find in a London > letter to the New York _Times_, the following paragraph: “Miss Annie > Goodale, the actress, died three weeks ago. Up to yesterday she was > not buried. The corpse is warm and limp, and the features as soft and > mobile as when in life. Several physicians have examined her, and have > ordered that the body shall be watched night and day. The poor lady is > evidently in a trance, but whether she is destined to come to life it > is impossible to say.” > > Science regards man as an aggregation of atoms temporarily united by {480} > a mysterious force called the life-principle. To the materialist, the > only difference between a living and a dead body is, that in the one > case, that force is active, in the other latent. When it is extinct or > entirely latent the molecules obey a superior attraction, which draws > them asunder and scatters them through space. > > This dispersion must be death, if it is possible to conceive such a > thing as death, where the very molecules of the dead body manifest an > intense vital energy. If death is but the stoppage of a digesting, > locomotive, and thought-grinding machine, how can death be actual > and not relative, before that machine is thoroughly broken up and > its particles dispersed? So long as any of them cling together, the > centripetal vital force may overmatch the dispersive centrifugal > action. Says Eliphas Levi: “Change attests movement, and movement only > reveals life. The corpse would not decompose if it were dead; all the > molecules which compose it are living and struggle to separate. And > would you think that the spirit frees itself first of all to exist no > more? That thought and love can die when the grossest forms of matter > do not die? If the change should be called death, we die and are born > again every day, for every day our forms undergo change.”[727] > > The kabalists say that a man is not dead when his body is entombed. > Death is never sudden; for, according to Hermes, nothing goes in nature > by violent transitions. Everything is gradual, and as it required a > long and gradual development to produce the living human being, so time > is required to completely withdraw vitality from the carcass.“ Death > can no more be an absolute end, than birth a real beginning. Birth > proves the preëxistence of the being, as death proves immortality,” > says the same French kabalist. > > While implicitly believing in the restoration of the daughter of > Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, and in other Bible-miracles, > well-educated Christians, who otherwise would feel indignant at being > called superstitious, meet all such cases as that of Apollonius and the > girl said by his biographer to have been recalled to life by him, with > scornful skepticism. Diogenes Laërtius, who mentions a woman restored > to life by Empedocles, is treated with no more respect; and the name of > Pagan thaumaturgist, in the eyes of Christians, is but a synonym for > impostor. Our scientists are at least one degree more rational; they > embrace all Bible prophets and apostles, and the heathen miracle-doers > in two categories of hallucinated fools and deceitful tricksters. > > But Christians and materialists might, with a very little effort {481} > on their part, show themselves fair and logical at the same time. > To produce such a miracle, they have but to consent to understand > what they read, and submit it to the unprejudiced criticism of their > best judgment. Let us see how far it is possible. Setting aside the > incredible fiction of Lazarus, we will select two cases: the ruler’s > daughter, recalled to life by Jesus, and the Corinthian bride, > resuscitated by Apollonius. In the former case, totally disregarding > the significant expression of Jesus—“_She is not dead but sleepeth_,” > the clergy force their god to become a breaker of his own laws and > grant unjustly to one what he denies to all others, and with no better > object in view than to produce a useless miracle. In the second case, > notwithstanding the words of the biographer of Apollonius, so plain > and precise that there is not the slightest cause to misunderstand > them, they charge Philostratus with deliberate imposture. Who could be > fairer than he, who less open to the charge of mystification, when, in > describing the resuscitation of the young girl by the Tyanian sage, in > the presence of a large concourse of people, the biographer says, “she > had _seemed_ to die.” > > In other words, he very clearly indicates a case of suspended > animation; and then adds immediately, “as the rain fell very fast on > the young girl,” while she was being carried to the pile, “with her > face turned upwards, this, _also_, might have excited her senses.”[728] > Does this not show most plainly that Philostratus saw _no_ miracle in > that resuscitation? Does it not rather imply, if anything, the great > learning and skill of Apollonius, “who like Asclepiades had the merit > of distinguishing at a glance between real and apparent death?”[729] > > A resuscitation, after the soul and spirit have entirely separated from > the body, and the last electric thread is severed, is as impossible as > for a once disembodied spirit to reïncarnate itself once more on this > earth, except as described in previous chapters. “A leaf, once fallen > off, does not reättach itself to the branch,” says Eliphas Levi. “The > caterpillar becomes a butterfly, but the butterfly does not again > return to the grub. Nature closes the door behind all that passes, and > pushes life forward. Forms pass, thought remains, and does not recall > that which it has once exhausted.”[730] > > Why should it be imagined that Asclepiades and Apollonius enjoyed > exceptional powers for the discernment of actual death? Has any modern > school of medicine this knowledge to impart to its students? Let their > authorities answer for them. These prodigies of Jesus and Apollonius {482} > are so well attested that they appear authentic. Whether in either or > both cases life was simply suspended or not, the important fact remains > that by some power, peculiar to themselves, both the wonder-workers > recalled the _seemingly dead_ to life in an instant.[731] > > Is it because the modern physician has not yet found the secret which > the theurgists evidently possessed that its possibility is denied? > > Neglected as psychology now is, and with the strangely chaotic state > in which physiology is confessed to be by its most fair students, > certainly it is not very likely that our men of science will soon > rediscover the lost knowledge of the ancients. In the days of old, > when prophets were not treated as charlatans, nor thaumaturgists as > impostors, there were colleges instituted for teaching prophecy and > occult sciences in general. Samuel is recorded as the chief of such an > institution at Ramah; Elisha, also, at Jericho. The schools of _hazim_, > prophets or seers, were celebrated throughout the country. Hillel had a > regular academy, and Socrates is well known to have sent away several > of his disciples to study _manticism_. The study of magic, or wisdom, > included every branch of science, the metaphysical as well as the > physical, psychology and physiology in their common and occult phases, > and the study of alchemy was universal, for it was both a physical and > a spiritual science. Therefore why doubt or wonder that the ancients, > who studied nature under its double aspect, achieved discoveries which > to our modern physicists, who study but its dead letter, are a closed > book? > > Thus, the question at issue is not whether a _dead_ body can be > resuscitated—for, to assert that would be to assume the possibility > of a miracle, which is absurd—but, to assure ourselves whether the > medical authorities pretend to determine the precise moment of death. > The kabalists say that death occurs at the instant when both the astral > body, or life-principle, and the spirit part forever with the corporeal > body. The scientific physician who denies both astral body and spirit, > and admits the existence of nothing more than the life-principle, > judges death to occur when life is apparently extinct. When the beating > of the heart and the action of the lungs cease, and _rigor mortis_ is > manifested, and especially when decomposition begins, they pronounce > the patient dead. But the annals of medicine teem with examples of {483} > “suspended animation” as the result of asphyxia by drowning, the > inhalation of gases and other causes; life being restored in the case > of drowning persons even after they had been apparently dead for twelve > hours. > > In cases of somnambulic trance, none of the ordinary signs of death > are lacking; breathing and the pulse are extinct; animal-heat has > disappeared; the muscles are rigid, the eye glazed, and the body is > colorless. In the celebrated case of Colonel Townshend, he threw > himself into this state in the presence of three medical men; who, > after a time, were persuaded that he was really dead, and were about > leaving the room, when he slowly revived. He describes his peculiar > gift by saying that he “could die or expire when he pleased, and yet, > by an effort, or _somehow_, he could come to life again.” > > There occurred in Moscow, a few years since, a remarkable instance of > apparent death. The wife of a wealthy merchant lay in the cataleptic > state seventeen days, during which the authorities made several > attempts to bury her; but, as decomposition had not set in, the family > averted the ceremony, and at the end of that time she was restored to > life. > > The above instances show that the most learned men in the medical > profession are unable to be certain when a person is dead. What they > call “suspended animation,” is that state from which the patient > spontaneously recovers, through an effort of his own spirit, which > may be provoked by any one of many causes. In these cases, the astral > body has not parted from the physical body; its external functions > are simply suspended; the subject is in a state of torpor, and the > restoration is nothing but a recovery from it. > > But, in the case of what physiologists would call “real death,” but > which is not actually so, the astral body has withdrawn; perhaps local > decomposition has set in. How shall the man be brought to life again? > The answer is, the interior body must be forced back into the exterior > one, and vitality reawakened in the latter. The clock has run down, > it must be wound. If death is absolute; if the organs have not only > ceased to act, but have lost the susceptibility of renewed action, then > the whole universe would have to be thrown into chaos to resuscitate > the corpse—a miracle would be demanded. But, as we said before, the > man is not dead when he is cold, stiff, pulseless, breathless, and > even showing signs of decomposition; he is not dead when buried, nor > afterward, until a certain point is reached. That point is, _when > the vital organs have become so decomposed, that if reänimated, they > could not perform their customary functions_; when the mainspring and > cogs of the machine, so to speak, are so eaten away by rust, that > they would snap upon the turning of the key. Until that point is > reached, the astral body may be caused, without miracle, to reënter {484} > its former tabernacle, either by an effort of its own will, or under > the resistless impulse of the will of one who knows the potencies of > nature and how to direct them. The spark is not extinguished, but only > latent—latent as the fire in the flint, or the heat in the cold iron. > > In cases of the most profound cataleptic clairvoyance, such as obtained > by Du Potet, and described very graphically by the late Prof. William > Gregory, in his _Letters on Animal Magnetism_, the spirit is so > far disengaged from the body that it would be impossible for it to > re-enter it without an effort of the mesmerizer’s will. The subject > is practically dead, and, if left to itself, the spirit would escape > forever. Although independent of the torpid physical casing, the > half-freed spirit is still tied to it by a magnetic cord, which is > described by clairvoyants as appearing dark and smoky by contrast with > the ineffable brightness of the astral atmosphere through which they > look. Plutarch, relating the story of Thespesius, who fell from a great > height, and lay three days apparently dead, gives us the experience > of the latter during his state of partial decease. “Thespesius,” says > he, “then observed that he was different from the dead by whom he was > surrounded.... They were transparent and environed by a radiance, but > he seemed to trail after him a dark radiation or line of shadow.” His > whole description, minute and circumstantial in its details, appears > to be corroborated by the clairvoyants of every period, and, so far as > this class of testimony can be taken, is important. The kabalists, as > we find them interpreted by Eliphas Levi, in his _Science des Esprits_, > say that, “When a man falls into the last sleep, he is plunged at first > into a sort of dream, before gaining consciousness in the other side > of life. He sees, then, either in a beautiful vision, or in a terrible > nightmare, the paradise or hell, in which he believed during his mortal > existence. This is why it often happens, that the affrighted soul > breaks violently back into the terrestrial life it has just left, and > why some who were really dead, _i. e._, who, if left alone and quiet, > would have peaceably passed away forever in a state of unconscious > lethargy, when entombed too soon, reäwake to life in the grave.” > > In this connection, the reader may perhaps recall the well-known case > of the old man who had left some generous gifts in his will to his > orphaned nieces; which document, just before his death, he had confided > to his rich son, with injunctions to carry out his wishes. But, he had > not been dead more than a few hours before the son, finding himself > alone with the corpse, tore the will and burned it. The sight of this > impious deed apparently recalled the hovering spirit, and the old man, > rising from his couch of death, uttered a fierce malediction upon the > horror-stricken wretch, and then fell back again, and yielded up his > spirit—this time forever. Dion Boucicault makes use of an incident of {485} > this kind in his powerful drama _Louis XI._; and Charles Kean created > a profound impression in the character of the French monarch, when > the dead man revives for an instant and clutches the crown as the > heir-apparent approaches it. > > Levi says that resuscitation is not impossible while the vital > organism remains undestroyed, and the astral spirit is yet within > reach. “Nature,” he says, “accomplishes nothing by sudden jerks, and > eternal death is always preceded by a state which partakes somewhat > of the nature of lethargy. It is a torpor which a great shock or the > magnetism of a powerful will can overcome.” He accounts in this manner > for the resuscitation of the dead man thrown upon the bones of Elisha. > He explains it by saying that the soul was hovering at that moment > near the body; the burial party, according to tradition, were attacked > by robbers; and their fright communicating itself sympathetically to > it, the soul was seized with horror at the idea of its remains being > desecrated, and “reëntered violently into its body to raise and save > it.” Those who believe in the survival of the soul can see in this > incident nothing of a supernatural character—it is only a perfect > manifestation of natural law. To narrate to the materialist such a > case, however well attested, would be but an idle talk; the theologian, > always looking beyond nature for a special providence, regards it as a > prodigy. Eliphas Levi says: “They attributed the resuscitation to the > contact with the bones of Elisha; and worship of relics dates logically > from his epoch.” > > Balfour Stewart is right—scientists “know nothing, or next to nothing, > of the ultimate structure and properties of matter, whether organic or > inorganic.” > > We are now on such firm ground, that we will take another step in > advance. _The same knowledge and control of the occult forces, > including the vital force which enabled the fakir temporarily to leave > and then reënter his body, and Jesus, Apollonius, and Elisha to recall > their several subjects to life, made it possible for the ancient > hierophants to animate statues, and cause them to act and speak like > living creatures._ It is the same knowledge and power which made it > possible for Paracelsus to create his homunculi; for Aaron to change > his rod into a serpent and a budding branch; Moses to cover Egypt with > frogs and other pests; and the Egyptian theurgist of our day to vivify > his pigmy Mandragora, which has physical life but no soul. It was no > more wonderful that upon presenting the necessary conditions Moses > should call into life large reptiles and insects, than that, under like > favoring conditions, the physical scientist should call into life the > small ones which he names bacteria. > > And now, in connection with ancient miracle-doers and prophets, let us > bring forward the claims of the modern mediums. Nearly every form of > phenomena recorded in the sacred and profane histories of the world {486} > we find them claiming to reproduce in our days. Selecting, among > the variety of seeming wonders, levitation of ponderable inanimate > objects as well as of human bodies, we will give our attention to the > conditions under which the phenomenon is manifested. History records > the names of Pagan theurgists, Christian saints, Hindu fakirs, and > spiritual mediums who have been thus levitated, and who remained > suspended in the air, sometimes for a considerable time. The phenomenon > has not been confined to one country or epoch, but almost invariably > the subjects have been religious ecstatics, adepts in magic, or, as > now, spiritual mediums. > > We assume the fact to be so well established as to require no labored > effort on our part at this time to furnish proof that unconscious > manifestations of spirit-power, as well as conscious feats of > high magic, have happened in all countries, in all ages, and with > hierophants as well as through irresponsible mediums. When the present > perfected European civilization was yet in an inchoate state, occult > philosophy, already hoary with age, speculated upon the attributes of > man by analogy with those of his Creator. Individuals later, whose > names will remain forever immortal, inscribed on the portal of the > spiritual history of man, have afforded in their persons examples of > how far could be developed the godlike powers of the _microcosmos_. > Describing the _Doctrines and Principal Teachers of the Alexandrian > School_, Professor A. Wilder says: “Plotinus taught that there was in > the soul a returning impulse, love, which attracted it inward toward > its origin and centre, the eternal good. While the person who does not > understand how the soul contains the beautiful within itself will seek > by laborious effort to realize beauty without, the wise man recognizes > it within himself, develops the idea by withdrawal into himself, > concentrating his attention, and so floating upward toward the divine > fountain, the stream of which flows within him. The infinite is not > known through the reason ... but by a faculty superior to reason, by > entering upon a state in which the individual, so to speak, ceases to > be his finite self, in which state divine essence is communicated to > him. This is ECSTASY.” > > Of Apollonius, who asserted that he could see “the present and the > future in a clear mirror,” on account of his abstemious mode of life, > the professor very beautifully observes: “This is what may be termed > _spiritual photography_. The soul is the camera in which facts and > events, future, past, and present, are alike fixed; and the mind > becomes conscious of them. Beyond our every-day world of limits, all is > as one day or state, the past and future comprised in the present.”[732] > > Were these God-like men “mediums,” as the orthodox spiritualists {487} > will have it? By no means, if by the term we understand those > “sick-sensitives” who are born with a peculiar organization, and who in > proportion as their powers are developed become more and more subject > to the irresistible influence of miscellaneous spirits, purely human, > elementary, or elemental. Unquestionably so, if we consider every > individual a medium in whose magnetic atmosphere the denizens of higher > invisible spheres can move, and act, and live. In such a sense every > person is a medium. Mediumship may be either 1st, self-developed; 2d, > by extraneous influences; or 3d, may remain latent throughout life. > _The reader must bear in mind the definition of the term, for, unless > this is clearly understood, confusion will be inevitable._ Mediumship > of this kind may be either active or passive, repellent or receptive, > positive or negative. Mediumship is measured by the quality of the aura > with which the individual is surrounded. This may be dense, cloudy, > noisome, mephitic, nauseating to the pure spirit, and attract only > those foul beings who delight in it, as the eel does in turbid waters, > or, it may be pure, crystalline, limpid, opalescent as the morning dew. > All depends upon the moral character of the medium. > > About such men as Apollonius, Iamblichus, Plotinus, and Porphyry, there > gathered this heavenly nimbus. It was evolved by the power of their own > souls in close unison with their spirits; by the superhuman morality > and sanctity of their lives, and aided by frequent interior ecstatic > contemplation. Such holy men pure spiritual influences could approach. > Radiating around an atmosphere of divine beneficence, they caused evil > spirits to flee before them. Not only is it not possible for such to > exist in their aura, but they cannot even remain in that of obsessed > persons, if the thaumaturgist exercises his will, or even approaches > them. This is MEDIATORSHIP, not _mediumship_. Such persons are temples > in which dwells the spirit of the living God; but if the temple is > defiled by the admission of an evil passion, thought or desire, the > mediator falls into the sphere of sorcery. The door is opened; the pure > spirits retire and the evil ones rush in. This is still mediatorship, > evil as it is; the sorcerer, like the pure magician, forms his own aura > and subjects to his will congenial inferior spirits. > > But mediumship, as now understood and manifested, is a different > thing. Circumstances, independent of his own volition, may, either > at birth or subsequently, modify a person’s aura, so that strange > manifestations, physical or mental, diabolical or angelic, may take > place. Such mediumship, as well as the above-mentioned mediatorship, > has existed on earth since the first appearance here of living man. > The former is the yielding of weak, mortal flesh to the control > and suggestions of spirits and intelligences other than one’s own {488} > immortal demon. It is literally _obsession_ and _possession_; and > mediums who pride themselves on being the faithful slaves of their > “guides,” and who repudiate with indignation the idea of “controlling” > the manifestations, “could not very well deny the fact without > inconsistency. This mediumship is typified in the story of Eve > succumbing to the reasonings of the serpent; of Pandora peeping in the > forbidden casket and letting loose on the world, sorrow and evil, and > by Mary Magdalene, who from having been obsessed by ‘seven devils’ was > finally redeemed by the triumphant struggle of her immortal spirit, > touched by the presence of a holy mediator, against the dweller.” This > mediumship, whether beneficent or maleficent, is always _passive_. > Happy are the pure in heart, who repel unconsciously, by that very > cleanness of their inner nature, the dark spirits of evil. For verily > they have no other weapons of defense but that inborn goodness and > purity. Mediumism, as practiced in our days, is a more undesirable gift > than the robe of Nessus. > > “The tree is known by its fruits.” Side by side with passive mediums > in the progress of the world’s history, appear active mediators. We > designate them by this name for lack of a better one. The ancient > witches and wizards, and those who had a “familiar spirit,” generally > made of their gifts a trade; and the Obeah woman of En-Dor, so well > defined by Henry More, though she may have killed her calf for Saul, > accepted hire from other visitors. In India, the jugglers, who by > the way are less so than many a modern medium, and the _Essaoua_ or > sorcerers and serpent-charmers of Asia and Africa, all exercise their > gifts for money. Not so with the mediators, or hierophants. Buddha was > a mendicant and refused his father’s throne. The “Son of Man had not > where to lay his head;” the chosen apostles provided “neither gold, nor > silver, nor brass in their purses.” Apollonius gave one half of his > fortune to his relatives, the other half to the poor; Iamblichus and > Plotinus were renowned for charity and self-denial; the fakirs, or holy > mendicants, of India are fairly described by Jacolliot; the Pythagorean > Essenes and Therapeutæ believed their hands defiled by the contact of > money. When the apostles were offered money to impart their spiritual > powers, Peter, notwithstanding that the Bible shows him a coward and > thrice a renegade, still indignantly spurned the offer, saying: “Thy > money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God > may be purchased with money.” These men were mediators, guided merely > by their own personal spirit, or divine soul, and availing themselves > of the help of spirits but so far as these remain in the right path. > > Far from us be the thought of casting an unjust slur on physical > mediums. Harassed by various intelligences, reduced by the {489} > overpowering influence—which their weak and nervous natures are unable > to shake off—to a morbid state, which at last becomes chronic, they > are impeded by these “influences” from undertaking other occupation. > They become mentally and physically unfit for any other. Who can judge > them harshly when, driven to the last extremity, they are constrained > to accept mediumship as a business? And heaven knows, as recent events > have too well proved, whether the calling is one to be envied by any > one! It is not mediums, real, _true_, and genuine mediums that we would > ever blame, but their patrons, the spiritualists. > > Plotinus, when asked to attend public worship of the gods, is said > to have proudly answered: “It is for them (the spirits) to come to > me.” Iamblichus asserted and proved in his own case, that our soul > can attain communion with the highest intelligences, with “natures > loftier than itself,” and carefully drove away from his theurgical > ceremonies[733] every inferior spirit, or bad dæmon, which he taught > his disciples to recognize. Proclus, who “elaborated the entire > theosophy and theurgy of his predecessors into a complete system,”[734] > according to Professor Wilder, “believed with Iamblichus in the > attaining of a divine power, which, overcoming the mundane life, > rendered the individual an organ of the Deity.” He even taught that > there was a “mystic password that would carry a person from one order > of spiritual beings to another, higher and higher, till he arrived at > the absolute divine.” Apollonius spurned the sorcerers and “common > soothsayers,” and declared that it was his “peculiar abstemious mode > of life” which “produced such an acuteness of the senses and created > other faculties, so that the greatest and most remarkable things can > take place.” Jesus declared man _the lord of the Sabbath_, and at > his command the terrestrial and elementary spirits fled from their > temporary abodes; a power which was shared by Apollonius and many of > the Brotherhood of the Essenes of Judea and Mount Carmel. > > It is undeniable that there must have been some good reasons why the > ancients persecuted _unregulated_ mediums. Otherwise why, at the time > of Moses and David and Samuel, should they have encouraged prophecy > and divination, astrology and soothsaying, and maintained schools and > colleges in which these natural gifts were strengthened and developed, > while witches and those who divined by the spirit of _Ob_ were put to > death? Even at the time of Christ, the poor oppressed mediums were > driven to the tombs and waste places without the city walls. Why this > apparent gross injustice? Why should banishment, persecution, and > death be the portion of the physical mediums of those days, and whole {490} > communities of thaumaturgists—like the Essenes—be not merely tolerated > but revered? It is because the ancients, unlike ourselves, could “try” > the spirits and discern the difference between the good and the evil > ones, the human and the elemental. They also knew that unregulated > spirit intercourse brought ruin upon the individual and disaster to the > community. > > This view of mediumship may be novel and perhaps repugnant to many > modern spiritualists; but still it is the view taught in the ancient > philosophy, and supported by the experience of mankind from time > immemorial. > > It is erroneous to speak of a medium having _powers_ developed. A > passive medium has no power. He has a certain moral and physical > condition which induces emanations, or an aura, in which his > controlling intelligences can live, and by which they manifest > themselves. He is only the vehicle through which _they_ display their > power. This aura varies day by day, and, as would appear from Mr. > Crookes’ experiments, even hour by hour. It is an external effect > resulting from interior causes. The medium’s moral state determines > the kind of spirits that come; and the spirits that come reciprocally > influence the medium, intellectually, physically, and morally. > The perfection of his mediumship is in ratio to his passivity, > and the danger he incurs is in equal degree. When he is fully > “developed” perfectly passive—his own astral spirit may be benumbed, and > even crowded out of his body, which is then occupied by an elemental, > or, what is worse, by a human fiend of the eighth sphere, who proceeds > to use it as his own. But too often the cause of the most celebrated > crime is to be sought in such possessions. > > Physical mediumship depending upon passivity, its antidote suggests > itself naturally; _let the medium cease being passive_. Spirits never > control persons of positive character who are determined to resist > all extraneous influences. The weak and feeble-minded whom they can > make their victims they drive into vice. If these miracle-making > elementals and disembodied devils called elementary were indeed the > guardian angels that they have passed for, these last thirty years, > why have they not given their faithful mediums at least good health > and domestic happiness? Why do they desert them at the most critical > moments of trial when under accusations of fraud? It is notorious > that the best physical mediums are either sickly or, sometimes, what > is still worse, inclined to some abnormal vice or other. Why do not > these healing “guides,” who make their mediums play the therapeutists > and thaumaturgists to others, give them the boon of robust physical > vigor? The ancient thaumaturgist and apostle, generally, if not > invariably, enjoyed good health; their magnetism never conveyed to the > sick patient any physical or moral taint; and they never were accused {491} > of VAMPIRISM, which a spiritual paper very justly charges upon some > medium-healers.[735] > > If we apply the above law of mediumship and mediatorship to the subject > of levitation, with which we opened our present discussion, what > shall we find? Here we have a medium and one of the mediator-class > levitated—the former at a seance, the latter at prayer, or in ecstatic > contemplation. The medium being passive must _be lifted_ up; the > ecstatic being active must levitate himself. The former is elevated by > his familiar spirits—whoever or whatever they may be—the latter, by the > power of his own aspiring soul. Can both be indiscriminately termed > _mediums_? > > But nevertheless we may be answered that the same phenomena are > produced in the presence of a modern medium as of an ancient saint. > Undoubtedly; and so it was in the days of Moses; for we believe that > the triumph claimed for him in _Exodus_ over Pharaoh’s magicians is > simply a national boast on the part of the “chosen people.” That the > power which produced his phenomena produced that of the magicians also, > who were moreover the first tutors of Moses and instructed him in their > “wisdom,” is most probable. But even in those days they seemed to have > well appreciated the difference between phenomena apparently identical. > The tutelar national deity of the Hebrews (who is _not_ the Highest > Father)[736] forbids expressly, in _Deuteronomy_,[737] his people > “to learn to do after the abominations of other nations.... To pass > through _the fire_, or use _divination_, or be an observer of times or > an enchanter, or a witch, or a consulter _with familiar spirits_, or a > necromancer.” > > What difference was there then between all the above-enumerated > phenomena as performed by the “other nations” and when enacted by the > prophets? Evidently, there was some good reason for it; and we find > it in John’s _First Epistle_, iv., which says: “believe not _every_ > spirit, but _try_ the spirits, whether they are of God, because many > false prophets are gone out into the world.” > > The only standard within the reach of spiritualists and present-day {492} > mediums by which they can _try_ the spirits, is to judge 1, by their > actions and speech; 2, by their readiness to manifest themselves; > and 3, whether the object in view is worthy of the apparition of a > “_disembodied_” spirit, or can excuse any one for disturbing _the > dead_. Saul was on the eve of destruction, himself and his sons, yet > Samuel inquired of him: “Why hast thou _disquieted_ me, to bring me > up?”[738] But the “intelligences” that visit the circle-rooms, come at > the beck of every trifler who would while away a tedious hour. > > In the number of the _London Spiritualist_ for July 14th, we find a > long article, in which the author seeks to prove that “the marvellous > wonders of the present day, which belong to so-called modern > spiritualism, are identical in character with the experiences of the > patriarchs and apostles of old.” > > We are forced to contradict, point-blank, such an assertion. They > are identical only so far that the same forces and occult powers of > nature produce them. But though these powers and forces may be, and > most assuredly are, all directed by unseen intelligences, the latter > differ more in essence, character, and purposes than mankind itself, > composed, as it now stands, of white, black, brown, red, and yellow > men, and numbering saints and criminals, geniuses and idiots. The > writer may avail himself of the services of a tame orang-outang or a > South Sea islander; but the fact alone that he has a servant makes > neither the latter nor himself identical with Aristotle and Alexander. > The writer compares Ezekiel “lifted up” and taken into the “east gate > of the Lord’s house,”[739] with the levitations of certain mediums, > and the three Hebrew youths in the “burning fiery furnace,” with other > _fire-proof_ mediums; the John King “spirit-light” is assimilated > with the “burning lamp” of Abraham; and finally, after many such > comparisons, the case of the Davenport Brothers, released from the jail > of Oswego, is confronted with that of Peter delivered from prison by > the “angel of the Lord!” > > Now, except the story of Saul and Samuel, there is not a case > instanced in the _Bible_ of the “_evocation_ of the dead.” As to being > lawful, the assertion is contradicted by every prophet. Moses issues > a decree of death against those who raise the spirits of the dead, > the “necromancers.” Nowhere throughout the _Old Testament_, nor in > Homer, nor Virgil is communion with the dead termed otherwise than {493} > necromancy. Philo Judæus makes Saul say, that if he banishes from the > land every diviner and necromancer his name will survive him. > > One of the greatest reasons for it was the doctrine of the ancients, > that no soul from the “abode of the blessed” will return to earth, > unless, indeed, upon rare occasions its apparition might be required > to accomplish some great object in view, and so bring benefit upon > humanity. In this latter instance the “soul” has no need to be > _evoked_. It sent its portentous message either by an evanescent > _simulacrum_ of itself, or through _messengers_, who could appear in > _material_ form, and personate faithfully the departed. The souls > that could so easily be evoked were deemed neither safe nor useful to > commune with. They were the souls, or _larvæ_ rather, from the infernal > region of the limbo—the _sheol_, the region known by the kabalists as > the eighth sphere, but far different from the orthodox Hell or Hades > of the ancient mythologists. Horace describes this evocation and the > ceremonial accompanying it, and Maimonides gives us particulars of the > Jewish rite. Every necromantic ceremony was performed on high places > and hills, and blood was used for the purpose of placating these human > _ghouls_.[740] > > “I cannot prevent the witches from picking up their bones,” says the > poet. “See the blood they pour in the ditch to allure the _souls_ that > will utter their oracles!”[741] “_Cruor in fossam confusus, ut inde > manes elicirent, animas responsa daturas._” > > “The _souls_,” says Porphyry, “prefer, to everything else, > _freshly-spilt blood_, which seems for a short time to restore to them > some of the faculties of life.”[742] > > As for materializations, they are many and various in the sacred > records. But, were they effected under the same conditions as at modern > seances? Darkness, it appears, was not required in those days of > patriarchs and magic powers. The three angels who appeared to Abraham > drank in the full blaze of the sun, for “he sat in the tent-door _in > the heat of the day_,”[743] says the book of _Genesis_. The spirits of > Elias and Moses appeared equally in daytime, as it is not probable that > Christ and the Apostles would be climbing a high mountain during the > night. Jesus is represented as having appeared to Mary Magdalene in the > garden in the early morning; to the Apostles, at three distinct times, > and generally by day; once “when the morning was come” (_John_ xxi. 4). > Even when the ass of Balaam saw the “materialized” angel, it was in the > full light of noon. > > We are fully prepared to agree with the writer in question, that we > find in the life of Christ—and we may add in the _Old Testament_, too— {494} > too—“an uninterrupted record of spiritualistic manifestations,” but > nothing _mediumistic_, of a physical character though, if we except > the visit of Saul to Sedecla, the Obeah woman of En-Dor. This is a > distinction of vital importance. > > True, the promise of the Master was clearly stated: “Aye, and greater > works than these shall ye do” works of mediatorship. According to Joel, > the time would come when there would be an outpouring of the divine > spirit: “Your sons and your daughters,” says he, “shall prophesy, your > old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” The > time has come and they do all these things now; Spiritualism has its > seers and martyrs, its prophets and healers. Like Moses, and David, > and Jehoram, there are mediums who have direct writings from genuine > planetary and human spirits; and the best of it brings the mediums > no pecuniary recompense. The greatest friend of the cause in France, > Leymarie, now languishes in a prison-cell, and, as he says with > touching pathos, is “no longer a man, but a _number_” on the prison > register. > > There are a few, a very few, orators on the spiritualistic platform > who speak by inspiration, and if they know what is said at all they > are in the condition described by Daniel: “And I retained no strength. > Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his > words, then was I in a deep sleep.”[744] And there are mediums, these > whom we have spoken of, for whom the prophecy in Samuel might have > been written: “The spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, thou shalt > prophesy with them, and shalt be _turned into another man_.”[745] > But where, in the long line of Bible-wonders, do we read of flying > guitars, and tinkling tambourines, and jangling bells being offered in > pitch-dark rooms as evidences of immortality? > > When Christ was accused of casting out devils by the power of > Beelzebub, he denied it, and sharply retorted by asking, “By whom do > your sons or disciples cast them out?” Again, spiritualists affirm that > Jesus was a medium, that he was controlled by one or many spirits; but > when the charge was made to him direct he said that he was nothing > of the kind. “Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a > devil?” daimonion, an Obeah, or familiar spirit in the Hebrew text. > Jesus answered, “I have not a devil.”[746] > > The writer from whom we have above quoted, attempts also a parallel > between the aerial flights of Philip and Ezekiel and of Mrs. Guppy and > other modern mediums. He is ignorant or oblivious of the fact that {495} > while levitation occurred as an effect in both classes of cases, the > producing causes were totally dissimilar. The nature of this difference > we have adverted to already. Levitation may be produced consciously > or unconsciously to the subject. The juggler determines beforehand > that he will be levitated, for how long a time, and to what height; > he regulates the occult forces accordingly. The fakir produces the > same effect by the power of his aspiration and will, and, except when > in the ecstatic state, keeps control over his movements. So does the > priest of Siam, when, in the sacred pagoda, he mounts fifty feet in the > air with taper in hand, and flits from idol to idol, lighting up the > niches, self-supported, and stepping as confidently as though he were > upon solid ground. This, persons have seen and testify to. The officers > of the Russian squadron which recently circumnavigated the globe, and > was stationed for a long time in Japanese waters, relate the fact that, > besides many other marvels, they saw jugglers walk in mid-air from > tree-top to tree-top, without the slightest support.[747] They also > saw the pole and tape-climbing feats, described by Colonel Olcott in > his _People from the Other World_, and which have been so much called > in question by certain spiritualists and mediums whose zeal is greater > than their learning. The quotations from Col. Yule and other writers, > elsewhere given in this work, seem to place the matter beyond doubt > that these effects are produced. > > Such phenomena, when occurring apart from religious rites, in India, > Japan, Thibet, Siam, and other “heathen” countries, phenomena a hundred > times more various and astounding than ever seen in civilized Europe > or America, are never attributed to the spirits of the departed. The > Pitris have naught to do with such public exhibitions. And we have but > to consult the list of the principal demons or elemental spirits to > find that their very names indicate their professions, or, to express > it clearly, the tricks to which each variety is best adapted. So we > have the Mâdan, a generic name indicating wicked elemental spirits, > half brutes, half monsters, for Mâdan signifies one that looks like > a cow. He is the friend of the malicious sorcerers and helps them to > effect their evil purposes of revenge by striking men and cattle with > sudden illness and death. > > The _Shudâla-Mâdan_, or graveyard fiend, answers to our ghouls. He > delights where crime and murder were committed, near burial-spots and > places of execution. He helps the juggler in all the fire-phenomena as > well as Kutti Shâttan, the little juggling imps. Shudâla, they say, is > a half-fire, half-water demon, for he received from Siva permission to > assume any shape he chose, transform one thing into another; and when {496} > he is not in fire, he is in water. It is he who blinds people “to see > that which _they do not_ see.” _Shûla Mâdan_, is another mischievous > spook. He is the _furnace_-demon, skilled in pottery and baking. If > you keep friends with him, he will not injure you; but woe to him who > incurs his wrath. Shûla likes compliments and flattery, and as he > generally keeps underground it is to him that a juggler must look to > help him raise a tree from a seed in a quarter of an hour and ripen its > fruit. > > _Kumil-Mâdan_, is the _undine_ proper. He is an elemental spirit of the > water, and his name means _blowing like a bubble_. He is a very merry > imp; and will help a friend in anything relative to his department; he > will shower rain and show the future and the present to those who will > resort to hydromancy or divination by water. > > _Poruthû Mâdan_, is the “wrestling” demon; he is the strongest of all; > and whenever there are feats shown in which physical force is required, > such as _levitations_, or taming of wild animals, he will help the > performer by keeping him above the soil or will overpower a wild beast > before the tamer has time to utter his incantation. So, every “physical > manifestation” has its own class of elemental spirits to superintend > them. > > Returning now to levitations of human bodies and inanimate bodies, > in modern circle-rooms, we must refer the reader to the Introductory > chapter of this work. (See “Æthrobasy.”) In connection with the story > of Simon the Magician, we have shown the explanation of the ancients as > to how the levitation and transport of heavy bodies could be produced. > We will now try and suggest a hypothesis for the same in relation to > _mediums, i. e._, persons supposed to be unconscious at the moment of > the phenomena, which the believers claim to be produced by disembodied > “spirits.” We need not repeat that which has been sufficiently > explained before. Conscious æthrobasy under magneto-electrical > conditions is possible only to _adepts_ who can never be overpowered by > an influence foreign to themselves, but remain sole masters of their > WILL. > > Thus levitation, we will say, must always occur in obedience to law—a > law as inexorable as that which makes a body unaffected by it remain > upon the ground. And where should we seek for that law outside of the > theory of molecular attraction? It is a scientific hypothesis that the > form of force which first brings nebulous or star matter together into > a whirling vortex is electricity; and modern chemistry is being totally > reconstructed upon the theory of electric polarities of atoms. The > waterspout, the tornado, the whirlwind, the cyclone, and the hurricane, > are all doubtless the result of electrical action. This phenomenon has > been studied from above as well as from below, observations having been > made both upon the ground and from a balloon floating above the vortex > of a thunder-storm. > > Observe now, that this force, under the conditions of a dry and warm {497} > atmosphere at the earth’s surface, can accumulate a dynamic energy > capable of lifting enormous bodies of water, of compressing the > particles of atmosphere, and of sweeping across a country, tearing > up forests, lifting rocks, and scattering buildings in fragments > over the ground. Wild’s electric machine causes induced currents of > magneto-electricity so enormously powerful as to produce light by which > small print may be read, on a dark night, at a distance of two miles > from the place where it is operating. > > As long ago as the year 1600, Gilbert, in his _De Magnete_, enunciated > the principle that the globe itself is one vast magnet, and some of > our advanced electricians are now beginning to realize that man, > too, possesses this property, and that the mutual attractions and > repulsions of individuals toward each other may at least in part find > their explanation in this fact. The experience of attendants upon > spiritualistic circles corroborates this opinion. Says Professor > Nicholas Wagner, of the University of St. Petersburg: “Heat, or > _perhaps the electricity of the investigators_ sitting in the circle, > must concentrate itself in the table and gradually develop into > motions. At the same time, or a little afterward, the psychical force > unites to assist the two other powers. By _psychical force_, I mean > that which evolves itself out of all the other forces of our organism. > The combination into one general something of several separate forces, > and capable, when combined, of manifesting itself in degree, according > to the individuality.” The progress of the phenomena he considers > to be affected by the cold or the dryness of the atmosphere. Now, > remembering what has been said as to the subtler forms of energy which > the Hermetists have proved to exist in nature, and accepting the > hypothesis enunciated by Mr. Wagner that “the power which calls out > these manifestations is centred in the mediums,” may not the medium, > by furnishing in himself a nucleus as perfect in its way as the system > of permanent steel magnets in Wild’s battery, produce astral currents > sufficiently strong to lift in their vortex a body even as ponderable > as a human form? It is not necessary that the object lifted should > assume a gyratory motion, for the phenomenon we are observing, unlike > the whirlwind, is directed by an intelligence, which is capable > of keeping the body to be raised within the ascending current and > preventing its rotation. > > Levitation in this case would be a purely mechanical phenomenon. The > inert body of the passive medium is lifted by a vortex created either > by the elemental spirits—possibly, in some cases, by human ones, and > sometimes through purely morbific causes, as in the cases of Professor > Perty’s sick somnambules. The levitation of the adept is, on the > contrary, a magneto-electric effect, as we have just stated. He has {498} > made the polarity of his body opposite to that of the atmosphere, and > identical with that of the earth; hence, attractable by the former, > retaining his consciousness the while. A like phenomenal levitation is > possible, also, when disease has changed the corporeal polarity of a > patient, as disease always does in a greater or lesser degree. But, in > such case, the lifted person would not be likely to remain conscious. > > In one series of observations upon whirlwinds, made in 1859, in the > basin of the Rocky Mountains, “a newspaper was caught up ... to a > height of some two hundred feet; and there it oscillated to and fro > across the track for some considerable time, whilst accompanying the > onward motion.”[748] Of course scientists will say that a parallel > cannot be instituted between this case and that of human levitation; > that no vortex can be formed in a room by which a medium could be > raised; but this is a question of astral light and spirit, which have > their own peculiar dynamical laws. Those who understand the latter, > affirm that a concourse of people laboring under mental excitement, > which reäcts upon the physical system, throw off electro-magnetic > emanations, which, when sufficiently intense, can throw the whole > circumambient atmosphere into perturbation. Force enough may actually > be generated to create an electrical vortex, sufficiently powerful to > produce many a strange phenomenon. With this hint, the whirling of > the dervishes, and the wild dances, swayings, gesticulations, music, > and shouts of devotees will be understood as all having a common > object in view—namely, the creation of such astral conditions as favor > psychological and physical phenomena. The _rationale_ of religious > revivals will also be better understood if this principle is borne in > mind. > > But there is still another point to be considered. If the medium is > a nucleus of magnetism and a conductor of that force, he would be > subject to the same laws as a metallic conductor, and be attracted to > his magnet. If, therefore, a magnetic centre of the requisite power > was formed directly over him by the unseen powers presiding over the > manifestations, why should not his body be lifted toward it, despite > terrestrial gravity? We know that, in the case of a medium who is > unconscious of the progress of the operation, it is necessary to first > admit the fact of such an intelligence, and next, the possibility > of the experiment being conducted as described; but, in view of the {499} > multifarious evidences offered, not only in our own researches, which > claim no authority, but also in those of Mr. Crookes, and a great > number of others, in many lands and at different epochs, we shall not > turn aside from the main object of offering this hypothesis in the > profitless endeavor to strengthen a case which scientific men will not > consider with patience, even when sanctioned by the most distinguished > of their own body. > > As early as 1836, the public was apprised of certain phenomena which > were as extraordinary, if not more so than all the manifestations > which are produced in our days. The famous correspondence between two > well-known mesmerizers, Deleuze and Billot, was published in France, > and the wonders discussed for a time in every society. Billot firmly > believed in the apparition of spirits, for, as he says, he has both > seen, heard, and felt them. Deleuze was as much convinced of this truth > as Billot, and declared that man’s immortality and the return of the > dead, or rather of their shadows, was the best demonstrated fact in his > opinion. Material objects were brought to him from distant places by > invisible hands, and he communicated on most important subjects with > the invisible intelligences. “In regard to this,” he remarks, “I cannot > conceive how spiritual beings are able to carry material objects.” More > skeptical, less intuitional than Billot, nevertheless, he agreed with > the latter that “the question of spiritualism is not one of opinions, > but _of facts_.” > > Such is precisely the conclusion to which Professor Wagner, of St. > Petersburg, was finally driven. In the second pamphlet on _Mediumistic > Phenomena_, issued by him in December, 1875, he administers the > following rebuke to Mr. Shkliarevsky, one of his materialistic critics: > “So long as the spiritual manifestations were weak and sporadic, we > men of science could afford to deceive ourselves with theories of > unconscious muscular action, or unconscious cerebrations of our brains, > and tumble the rest into one heap as juggleries.... But now these > wonders have grown too striking; the spirits show themselves in the > shape of tangible, materialized forms, which can be touched and handled > at will by any learned skeptic like yourself, and even be weighed and > measured. We can struggle no longer, for every resistance becomes > absurd—it threatens lunacy. Try then to realize this, and to humble > yourself before the possibility of impossible facts.” > > Iron is only magnetized temporarily, but steel permanently, by contact > with the lodestone. Now steel is but iron which has passed through a > carbonizing process, and yet that process has quite changed the nature > of the metal, so far as its relations to the lodestone are concerned. > In like manner, it may be said that the medium is but an ordinary > person who is magnetized by influx from the astral light; and as the {500} > permanence of the magnetic property in the metal is measured by its > more or less steel-like character, so may we not say that the intensity > and permanency of mediumistic power is in proportion to the saturation > of the medium with the magnetic or astral force? > > This condition of saturation may be congenital, or brought about in > any one of these ways:—by the mesmeric process; by spirit-agency; or > by self-will. Moreover, the condition seems hereditable, like any > other physical or mental peculiarity; many, and we may even say most > great mediums having had mediumship exhibited in some form by one or > more progenitors. Mesmeric subjects easily pass into the higher forms > of clairvoyance and mediumship (now so called), as Gregory, Deleuze, > Puysegur, Du Potet, and other authorities inform us. As to the process > of self-saturation, we have only to turn to the account of the priestly > devotees of Japan, Siam, China, India, Thibet, and Egypt, as well as of > European countries, to be satisfied of its reality. Long persistence > in a fixed determination to subjugate matter, brings about a condition > in which not only is one insensible to external impressions, but even > death itself may be simulated, as we have already seen. The ecstatic so > enormously reïnforces his will-power, as to draw into himself, as into > a vortex, the potencies resident in the astral light to supplement his > own natural store. > > The phenomena of mesmerism are explicable upon no other hypothesis > than the projection of a current of force from the operator into > the subject. If a man can project this force by an exercise of the > will, what prevents his attracting it toward himself by reversing the > current? Unless, indeed, it be urged that the force is generated within > his body and cannot be attracted from any supply without. But even > under such an hypothesis, if he can generate a superabundant supply to > saturate another person, or even an inanimate object by his will, why > cannot he generate it in excess for self-saturation? > > In his work on _Anthropology_, Professor J. R. Buchanan notes the > tendency of the natural gestures to follow the direction of the > phrenological organs; the attitude of combativeness being downward and > backward; that of hope and spirituality upward and forward; that of > firmness upward and backward; and so on. The adepts of Hermetic science > know this principle so well that they explain the levitation of their > own bodies, whenever it happens unawares, by saying that the thought > is so intently fixed upon a point above them, that when the body is > thoroughly imbued with the astral influence, it follows the mental > aspiration and rises into the air as easily as a cork held beneath > the water rises to the surface when its buoyancy is allowed to assert > itself. The giddiness felt by certain persons when standing upon the > brink of a chasm is explained upon the same principle. Young children, {501} > who have little or no active imagination, and in whom experience has > not had sufficient time to develop fear, are seldom, if ever, giddy; > but the adult of a certain mental temperament, seeing the chasm and > picturing in his imaginative fancy the consequences of a fall, allows > himself to be drawn by the attraction of the earth, and _unless the > spell of fascination_ be broken, his body will follow his thought to > the foot of the precipice. > > That this giddiness is purely a temperamental affair, is shown in the > fact that some persons never experience the sensation, and inquiry will > probably reveal the fact that such are deficient in the imaginative > faculty. We have a case in view—a gentleman who, in 1858, had so firm > a nerve that he horrified the witnesses by standing upon the coping of > the _Arc de Triomphe_, in Paris, with folded arms, and his feet half > over the edge; but, having since become short-sighted, was taken with > a panic upon attempting to cross a plank-walk over the courtyard of a > hotel, where the footway was more than two feet and a half wide, and > there was no danger. He looked at the flagging below, gave his fancy > free play, and would have fallen had he not quickly sat down. > > It is a dogma of science that perpetual motion is impossible; it is > another dogma, that the allegation that the Hermetists discovered > the elixir of life, and that certain of them, by partaking of it, > prolonged their existence far beyond the usual term, is a superstitious > absurdity. And the claim that the baser metals have been transmuted > into gold, and that the universal solvent was discovered, excites > only contemptuous derision in a century which has crowned the edifice > of philosophy with a copestone of protoplasm. The first is declared > a _physical impossibility_; as much so, according to Babinet, the > astronomer, as the “levitation of an object without contact;”[749] > the second, a physiological vagary begotten of a disordered mind; the > third, a chemical absurdity. > > Balfour Stewart says that while the man of science cannot assert that > “he is intimately acquainted with all the forces of nature, and cannot > prove that perpetual motion is impossible; for, in truth, he knows very > little of these forces ... he does think _that he has entered into > the spirit and design of nature_, and therefore he denies at once the > possibility of such a machine.”[750] If he has discovered the design of > nature, he certainly has not _the spirit_, for he denies its existence > in one sense; and denying spirit he prevents that perfect understanding > of universal law which would redeem modern philosophy from its thousand > mortifying dilemmas and mistakes. If Professor B. Stewart’s negation is {502} > founded upon no better analogy than that of his French contemporary, > Babinet, he is in danger of a like humiliating catastrophe. The > universe itself illustrates the actuality of perpetual motion; and the > atomic theory, which has proved such a balm to the exhausted minds of > our cosmic explorers, is based upon it. The telescope searching through > space, and the microscope probing the mysteries of the little world in > a drop of water, reveal the same law in operation; and, as everything > below is like everything above, who would presume to say that when the > conservation of energy is better understood, and the two additional > forces of the kabalists are added to the catalogue of orthodox science, > it may not be discovered how to construct a machine which shall run > without friction and supply itself with energy in proportion to its > wastes? “Fifty years ago,” says the venerable Mr. de Lara, “a Hamburg > paper, quoting from an English one an account of the opening of the > Manchester and Liverpool Railway, pronounced it a gross fabrication; > capping the climax by saying, ‘even so far extends the credulity of the > English;’” the moral is apparent. The recent discovery of the compound > called METALLINE, by an American chemist, makes it appear probable that > friction can, in a large degree, be overcome. One thing is certain, > when a man shall have discovered the perpetual motion he will be able > to understand by analogy all the secrets of nature; progress in direct > ratio with resistance. > > We may say the same of the elixir of life, by which is understood > physical life, the soul being of course deathless only by reason of > its divine immortal union with spirit. But _continual_ or _perpetual_ > does not mean endless. The kabalists have never claimed that either > an endless physical life or unending motion is possible. The Hermetic > axiom maintains that only the First Cause and its direct emanations, > our spirits (scintillas from the eternal central sun which will be > reäbsorbed by it at the end of time) are incorruptible and eternal. > But, in possession of a knowledge of occult natural forces, yet > undiscovered by the materialists, they asserted that both physical > life and mechanical motion could be prolonged indefinitely. The > philosophers’ stone had more than one meaning attached to its > mysterious origin. Says Professor Wilder: “The study of alchemy was > even more universal than the several writers upon it appear to have > known, and was always the auxiliary, if not identical with, the occult > sciences of magic, necromancy, and astrology; probably from the same > fact that they were originally but forms of a spiritualism which was > generally extant in all ages of human history.” > > Our greatest wonder is, that the very men who view the human body > simply as a “digesting machine,” should object to the idea that if > some equivalent for metalline could be applied between its molecules, {503} > it should run without friction. Man’s body is taken from the earth, > or dust, according to _Genesis_; which allegory bars the claims of > modern analysts to original discovery of the nature of the inorganic > constituents of human body. If the author of _Genesis_ knew this, and > Aristotle taught the identity between the life-principle of plants, > animals, and men, our affiliation with mother earth seems to have been > settled long ago. > > Elie de Beaumont has recently reasserted the old doctrine of Hermes > that there is a terrestrial circulation comparable to that of the blood > of man. Now, since it is a doctrine as old as time, that nature is > continually renewing her wasted energies by absorption from the source > of energy, why should the child differ from the parent? Why may not > man, by discovering the source and nature of this recuperative energy, > extract from the earth herself the juice or quintessence with which to > replenish his own forces? This _may_ have been the great secret of the > alchemists. Stop the circulation of the terrestrial fluids and we have > stagnation, putrefaction, death; stop the circulation of the fluids in > man, and stagnation, absorption, calcification from old age, and death > ensue. If the alchemists had simply discovered some chemical compound > capable of keeping the channels of our circulation unclogged, would > not all the rest easily follow? And why, we ask, if the surface-waters > of certain mineral springs have such virtue in the cure of disease and > the restoration of physical vigor, is it illogical to say that if we > could get the first runnings from the alembic of nature in the bowels > of the earth, we might, perhaps, find that the fountain of youth was no > myth after all. Jennings asserts that the elixir was produced out of > the secret chemical laboratories of nature by some adepts; and Robert > Boyle, the chemist, mentions a medicated wine or cordial which Dr. > Lefevre tried with wonderful effect upon an old woman. > > _Alchemy is as old as tradition itself._ “The first authentic record > on this subject,” says William Godwin, “is an edict of Diocletian, > about 300 years after Christ, ordering a diligent search to be made > in Egypt for all the ancient books which treated of the art of making > gold and silver, that they might be consigned to the flames. This > edict necessarily presumes a certain antiquity to the pursuit; and > _fabulous_ history has recorded Solomon, Pythagoras, and Hermes among > its distinguished votaries.” > > And this question of transmutation—this alkahest or universal solvent, > which comes next after the elixir vitæ in the order of the three > alchemical agents? Is the idea so absurd as to be totally unworthy of > consideration in this age of chemical discovery? How shall we dispose > of the historical anecdotes of men who actually made gold and gave it > away, and of those who testify to having seen them do it? Libavius, {504} > Geberus, Arnoldus, Thomas Aquinas, Bernardus Comes, Joannes Penotus, > Quercetanus Geber, the Arabian father of European alchemy, Eugenius > Philalethes, Baptista Porta, Rubeus, Dornesius, Vogelius, Irenæus > Philaletha Cosmopolita, and many mediæval alchemists and Hermetic > philosophers assert the fact. Must we believe them all visionaries > and lunatics, these otherwise great and learned scholars? Francesco > Picus, in his work _De Auro_, gives eighteen instances of gold being > produced in his presence by artificial means; and Thomas Vaughan,[751] > going to a goldsmith to sell 1,200 marks worth of gold, when the man > suspiciously remarked that the gold was too pure to have ever come > out of a mine, ran away, leaving the money behind him. In a preceding > chapter we have brought forward the testimony of a number of authors to > this effect. > > Marco Polo tells us that in some mountains of Thibet, which he > calls _Chingintalas_, there are veins of the substance from which > _Salamander_ is made: “For the real truth is, that the salamander is > no beast, as they allege in our parts of the world, but is a substance > found in the earth.”[752] Then he adds that a Turk of the name of > Zurficar, told him that he had been procuring salamanders for the Great > Khan, in those regions, for the space of three years. “He said that > the way they got them was by digging in that mountain till they found > a certain vein. The substance of this vein was then taken and crushed, > and, when so treated, it divides, as it were, into fibres of wool, > which they set forth to dry. When dry, these fibres were pounded and > washed, so as to leave only the fibres, like fibres of wool. These were > then spun.... When first made, these napkins are not very white, but, > by putting them into the fire for a while, they come out as white as > snow.” > > Therefore, as several authorities testify, this mineral substance > is the famous _Asbestos_,[753] which the Rev. A. Williamson says is > found in Shantung. But, it is not only incombustible thread which is > made from it. An oil, having several most extraordinary properties, > is extracted from it, and the secret of its virtues remains with > certain lamas and Hindu adepts. When rubbed into the body, it leaves no > external stain or mark, but, nevertheless, after having been so rubbed, > the part can be scrubbed with soap and hot or cold water, without > the virtue of the ointment being affected in the least. The person > so rubbed may boldly step into the hottest fire; unless suffocated, > he will remain uninjured. Another property of the oil is that, when > combined with _another substance_, that we are not at liberty to {505} > name, and left stagnant under the rays of the moon, on certain nights > indicated by native astrologers, it will breed strange creatures. > Infusoria we may call them in one sense, but then these grow and > develop. Speaking of Kashmere, Marco Polo observes that they have an > astonishing acquaintance with the _devilries_ of enchantment, insomuch > that they _make their idols to speak_. > > To this day, the greatest magian mystics of these regions may be found > in Kashmere. The various religious sects of this country were always > credited with preternatural powers, and were the resort of adepts and > sages. As Colonel Yule remarks, “Vambery tells us that even in our day, > the Kasmiri dervishes are preëminent among their Mahometan brethren for > _cunning_, secret arts, skill in exorcisms and magic.”[754] > > But, all modern chemists are not equally dogmatic in their negation of > the possibility of such a transmutation. Dr. Peisse, Desprez, and even > the all-denying Louis Figuier, of Paris, seem to be far from rejecting > the idea. Dr. Wilder says: “The possibility of reducing the elements to > their primal form, as they are supposed to have existed in the igneous > mass from which the earth-crust is believed to have been formed, is not > considered by physicists to be so absurd an idea as has been intimated. > There is a relationship between metals, often so close as to indicate > an original identity. Persons called alchemists may, therefore, have > devoted their energies to investigations into these matters, as > Lavoisier, Davy, Faraday, and others of our day have explained the > mysteries of chemistry.”[755] A learned Theosophist, a practicing > physician of this country, one who has studied the occult sciences and > alchemy for over thirty years, has succeeded in reducing the elements > to their primal form, and made what is termed “the pre-Adamite earth.” > It appears in the form of an earthy precipitate from pure water, which, > on being disturbed, presents the most opalescent and vivid colors. > > “The secret,” say the alchemists, as if enjoying the ignorance of the > uninitiated, “is an amalgamation of the salt, sulphur, and mercury > combined three times in Azoth, by a triple sublimation and a triple > fixation.” > > “How ridiculously absurd!” will exclaim a learned modern chemist. Well, > the disciples of the great Hermes understand the above as well as a > graduate of Harvard University comprehends the meaning of his Professor > of Chemistry, when the latter says: “With one hydroxyl group we can > only produce monatomic compounds; use two hydroxyl groups, and we can > form around the same skeleton a number of diatomic compounds. ... {506} > Attach to the nucleus three hydroxyl groups, and there result triatomic > compounds, among which is a very familiar substance— > > H H H > | | | > H-O-C-C-C-O-H > | | | > H H H > | > H > > _Glycerine_.” > > “Attach thyself,” says the alchemist, “to the four letters of the > tetragram disposed in the following manner: The letters of the > ineffable name are there, although thou mayest not discern them at > first. The incommunicable axiom is kabalistically contained therein, > and this is what is called the magic arcanum by the masters.” The > arcanum—the fourth emanation of the Akâsa, the principle of LIFE, which > is represented in its third transmutation by the fiery sun, the eye of > the world, or of Osiris, as the Egyptians termed it. An eye tenderly > watching its youngest daughter, wife, and sister—Isis, our mother > earth. See what Hermes, the thrice-great master, says of her: “Her > father is the sun, her mother is the moon.” It attracts and caresses, > and then repulses her by a projectile power. It is for the Hermetic > student to watch its motions, to catch its subtile currents, to guide > and direct them with the help of the _athanor_, the Archimedean lever > of the alchemist. What is this mysterious athanor? Can the physicist > tell us—he who sees and examines it daily? Aye, he sees; but does he > comprehend the secret-ciphered characters traced by the divine finger > on every sea-shell in the ocean’s deep; on every leaf that trembles in > the breeze; in the bright star, whose stellar lines are in his sight > but so many more or less luminous lines of hydrogen? > > [Illustration: Three geometrical shapes] > > “God _geometrizes_,” said Plato.[756] “The laws of nature are the {507} > thoughts of God;” exclaimed Oërsted, 2,000 years later. “His > thoughts are immutable,” repeated the solitary student of Hermetic > lore, “therefore it is in the perfect harmony and equilibrium of all > things that we must seek the truth.” And thus, proceeding from the > indivisible unity, he found emanating from it two contrary forces, > each acting through the other and producing equilibrium, and the > three were but one, the Pythagorean Eternal Monad. The primordial > point is a circle; the circle squaring itself from the four cardinal > points becomes a quaternary, the perfect square, having at each of > its four angles a letter of the mirific name, the sacred TETRAGRAM. > It is the four Buddhas who came and have passed away; the Pythagorean > _tetractys_—absorbed and resolved by the one eternal NO-BEING. > > Tradition declares that on the dead body of Hermes, at Hebron, was > found by an Isarim, an initiate, the tablet known as the _Smaragdine_. > It contains, in a few sentences, the essence of the Hermetic wisdom. To > those who read but with their bodily eyes, the precepts will suggest > nothing new or extraordinary, for it merely begins by saying that it > speaks not fictitious things, but that which is true and most certain. > > “What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is > similar to that which is below to accomplish the wonders of one thing. > > “As all things were produced by the mediation of one being, so all > things were produced from this one _by adaptation_. > > “Its father is the sun, its mother is the moon. > > “It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole earth. > > “Its power is perfect _if it is changed into earth_. > > “Separate the earth from the fire, the subtile from the gross, acting > prudently and with judgment. > > “Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then > descend again to earth, and unite together the power of things inferior > and superior; thus you will possess the light of the whole world, and > all obscurity will fly away from you. > > “This thing has more fortitude than fortitude itself, because _it will > overcome every subtile thing_ and _penetrate every solid thing_. > > “By it the world was formed.” > > This mysterious thing is the universal, magical agent, the astral > light, which in the correlations of its forces furnishes the alkahest, {508} > the philosopher’s stone, and the elixir of life. Hermetic philosophy > names it Azoth, the soul of the world, the celestial virgin, the > great Magnes, etc., etc. Physical science knows it as “heat, light, > electricity, and magnetism;” but ignoring its spiritual properties and > the occult potency contained in ether, rejects everything it ignores. > It explains and depicts the crystalline forms of the snow-flakes, their > modifications of an hexagonal prism which shoot out an infinity of > delicate needles. It has studied them so perfectly that it has even > calculated, with the most wondrous mathematical precision, that all > these needles diverge from each other at an angle of 60°. Can it tell > us as well the cause of this “endless variety of the most exquisite > forms,”[757] each of which is a most perfect geometrical figure in > itself? These frozen, star-like and flower-like blossoms, may be, > for all materialistic science knows, a shower of messages snowed by > spiritual hands from the worlds above for spiritual eyes below to read. > > The philosophical cross, the two lines running in opposite directions, > the horizontal and the perpendicular, the height and breadth, which > the geometrizing Deity divides at the intersecting point, and which > forms the magical as well as the scientific quaternary, when it is > inscribed within the perfect square, is the basis of the occultist. > Within its mystical precinct lies the master-key which opens the door > of every science, physical as well as spiritual. It symbolizes our > human existence, for the circle of life circumscribes the four points > of the cross, which represent in succession birth, life, death, and > IMMORTALITY. Everything in this world is a trinity completed by the > quaternary,[758] and every element is divisible on this same principle. > Physiology can divide man _ad infinitum_, as physical science has > divided the four primal and principal elements in several dozens of > others; she will not succeed in changing either. Birth, life, and death > will ever be a trinity completed only at the cyclic end. Even were > science to change the longed-for immortality into annihilation, it > still will ever be a quaternary; for God “geometrizes!” > > Therefore, perhaps alchemy will one day be allowed to talk of her salt, > mercury, sulphur, and azoth, her symbols and mirific letters, and > repeat, with the exponent of the _Synthesis of Organic Compounds_, that > “it must be remembered that the grouping is _no play of fancy_, and > that a good reason can be given for the position of every letter.”[759] > > Dr. Peisse, of Paris, wrote in 1863, the following: > > “One word, _a propos_, of alchemy. What must we think of the Hermetic {509} > art? Is it lawful to believe that we can transmute metals, make > gold? Well, positive men, _esprits forts_ of the nineteenth century, > know that Mr. Figuier, doctor of science and medicine, chemical > analyst in the School of Pharmacy, of Paris, does not wish to express > himself upon the subject. He doubts, he hesitates. He knows several > alchemists (for there are such) who, basing themselves upon modern > chemical discoveries, and especially on the singular circumstance of > the equivalents demonstrated by M. Dumas, pretend that metals are > not simple bodies, true elements in the absolute sense, and that in > consequence they may be produced by the process of decomposition.... > This encourages me to take a step further, and candidly avow that I > would be only moderately surprised to see some one make gold. I have > only one reason to give, but sufficient it seems; which is, that gold > has not always existed; it has been made by some chemical travail or > other in the bosom of the fused matter of our globe;[760] perhaps some > of it may be even now in process of formation. The pretended simple > bodies of our chemistry are very probably secondary products, in the > formation of the terrestrial mass. It has been proved so with water, > one of the most respectable elements of ancient physics. To-day, we > create water. Why should we not make gold? An eminent experimentalist, > Mr. Desprez, has made the diamond. True, this diamond is only _a > scientific diamond_, a philosophical diamond, which would be worth > nothing; but, no matter, my position holds good. Besides, we are not > left to simple conjectures. There is a man living, who, in a paper > addressed to the scientific bodies, in 1853, has underscored these > words—I have discovered the method of producing artificial gold, I > have made gold. This adept is Mr. Theodore Tiffereau, ex-preparator of > chemistry in the _École Professionelle et Supérieure_ of Nantes.”[761] > Cardinal de Rohan, the famous victim of the diamond necklace > conspiracy, testified that he had seen the Count Cagliostro make both > gold and diamonds. We presume that those who agree with Professor T. > Sterry Hunt, F.R.S., will have no patience with the theory of Dr. > Peisse, for they believe that all of our metalliferous deposits are > due to the action of organic life. And so, until they do come to some > composition of their differences, so as to let us know for a certainty > the nature of gold, and whether it is the product of interior volcanic > alchemy or surface segregation and filtration; we will leave them to > settle their quarrel between themselves, and give credit meanwhile to > the old philosophers. > > Professor Balfour Stewart, whom no one would think of classing among {510} > illiberal minds; who, with far more fairness and more frequently than > any of his colleagues admits the failings of modern science, shows > himself, nevertheless, as biassed as other scientists on this question. > Perpetual light being only another name for perpetual motion, he > tells us, and the latter being impossible because we have no means of > equilibrating the waste of combustible material, a Hermetic light is, > therefore, an impossibility.[762] Noting the fact that a “perpetual > light was supposed to result from _magical_ powers,” and remarking > further that such a light is “certainly not of this earth, where light > and all other forms of superior energy are essentially evanescent,” > this gentleman argues as though the Hermetic philosophers had always > claimed that the flame under discussion was an ordinary earthly flame, > resulting from the combustion of luminiferous material. In this the > philosophers have been constantly misunderstood and misrepresented. > > How many great minds—unbelievers from the start—after having studied > the “secret doctrine,” have changed their opinions and found out how > mistaken they were. And how contradictory it seems to find one moment > Balfour Stewart quoting some philosophical morals of Bacon—whom he > terms the father of experimental science—and saying “ ... surely we > ought to learn a lesson from these remarks ... and be very cautious > _before we dismiss any branch of knowledge_ or train of thought as > essentially unprofitable,” and then dismissing the next moment, as > _utterly impossible_, the claims of the alchemists! He shows Aristotle > as “entertaining the idea that light is not any body, or the emanation > of any body, and that therefore light is an energy or act;” and yet, > although the ancients were the first to show, through Demokritus, to > John Dalton the doctrine of atoms, and through Pythagoras and even the > oldest of the Chaldean oracles, that of ether as a universal agent, > their ideas, says Stewart, “were not prolific.” He admits that they > “possessed great genius and intellectual power,” but adds that “they > were deficient in physical conceptions, and, in consequence, their > ideas were not prolific.”[763] > > The whole of the present work is a protest against such a loose way > of judging the ancients. To be thoroughly competent to criticise > their ideas, and assure one’s self whether their ideas were distinct > and “appropriate to the facts,” one must have sifted these ideas to > the very bottom. It is idle to repeat that which we have frequently > said, and that which every scholar ought to know; namely, that the > quintessence of their knowledge was in the hands of the priests, who > never wrote them, and in those of the “initiates” who, like Plato, {511} > _did not dare_ write them. Therefore, those few speculations on the > material and spiritual universes, which they did put in writing, could > not enable posterity to judge them rightly, even had not the early > Christian Vandals, the later crusaders, and the fanatics of the middle > ages destroyed three parts of that which remained of the Alexandrian > library and its later schools. Professor Draper shows that the Cardinal > Ximenes alone “delivered to the flames in the squares of Granada, > 80,000 Arabic manuscripts, many of them translations of classical > authors.” In the Vatican libraries, whole passages in the most rare and > precious treatises of the ancients were found erased and blotted out, > for the sake of interlining them with absurd psalmodies! > > Who then, of those who turn away from the “secret doctrine” as being > “unphilosophical” and, therefore, unworthy of a scientific thought, > has a right to say that he studied the ancients; that he is aware of > all that they knew, and knowing now far more, knows also that they > knew little, if anything. This “secret doctrine” contains the alpha > and the omega of universal science; therein lies the corner and the > keystone of all the ancient and modern knowledge; and alone in this > “unphilosophical” doctrine remains buried the _absolute_ in the > philosophy of the dark problems of life and death. > > “The great energies of Nature are known to us only by their effects,” > said Paley. Paraphrasing the sentence, we will say that the great > achievements of the days of old are known to posterity only by > their effects. If one takes a book on alchemy, and sees in it the > speculations on gold and light by the brothers of the Rosie Cross, he > will find himself certainly startled, for the simple reason that he > will not understand them at all. “The Hermetic gold,” he may read, > “is the outflow of the sunbeam, or of light suffused invisibly and > magically into the body of the world. Light is sublimated gold, rescued > magically by invisible stellar attraction, out of material depths. > Gold is thus the deposit of light, which of itself generates. Light in > the celestial world is subtile, vaporous, magically exalted gold, or > ‘_spirit of flame_.’ Gold draws inferior natures in the metals, and > intensifying and multiplying, converts into itself.”[764] > > Nevertheless, facts are facts; and, as Billot says of spiritualism, > we will remark of occultism generally and of alchemy in particular—it > is not a matter of opinion but of _facts_, men of science call an > inextinguishable lamp an _impossibility_, but nevertheless persons > in our own age as well as in the days of ignorance and superstition > have found them burning bright in old vaults shut up for centuries; {512} > and other persons there are who possess the secret of keeping such > fires for several ages. Men of science say that ancient and modern > spiritualism, magic, and mesmerism, are charlatanry or delusion; but > there are 800 millions on the face of the globe, of perfectly sane men > and women, who believe in all these. Whom are we to credit? > > “Demokritus,” says Lucian,[765] “believed in no (miracles) ... he > applied himself to discover the method by which the theurgists could > produce them; in a word, his philosophy brought him to the conclusion > that magic was entirely confined to the application and _the imitation_ > of the laws and the works of nature.” > > Now, the opinion of the “laughing philosopher” is of the greatest > importance to us, since the Magi left by Xerxes, at Abdera, were his > instructors, and he had studied magic, moreover, for a considerably > long time with the Egyptian priests.[766] For nearly ninety years > of the one hundred and nine of his life, this great philosopher had > made experiments, and noted them down in a book, which, according > to Petronius,[767] _treated of nature_—facts that he had verified > himself. And we find him not only disbelieving in and utterly > rejecting _miracles_, but asserting that every one of those that were > authenticated by eye-witnesses, had, and could have taken place; for > all, even the most _incredible_, was produced according to the “_hidden > laws of nature_.”[768] > > “The day will never come, when any one of the propositions of Euclid > will be denied,”[769] says Professor Draper, exalting the Aristoteleans > at the expense of the Pythagoreans and Platonists. Shall we, in such a > case, disbelieve a number of well-informed authorities (Lemprière among > others), who assert that the fifteen books of the _Elements_ are not > to be wholly attributed to Euclid; and that many of the most valuable > truths and demonstrations contained in them owe their existence to > Pythagoras, Thales, and Eudoxus? That Euclid, notwithstanding his > genius, was _the first_ who reduced them to order, and only interwove > theories of his own to render the whole a complete and connected system > of geometry? And if these authorities are right, then it is again to > that central sun of metaphysical science—Pythagoras and his school, > that the moderns are indebted directly for such men as Eratosthenes, > the world-famous geometer and cosmographer, Archimedes, and even > Ptolemy, notwithstanding his obstinate errors. Were it not for the > exact science of such men, and for fragments of their works that they > left us to base Galilean speculations upon, the great priests of the {513} > nineteenth century might find themselves, perhaps, still in the > bondage of the Church; and philosophizing, in 1876, on the Augustine > and Bedean cosmogony, the rotation of the canopy of heaven round the > earth, and the majestic flatness of the latter. > > The nineteenth century seems positively doomed to humiliating > confessions. Feltre (Italy) erects a public statue “to _Panfilo > Castaldi, the illustrious inventor of movable printing types_,” and > adds in its inscription the generous confession that Italy renders to > him “_this tribute of honor too long deferred_.” But no sooner is the > statue placed, than the Feltreians are advised by Colonel Yule to “burn > it _in honest lime_.” He proves that many a traveller beside Marco > Polo had brought home from China movable wooden types and specimens of > Chinese books, the entire text of which was printed with such wooden > blocks.[770] We have seen in several Thibetan lamaseries, where they > have printing-offices, such blocks preserved as curiosities. They > are known to be of the greatest antiquity, inasmuch as types were > perfected, and the old ones abandoned contemporaneously with the > earliest records of Buddhistic lamaism. Therefore, they must have > existed in China before the Christian era. > > Let every one ponder over the wise words of Professor Roscoe, in his > lecture on _Spectrum Analysis_. “The infant truths must be made useful. > Neither you nor I, perhaps, can see the _how_ or the _when_, but that > the time may come at any moment, when the most obscure of nature’s > secrets shall at once be employed for the benefit of mankind, no one > who knows anything of science, can for one instant doubt. Who could > have foretold that the discovery that a dead frog’s legs jump when they > are touched by two different metals, should have led in a few short > years to the discovery of the electric telegraph?” > > Professor Roscoe, visiting Kirchhoff and Bunsen when they were making > their great discoveries of the nature of the Fraunhoffer lines, > says that it _flashed_ upon his mind at once that there is iron in > the sun; therein presenting one more evidence to add to a million > predecessors, that great discoveries usually come with a _flash_, > and not by induction. There are many more flashes in store for us. > It may be found, perhaps, that one of the last sparkles of modern > science—the beautiful green spectrum of silver—is nothing new, but was, > notwithstanding the paucity “and great inferiority of their optical > instruments,” well known to the ancient chemists and physicists. Silver > and green were associated together as far back as the days of Hermes. > Luna, or Astartè (the Hermetic silver), is one of the two chief symbols > of the Rosicrucians. It is a Hermetic axiom, that “the cause of the {514} > splendor and variety of colors lies deep in the affinities of nature; > and that there is a singular and mysterious alliance between color and > sound.” The kabalists place their “middle nature” in direct relation > with the moon; and the green ray occupies the centre point between > the others, being placed in the middle of the spectrum. The Egyptian > priests chanted the _seven_ vowels as a hymn addressed to Serapis;[771] > and at the sound of the _seventh_ vowel, as at the “_seventh_ ray” of > the rising sun, the statue of Memnon responded. Recent discoveries have > proved the wonderful properties of the blue-violet light—the _seventh_ > ray of the prismatic spectrum, the most powerfully chemical of all, > which corresponds with the highest note in the musical scale. The > Rosicrucian theory, that the whole universe is a musical instrument, > is the Pythagorean doctrine of the music of the spheres. Sounds and > colors are all spiritual numerals; as the seven prismatic rays proceed > from one spot in heaven, so the seven powers of nature, each of them a > number, are the seven radiations of the Unity, the central, spiritual > SUN. > > “Happy is he who comprehends the spiritual numerals, and perceives > their mighty influence!” exclaims Plato. And happy, we may add, is he > who, treading the maze of force-correlations, does not neglect to trace > them to this invisible Sun! > > Future experimenters will reap the honor of demonstrating that musical > tones have a wonderful effect upon the growth of vegetation. And > with the enunciation of this unscientific fallacy, we will close the > chapter, and proceed to remind the patient reader of certain things > that the ancients knew, and the moderns _think_ they know. > > CHAPTER XIV. {515} > > “The transactions of this our city of Saïs, are recorded in our > sacred writings during a period of 8,000 years.”—PLATO: _Timæus_. > > “The Egyptians assert that from the reign of Heracles to that > of Amasis, 17,000 years elapsed.”—HERODOTUS, lib. ii., c. 43. > > “Can the theologian derive no light from the pure, primeval > faith that glimmers from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to illustrate > the immortality of the soul? Will not the historian deign to > notice the prior origin of every art and science in Egypt, a > thousand years before the Pelasgians studded the isles and > capes of the Archipelago with their forts and temples?”—GLIDDON. > > How came Egypt by her knowledge? When broke the dawn of that > civilization whose wondrous perfection is suggested by the bits and > fragments supplied to us by the archæologists? Alas! the lips of Memnon > are silent, and no longer utter oracles; the Sphinx has become a > greater riddle in her speechlessness than was the enigma propounded to > Œdipus. > > What Egypt taught to others she certainly did not acquire by the > international exchange of ideas and discoveries with her Semitic > neighbors, nor from them did she receive her stimulus. “The more we > learn of the Egyptians,” observes the writer of a recent article, > “the more marvellous they seem!” From whom could she have learned > her wondrous arts, the secrets of which died with her? She sent no > agents throughout the world to learn what others knew; but to her > the wise men of neighboring nations resorted for knowledge. Proudly > secluding herself within her enchanted domain, the fair queen of the > desert created wonders as if by the sway of a magic staff. “Nothing,” > remarks the same writer, whom we have elsewhere quoted, “proves that > civilization and knowledge then rise and progress with her as in the > case of other peoples, but everything seems to be referable, in the > same perfection, _to the earliest dates_. That no nation knew as much > as herself, is a fact demonstrated by history.” > > May we not assign as a reason for this remark the fact that until > very recently nothing was known of Old India? That these two nations, > India and Egypt, were akin? That they were the oldest in the group of > nations; and that the Eastern Ethiopians—the mighty builders—had come > from India as a matured people, bringing their civilization with them, {516} > and colonizing the perhaps unoccupied Egyptian territory? But we defer > a more complete elaboration of this theme for our second volume.[772] > > “Mechanism,” says Eusebe Salverte, “was carried by the ancients to > a point of perfection that has never been attained in modern times. > We would inquire if their inventions have been surpassed in our age? > Certainly not; and at the present day, with all the means that the > progress of science and modern discovery have placed in the hands > of the mechanic, have we not been assailed by numerous difficulties > in striving to place on a pedestal one of those monoliths that the > Egyptians forty centuries ago erected in such numbers before their > sacred edifices.” > > As far back as we can glance into history, to the reign of Menes, the > most ancient of the kings that we know anything about, we find proofs > that the Egyptians were far better acquainted with hydrostatics and > hydraulic engineering than ourselves. The gigantic work of turning > the course of the Nile—or rather of its three principal branches—and > bringing it to Memphis, was accomplished during the reign of that > monarch, who appears to us as distant in the abyss of time as a > far-glimmering star in the heavenly vault. Says Wilkinson: “Menes > took accurately the measure of the power which he had to oppose, and > he constructed a dyke whose lofty mounds and enormous embankments > turned the water eastward, and since that time the river is contained > in its new bed.” Herodotus has left us a poetical, but still accurate > description of the lake Mœris, so called after the Pharaoh who caused > this artificial sheet of water to be formed. > > The historian has described this lake as measuring 450 miles in > circumference, and 300 feet in depth. It was fed through artificial > channels by the Nile, and made to store a portion of the annual > overflow for the irrigation of the country, for many miles round. > Its numerous flood gates, dams, locks, and convenient engines were > constructed with the greatest skill. The Romans, at a far later period, > got their notions on hydraulic constructions from the Egyptians, but > our latest progress in the science of hydrostatics has demonstrated > the fact of a great deficiency on their part in some branches of that > knowledge. Thus, for instance, if they were acquainted with that which > is called in hydrostatics the great law, they seem to have been less > familiar with what our modern engineers know as water tight joints. > Their ignorance is sufficiently proved by their conveying the water > through large level aqueducts, instead of doing it at a less expense by > iron pipes beneath the surface. But the Egyptians evidently employed > a far superior method in their channels and artificial water-works. > Notwithstanding this, the modern engineers employed by Lesseps for the {517} > Suez Canal, who had learned from the ancient Romans all their art could > teach them, deriving, in their turn, their knowledge from Egypt—scoffed > at the suggestion that they should seek a remedy for some imperfections > in their work by studying the contents of the various Egyptian museums. > Nevertheless, the engineers succeeded in giving to the banks of that > “long and ugly ditch,” as Professor Carpenter calls the Suez Canal, > sufficient strength to make it a navigable water-way, instead of a > mud-trap for vessels as it was at first. > > The alluvial deposits of the Nile, during the past thirty centuries, > have completely altered the area of the Delta, so that it is > continually growing seaward, and adding to the territory of the > Khedive. In ancient times, the principal mouth of the river was called > Pelusian; and the canal cut by one of the kings—the canal of Necho—led > from Suez to this branch. After the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, > at Actium, it was proposed that a portion of the fleet should pass > through the canal to the Red Sea, which shows the depth of water that > those early engineers had secured. Settlers in Colorado and Arizona > have recently reclaimed large tracts of barren land by a system of > irrigation; receiving from the journals of the day no little praise > for their ingenuity. But, for a distance of 500 miles above Cairo, > there stretches a strip of land reclaimed from the desert, and made, > according to Professor Carpenter, “the most fertile on the face of > the earth.” He says, “for thousands of years these branch canals have > conveyed fresh water from the Nile, to fertilize the land of this long > narrow strip, as well as of the Delta.” He describes “the net-work of > canals over the Delta, which dates from an early period of the Egyptian > monarchs.” > > The French province of Artois has given its name to the Artesian well, > as though that form of engineering had been first applied in that > district; but, if we consult the Chinese records, we find such wells to > have been in common use ages before the Christian era. > > If we now turn to architecture, we find displayed before our eyes, > wonders which baffle all description. Referring to the temples of > Philoe, Abu Simbel, Dendera, Edfu, and Karnak, Professor Carpenter > remarks that “these stupendous and beautiful erections ... these > gigantic pyramids and temples” have a “vastness and beauty” which are > “still impressive after the lapse of thousands of years.” He is amazed > at “the admirable character of the workmanship; the stones in most > cases being fitted together with astonishing nicety, so that a knife > could hardly be thrust between the joints.” He noticed in his amateur > archæological pilgrimage, another of those “curious coincidences” > which his Holiness, the Pope, may feel some interest in learning. He > is speaking of the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_, sculptured on the old > monuments, and the ancient belief in the immortality of the soul. > “Now, it is most remarkable,” says the professor, “to see that not only > this belief, but the language in which it was expressed in the ancient > Egyptian times, anticipated that of the Christian Revelation. For, in > this _Book of the Dead_, there are used the very phrases we find in the {518} > _New Testament_, in connection with the day of judgment;” and he admits > that this hierogram was “engraved, probably, 2,000 years before the > time of Christ.” > > According to Bunsen, who is considered to have made the most exact > calculations, the mass of masonry in the great Pyramid of Cheops > measures 82,111,000 feet, and would weigh 6,316,000 tons. The immense > numbers of squared stones show us the unparalleled skill of the > Egyptian quarrymen. Speaking of the great pyramid, Kenrick says: “The > joints are scarcely perceptible, not wider than the thickness of > silver paper, and the cement is so tenacious, that fragments of the > casing-stones still remain in their original position, notwithstanding > the lapse of many centuries, and the violence by which they were > detached.” Who, of our modern architects and chemists, will rediscover > the indestructible cement of the oldest Egyptian buildings? > > “The skill of the ancients in quarrying,” says Bunsen, “is displayed > the most in the extracting of the huge blocks, out of which obelisks > and colossal statues were hewn—obelisks ninety feet high, and statues > forty feet high, made out of one stone!” There are many such. They did > not blast out the blocks for these monuments, but adopted the following > scientific method: Instead of using huge iron wedges, which would have > split the stone, they cut a small groove for the whole length of, > perhaps, 100 feet, and inserted in it, close to each other, a great > number of dry wooden wedges; after which they poured water into the > groove, and the wedges swelling and bursting simultaneously, with a > tremendous force, broke out the huge stone, as neatly as a diamond cuts > a pane of glass. > > Modern geographers and geologists have demonstrated that these > monoliths were brought from a prodigious distance, and have been at > a loss to conjecture how the transport was effected. Old manuscripts > say that it was done by the help of portable rails. These rested upon > inflated bags of hide, rendered indestructible by the same process as > that used for preserving the mummies. These ingenious air-cushions > prevented the rails from sinking in the deep sand. Manetho mentions > them, and remarks that they were so well prepared that they would > endure wear and tear for centuries. > > The date of the hundreds of pyramids in the Valley of the Nile is > impossible to fix by any of the rules of modern science; but Herodotus > informs us that each successive king erected one to commemorate his {519} > reign, and serve as his sepulchre. But, Herodotus did not tell all, > although he knew that the _real_ purpose of the pyramid was very > different from that which he assigns to it. Were it not for his > religious scruples, he might have added that, externally, it symbolized > the creative principle of nature, and illustrated also the principles > of geometry, mathematics, astrology, and astronomy. Internally, it was > a majestic fane, in whose sombre recesses were performed the Mysteries, > and whose walls had often witnessed the initiation-scenes of members > of the royal family. The porphyry sarcophagus, which Professor Piazzi > Smyth, Astronomer Royal of Scotland, degrades into a corn-bin, was the > _baptismal font_, upon emerging from which, the neophyte was “born > again,” and became an _adept_. > > Herodotus gives us, however, a just idea of the enormous labor expended > in transporting one of these gigantic blocks of granite. It measured > thirty-two feet in length, twenty-one feet in width, and twelve feet in > height. Its weight he estimates to be rising 300 tons, and it occupied > 2,000 men for three years to move it from Syene to the Delta, down the > Nile. Gliddon, in his _Ancient Egypt_, quotes from Pliny a description > of the arrangements for moving the obelisk erected at Alexandria by > Ptolemæus Philadelphus. A canal was dug from the Nile to the place > where the obelisk lay. Two boats were floated under it; they were > weighted with stones containing one cubic foot each, and the weight > of the obelisk having been calculated by the engineers, the cargo > of the boats was exactly proportioned to it, so that they should be > sufficiently submerged to pass under the monolith as it lay across the > canal. Then, the stones were gradually removed, the boats rose, lifted > the obelisk, and it was floated down the river. > > In the Egyptian section of the Dresden, or Berlin Museum, we forget > which, is a drawing which represents a workman ascending an unfinished > pyramid, with a basket of sand upon his back. This has suggested to > certain Egyptologists the idea that the blocks of the pyramids were > chemically manufactured _in loco_. Some modern engineers believe > that Portland cement, a double silicate of lime and alumina, is > the imperishable cement of the ancients. But, on the other hand, > Professor Carpenter asserts that the pyramids, with the exception of > their granite casing, is formed of what “geologists call _nummulitic_ > limestone. This is newer than the old chalk, and is made of the shells > of animals called nummulites—like little pieces of money about the size > of a shilling.” However this moot question may be decided, no one, from > Herodotus and Pliny down to the last wandering engineer who has gazed > upon these imperial monuments of long-crumbled dynasties, has been > able to tell us how the gigantic masses were transported and set up {520} > in place. Bunsen concedes to Egypt an antiquity of 20,000 years. But > even in this matter we would be left to conjecture if we depended upon > modern authorities. They can neither tell us for what the pyramids were > constructed, under what dynasty the first was raised, nor the material > of which they are built. All is conjecture with them. > > Professor Smyth has given us by far the most accurate mathematical > description of the great pyramid to be found in literature. But after > showing the astronomical bearings of the structure, he so little > appreciates ancient Egyptian thought that he actually maintains > that the porphyry sarcophagus of the king’s chamber is the unit of > measure for the two most enlightened nations of the earth—“England > and America.” One of the _books_ of _Hermes_ describes certain of the > pyramids as standing upon the sea-shore, “the waves of which dashed in > powerless fury against its base.” This implies that the geographical > features of the country have been changed, and may indicate that > we must accord to these ancient “granaries,” “magico-astrological > observatories,” and “royal sepulchres,” an origin antedating the > upheaval of the Sahara and other deserts. This would imply rather more > of an antiquity than the poor few thousands of years, so generously > accorded to them by Egyptologists. > > Dr. Rebold, a French archæologist of some renown, gives his readers a > glimpse of the culture which prevailed 5,000 (?) years b. c., by saying > that there were at that time no less than “thirty or forty colleges of > the priests who studied occult sciences and practical magic.” > > A writer in the _National Quarterly Review_ (Vol. xxxii., No. lxiii., > December, 1875) says that, “The recent excavations made among the > ruins of Carthage have brought to light traces of a civilization, a > refinement of art and luxury, which must even have outshone that of > ancient Rome; and when the fiat went forth, _Delenda est Carthago_, > the mistress of the world well knew that she was about to destroy a > greater than herself, for, while one empire swayed the world by force > of arms alone, the other was the last and most perfect representative > of a race who had, for centuries before Rome was dreamed of, directed > the civilization, the learning, and the intelligence of mankind.” This > Carthage is the one which, according to Appian, was standing as early > as B. C. 1234, or fifty years before the taking of Troy, and not the > one popularly supposed to have been built by Dido (Elissa or Astartè) > four centuries later. > > Here we have still another illustration of the truth of the doctrine > of cycles. Draper’s admissions as to the astronomical erudition of > the ancient Egyptians are singularly supported by an interesting fact > quoted by Mr. J. M. Peebles, from a lecture delivered in Philadelphia, > by the late Professor O. M. Mitchell, the astronomer. Upon the coffin > of a mummy, now in the British Museum, was delineated the zodiac {521} > with the exact positions of the planets at the time of the autumnal > equinox, in the year 1722 B.C. Professor Mitchell calculated the exact > position of the heavenly bodies belonging to our solar system at the > time indicated. “The result,” says Mr. Peebles, “I give in his own > words: ‘To my astonishment ... it was found that on the 7th of October, > 1722 B.C., the moon and planets had occupied the exact points in the > heavens marked upon the coffin in the British Museum.’”[773] > > Professor John Fiske, in his onslaught on Dr. Draper’s _History of > the Intellectual Development of Europe_, sets his pen against the > doctrine of cyclical progression, remarking that “we have never > known the beginning or the end of an historic cycle, and have no > inductive warrant for believing that we are now traversing one.”[774] > He chides the author of that eloquent and thoughtful work for the > “odd disposition exhibited throughout his work, not only to refer the > best part of Greek culture to an Egyptian source, but uniformly to > exalt the non-European civilization at the expense of the European.” > We believe that this “odd disposition” might be directly sanctioned > by the confessions of great Grecian historians themselves. Professor > Fiske might, with profit, read Herodotus over again. The “Father of > History” confesses more than once that Greece owes everything to Egypt. > As to his assertion that the world has never known the beginning or > the end of an historical cycle, we have but to cast a retrospective > glance on the many glorious nations which have passed away, _i.e._, > reached the end of their great national cycle. Compare the Egypt of > that day, with its perfection of art, science, and religion, its > glorious cities and monuments, and its swarming population, with the > Egypt of to-day, peopled with strangers; its ruins the abode of bats > and snakes, and a few Copts the sole surviving heirs to all this > grandeur—and see whether the cyclical theory does not reässert itself. > Says Gliddon, who is now contradicted by Mr. Fiske: “Philologists, > astronomers, chemists, painters, architects, physicians, must return > to Egypt to learn the origin of language and writing; of the calendar > and solar motion; of the art of cutting granite with a copper chisel, > and of giving elasticity to a copper sword; of making glass with the > variegated hues of the rainbow; of moving single blocks of polished > syenite, _nine hundred tons_ in weight, for any distance, by land > and water; of building arches, rounded and pointed, with masonic > precision unsurpassed at the present day, and antecedent by 2,000 years > to the ‘Cloaca Magna’ of Rome; of sculpturing a Doric column 1,000 {522} > years before the Dorians are known in history; of fresco painting > in imperishable colors; of practical knowledge in anatomy; and of > time-defying pyramid-building.” > > “Every craftsman can behold, in Egyptian monuments, the progress of > his art 4,000 years ago; and whether it be a wheelwright building a > chariot, a shoemaker drawing his twine, a leather-cutter using the > self-same form of knife of old as is considered the best form now, > a weaver throwing the same hand-shuttle, a whitesmith using that > identical form of blow-pipe but lately recognized to be the most > efficient, the seal-engraver cutting, in hieroglyphics, such names as > Schooho’s, above 4,300 years ago—_all these_, and many more astounding > evidences of Egyptian priority, now require but a glance at the plates > of Rossellini.” > > “Truly,” exclaims Mr. Peebles, “these Ramsean temples and tombs were as > much a marvel to the Grecian Herodotus as they are to us!”[775] > > But, even then, the merciless hand of time had left its traces upon > their structures, and some of them, whose very memory would be lost > were it not for the _Books of Hermes_, had been swept away into the > oblivion of the ages. King after king, and dynasty after dynasty > had passed in a glittering pageant before the eyes of succeeding > generations and their renown had filled the habitable globe. The same > pall of forgetfulness had fallen upon them and their monuments alike, > before the first of our historical authorities, Herodotus, preserved > for posterity the remembrance of that wonder of the world, the great > Labyrinth. The long accepted Biblical chronology has so cramped > the minds of not only the clergy, but even our scarce-unfettered > scientists, that in treating of prehistoric remains in different parts > of the world, a constant fear is manifested on their part to trespass > beyond the period of 6,000 years, hitherto allowed by theology as the > age of the world. > > Herodotus found the Labyrinth already in ruins; but nevertheless his > admiration for the genius of its builders knew no bounds. He regarded > it as far more marvellous than the pyramids themselves, and, as an > eye-witness, minutely describes it. The French and Prussian savants, > as well as other Egyptologists, agree as to the emplacement, and > identified its noble ruins. Moreover, they confirm the account given > of it by the old historian. Herodotus says that he found therein > 3,000 chambers; half subterranean and the other half above-ground. > “The upper chambers,” he says, “I myself passed through and examined > in detail. In the underground ones (which _may exist till now_, for > all the archæologists know), the keepers of the building would not > let me in, for they contain the sepulchres of the kings who built the > Labyrinth, and also those of the sacred crocodiles. The upper chambers {523} > I saw and examined with my own eyes, and found them to excel all other > human productions.” In Rawlinson’s translation, Herodotus is made to > say: “The passages through the houses and the varied windings of the > paths across the courts, excited in me infinite admiration as I passed > from the courts into the chambers, and from thence into colonnades, > and from colonnades into other houses, and again into courts unseen > before. The roof was throughout of stone like the walls, and both were > exquisitely carved all over with figures. Every court was surrounded > with a colonnade, which was built of white stones, sculptured most > exquisitely. At the corner of the Labyrinth stands a pyramid forty > fathoms high, with large figures engraved on it, and it is entered by a > vast subterranean passage.” > > If such was the Labyrinth, when viewed by Herodotus, what, in such > a case, was ancient Thebes, the city destroyed far earlier than > the period of Psammeticus, who himself reigned 530 years after the > destruction of Troy? We find that in his time Memphis was the capital, > while of the glorious Thebes there remained but _ruins_. Now, if we, > who are enabled to form our estimate only by the ruins of what was > already ruins so many ages before our era—are stupefied in their > contemplation, what must have been the general aspect of Thebes in > the days of its glory? Karnak—temple, palace, ruins, or whatsoever > the archæologists may term it—is now its only representative. But > solitary and alone as it stands, fit emblem of majestic empire, as if > forgotten by time in the onward march of the centuries, it testifies > to the art and skill of the ancients. He must be indeed devoid of the > spiritual perception of genius, who fails to feel as well as to see the > intellectual grandeur of the race that planned and built it. > > Champollion, who passed almost his entire life in the exploration of > archæological remains, gives vent to his emotions in the following > descriptions of Karnak: “The ground covered by the mass of remaining > buildings is square; and each side measures 1,800 feet. One is > astounded and _overcome by the grandeur_ of the sublime remnants, the > prodigality and magnificence of workmanship to be seen everywhere.” No > people of ancient or modern times has conceived the art of architecture > upon a scale so sublime, so grandiose as it existed among the ancient > Egyptians; and the imagination, which in Europe soars far above our > porticos, arrests itself _and falls powerless_ at the foot of the > hundred and forty columns of the hypostyle of Karnak! In one of its > halls, the Cathedral of Notre Dame might stand and not touch the > ceiling, but be considered as a small ornament in the centre of the > hall. > > A writer in a number of an English periodical, of 1870, evidently > speaking with the authority of a traveller who describes what he has > seen, expresses himself as follows: “Courts, halls, gateways, pillars {524} > obelisks, monolithic figures, sculptures, long rows of sphinxes, are > found in such profusion at Karnak, that the sight is too much for > modern comprehension.” > > Says Denon, the French traveller: “It is hardly possible to believe, > after seeing it, in the reality of the existence of so many buildings > collected together on a single point, in their dimensions, in the > resolute perseverance which their construction required, and in the > incalculable expenses of so much magnificence! It is necessary that the > reader should fancy what is before him to be a dream, as he who views > the objects themselves occasionally yields to the doubt whether he be > perfectly awake.... There are lakes and mountains _within the periphery > of the sanctuary_. These two edifices are selected as examples from a > list _next to inexhaustible_. The whole valley and delta of the Nile, > from the cataracts to the sea, was covered with temples, palaces, > tombs, pyramids, obelisks, and pillars. The execution of the sculptures > is beyond praise. The mechanical perfection with which artists wrought > in granite, serpentine, breccia, and basalt, is wonderful, according > to all the experts ... animals and plants look as good as natural, and > artificial objects are beautifully sculptured; battles by sea and land, > and scenes of domestic life are to be found in all their _bas-reliefs_.” > > “The monuments,” says an English author, “which there strike the > traveller, fill his mind with great ideas. At the sight of the > colossuses and superb obelisks, which seem to surpass the limits of > human nature, he cannot help exclaiming, ‘This was the work of man,’ > and this sentiment seems to ennoble his existence.”[776] > > In his turn, Dr. Richardson, speaking of the Temple of Dendera, says: > “The female figures are so extremely well executed, that they do all > but speak; they have a mildness of feature and expression that never > was surpassed.” > > _Every one of these stones is covered with hieroglyphics, and the more > ancient they are, the more beautifully we find them chiselled._ Does > not this furnish a new proof that history got its first glimpse of the > ancients when the arts were already fast degenerating among them? The > obelisks have their inscriptions cut two inches, and sometimes more, > in depth, and they are cut with the highest degree of perfection. > Some idea may be formed of their depth, from the fact that the > Arabs, for a small fee, will climb sometimes to the very top of an > obelisk, by inserting their toes and fingers in the excavations of the > hieroglyphics. That all of these works, in which solidity rivals the > beauty of their execution, were done before the days of the Exodus, > there remains no historical doubt whatever. (All the archæologists now {525} > agree in saying that, the further back we go in history, the better and > finer become these arts.) These views clash again with the individual > opinion of Mr. Fiske, who would have us believe that “the sculptures > upon these monuments (of Egypt, Hindustan, and Assyria), moreover, > betoken a very _undeveloped_ condition of the artistic faculties.”[777] > Nay, the learned gentleman goes farther. Joining his voice in the > opposition against the claims of learning—which belongs by right to > the sacerdotal castes of antiquity—to that of Lewis, he contemptuously > remarks that “the extravagant theory of a profound science possessed > by the Egyptian priesthood from a remote antiquity, and imparted to > itinerant Greek philosophers, has been utterly destroyed (?) by Sir G. > C. Lewis[778] ... while, with regard to Egypt and Hindustan, as well as > Assyria, it may be said that the colossal monuments which have adorned > these countries since prehistoric times, bear witness to the former > prevalence of a barbaric despotism, totally incompatible with social > nobility, and, therefore, with well sustained progress.”[779] > > A curious argument, indeed. If the size and grandeur of public > monuments are to serve to our posterity as a standard by which to > approximately estimate the “progress of civilization” attained by > their builders, it may be prudent, perhaps, for America, so proud > of her alleged progress and freedom, to dwarf her buildings at once > to one story. Otherwise, according to Professor Fiske’s theory, the > archæologists of A.D. 3877 will be applying to the “Ancient America” > of 1877, the rule of Lewis—and say the _ancient_ United States “may > be considered as a great _latifundium_, or plantation, cultivated by > the entire population, as the king’s (president’s) slaves.” Is it > because the white-skinned Aryan races were never born “builders,” > like the Eastern Æthiopians, or dark-skinned Caucasians,[780] and, > therefore, never able to compete with the latter in such colossal > structures, that we must jump at the conclusion that these grandiose > temples and pyramids could only have been erected under the whip of > a merciless despot? Strange logic! It would really seem more prudent > to hold to the “rigorous canons of criticism” laid down by Lewis and > Grote, and honestly confess at once, that we really know little about > these ancient nations, and that, except so far as purely hypothetical > speculations go, unless we study in the same direction as the ancient > priests did, we have as little chance in the future. We only know what > they allowed the uninitiated to know, but the little we do learn of {526} > them by deduction, ought to be sufficient to assure us that, even in > the nineteenth century, with all our claims to supremacy in arts and > sciences, we are totally unable, we will not say to build anything like > the monuments of Egypt, Hindustan, or Assyria, but even to rediscover > the least of the ancient “_lost_ arts.” Besides, Sir Gardner Wilkinson > gives forcible expression to this view of the exhumed treasures of old, > by adding that, “he can trace no _primitive mode_ of life, no barbarous > customs, but a sort of stationary civilization _from the most remote > periods_.” Thus far, archæology disagrees with geology, which affirms > that the further they trace the remains of men, the more barbarous they > find them. It is doubtful if geology has even yet exhausted the field > of research afforded her in the caves, and the views of geologists, > which are based upon present experience, may be radically modified, > when they come to discover the remains of the ancestors of the people > whom they now style the cave-dwellers. > > What better illustrates the theory of cycles than the following fact? > Nearly 700 years B.C., in the schools of Thales and Pythagoras was > taught the doctrine of the true motion of the earth, its form, and the > whole heliocentric system. And in 317 A.D., we find Lactantius, the > preceptor of Crispus Cæsar, son of Constantine the Great, teaching > his pupil that the earth was a plane surrounded by the sky, which is > composed of fire and water, and warning him against the heretical > doctrine of the earth’s globular form! > > Whenever, in the pride of some new discovery, we throw a look into > the past, we find, to our dismay, certain vestiges which indicate the > possibility, if not certainty, that the alleged discovery was not > totally unknown to the ancients. > > It is generally asserted that neither the early inhabitants of the > Mosaic times, nor even the more civilized nations of the Ptolemaic > period were acquainted with electricity. If we remain undisturbed in > this opinion, it is not for lack of proofs to the contrary. We may > disdain to search for a profounder meaning in some characteristic > sentences of Servius, and other writers; we cannot so obliterate them > but that, at some future day, that meaning will appear to us in all > its significant truths. “The first inhabitants of the earth,” says he, > “never carried fire to their altars, but by their prayers they brought > down the heavenly fire.”[781] “Prometheus discovered and revealed to > man the art of bringing down lightning; and by the method which he > taught to them, they brought down fire from the region above.” > > If, after pondering these words, we are still willing to attribute {527} > them to the phraseology of mythological fables, we may turn to the > days of Numa, the king-philosopher, so renowned for his esoteric > learning, and find ourselves more embarrassed to deal with his case. > We can neither accuse him of ignorance, superstition, nor credulity; > for, if history can be believed at all, he was intently bent on > destroying polytheism and idol-worship. He had so well dissuaded the > Romans from idolatry that for nearly two centuries neither statues nor > images appeared in their temples. On the other hand old historians > tell us that the knowledge which Numa possessed in natural physics was > remarkable. Tradition says that he was initiated by the priests of the > Etruscan divinities, and instructed by them in the secret of forcing > Jupiter, the Thunderer, to descend upon earth.[782] Ovid shows that > Jupiter Elicius began to be worshipped by the Romans from that time. > Salverte is of the opinion that before Franklin discovered his refined > electricity, Numa had experimented with it most successfully, and > that Tullus Hostilius was the first victim of the dangerous “heavenly > guest” recorded in history. Titus Livy and Pliny narrate that this > prince, having found in the _Books of Numa_, instructions on the > secret sacrifices offered to Jupiter Elicius, made a mistake, and, in > consequence of it, “he was struck by lightning and consumed in his own > palace.”[783] > > Salverte remarks that Pliny, in the exposition of Numa’s scientific > secrets, “makes use of expressions which seem to indicate two distinct > processes;” the one obtained thunder (_impetrare_), the other forced > it to lightning (_cogere_).[784] “Guided by Numa’s book,” says Lucius, > quoted by Pliny, “Tullus undertook to invoke the aid of Jupiter.... > But having performed the rite imperfectly, he perished, struck by > thunder.”[785] > > Tracing back the knowledge of thunder and lightning possessed by the > Etruscan priests, we find that Tarchon, the founder of the theurgism of > the former, desiring to preserve his house from lightning, surrounded > it by a hedge of the white bryony,[786] a climbing plant which has > the property of averting thunderbolts. Tarchon the theurgist was much > anterior to the siege of Troy. The pointed metallic lightning-rod, > for which we are seemingly indebted to Franklin, is probably a > _re-discovery_ after all. There are many medals which seem to strongly > indicate that the principle was anciently known. The temple of Juno had > its roof covered with a quantity of pointed blades of swords.[787] > > If we possess but little proof of the ancients having had any clear {528} > notions as to _all_ the effects of electricity, there is very strong > evidence, at all events, of their having been perfectly acquainted > with electricity itself. “Ben David,” says the author of _The Occult > Sciences_, “has asserted that Moses possessed some knowledge of the > phenomena of electricity.” Professor Hirt, of Berlin, is of this > opinion. Michaelis, remarks—_firstly_: “that there is no indication > that lightning ever struck the temple of Jerusalem, during a thousand > years. _Secondly_, that according to Josephus,[788] a forest of points > ... of gold, and very sharp, covered the roof of the temple. _Thirdly_, > that this roof communicated with the caverns in the hill upon which the > temple was situated, by means of pipes in connection with the gilding > which covered all the exterior of the building; in consequence of which > the points would act as conductors.”[789] > > Ammianus Marcellinus, a famous historian of the fourth century, a > writer generally esteemed for the fairness and correctness of his > statements, tells that “The magii, preserved perpetually in their > furnaces fire that they miraculously got from heaven.”[790] There is > a sentence in the Hindu _Oupnek-hat_, which runs thus: “To know fire, > the sun, the moon, and lightning, is three-fourths of the science of > God.”[791] > > Finally, Salverte shows that in the days of Ktesias, “India was > acquainted with the use of conductors of lightning.” This historian > plainly states that “iron placed at the bottom of a fountain ... and > made in the form of a sword, _with the point upward_, possessed, as > soon as it was thus fixed in the ground, the property of averting > storms and lightnings.”[792] What can be plainer? > > Some modern writers deny the fact that a great mirror was placed in the > light-house of the Alexandrian port, for the purpose of discovering > vessels at a distance at sea. But the renowned Buffon believed in > it; for he honestly confesses that “If the mirror really existed, > as I firmly believe it did, to the ancients belong the honor of the > invention _of the telescope_.”[793] > > Stevens, in his work on the East, asserts that he found railroads > in Upper Egypt whose grooves were coated with iron. Canova, Powers, > and other celebrated sculptors of our modern age deem it an honor to > be compared with Pheidias of old, and strict truth would, perhaps, > hesitate at such a flattery. > > Professor Jowett discredits the story of the Atlantis, in the _Timæus_; {529} > and the records of 8,000 and 9,000 years appear to him an ancient > swindle. But Bunsen remarks: “There is nothing improbable in itself > in reminiscences and records of great events in Egypt 9,000 years B. > C., for ... the Origines of Egypt go back to the ninth millennium > before Christ.[794] Then how about the primitive Cyclopean fortresses > of ancient Greece? Can the walls of Tiryns, about which, according to > archæological accounts, “even among the ancients it was reported to > have been the work of the Cyclops,”[795] be deemed posterior to the > pyramids? Masses of rock, some equal to a cube of six feet, and the > smallest of which, Pausanias says, could never be moved by a yoke of > oxen, laid up in walls of solid masonry twenty-five feet thick and over > forty feet high, still believed to be the work of men of the races > known to our history! > > Wilkinson’s researches have brought to light the fact that many > inventions of what we term modern, and upon which we plume ourselves, > were perfected by the ancient Egyptians. The newly-discovered papyrus > of Ebers, the German archæologist, proves that neither our modern > chignons, skin-beautifying pearl powders, nor _eaux dentifrices_ were > secrets to them. More than one modern physician—even among those > who advertise themselves as having “made a speciality of nervous > disorders” may find his advantage in consulting the _Medical Books of > Hermes_, which contain prescriptions of real therapeutic value. > > The Egyptians, as we have seen, excelled in all arts. They made paper > so excellent in quality as to be timeproof. “They took out the pith > of the papyrus,” says our anonymous writer, previously mentioned, > “dissected and opened the fibre, and flattening it by a process > known to them, made it as thin as our foolscap paper, but far more > durable.... They sometimes cut it into strips and glued it together; > many of such written documents are yet in existence.” The papyrus > found in the tomb of the queen’s mummy, and another one found in the > sarcophagus of the “Chambre de la Reine,” at Ghizeh, present the > appearance of the finest glossy white muslin, while it possesses the > durability of the best calf-parchment. “For a long time the _savants_ > believed the papyrus to have been introduced by Alexander the Great—as > they erroneously imagined a good many more things—but Lepsius found > rolls of papyri in tombs and monuments of the twelfth dynasty; > sculptured pictures of papyri were found later, on monuments of the > fourth dynasty, and now it is proved that the art of writing was known > and used as early as the days of Menes, the protomonarch;” and thus it {530} > was finally discovered that the art and their system of writing were > perfect and complete _from the very first_. > > It is to Champollion that we owe the first interpretation of their > weird writing; and, but for his life-long labor, we would till now > remain uninformed as to the meaning of all these pictured letters, > and the ancients would still be considered ignorant by the moderns > whom they so greatly excelled in some arts and sciences. “He was the > first to find out what wondrous tale the Egyptians had to tell, for > one who could read their endless manuscripts and records. They left > them on every spot and object capable of receiving characters.... > They engraved, and chiselled, and sculptured them on monuments; they > traced them on furniture, rocks, stones, walls, coffins, and tombs, > as on the papyrus.... The pictures of their daily lives, in their > smallest details, are being now unravelled before our dazzled eyes in > the most wondrous way.... Nothing, of what we know, seems to have been > overlooked by the ancient Egyptians.... The history of ‘Sesostris’ > shows us how well he and his people were versed in the art and > practice of war.... The pictures show how formidable they were when > encountered in battle. They constructed war-engines.... Homer says that > through each of the 100 gates of Thebes issued 200 men with horses > and chariots; the latter were magnificently constructed, and very > light in comparison with our modern heavy, clumsy, and uncomfortable > artillery wagons.” Kenrick describes them in the following terms: “In > short, as all the essential principles which regulate the construction > and draught of carriages are exemplified in the war-chariots of the > Pharaohs, so there is nothing which modern taste and luxury have > devised for their decoration to which we do not find a prototype > in the monuments of the eighteenth dynasty.” Springs—_metallic_ > springs—have been found in them, and, notwithstanding Wilkinson’s > superficial investigation in that direction, and description of these > in his studies, we find proofs that such were used to prevent the > jolting in the chariots in their too rapid course. The bas-reliefs > show us certain melées and battles in which we can find and trace > their uses and customs to the smallest details. The heavily-armed men > fought in coats of mail, the infantry had quilted tunics and felt > helmets, with metallic coverings to protect them the better. Muratori, > the modern Italian inventor who, some ten years ago, introduced his > “impenetrable cuirasse,” has but followed in his invention what he > could make out of the ancient method which suggested to him the > idea. The process of rendering such objects as card-board, felt, and > other tissues, impenetrable to the cuts and thrusts of any sharp > weapon, is now numbered among the lost arts. Muratori succeeded but > imperfectly in preparing such felt cuirasses, and, notwithstanding the > boasted achievements of modern chemistry he could derive from it no {531} > preparation adequate to effect his object, and failed. > > To what perfection chemistry had reached in ancient times, may be > inferred from a fact mentioned by Virey. In his dissertations, he shows > that Asclepiadotus, a general of Mithradates, reproduced chemically the > deleterious exhalations of the sacred grotto. These vapors, like those > of Cumæ, threw the Pythoness into the mantic frenzy. > > Egyptians used bows, double-edged swords and daggers, javelins, > spears, and pikes. The light troops were armed with darts and slings; > charioteers wielded maces and battle-axes; in siege-operations they > were perfect. “The assailants,” says the anonymous writer, “advanced, > forming a narrow and long line, the point being protected by a > triple-sided, impenetrable engine pushed before them on a kind of > roller, by an invisible squad of men. They had covered underground > passages with trap-doors, scaling ladders, and the art of escalade and > military strategy was carried by them to perfection.... The battering > ram was familiar to them as other things; being such experts in > quarrying they knew how to set a mine to a wall and bring it down.” The > same writer remarks, that it is a great deal safer for us to mention > what the Egyptians _did_ than what they _did not_ know, for every day > brings some new discovery of their wonderful knowledge; “and if,” he > adds, “we were to find out that they used Armstrong guns, this fact > would not be much more astonishing than many of the facts brought out > to light already.” > > The proof that they were proficient in mathematical sciences, lies > in the fact that those ancient mathematicians whom we honor as the > fathers of geometry went to Egypt to be instructed. Says Professor > Smyth, as quoted by Mr. Peebles, “the geometrical knowledge of the > pyramid-builders began where Euclid’s ended.” Before Greece came > into existence, the arts, with the Egyptians, were ripe and old. > Land-measuring, an art resting on geometry, the Egyptians certainly > knew well, as, according to the _Bible_, Joshua, after conquering > the Holy Land, had skill enough to divide it. And how could a people > so skilled in natural philosophy as the Egyptians were, not be > proportionately skilled in psychology and spiritual philosophy? The > temple was the nursery of the highest civilization, and it alone > possessed that higher knowledge of magic which was in itself the > quintessence of natural philosophy. The occult powers of nature > were taught in the greatest secresy and the most wonderful cures > were performed during the performing of the Mysteries. Herodotus > acknowledges[796] that the Greeks learned all they knew, including {532} > the sacred services of the temple, from the Egyptians, and because of > that, their principal temples were consecrated to Egyptian divinities. > Melampus, the famous healer and soothsayer of Argos, had to use his > medicines “after the manner of the Egyptians,” from whom he had gained > his knowledge, whenever he desired his cure to be thoroughly effective. > He healed Iphiclus of his impotency and debility by _the rust of iron_, > according to the directions of Mantis, his _magnetic sleeper_, or > oracle. Sprengel gives many wonderful instances of such _magical_ cures > in his _History of Medicine_ (see p. 119). > > Diodorus, in his work on the Egyptians (lib. i.), says that Isis has > deserved immortality, for all nations of the earth bear witness to > the power of this goddess to cure diseases by her influence. “This is > proved,” he says, “not by fable as among the Greeks, but by authentic > facts.” Galen records several remedial means which were preserved in > the healing wards of the temples. He mentions also a universal medicine > which in his time was called _Isis_.[797] > > The doctrines of several Greek philosophers, who had been instructed in > Egypt, demonstrates their profound learning. Orpheus, who, according > to Artapanus, was a disciple of Moyses (Moses),[798] Pythagoras, > Herodotus, and Plato owe their philosophy to the same temples in which > the wise Solon was instructed by the priests. “Antiklides relates,” > says Pliny, “that the letters were invented in Egypt by a person whose > name was Menon, fifteen years before Phoroneus the most ancient king > of Greece.”[799] Jablonski proves that the heliocentric system, as > well as the earth’s sphericity, were known by the priests of Egypt > from immemorial ages. “This theory,” he adds, “Pythagoras took from > the Egyptians, who had it from the Brachmans of India.”[800] Fénelon, > the illustrious Archbishop of Cambray, in his _Lives of the Ancient > Philosophers_, credits Pythagoras with this knowledge, and says that > besides teaching his disciples that as the earth was round there were > antipodes, since it was inhabited everywhere, the great mathematician > was the first to discover that the morning and evening star was the > same. If we now consider that Pythagoras lived in about the 16th > Olympiad, over 700 years B.C., and taught this fact at such an early > period, we must believe that it was known by others before him. The > works of Aristotle, Laërtius, and several others in which Pythagoras is > mentioned, demonstrate that he had learned from the Egyptians about the > obliquity of the ecliptic, the starry composition of the milky way, and > the borrowed light of the moon. > > Wilkinson, corroborated later by others, says that the Egyptians {533} > divided time, knew the true length of the year, and the precession of > the equinoxes. By recording the rising and setting of the stars, they > understood the particular influences which proceed from the positions > and conjunctions of all heavenly bodies, and therefore their priests, > prophesying as accurately as our modern astronomers, meteorological > changes, could, _en plus_, astrologize through astral motions. Though > the sober and eloquent Cicero may be partially right in his indignation > against the exaggerations of the Babylonian priests, who “assert > that they have preserved upon monuments observations extending back > during an interval of 470,000 years,”[801] still, the period at which > astronomy had arrived at its perfection with the ancients is _beyond_ > the reach of modern calculation. > > A writer in one of our scientific journals observes “that every > science in its growth passes through three stages: First, we have the > stage of observation, when facts are collected and registered by many > minds in many places. Next, we have the stage of generalization, when > these carefully verified facts are arranged methodically, generalized > systematically, and classified logically, so as to deduce and elucidate > from them the laws that regulate their rule and order. Lastly, we have > the stage of prophecy, when these laws are so applied that events can > be predicted to occur with unerring accuracy.” If several thousand > years B.C., Chinese and Chaldean astronomers predicted eclipses—the > latter, whether by the cycle of Saros, or other means, matters not—the > fact remains the same. They had reached the last and highest stage of > astronomical science—they _prophesied_. If they could, in the year 1722 > B.C., delineate the zodiac with the exact positions of the planets > at the time of the autumnal equinox, and so unerringly as Professor > Mitchell, the astronomer, proved, then they knew the laws that regulate > “carefully-verified facts” to perfection, and applied them with as much > certainty as our modern astronomers. Moreover, astronomy is said to > be in our century “the only science which has thoroughly reached the > _last stage_ ... other sciences are yet in various stages of growth; > electricity, in some branches, has reached the third stage, but in > many branches is still in its infantine period.”[802] This we know, on > the exasperating confessions of men of science themselves, and we can > entertain no doubt as to this sad reality in the nineteenth century, > as we belong ourselves to it. Not so in relation to the men who lived > in the days of the glory of Chaldæa, Assyria, and Babylon. Of the > stages they reached in other sciences we know _nothing_, except that > in astronomy they stood equal with us, for they had also reached the {534} > _third_ and last stage. In his lecture on the _Lost Arts_, Wendell > Phillips very artistically describes the situation. “We seem to > imagine,” says he, “that whether knowledge will die with us or not, > it certainly began with us.... We have a pitying estimate, a tender > pity for the narrowness, ignorance, and darkness of the bygone ages.” > To illustrate our own idea with the closing sentence of the favorite > lecturer, we may as well confess that we undertook this chapter, > which in one sense interrupts our narrative, to inquire of our men of > science, whether they are sure that they are boasting “_on the right > line_.” > > Thus we read of a people, who, according to some learned writers,[803] > had just emerged from the bronze age into the succeeding age of iron. > “If Chaldea, Assyria, and Babylon presented _stupendous and venerable > antiquities reaching far back into_ the night of time, Persia was not > without her wonders of a later date. The pillared halls of Persepolis > were filled with miracles of art—carvings, sculptures, enamels, > alabaster libraries, obelisks, sphinxes, colossal bulls. Ecbatana, > in Media, the cool summer retreat of the Persian kings, was defended > by seven encircling walls of hewn and polished blocks, the interior > ones in succession of increasing height, and of different colors, in > astrological accordance with the seven planets. The palace was roofed > _with silver tiles_; its beams were plated with gold. At midnight, in > its halls, the sun was rivalled by many a row of naphtha cressets. > A paradise, that luxury of the monarchs of the East, was planted in > the midst of the city. The Persian empire was truly the garden of the > world.... In Babylon there still remained its walls, once more than > sixty miles in compass and, after the ravages of three centuries and > three conquerors, still more than eighty feet in height; there were > still the ruins of the temple of the cloud-encompassed Bel; on its top > was planted the observatory wherein the weird Chaldean astronomers had > held nocturnal communion with the stars; still there were vestiges of > the two palaces with their hanging gardens, in which were trees growing > in mid-air, and the wreck of the hydraulic machinery that had supplied > them from the river. Into the artificial lake, with its vast apparatus > of aqueducts and sluices, the melted snows of the Armenian mountains > found their way and were confined in their course through the city by > the embankments of the Euphrates. Most wonderful of all, perhaps, was > _the tunnel under the river-bed_.”[804] In his _First Traces of Man {535} > in Europe_, Albrecht Müller proposes a name descriptive of the age > in which we live, and suggests that “the age of paper” is perhaps as > good as any that can be discussed. We do not agree with the learned > professor. Our firm opinion is, that succeeding generations will term > ours, at best, the age of _brass_; at worst, that of albata or of > oroide. > > The thought of the present-day commentator and critic as to the ancient > learning, is limited to and runs round the _exoterism_ of the temples; > his insight is either unwilling or unable to penetrate into the solemn > adyta of old, where the hierophant instructed the neophyte to regard > the public worship in its true light. No ancient sage would have taught > that man is the king of creation, and that the starry heaven and our > mother earth were created for his sake. He, who doubts the assertion, > may turn to the _Magical and Philosophical Precepts_ of Zoroaster, and > find its corroboration in the following:[805] > > “Direct not thy mind to the vast measures of the earth; > For the plant of truth is not upon ground. > Nor measure the measures of the sun, collecting rules, > For he is carried by the eternal will of the Father, _not for your > sake_, > Dismiss the impetuous course of the moon; > For she runs always by work of necessity. > The progression of the stars _was not generated for your sake_.” > > A rather strange teaching to come from those who are universally > believed to have worshipped the sun, and moon, and the starry host, > as gods. The sublime profundity of the Magian precepts being _beyond_ > the reach of modern materialistic thought, the Chaldean philosophers > are accused, together with the ignorant masses, of Sabianism and > sun-worship. > > There was a vast difference between the _true_ worship taught to those > who showed themselves worthy, and the state religions. The magians are > accused of all kinds of superstition, but this is what a _Chaldean > Oracle_ says: > > “The wide aërial flight of birds _is not true_, > Nor the dissections of the entrails of victims; they are all mere toys, > The _basis of mercenary fraud_; flee from these > If you would open the sacred paradise of piety > Where virtue, wisdom, and equity, are assembled.”[806] > > Surely, it is not those who warn people against “mercenary fraud” > who can be accused of it; and if they accomplished acts which seem {536} > miraculous, who can with fairness presume to deny that it was done > merely because they possessed a knowledge of natural philosophy and > psychological science to a degree unknown to our schools? > > What did they not know? It is a well-demonstrated fact that the true > meridian was correctly ascertained before the first pyramid was > built. They had clocks and dials to measure time; their cubit was > the established unit of linear measure, being 1,707 feet of English > measure; according to Herodotus the unit of weight was also known; as > money, they had gold and silver rings valued by weight; they had the > decimal and duodecimal modes of calculation from the earliest times, > and were proficient in algebra. “How could they otherwise,” says an > unknown author, “bring into operation such immense mechanical powers, > if they had not thoroughly understood the philosophy of what we term > the mechanical powers?” > > The art of making linen and fine fabrics is also proved to have > been one of their branches of knowledge, for the _Bible_ speaks of > it. Joseph was presented by Pharaoh with a vesture of fine linen, a > golden chain, and many more things. The linen of Egypt was famous > throughout the world. The mummies are all wrapped in it and the linen > is beautifully preserved. Pliny speaks of a certain garment sent 600 > years B. C., by King Amasis to Lindus, every single thread of which > was composed of 360 minor threads twisted together. Herodotus gives us > (book i.), in his account of Isis and the Mysteries performed in her > honor, an idea of the beauty and “admirable softness of the linen worn > by the priests.” The latter wore shoes made of papyrus and garments > of _fine linen_, because this goddess first taught the use of it; and > thus, besides being called _Isiaci_, or priests of Isis, they were also > known as _Linigera_, or the “linen-wearing.” This linen was spun and > dyed in those brilliant and gorgeous colors, the secret of which is > likewise now among the lost arts. On the mummies we often find the most > beautiful embroidery and bead-work ornamenting their shirts; several of > such can be seen in the museum of Bulak (Cairo), and are unsurpassable > in beauty; the designs are exquisite, and the labor seems immense. > The elaborate and so much vaunted Gobelins tapestry, is but a gross > production when compared with some of the embroidery of the ancient > Egyptians. We have but to refer to _Exodus_ to discover how skilful > was the workmanship of the Israelitish pupils of the Egyptians upon > their tabernacle and sacred ark. The sacerdotal vestments, with their > decorations of “pomegranates and golden bells,” and the thummim, or > jewelled breastplate of the high priest, are described by Josephus as > being of unparalleled beauty and of wonderful workmanship; and yet we > find beyond doubt that the Jews adopted their rites and ceremonies, and {537} > even the special dress of their Levites, from the Egyptians. Clemens > Alexandrinus acknowledges it very reluctantly, and so does Origen and > other Fathers of the Church, some of whom, as a matter of course, > attribute the coincidence to a clever trick of Satan in anticipation > of events. Proctor, the astronomer, says in one of his books, “The > remarkable breastplate worn by the Jewish high priest was derived > directly from the Egyptians.” The word _thummim_ itself is evidently > of Egyptian origin, borrowed by Moses, like the rest; for further on > the same page, Mr. Proctor says that, “In the often-repeated picture > of judgment the deceased Egyptian is seen conducted by the god Horus > (?), while Anubis places on one of the balances a vase supposed to > contain his good actions, and in the other is the emblem of truth, a > representation of Thmèi, the goddess of truth, which was also worn on > the judicial breastplate.” Wilkinson, in his _Manners and Customs of > the Ancient Egyptians_, shows that the Hebrew _thummim_ is a plural > form of the word Thmèi.[807] > > All the ornamental arts seem to have been known to the Egyptians. Their > jewelry of gold, silver, and precious stones are beautifully wrought; > so was the cutting, polishing, and setting of them executed by their > lapidaries in the finest style. The finger-ring of an Egyptian mummy—if > we remember aright—was pronounced the most artistic piece of jewelry in > the London Exhibition of 1851. Their imitation of precious stones in > glass is far above anything done at the present day; and the emerald > may be said to have been imitated to perfection. > > In Pompeii, says Wendell Phillips, they discovered a room full > of glass; there was ground-glass, window-glass, cut-glass, and > colored-glass of every variety. Catholic priests who broke into China > 200 years ago, were shown a glass, transparent and colorless, which > was filled with liquor made by the Chinese, and which appeared to be > colorless like water. “This liquor was poured into the glass, and then > looking through, it seemed to be filled with fishes. They turned it out > and repeated the experiment and again it was filled with fishes.” In > Rome they show a bit of glass, a transparent glass, which they light up > so as to show you that there is nothing concealed, but in the centre > of the glass is a drop of colored glass, perhaps as large as a pea, > mottled like a duck, and which even a miniature pencil could not do > more perfectly. “It is manifest that this drop of liquid glass must > have been poured, because there is no joint. This must have been done > by a greater heat than the annealing process, because that process > shows breaks.” In relation to their wonderful art of imitating precious > stones, the lecturer speaks of the “celebrated vase of the Genoa {538} > Cathedral,” which was considered for long centuries “a solid emerald.” > “The Roman Catholic legend of it was that it was one of the treasures > that the Queen of Sheba gave to Solomon, and that it was the identical > cup out of which the Saviour drank at the Last Supper.” Subsequently > it was found not to be an emerald, but an imitation; and when Napoleon > brought it to Paris and gave it to the Institute, the scientists were > obliged to confess that it _was not a stone_, and that they could not > tell what it was. > > Further, speaking of the skill of the ancients in metal works, the same > lecturer narrates that “when the English plundered the Summer Palace of > the Emperor of China, the European artists were surprised at seeing the > curiously-wrought metal vessels of every kind, far exceeding all the > boasted skill of the workmen of Europe.” African tribes in the interior > of the country gave travellers _better razors_ than they had. “George > Thompson told me,” he adds, “he saw a man in Calcutta throw a handful > of floss silk into the air, and a Hindu sever it into pieces with his > sabre of native steel.” He concludes by the apt remark that “the steel > is the greatest triumph of metallurgy, and metallurgy is the glory of > chemistry.” So with the ancient Egyptians and Semitic races. They dug > gold and separated it with the utmost skill. Copper, lead, and iron > were found in abundance near the Red Sea. > > In a lecture delivered in 1873, on the _Cave-Men of Devonshire_, Mr. > W. Pengelly, F.R.S., stated on the authority of some Egyptologists > that the first iron used in Egypt was _meteoric_ iron, as the earliest > mention of this metal is found in an Egyptian document, in which it > is called the “stone from heaven.” This would imply the idea that the > only iron which was in use in days of old was meteorite. This may > have been the case at the commencement of the period embraced in our > present geological explorations, but till we can compute with at least > approximate accuracy the age of our excavated relics, who can tell > but that we are making a blunder of possibly several hundred thousand > years? The injudiciousness of dogmatizing upon what the ancient > Chaldeans and Egyptians did _not_ know about mining and metallurgy is > at least partially shown by the discoveries of Colonel Howard Vyse. > Moreover, many of such precious stones as are only found at a great > depth in mines are mentioned in Homer and the Hebrew Scriptures. Have > scientists ascertained the precise time when mining-shafts were first > sunk by mankind? According to Dr. A. C. Hamlin, in India, the arts > of the goldsmith and lapidary have been practiced from an “unknown > antiquity.” That the Egyptians either knew from the remotest ages > how to temper steel, or possessed something still better and more > perfect than the implement necessary in our days for chiselling, is an > alternative from which the archæologists cannot escape. How else could > they have produced such artistic chiselling, or wrought such sculpture {539} > as they did? The critics may take their choice of either; according to > them, steel tools of the most exquisite temper, or some other means of > cutting sienite, granite, and basalt; which, in the latter case, must > be added to the long catalogue of lost arts. > > Professor Albrecht Müller says: “We may ascribe the introduction of > bronze manufacture into Europe to a great race immigrant from Asia some > 6,000 years ago, called Aryas or Aryans.... Civilization of the East > preceded that of the West by many centuries.... There are many proofs > that a considerable degree of culture existed at its very beginning. > Bronze was yet in use, _but iron as well_. Pottery was not only shaped > on the lathe, but burned a good red. Manufactures in glass, gold, and > silver, are found for the first time. In lonely mountain places are > yet found dross, and the remains of iron-furnaces.... To be sure, this > dross is sometimes ascribed to volcanic action, but it is met with > where volcanoes never could have existed.” > > But it is in the process of preparing mummies that the skill of this > wonderful people is exemplified in the highest degree. None but those > who have made special study of the subject, can estimate the amount of > skill, patience, and knowledge exacted for the accomplishment of this > indestructible work, which occupied several months. Both chemistry and > surgery were called into requisition. The mummies, if left in the dry > climate of Egypt, seem to be practicably imperishable; and even when > removed after a repose of several thousand years, show no signs of > change. “The body,” says the anonymous writer, “was filled with myrrh, > cassia, and other gums, and after that, saturated with natron.... Then > followed the marvellous swathing of the embalmed body, so artistically > executed, that professional modern bandagists are lost in admiration at > its excellency.” Says Dr. Grandville: “ ... there is not a single form > of bandage known to modern surgery, of which _far better and cleverer > examples_ are not seen in the swathings of the Egyptian mummies. The > strips of linen are found without one single joint, extending to 1,000 > _yards_ in length.” Rossellini, in Kenrick’s _Ancient Egypt_, gives a > similar testimony to the wonderful variety and skill with which the > bandages have been applied and interlaced. There was not a fracture > in the human body that could not be repaired successfully by the > sacerdotal physician of those remote days. > > Who but well remembers the excitement produced some twenty-five years > ago by the discovery of anæsthesia? The nitrous oxide gas, sulphuric > and chloric ether, chloroform, “laughing gas,” besides various other > combinations of these, were welcomed as so many heavenly blessings to > the suffering portion of humanity. Poor Dr. Horace Wells, of Hartford, > in 1844, was the discoverer, and Drs. Morton and Jackson reaped the {540} > honors and benefits in 1846, as is usual in such cases. The anæsthetics > were proclaimed “the greatest discovery ever made.” And, though the > famous _Letheon_ of Morton and Jackson (a compound of sulphuric > ether), the chloroform of Sir James Y. Simpson, and the nitrous oxide > gas, introduced by Colton, in 1843, and by Dunham and Smith, were > occasionally checked by fatal cases, it still did not prevent these > gentlemen from being considered public benefactors. The patients > successfully put to sleep sometimes awoke no more; what matters that, > so long as others were relieved? Physicians assure us that accidents > are now but rarely apprehended. Perhaps it is because the beneficent > anæsthetic agents are so parsimoniously applied as to fail in their > effects one-half of the time, leaving the sufferer paralyzed for a few > seconds in his external movements, but feeling the pain as acutely as > ever. On the whole, however, chloroform and laughing gas are beneficent > discoveries. But, are they the first anæsthetics ever discovered, > strictly speaking? Dioscorides speaks of the stone of Memphis (_lapis > Memphiticus_), and describes it as a small pebble—round, polished, and > very sparkling. When ground into powder, and applied as an ointment > to that part of the body on which the surgeon was about to operate, > either with his scalpel or fire, it preserved that part, and _only > that part_ from any pain of the operation. In the meantime, it was > perfectly harmless to the constitution of the patient, who retained > his consciousness throughout, in no way dangerous from its effects, > and acted so long as it was kept on the affected part. When taken in > a mixture of wine or water, all feeling of suffering was perfectly > deadened.[808] Pliny gives also a full description of it.[809] > > From time immemorial, the Brahmans have had in their possession > secrets quite as valuable. The widow, bent on the self-sacrifice of > con-cremation, called _Sahamaranya_, has no dread of suffering the > least pain, for the fiercest flames will consume her, without one pang > of agony being experienced by her. The holy plants which crown her > brow, as she is conducted in ceremony to the funeral pile; the sacred > root culled at the midnight hour on the spot where the Ganges and the > Yumna mingle their waters; and the process of anointing the body of the > self-appointed victim with ghee and sacred oils, after she has bathed > in all her clothes and finery, are so many _magical_ anæsthetics. > Supported by those she is going to part with in body, she walks thrice > around her fiery couch, and, after bidding them farewell, is cast on > the dead body of her husband, and leaves this world without a single > moment of suffering. “The semi-fluid,” says a missionary writer, an {541} > eye-witness of several such ceremonies—“the ghee, is poured upon the > pile; it is instantly inflamed, and the _drugged_ widow dies quickly of > _suffocation_ before the fire reaches her body.”[810] > > No such thing, if the sacred ceremony is only conducted strictly after > the prescribed rites. The widows are never drugged in the sense we > are accustomed to understand the word. Only precautionary measures > are taken against a useless physical martyrdom—the atrocious agony > of burning. Her mind is as free and clear as ever, and even more so. > Firmly believing in the promises of a future life, her whole mind is > absorbed in the contemplation of the approaching bliss—the beatitude > of “freedom,” which she is about to attain. She generally dies with > the smile of heavenly rapture on her countenance; and if some one is > to suffer at the hour of retribution, it is not the earnest devotee > of her faith, but the crafty Brahmans who know well enough that no > such ferocious rite was ever prescribed.[811] As to the victim, after > having been consumed, she becomes a _sati_—transcendent purity—and is > canonized after death. > > Egypt is the birthplace and the cradle of chemistry. Kenrick shows > the root of the word to be _chemi_ or chem, which was the name of the > country (_Psalms_ cv. 27). The chemistry of colors seems to have been > thoroughly well known in that country. Facts are facts. Where among our > painters are we to search for the artist who can decorate our walls > with imperishable colors? Ages after our pigmy buildings will have > crumbled into dust, and the cities enclosing them will themselves have > become shapeless heaps of brick and mortar, with forgotten names—long > after that will the halls of Karnak and Luxor (El-Uxor) be still > standing; and the gorgeous mural paintings of the latter will doubtless > be as bright and vivid 4,000 years hence, as they were 4,000 years > ago, and are to-day. “Embalming and fresco-painting,” says our author, > “was not a chance discovery with the Egyptians, but brought out from > definitions and maxims like any induction of Faraday.” > > Our modern Italians boast of their Etruscan vases and paintings; the {542} > decorative borders found on Greek vases provoke the admiration of the > lovers of antiquity, and are ascribed to the Greeks, while in fact > “they were but copies from the Egyptian vases.” Their figures can be > found any day on the walls of a tomb of the age of Amunoph I., a period > at which Greece was not even in existence. > > Where, in our age, can we point to anything comparable to the > rock-temples of Ipsambul in Lower Nubia? There may be seen sitting > figures seventy feet high, carved out of the living rock. The torso of > the statue of Rameses II., at Thebes, measures sixty feet around the > shoulders, and elsewhere in proportion. Beside such titanic sculpture > our own seems that of pigmies. Iron was known to the Egyptians at least > long before the construction of the first pyramid, which is over 20,000 > years ago, according to Bunsen. The proof of this had remained hidden > for many thousands of years in the pyramid of Cheops, until _Colonel > Howard Vyse found it in the shape of a piece of iron, in one of the > joints, where it had evidently been placed at the time this pyramid was > first built_. Egyptologists adduce many indications that the ancients > were perfectly well acquainted with metallurgy in prehistoric times. > “To this day we can find at Sinai large heaps of scoriæ, produced > by smelting.”[812] Metallurgy and chemistry, as practiced in those > days, were known as _alchemy_, and were at the bottom of prehistoric > magic. Moreover, Moses proved his knowledge of alchemical chemistry by > pulverizing the golden calf, and strewing the powder upon the water. > > If now we turn to navigation, we will find ourselves able to prove, > on good authorities, that Necho II. fitted out a fleet on the Red Sea > and despatched it for exploration. The fleet was absent above two > years and instead of returning through the Straits of Babelmandel, as > was wont, sailed back through the Straits of Gibraltar. Herodotus was > not at all swift to concede to the Egyptians a maritime achievement > so vast as this. They had, he says, been spreading the report that > “returning homewards, they had the sunrise on their right hands; a > thing which to me is incredible.” “And yet,” remarks the author of > the heretofore-mentioned article, “this incredible assertion is now > proved _incontestable_, as may well be understood by any one who has > doubled the Cape of Good Hope. Thus it is proved that the most ancient > of these people performed a feat which was attributed to Columbus many > ages later. They say they anchored twice on their way; sowed corn, > reaped it and, sailing away, steered in triumph through the Pillars of > Hercules and eastward along the Mediterranean. “There was a people,” he {543} > adds, “much more deserving of the term ‘_veteres_’ than the Romans and > Greeks. The Greeks, young in their knowledge, sounded a trumpet before > these and called upon all the world to admire their ability. Old Egypt, > grown gray in her wisdom, was so secure of her acquirements that, she > did not invite admiration and cared no more for the opinion of the > flippant Greek than we do to-day for that of a Feejee islander.” > > “O Solon, Solon,” said the oldest Egyptian priest to that sage. “You > Greeks are ever childish, having no ancient opinion, no discipline of > any long standing!” And very much surprised, indeed, was the great > Solon, when he was told by the priests of Egypt that so many gods and > goddesses of the Grecian Pantheon were but the disguised gods of Egypt. > Truly spoke Zonaras: “All these things came to us from Chaldea to > Egypt; and from thence were derived to the Greeks.” > > Sir David Brewster gives a glowing description of several automata; and > the eighteenth century takes pride in that masterpiece of mechanical > art, the “flute-player of Vaucanson.” The little we can glean of > positive information on that subject, from ancient writers, warrants > the belief that the learned mechanicians in the days of Archimedes, > and some of them much anterior to the great Syracusan, were in no wise > more ignorant or less ingenious than our modern inventors. Archytas, a > native of Tarentum, in Italy, the instructor of Plato, a philosopher > distinguished for his mathematical achievements and wonderful > discoveries in practical mechanics, constructed a wooden dove. It must > have been an extraordinarily ingenious mechanism, as it flew, fluttered > its wings, and sustained itself for a considerable time in the air. > This skilful man, who lived 400 years B.C., invented besides the wooden > dove, the screw, the crane, and various hydraulic machines.[813] > > Egypt pressed her own grapes and made wine. Nothing remarkable in > that, so far, but she brewed her own beer, and in great quantity—our > Egyptologist goes on to say. The Ebers manuscript proves now, beyond > doubt, that the Egyptians used beer 2,000 years B.C. Their beer must > have been strong and excellent—like everything they did. Glass was > manufactured in all its varieties. In many of the Egyptian sculptures > we find scenes of glass-blowing and bottles; occasionally, during > archæological researches, glasses and glassware are found, and very > beautiful they seem to have been. Sir Gardner Wilkinson says that > the Egyptians cut, ground, and engraved glass, and possessed the art > of introducing gold between the two surfaces of the substance. They > imitated with glass, pearls, emeralds, and all the precious stones to a > great perfection. > > Likewise, the most ancient Egyptians cultivated the musical arts, and {544} > understood well the effect of musical harmony and its influence on the > human spirit. We can find on the oldest sculptures and carvings scenes > in which musicians play on various instruments. Music was used in the > Healing Department of the temples for the cure of nervous disorders. We > discover on many monuments men playing in bands in concert; the leader > beating time by clapping his hands. Thus far we can prove that they > understood the laws of harmony. They had their sacred music, domestic > and military. The lyre, harp, and flute were used for the sacred > concerts; for festive occasions they had the guitar, the single and > double pipes, and castanets; for troops, and during military service, > they had trumpets, tambourines, drums, and cymbals. Various kinds of > harps were invented by them, such as the lyre, _sambuc_, _ashur_; some > of these had upward of twenty strings. The superiority of the Egyptian > lyre over the Grecian is an admitted fact. The material out of which > were made such instruments was often of very costly and rare wood, and > they were beautifully carved; they imported it sometimes from very > distant countries; some were painted, inlaid with mother-of-pearl, and > ornamented with colored leather. They used catgut for strings as we > do. Pythagoras learned music in Egypt and made a regular science of it > in Italy. But the Egyptians were generally considered in antiquity as > the best music-teachers in Greece. They understood thoroughly well how > to extract harmonious sounds out of an instrument by adding strings to > it, as well as the multiplication of notes by shortening the strings > upon its neck; which knowledge shows a great progress in the musical > art. Speaking of harps, in a tomb at Thebes, Bruce remarks that, “they > overturn all the accounts hitherto given of the earliest state of music > and musical instruments in the East, and are altogether, in their > form, ornaments and compass, an incontestable proof, _stronger than > a thousand Greek quotations_, that geometry, drawing, mechanics, and > music were at the greatest perfection when these instruments were made; > and that the period from which we date the invention of these arts was > only _the beginning of the era of their restoration_.” > > On the walls of the palace of Amenoph II. at Thebes, the king is > represented as playing chess with the queen. This monarch reigned long > before the Trojan war. In India the game is known to have been played > at least 5,000 years ago. > > As to their knowledge in medicine, now that one of the lost _Books > of Hermes_ has been found and translated by Ebers, the Egyptians can > speak for themselves. That they understood about the circulation of > the blood, appears certain from the _healing manipulations_ of the > priests, who knew how to draw blood downward, stop its circulation for {545} > awhile, etc. A more careful study of their _bas-reliefs_ representing > scenes taking place in the healing hall of various temples will easily > demonstrate it. They had their dentists and oculists, and no doctor > was allowed to practice more than one specialty; which certainly > warrants the belief that they lost fewer patients in those days than > our physicians do now. It is also asserted by some authorities that the > Egyptians were the first people in the world who introduced trial by > jury; although we doubt this ourselves. > > But the Egyptians were not the only people of remote epochs whose > achievements place them in so commanding a position before the view > of posterity. Besides others whose history is at present shut in > behind the mists of antiquity—such as the prehistoric races of the two > Americas, of Crete, of the Troäd, of the Lacustrians, of the submerged > continent of the fabled Atlantis, now classed with myths—the deeds of > the Phœnicians stamp them with almost the character of demi-gods. > > The writer in the _National Quarterly Review_, previously quoted, says > that the Phœnicians were the earliest navigators of the world, founded > most of the colonies of the Mediterranean, and voyaged to whatever > other regions were inhabited. They visited the Arctic regions, whence > they brought accounts of eternal days without a night, which Homer > has preserved for us in the _Odyssey_. From the British Isles they > imported tin into Africa, and Spain was a favorite site for their > colonies. The description of Charybdis so completely answers to the > maëlstrom that, as this writer says: “It is difficult to imagine it to > have had any other prototype.” Their explorations, it seems, extended > in every direction, their sails whitening the Indian Ocean, as well > as the Norwegian fiords. Different writers have accorded to them the > settlement of remote localities; while the entire southern coast of > the Mediterranean was occupied by their cities. A large portion of > the African territory is asserted to have been peopled by the races > expelled by Joshua and the children of Israel. At the time when > Procopius wrote, columns stood in Mauritania Tingitana, which bore the > inscription, in Phœnician characters, “We are those who fled before the > brigand Joshua, the son of Nun or Navè.” > > Some suppose these hardy navigators of Arctic and Antarctic waters > have been the progenitors of the races which built the temples and > palaces of Palenque and Uxmal, of Copan and Arica.[814] Brasseur de > Bourbourg gives us much information about the manners and customs, > architecture and arts, and especially of the magic and magicians of > the ancient Mexicans. He tells us that Votan, their fabulous hero {546} > and the greatest of their magicians, returning from a long voyage, > visited King Solomon at the time of the building of the temple. This > Votan appears to be identical with the dreaded Quetzo-Cohuatl who > appears in all the Mexican legends; and curiously enough these legends > bear a striking resemblance, insomuch as they relate to the voyages > and exploits of the Hittim, with the Hebrew _Bible_ accounts of the > Hivites, the descendants of Heth, son of Chanaan. The record tells > us that Votan “furnished to Solomon the most valuable particulars > as to the men, animals, and plants, the gold and precious woods of > the Occident,” but refused point-blank to afford any clew to the > route he sailed, or the manner of reaching the mysterious continent. > Solomon himself gives an account of this interview in his _History > of the Wonders of the Universe_, the chief Votan figuring under the > allegory of the _Navigating Serpent_. Stephens, indulging in the > anticipation “that a key surer than that of the Rosetta-stone will > be discovered,” by which the American hieroglyphs may be read,[815] > says that the descendants of the Caciques and the Aztec subjects > are believed to survive still in the inaccessible fastnesses of the > Cordilleras—“wildernesses, which have never yet been penetrated by a > white man, ... living as their fathers did, erecting the same buildings > ... with ornaments of sculpture and plastered; large courts, and lofty > towers with high ranges of steps, and still carving on tablets of stone > the same mysterious hieroglyphics.” He adds, “I turn to that vast and > unknown region, untraversed by a single road, wherein fancy pictures > that mysterious city seen from the topmost range of the Cordilleras of > unconquered, unvisited, and unsought aboriginal inhabitants.” > > Apart from the fact that this mysterious city has been seen from > a great distance by daring travellers, there is no intrinsic > improbability of its existence, for who can tell what became of the > primitive people who fled before the rapacious brigands of Cortez and > Pizarro? Dr. Tschuddi, in his work on Peru, tells us of an Indian > legend that a train of 10,000 llamas, laden with gold to complete the > unfortunate Inca’s ransom, was arrested in the Andes by the tidings > of his death, and the enormous treasure was so effectually concealed > that not a trace of it has ever been found. He, as well as Prescott and > other writers, informs us that the Indians to this day preserve their > ancient traditions and sacerdotal caste, and obey implicitly the orders > of rulers chosen among themselves, while at the same time nominally > Catholics and actually subject to the Peruvian authorities. Magical > ceremonies practiced by their forefathers still prevail among them, and > magical phenomena occur. So persistent are they in their loyalty to the {547} > past, that it seems impossible but that they should be in relations > with some central source of authority which constantly supports and > strengthens their faith, keeping it alive. May it not be that the > sources of this undying faith lie in this mysterious city, with which > they are in secret communication? Or must we think that all of the > above is again but a “curious coincidence?” > > The story of this mysterious city was told to Stephens by a Spanish > Padre, in 1838-9. The priest swore to him that he had seen it with his > own eyes, and gave Stephens the following details, which the traveller > firmly believed to be true. “The Padre of the little village near the > ruins of Santa Cruz del Quichè, had heard of the unknown city at the > village of Chajul.... He was then young, and climbed with much labor to > the naked summit of the topmost ridge of the sierra of the Cordillera. > When arrived at a height of ten or twelve thousand feet, he looked > over an immense plain extending to Yucatan and the Gulf of Mexico, and > saw, at a great distance, a large city spread over a great space, and > with turrets white and glittering in the sun. Tradition says that no > white man has ever reached this city; that the inhabitants speak the > Maya language, know that strangers have conquered their whole land, > and murder any white man who attempts to enter their territory.... > They have no coin; no horses, cattle, mules, or other domestic animals > except fowls, and the cocks they keep underground to prevent their > crowing being heard.” > > Nearly the same was given us personally about twenty years ago, by an > old native priest, whom we met in Peru, and with whom we happened to > have business relations. He had passed all his life vainly trying to > conceal his hatred toward the conquerors—“brigands,” he termed them; > and, as he confessed, kept friends with them and the Catholic religion > for the sake of his people, but he was as truly a sun-worshipper in his > heart as ever he was. He had travelled in his capacity of a _converted_ > native missionary, and had been at Santa Cruz and, as he solemnly > affirmed, had been also to see some of his people by a “subterranean > passage” leading into the mysterious city. We believe his account; for > a man who is about to die, will rarely stop to invent idle stories; and > this one we have found corroborated in Stephen’s _Travels_. Besides, > we know of two other cities utterly unknown to European travellers; > not that the inhabitants particularly desire to hide themselves; for > people from Buddhistic countries come occasionally to visit them. But > their towns are not set down on the European or Asiatic maps; and, on > account of the too zealous and enterprising Christian missionaries, > and perhaps for more mysterious reasons of their own, the few natives > of other countries who are aware of the existence of these two cities > never mention them. Nature has provided strange nooks and hiding-places {548} > for her favorites; and unfortunately it is but far away from so-called > civilized countries that man is free to worship the Deity in the way > that his fathers did. > > Even the erudite and sober Max Müller is somehow unable to get rid of > _coincidences_. To him they come in the shape of the most unexpected > discoveries. These Mexicans, for instance, whose obscure origin, > according to the laws of probability, has no connection with the > Aryans of India, nevertheless, like the Hindus, represent an eclipse > of the moon as “the moon being devoured by a dragon.”[816] And though > Professor Müller admits that an historical intercourse between the > two people was suspected by Alexander von Humboldt, and he himself > considers it possible, still the occurrence of such a fact he adds, > “need not be the result of any historical intercourse. As we have > stated above, the origin of the aborigines of America is a very > vexed question for those interested in tracing out the affiliation > and migrations of peoples.” Notwithstanding the labor of Brasseur de > Bourbourg, and his elaborate translation of the famous _Popol-Vuh_, > alleged to be written by Ixtlilxochitl, after weighing its contents, > the antiquarian remains as much in the dark as ever. We have read the > _Popol-Vuh_ in its original translation, and the review of the same > by Max Müller, and out of the former find shining a light of such > brightness, that it is no wonder that the matter-of-fact, skeptical > scientists should be blinded by it. But so far as an author can be > judged by his writings, Professor Max Müller is no unfair skeptic; and, > moreover, very little of importance escapes his attention. How is it > then that a man of such immense and rare erudition, accustomed as he > is to embrace at one eagle glance the traditions, religious customs, > and superstitions of a people, detecting the slightest similarity, > and taking in the smallest details, failed to give any importance or > perhaps even suspect what the humble author of the present volume, > who has neither scientific training nor erudition, to any extent, > apprehended at first view? Fallacious and unwarranted as to many may > seem this remark, it appears to us that science loses more than she > gains by neglecting the ancient and even mediæval esoteric literature, > or rather what remains of it. To one who devotes himself to such study > many a coincidence is transformed into a natural result of demonstrable > antecedent causes. We think we can see how it is that Professor Müller > confesses that “now and then ... one imagines one sees certain periods > and landmarks, but in the next page all is chaos again.”[817] May it > not be barely possible that this chaos is intensified by the fact > that most of the scientists, directing the whole of their attention > to history, skip that which they treat as “vague, contradictory, {549} > miraculous, absurd.” Notwithstanding the feeling that there was “a > groundwork of noble conceptions which has been covered and distorted > by an aftergrowth of fantastic nonsense,” Professor Müller cannot help > comparing this nonsense to the tales of the _Arabian Nights_. > > Far be from us the ridiculous pretension of criticising a scientist so > worthy of admiration for his learning as Max Müller. But we cannot help > saying that even among the fantastic nonsense of the _Arabian Nights’ > Entertainments_ anything would be worthy of attention, if it should > help toward the evolving of some historical truth. Homer’s _Odyssey_ > surpasses in fantastic nonsense all the tales of the _Arabian Nights_ > combined; and notwithstanding that, many of his myths are now proved > to be something else besides the creation of the old poet’s fancy. > The Læstrygonians, who devoured the companions of Ulysses, are traced > to the huge cannibal[818] race, said in primitive days to inhabit the > caves of Norway. Geology verified through her discoveries some of > the assertions of Homer, supposed for so many ages to have been but > poetical hallucinations. The perpetual daylight enjoyed by this race > of Læstrygonians indicates that they were inhabitants of the North > Cape, where, during the whole summer, there is perpetual daylight. The > Norwegian fiords are perfectly described by Homer in his _Odyssey_, x. > 110; and the gigantic stature of the Læstrygonians is demonstrated by > human bones of unusual size found in caves situated near this region, > and which the geologists suppose to have belonged to a race extinct > long before the Aryan immigration. Charybdis, as we have seen, has > been recognized in the maëlstrom; and the Wandering Rocks[819] in the > enormous icebergs of the Arctic seas. > > If the consecutive attempts at the creation of man described in the > _Quichè Cosmogony_ suggests no comparison with some Apocrypha, with > the Jewish sacred books, and the kabalistic theories of creation, it > is indeed strange. Even the _Book of Jasher_, condemned as a gross > forgery of the twelfth century, may furnish more than one clew to > trace a relation between the population of Ur of the Kasdeans, where > Magism flourished before the days of Abraham, and those of Central and > North America. The divine beings, “brought down to the level of human > nature,” perform no feats or tricks more strange or incredible than the > miraculous performances of Moses and of Pharaoh’s magicians, while many > of these are exactly similar in their nature. And when, moreover, in > addition to this latter fact, we find so great a resemblance between > certain kabalistic terms common to both hemispheres, there must be > something else than mere accident to account for the circumstance. {550} > Many of such feats have clearly a common parentage. The story of the > two brothers of Central America, who, before starting on their journey > to Xibalba, “plant each a cane in the middle of their grandmother’s > house, that she may know by its flourishing or withering whether they > are alive or dead,”[820] finds its analogy in the beliefs of many > other countries. In the _Popular Tales and Traditions_, by Sacharoff > (Russia), one can find a similar narrative, and trace this belief in > various other legends. And yet these fairy tales were current in Russia > many centuries before America was discovered. > > In recognizing in the gods of Stonehenge the divinities of Delphos and > Babylon, one need feel little surprised. Bel and the Dragon, Apollo > and Python, Osiris and Typhon, are all one under many names, and have > travelled far and wide. The Both-al of Ireland points directly to its > first parent, the Batylos of the Greeks and the Beth-el of Chanaan. > “History,” says H. de la Villemarque, “which took no notes at those > distant ages, can plead ignorance, but the science of languages > affirms. Philology, with a daily-increasing probability, has again > linked together the chain hardly broken between the Orient and the > Occident.”[821] > > No more remarkable is the discovery of a like resemblance between the > Oriental myths and ancient Russian tales and traditions, for it is > entirely natural to look for a similarity between the beliefs of the > Semitic and Aryan families. But when we discover an almost perfect > identity between the character of Zarevna Militrissa, with a _moon_ > in her forehead, who is in constant danger of being devoured by _Zmeÿ > Gorenetch_ (the Serpent or Dragon), who plays such a prominent part > in all popular Russian tales, and similar characters in the Mexican > legends—extending to the minutest details—we may well pause and ask > ourselves whether there be not here more than a simple coincidence. > > This tradition of the Dragon and the Sun—occasionally replaced by the > Moon—has awakened echoes in the remotest parts of the world. It may be > accounted for with perfect readiness by the once universal heliolatrous > religion. There was a time when Asia, Europe, Africa, and America > were covered with the temples sacred to the sun and the dragons. The > priests assumed the names of their deities, and thus the tradition of > these spread like a net-work all over the globe: “Bel and the Dragon > being uniformly coupled together, and the priest of the Ophite religion > as uniformly assuming the name of his god.”[822] But still, “if the {551} > original conception is natural and intelligible ... and its occurrence > need not be the result of any historical intercourse,” as Professor > Müller tells us, the details are so strikingly similar that we cannot > feel satisfied that the riddle is entirely solved. The origin of this > universal symbolical worship being concealed in the night of time, we > would have far more chance to arrive at the truth by tracing these > traditions to their very source. And where is this source? Kircher > places the origin of the Ophite and heliolatrous worship, the shape > of conical monuments and the obelisks, with the Egyptian Hermes > Trismegistus.[823] Where, then, except in Hermetic books, are we to > seek for the desired information? Is it likely that modern authors can > know more, or as much, of ancient myths and cults as the men who taught > them to their contemporaries? Clearly two things are necessary: first, > to find the missing books of Hermes; and second, the key by which to > _understand_ them, for reading is not sufficient. Failing in this, our > savants are abandoned to unfruitful speculations, as for a like reason > geographers waste their energies in a vain quest of the sources of the > Nile. Truly the land of Egypt is another abode of mystery! > > Without stopping to discuss whether Hermes was the “Prince of > postdiluvian magic,” as des Mousseaux calls him, or the antediluvian, > which is much more likely, one thing is certain: The authenticity, > reliability, and usefulness of the _Books of Hermes_—or rather of > what remains of the thirty-six works attributed to the Egyptian > magician—are fully recognized by Champollion, junior, and corroborated > by Champollion-Figeac, who mentions it. Now, if by carefully looking > over the kabalistical works, which are all derived from that universal > storehouse of esoteric knowledge, we find the fac-similes of many > so-called miracles wrought by magical art, equally reproduced by the > Quichès; and if even in the fragments left of the original _Popol-Vuh_, > there is sufficient evidence that the religious customs of the > Mexicans, Peruvians, and other American races are nearly identical > with those of the ancient Phœnicians, Babylonians, and Egyptians; and > if, moreover, we discover that many of their religious terms have > etymologically the same origin; how are we to avoid believing that > they are the descendants of those whose forefathers “fled before the > brigand, Joshua, the son of Nun?” “Nuñez de la Vega says that Nin, or > Imos, of the Tzendales, was the Ninus of the Babylonians.”[824] > > It is possible that, so far, it may be a coincidence; as the > identification of one with the other rests but upon a poor argument. > “But it is known,” adds de Bourbourg, “that this prince, and according {552} > to others, his father, Bel, or Baal, received, like the Nin of the > Tzendales, the homages of his subjects under the shape of a serpent.” > The latter assertion, besides being fantastic, is nowhere corroborated > in the Babylonian records. It is very true that the Phœnicians > represented the sun under the image of a dragon; but so did all the > other people who symbolized their sun-gods. Belus, the first king > of the Assyrian dynasty was, according to Castor, and Eusebius who > quotes him, deified, _i. e._, he was ranked among the gods “after his > death” only. Thus, neither himself nor his son, Ninus, or Nin, could > have received their subjects under the shape of a serpent, whatever > the Tzendales did. Bel, according to Christians, is Baal; and Baal is > the Devil, since the Bible prophets began so designating every deity > of their neighbors; therefore Belus, Ninus, and the Mexican Nin are > serpents and devils; and, as the Devil, or father of evil, is one > under many forms, therefore, under whatever name the serpent appears, > it is the Devil. Strange logic! Why not say that Ninus the Assyrian, > represented as husband and victim of the ambitious Semiramis, was > high priest as well as king of his country? That as such he wore on > his tiara the sacred emblems of the dragon and the sun? Moreover, > as the priest generally assumed the name of his god, Ninus was said > to receive his subject as the representative of this serpent-god. > The idea is preëminently Roman Catholic, and amounts to very little, > as all their inventions do. If Nuñez de la Vega was so anxious to > establish an affiliation between the Mexicans and the biblical > sun-and serpent-worshippers, why did he not show another and a better > similarity between them without tracing in the Ninevites and the > Tzendales the hoof and horn of the Christian Devil? > > And to begin with, he might have pointed to the _Chronicles_ of > Fuentes, of the kingdom of Guatemala, and to the _Manuscript_ of > Don Juan Torres, the grandson of the last king of the Quichès. > This document, which is said to have been in the possession of the > lieutenant-general appointed by Pedro de Alvarado, states that > the Toltecas themselves descended from the house of Israel, who > were released by Moses, and who, after crossing the Red Sea, fell > into idolatry. After that, having separated themselves from their > companions, and under the guidance of a chief named Tanub, they set out > wandering, and from one continent to another they came to a place named > the Seven Caverns, in the Kingdom of Mexico, where they founded the > famous town of Tula, etc.[825] > > If this statement has never obtained more credit than it has, it is > simply due to the fact that it passed through the hands of Father > Francis Vasques, historian of the Order of San Francis, and this {553} > circumstance, to use the expression employed by des Mousseaux in > connection with the work of the poor, unfrocked Abbé Huc, “is not > calculated to strengthen our confidence.” But there is another point as > important, if not more so, as it seems to have escaped falsification > by the zealous Catholic padres, and rests chiefly on Indian tradition. > A famous Toltecan king, whose name is mixed up in the weird legends > of Utatlan, the ruined capital of the great Indian kingdom, bore the > biblical appellation of Balam Acan; the first name being preëminently > Chaldean, and reminding one immediately of Balaam and his human-voiced > ass. Besides the statement of Lord Kingsborough, who found such a > striking similarity between the language of the Aztecs (the mother > tongue) and the Hebrew, many of the figures on the bas-reliefs of > Palenque and idols in _terra cotta_, exhumed in Santa Cruz del Quichè, > have on their heads bandelets with a square protuberance on them, in > front of the forehead, very similar to the phylacteries worn by the > Hebrew Pharisees of old, while at prayers, and even by devotees of > the present day, particularly the Jews of Poland and Russia. But as > this may be but a fancy of ours, after all, we will not insist on the > details. > > Upon the testimony of the ancients, corroborated by modern discoveries, > we know that there were numerous catacombs in Egypt and Chaldea, some > of them of a very vast extent. The most renowned of them were the > subterranean crypts of Thebes and Memphis. The former, beginning on > the western side of the Nile, extended toward the Libyan desert, and > were known as the _Serpent’s_ catacombs, or passages. It was there > that were performed the sacred mysteries of the _kúklos ànágkés_, the > “Unavoidable Cycle,” more generally known as the “circle of necessity;” > the inexorable doom imposed upon every soul after the bodily death, and > when it had been judged in the Amenthian region. > > In de Bourbourg’s book, Votan, the Mexican demi god, in narrating his > expedition, describes a subterranean passage, which ran underground, > and terminated at the root of the heavens, adding that this passage was > a snake’s hole, “_un ahugero de colubra_;” and that he was admitted to > it because he was himself “a son of the snakes,” or a serpent.[826] > > This is, indeed, very suggestive; for his description of the _snake’s > hole_ is that of the ancient Egyptian crypt, as above mentioned. The > hierophants, moreover, of Egypt, as of Babylon, generally styled > themselves the “Sons of the Serpent-god,” or “Sons of the Dragon;” not > because—as des Mousseaux would have his readers believe—they were the > progeny of Satan-incubus, the old serpent of Eden, but because, in the > Mysteries, the serpent was the symbol of WISDOM and immortality. “The {554} > Assyrian priest bore always the name of his god,” says Movers.[827] The > Druids of the Celto-Britannic regions also called themselves snakes. > “I am a Serpent, I am a Druid!” they exclaimed. The Egyptian Karnak > is twin-brother to the Carnac of Bretagné, the latter Carnac meaning > the serpent’s mount. The Dracontia once covered the surface of the > globe, and these temples were sacred to the dragon, only because it > was the symbol of the sun, which, in its turn, was the symbol of the > highest god—the Phœnician Elon or Elion, whom Abraham recognized as > El Elion.[828] Besides the surname of serpents, they were called the > “builders,” the “architects;” for the immense grandeur of their temples > and monuments was such, that even now the pulverized remains of them > “frighten the mathematical calculations of our modern engineers,” says > Taliesin.[829] > > De Bourbourg hints that the chiefs of the name of Votan, the > Quetzo-Cohuatl, or serpent deity of the Mexicans, are the descendants > of Ham and Canaan. “I am Hivim,” they say. “Being a Hivim, I am of > the great race of the Dragon (snake). I am a snake myself, for I am a > Hivim.”[830] And des Mousseaux, rejoicing because he believes himself > fairly on the serpent’s, or rather, devil’s trail, hurries to explain: > “According to the most learned commentators of our sacred books, the > Chivim or Hivim, or _Hevites_, descend from Heth, son of Canaan, son of > Ham ... _the accursed_!”[831] > > But modern research has demonstrated, on unimpeachable evidence, that > the whole genealogical table of the tenth chapter of _Genesis_ refers > to imaginary heroes, and that the closing verses of the ninth are > little better than a bit of Chaldean allegory of Sisuthrus and the > mythical flood, compiled and arranged to fit the Noachian frame. But, > suppose the descendants of these Canaanites, “the accursed,” were to > resent for once the unmerited outrage? It would be an easy matter > for them to reverse the tables, and answer to this fling, based on a > _fable_, by a _fact_ proved by archæologists and symbologists—namely, > that Seth, Adam’s third son, and the forefather of all Israel, the > ancestor of Noah, and the progenitor of the “chosen people,” is but > Hermes, the god of wisdom, called also Thoth, Tat, Seth, Set, and > _Sat-an_; and that he was, furthermore, when viewed under his bad > aspect, Typhon, the Egyptian Satan, who was also _Set_. For the Jewish > people, whose well-educated men, no more than Philo, or Josephus, the {555} > historian, regard their Mosaic books as otherwise than an allegory, > such a discovery amounts to but little. But for Christians, who, like > des Mousseaux, very unwisely accept the _Bible_ narratives as literal > history, the case stands very different. > > As far as affiliation goes, we agree with this pious writer; and we > feel every day as certain that some of the peoples of Central America > will be traced back to the Phœnicians and the Mosaic Israelites, as we > do that the latter will be proved to have as persistently stuck to the > same idolatry—if idolatry there is—of the sun and serpent-worship, as > the Mexicans. There is evidence—biblical evidence—that two of Jacob’s > sons, Levi and Dan, as well as Judah, married Canaanite women, and > followed the worship of their wives. Of course, every Christian will > protest, but the proof may be found even in the translated _Bible_, > pruned as it now stands. The dying Jacob thus describes his sons: > “Dan,” says he, “shall be a _serpent_ by the way, an _adder_ in the > path, that biteth the horse-heels, so that his rider shall fall > backward.... I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord!” Of Simeon and > Levi, the patriarch (or Israel) remarks that they “ ... _are_ brethren; > instruments of _cruelty_ are in their habitations. O my soul, come not > thou into _their secret_; unto _their assembly_.”[832] Now, in the > original, the words “their secret,” read—their SOD.[833] And Sod was > the name for the great Mysteries of Baal, Adonis, and Bacchus who were > all sun-gods and had serpents for symbols. The kabalists explain the > allegory of the fiery serpents by saying, that this was the name given > to the tribe of Levi, to all the _Levites_ in short, and that Moses was > the chief of the _Sodales_.[834] And here is the moment to prove our > statements. > > Moses is mentioned by several old historians as an Egyptian priest; > Manetho says he was a hierophant of Hieropolis, and a priest of the > sun-god Osiris, and that his name was Osarsiph. Those moderns, who > accept it as a fact that he “was learned in _all_ the wisdom” of > the Egyptians, must also submit to the right interpretation of the > word wisdom, which was throughout the world known as a synonym of {556} > _initiation_ into the secret mysteries of the _Magi_. Did the idea > never strike the reader of the _Bible_, that an alien born and brought > up in a foreign country _could not_ and _would not_ possibly have been > admitted—we will not say to the final initiation, the grandest mystery > of all, but even to share the knowledge of the minor priesthood, > those who belonged to the _lesser_ mysteries? In _Genesis_ xliii. 32, > we read, that no Egyptian could seat himself to eat bread with the > brothers of Joseph, “for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” > But that the Egyptians ate “with _him_ (Joseph) by themselves.” The > above proves two things: 1, that Joseph, whatever he was in his > heart, had, in appearance at least, changed his religion, married the > daughter of a priest of the “idolatrous” nation, and become himself an > Egyptian; otherwise, the natives would not have eaten bread with him. > And 2, that subsequently Moses, if not an Egyptian by birth, became > one through being admitted into the priesthood, and thus was a SODALE. > As an induction, the narrative of the “brazen serpent” (the Caduceus > of Mercury or Asclepios, the son of the sun-god Apollo-Python) becomes > logical and natural. We must bear in mind that Pharaoh’s daughter, who > saved Moses and adopted him, is called by Josephus _Thermuthis_; and > the latter, according to Wilkinson, is the name of the _asp_ sacred to > Isis;[835] moreover, Moses is said to descend from the tribe of _Levi_. > We will explain the kabalistic ideas as to the books of Moses and the > great prophet himself more fully in Volume II. > > If Brasseur de Bourbourg and the Chevalier des Mousseaux, had so much > at heart to trace the identity of the Mexicans with the Canaanites, > they might have found far better and weightier proofs than by showing > both the “accursed” descendants of Ham. For instance, they might have > pointed to the Nargal, the Chaldean and Assyrian chief of the Magi > (Rab-Mag) and the Nagal, the chief sorcerer of the Mexican Indians. > Both derive their names from Nergal-Sarezer, the Assyrian god, and both > have the same faculties, or powers to have an attendant _dæmon_ with > whom they identify themselves completely. The Chaldean and Assyrian > Nargal kept his dæmon, in the shape of some animal considered sacred, > inside the temple; the Indian Nagal keeps his wherever he can—in the > neighboring lake, or wood, or in the house, under the shape of a > household animal.[836] > > We find the _Catholic World_, newspaper, in a recent number, bitterly > complaining that the old Pagan element of the aboriginal inhabitants of > America does not seem to be utterly dead in the United States. Even {557} > where tribes have been for long years under the care of Christian > teachers, heathen rites are practiced in secret, and crypto-paganism, > or _nagualism_, flourishes now, as in the days of Montezuma. It says: > “Nagualism and voodoo-worship” as it calls these two strange sects—“are > direct _devil-worship_. A report addressed to the Cortes in 1812, by > Don Pedro Baptista Pino, says: ‘All the pueblos have their _artufas_—so > the natives call subterranean rooms with only a single door, where > they assemble to perform their feasts, and hold meetings. These are > impenetrable temples ... and the doors are always closed on the > Spaniards. > > “‘All these pueblos, in spite of the sway which religion has had over > them, cannot forget a part of the beliefs which have been transmitted > to them, and which they are careful to transmit to their descendants. > Hence come the adoration they render the sun and moon, and other > heavenly bodies, the respect they entertain for fire, etc. > > “‘The pueblo chiefs seem to be at the same time priests; they perform > various simple rites, by which the power of the sun and of Montezuma is > recognized, as well as the power (according to some accounts) of the > Great Snake, to whom, by order of Montezuma, they are to look for life. > They also officiate in certain ceremonies with which they pray for > rain. There are painted representations of the Great Snake, together > with that of a misshapen, red-haired man, declared to stand for > Montezuma. Of this last there was also, in the year 1845, in the pueblo > of Laguna, a rude effigy or idol, intended, apparently, to represent > only the head of the deity.’”[837] > > The perfect identity of the rites, ceremonies, traditions, and even > the names of the deities, among the Mexicans and ancient Babylonians > and Egyptians, are a sufficient proof of South America being peopled > by a colony which mysteriously found its way across the Atlantic. > When? at what period? History is silent on that point; but those who > consider that there is no tradition, sanctified by ages, without > a certain sediment of truth at the bottom of it, believe in the > _Atlantis_-legend. There are, scattered throughout the world, a handful > of thoughtful and solitary students, who pass their lives in obscurity, > far from the rumors of the world, studying the great problems of the > physical and spiritual universes. They have their secret records in > which are preserved the fruits of the scholastic labors of the long > line of recluses whose successors they are. The knowledge of their > early ancestors, the sages of India, Babylonia, Nineveh, and the > imperial Thebes; the legends and traditions commented upon by the > masters of Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato, in the marble halls of {558} > Heliopolis and Saïs; traditions which, in their days, already seemed > to hardly glimmer from behind the foggy curtain of the past;—all this, > and much more, is recorded on indestructible parchment, and passed > with jealous care from one adept to another. These men believe the > story of the Atlantis to be no fable, but maintain that at different > epochs of the past huge islands, and even continents, existed where now > there is but a wild waste of waters. In those submerged temples and > libraries the archæologist would find, could he but explore them, the > materials for filling all the gaps that now exist in what we imagine is > _history_. They say that at a remote epoch a traveller could traverse > what is now the Atlantic Ocean, almost the entire distance by land, > crossing in boats from one island to another, where narrow straits then > existed. > > Our suspicion as to the relationship of the cis-Atlantic and > trans-Atlantic races is strengthened upon reading about the wonders > wrought by Quetzo-Cohuatl, the Mexican magician. His wand must be > closely-related to the traditional sapphire-stick of Moses, the stick > which bloomed in the garden of Raguel-Jethro, his father-in-law, and > upon which was engraved the ineffable name. The “four men” described as > the real four ancestors of the human race, “who were neither begotten > by the gods, nor born of woman,” but whose “creation was a wonder > wrought by the Creator,” and who were made after three attempts at > manufacturing men had failed, equally present some striking points of > similarity with the esoteric explanations of the Hermetists;[838] they > also undeniably recall the four sons of God of the Egyptian theogony. > Moreover, as any one may infer, the resemblance of this myth to the > narrative related in _Genesis_, will be apparent to even a superficial > observer. These four ancestors “could reason and speak, their sight > was unlimited, and they knew all things at once.”[839] When “they > had rendered thanks to their Creator for their existence, _the gods > were frightened_, and they breathed a cloud over the eyes of men that > they might see a certain distance only, and not be _like the gods > themselves_.” This bears directly upon the sentence in _Genesis_, > “Behold, _the man is become as one of us_, to know good and evil; and > now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,” > etc. Then, again, “While _they were asleep_ God gave them wives,” etc. > > We disclaim the least intention to disrespectfully suggest ideas to {559} > those who are so wise as to need no hint. But we must bear in mind that > authentic treatises upon ancient magic of the Chaldean and Egyptian > lore are not scattered about in public libraries, and at auction sales. > That such exist is nevertheless a fact for many students of the arcane > philosophy. Is it not of the greatest importance for every antiquarian > to be acquainted at least superficially with their contents? “The four > ancestors of the race,” adds Max Müller, “seem to have had a long life, > and when at last they came to die, they disappeared in a mysterious > manner, and left to their sons what is called the _hidden majesty_, > which was never to be opened by human hands. What it was we do not > know.” > > If there is no relationship between this hidden majesty and the hidden > glory of the Chaldean _Kabala_, which we are told was left behind > him by Enoch when he was translated in such a mysterious way, then > we must discredit all circumstantial evidence. But is it not barely > possible that these “four ancestors” of the Quichè race typify in > their esoteric sense the four successive progenitors of men, mentioned > in _Genesis_ i., ii., and vi.? In the first chapter, the first man > is bi-sexual—“male and female created he them” and answers to the > hermaphrodite deities of the subsequent mythologies; the second, Adam, > made out of “the dust of the ground” and uni-sexual and answering to > the “sons of God” of chapter vi.; the third, the giants, or _nephilim_, > who are only hinted at in the _Bible_, but fully explained elsewhere; > the fourth, the parents of men “whose daughters were fair.” > > Taking the admitted facts that the Mexicans had their magicians from > the remote periods; that the same remark applies to all the ancient > religions of the world; that a strong resemblance prevails not only in > the forms of their ceremonial worship, but also in the very names used > to designate certain magical implements; and finally that all other > clews, in accordance with scientific deductions, have failed (some > because swallowed up in the bottomless pit of coincidences), why should > we not turn to the great authorities upon magic, and see whether, > under this “aftergrowth of fantastic nonsense,” there may not be a > deep substratum of truth? Here we are not willing to be misunderstood. > We do not send the scientists to the _Kabala_ and the Hermetic books > to study magic, but to the authorities on magic to discover materials > for history and science. We have no idea of incurring the wrathful > denunciations of the Academicians, by an indiscretion like that of poor > des Mousseaux, when he tried to force them to read his demonological > _Memoire_ and investigate the Devil. > > The _History of Bernal Diaz de Castilla_, a follower of Cortez, gives > us some idea of the extraordinary refinement and intelligence of the {560} > people whom they conquered; but the descriptions are too long to be > inserted here. Suffice it to say, that the Aztecs appeared in more than > one way to have resembled the ancient Egyptians in civilization and > refinement. Among both peoples magic or the arcane natural philosophy > was cultivated to the highest degree. Add to this that Greece, > the “later cradle of the arts and sciences,” and India, cradle of > religions, were and are still devoted to its study and practice—and who > shall venture to discredit its dignity as a study, and its profundity > as a science? > > There never was, nor can there be more than one universal religion; > for there can be but one truth concerning God. Like an immense chain > whose upper end, the alpha, remains invisibly emanating from a Deity—in > _statu abscondito_ with every primitive theology—it encircles our globe > in every direction; it leaves not even the darkest corner unvisited, > before the other end, the omega, turns back on its way to be again > received where it first emanated. On this divine chain was strung the > exoteric symbology of every people. Their variety of form is powerless > to affect their substance, and under their diverse ideal types of > the universe of matter, symbolizing its vivifying principles, the > uncorrupted immaterial image of the spirit of being guiding them is the > same. > > So far as human intellect can go in the ideal interpretation of the > spiritual universe, its laws and powers, the last word was pronounced > ages since; and, if the _ideas_ of Plato can be simplified for the > sake of easier comprehension, the spirit of their substance can > neither be altered, nor removed without material damage to the truth. > Let human brains submit themselves to torture for thousands of years > to come; let theology perplex faith and mime it with the enforcing > of incomprehensible dogmas in metaphysics; and science strengthen > skepticism, by pulling down the tottering remains of spiritual > intuition in mankind, with her demonstrations of its fallibility, > eternal truth can never be destroyed. We find its last possible > expression in our human language in the Persian Logos, the _Honover_, > or the living _manifested_ Word of God. The Zoroastrian _Enoch-Verihe_ > is identical with the Jewish “_I am_;” and the “Great Spirit” of > the poor, untutored Indian, is the manifested Brahma of the Hindu > philosopher. One of the latter, Tcharaka, a Hindu physician, who is > said to have lived 5,000 years B. C., in his treatise on the origin of > things, called _Usa_, thus beautifully expresses himself: “Our Earth > is, like all the luminous bodies that surround us, one of the atoms > of the immense Whole of which we show a slight conception by terming > it—the Infinite.” > > “There is but one light, and there is but one darkness,” says a Siamese > proverb. _Dæmon est Deus inversus_, the Devil is the shadow of God, > states the universal kabalistic axiom. Could light exist but for {561} > primeval darkness? And did not the brilliant, sunny universe first > stretch its infant arms from the swaddling bands of dark and dreary > chaos? If the Christian “_fulness of Him that filleth all in all_” is > a revelation, then we must admit that, if there is a devil, he must > be included in this _fulness_, and be a part of that which “filleth > all in all.” From time immemorial the justification of the Deity, and > His separation from the existing evil was attempted, and the object > was reached by the old Oriental philosophy in the foundation of the > _theodiké_; but their metaphysical views on the _fallen spirit_, > have never been disfigured by the creation of an anthropomorphic > personality of the Devil as was done subsequently by the leading lights > of Christian theology. A personal fiend, who opposes the Deity, and > impedes progress on its way to perfection, is to be sought only on > earth amid humanity, not in heaven. > > Thus is it that all the religious monuments of old, in whatever land > or under whatever climate, are the expression of the same identical > thoughts, the key to which is in the esoteric doctrine. It would be > vain, without studying the latter, to seek to unriddle the mysteries > enshrouded for centuries in the temples and ruins of Egypt and Assyria, > or those of Central America, British Columbia, and the Nagkon-Wat of > Cambodia. If each of these was built by a different nation; and neither > nation had had intercourse with the others for ages, it is also certain > that all were planned and built under the direct supervision of the > priests. And the clergy of every nation, though practicing rites and > ceremonies which may have differed externally, had evidently been > initiated into the same traditional mysteries which were taught all > over the world. > > In order to institute a better comparison between the specimens of > prehistoric architecture to be found at the most opposite points of the > globe, we have but to point to the grandiose Hindu ruins of Ellora in > the Dekkan, the Mexican Chichen-Itza, in Yucatan, and the still grander > ruins of Copan, in Guatemala. They present such features of resemblance > that it seems impossible to escape the conviction that they were built > by peoples moved by the same religious ideas, and that had reached an > equal level of highest civilization in arts and sciences. > > There is not, perhaps, on the face of the whole globe, a more imposing > mass of ruins than Nagkon-Wat, the wonder and puzzle of European > archæologists who venture into Siam. And when we say ruins, the > expression is hardly correct; for nowhere are there buildings of such > tremendous antiquity to be found in a better state of preservation than > Nagkon-Wat, and the ruins of Angkorthôm, the great temple. > > Hidden far away in the province of Siamrap—eastern Siam—in the midst of > a most luxuriant tropical vegetation, surrounded by almost impenetrable > forests of palms, cocoa-trees, and betel-nut, “the general appearance {562} > of the wonderful temple is beautiful and romantic, as well as > impressive and grand,” says Mr. Vincent, a recent traveller.[840] > “We whose good fortune it is to live in the nineteenth century, are > accustomed to boast of the perfection and preëminence of our modern > civilization; of the grandeur of our attainments in science, art, > literature, and what not, as compared with those whom we call ancients; > but still we are compelled to admit that they have far excelled our > recent endeavors in many things, and notably in the fine arts of > painting, architecture, and sculpture. We were but just looking upon a > most wonderful example of the two latter, for in style and beauty of > architecture, solidity of construction, and magnificent and elaborate > carving and sculpture, the Great Nagkon-Wat has no superior, certainly > no rival standing at the present day. The first view of the ruins is > overwhelming.” > > Thus the opinion of another traveller is added to that of many > preceding ones, including archæologists and other competent critics, > who have believed that the ruins of the past Egyptian splendor deserve > no higher eulogium than Nagkon-Wat. > > According to our plan, we will allow more impartial critics than > ourselves to describe the place, since, in a work professedly > devoted to a vindication of the ancients, the testimony of so > enthusiastic an advocate as the present writer may be questioned. We > have, nevertheless, seen Nagkon-Wat under exceptionally favorable > circumstances, and can, therefore, certify to the general correctness > of Mr. Vincent’s description. He says: > > “We entered upon an immense causeway, the stairs of which were flanked > with six huge griffins, each carved from a single block of stone. The > causeway is ... 725 feet in length, and is paved with stones each > of which measures four feet in length by two in breadth. On either > side of it are artificial lakes fed by springs, and each covering > about five acres of ground.... The outer wall of Nagkon-Wat (the city > of monasteries) is half a mile square, with gateways ... which are > handsomely carved with figures of gods and dragons. The foundations are > ten feet in height.... The entire edifice, including the roof, is of > stone, _but without cement, and so closely fitting are the joints as > even now to be scarcely discernible_.... The shape of the building is > oblong, being 796 feet in length, and 588 in width, while the highest > central pagoda rises some 250 odd feet above the ground, and four > others, at the angles of the court, are each about 150 feet in height.” > > The above underscored lines are suggestive to travellers who have > remarked and admired the same wonderful mason-work in the Egyptian {563} > remains. If the same workmen did not lay the courses in both countries > we must at least think that the secret of this matchless wall-building > was equally known to the architects of every land. > > “Passing, we ascend a platform ... and enter the temple itself through > a columned portico, the _façade_ of which is beautifully carved > in _basso-relievo_ with ancient mythological subjects. From this > doorway, on either side, runs a corridor with a double row of columns, > cut—base and capital—from single blocks, with a double, oval-shaped > roof, covered with carving and consecutive sculptures upon the outer > wall. This gallery of sculptures, which forms the exterior of the > temple, consists of over half a mile of continuous pictures, cut in > _basso-relievo_ upon sandstone slabs six feet in width, and represents > subjects taken from Hindu mythology, from the _Ramayana_—the Sanscrit > epic poem of India, with its 25,000 verses describing the exploits of > the god Rama, and the son of the King of Oudh. The contests of the > King of Ceylon, and Hanouma,[841] the monkey-god, are graphically > represented. There is _no keystone_ used in the arch of this corridor. > On the walls are sculptured the immense number of 100,000 separate > figures. One picture from the _Ramayâna_ ... occupies 240 feet of the > wall.... In the _Nagkon-Wat_ as many as 1,532 solid columns have been > counted, and among the entire ruins of Angkor ... the immense number > of 6,000, almost all of them hewn from single blocks and artistically > carved.... > > “But who built _Nagkon-Wat_? and when was it built?” Learned men > have attempted to form opinions from studies of its construction, > and especially “ornamentation,” and have failed. “Native Cambodian {564} > historians,” adds Vincent, “reckon 2,400 from the building of the > temple.... I asked one of them how long _Nagkon-Wat_ had been built.... > ‘None can tell when.... I do not know; it must have either sprung up > from the ground or been built by giants, or perhaps by the angels’ ... > was the answer.” > > When Stephens asked the native Indians “Who built Copan?... what nation > traced the hieroglyphic designs, sculptured these elegant figures and > carvings, these emblematical designs?” the dull answer he received was > “_Quien Sabe?_” who knows! “All is mystery; dark, impenetrable mystery,” > writes Stephens. “In Egypt, the colossal skeletons of gigantic temples > stand in all the nakedness of desolation. Here, an immense forest > shrouded the ruins, hiding them from sight.”[842] > > But there are perhaps many circumstances, trifling for archæologists > unacquainted with the “idle and fanciful” legends of old, hence > overlooked; otherwise the discovery might have sent them on a new train > of thought. One is the invariable presence in the Egyptian, Mexican, > and Siamese ruined temples, of the monkey. The Egyptian cynocephalus > assumes the same postures as the Hindu and Siamese Hanoumā; and > among the sculptured fragments of Copan, Stephens found the remains > of colossal apes or baboons, “strongly resembling in outline and > appearance the four monstrous animals which once stood in front, > attached to the base of the obelisk of Luxor, now in Paris,[843] and > which, under the name of the cynocephali, were worshipped at Thebes.” > In almost every Buddhist temple there are idols of huge monkeys kept, > and some people have in their houses white monkeys on purpose “to keep > _bad_ spirits away.” > > “Was civilization,” writes Louis de Carné,[844] “in the complex meaning > we give that word, in keeping among the ancient Cambodians with what > such prodigies of architecture seem to indicate? The age of Pheidias > was that of Sophocles, Socrates, and Plato; Michael Angelo and Raphael > succeeded Dante. There are luminous epochs during which the human mind, > developing itself in every direction, triumphs in all, and creates > masterpieces _which spring from the same inspiration_.” “Nagkon-Wat,” > concludes Vincent, “must be ascribed to other than ancient Cambodians. > But to whom?... There exist _no credible_ traditions; _all is absurd > fable or legend_.” > > The latter sentence has become of late a sort of cant phrase in the > mouths of travellers and archæologists. When they have found that no {565} > clew is attainable unless it can be found in popular legends, they > turn away discouraged, and a final verdict is withheld. At the same > time Vincent quotes a writer who remarks that these ruins “are as > imposing as the ruins of Thebes, or Memphis, but more mysterious.” > Mouhot thinks they were erected “by some ancient Michael Angelo,” and > adds that Nagkon-Wat “is grander than anything left to us by Greece or > Rome.” Furthermore Mouhot ascribes the building again to some of _the > lost tribes of Israel_, and is corroborated in that opinion by Miche, > the French Bishop of Cambodia, who confesses that he is struck “by the > Hebrew character of the faces of many of the savage Stiêns.” Henri > Mouhot believes that, “without exaggeration, the oldest parts of Angkor > may be fixed at more than 2,000 years ago.” This, then, in comparison > with the pyramids, would make them quite modern; the date is the more > incredible, because the pictures on the walls may be proved to belong > to those archaic ages when Poseidon and the Kabeiri were worshipped > throughout the continent. Had Nagkon-Wat been built, as Dr. Adolf > Bastian[845] will have it, “for the reception of the learned patriarch, > Buddhagosa, who brought the holy books of the _Trai-Pidok_ from Ceylon; > or, as Bishop Pallegoix, who “refers the erection of this edifice to > the reign of Phra Pathum Suriving,” when “the sacred books of the > Buddhists were brought from Ceylon, and Buddhism became the religion of > the Cambodians,” how is it possible to account for the following? > > “We see in this same temple carved images of Buddha, four, and > even thirty-two-armed, and two and sixteen-headed gods, the Indian > Vishnu, gods _with wings_, Burmese heads, Hindu figures, and Ceylon > mythology.... You see warriors riding upon elephants and in chariots, > foot soldiers with shield and spear, boats, tigers, griffins ... > serpents, fishes, crocodiles, bullocks ... soldiers of immense physical > development, with helmets, and some people with beards—probably Moors. > The figures,” adds Mr. Vincent, “stand somewhat like those on the great > Egyptian monuments, the side partly turned toward the front ... and I > noticed, besides, five horsemen, armed with spear and sword, riding > abreast, like those seen upon the Assyrian tablets in the British > Museum.”[846] > > For our part, we may add, that there are on the walls several > repetitions of Dagon, the man-fish of the Babylonians, and of the > Kabeirian gods of Samothrace. This may have escaped the notice of > the few archæologists who examined the place; but upon stricter > inspection they will be found there, as well as the reputed father of > the Kabeiri—Vulcan with his bolts and implements, having near him a {566} > king with a sceptre in his hand, which is the counterpart of that of > Cheronæa, or the “sceptre of Agamemnon,” so-called, said to have been > presented to him by the lame god of Lemnos. In another place we find > Vulcan, recognizable by his hammer and pincers, but under the shape of > a monkey, as usually represented by the Egyptians. > > Now, if Nagkon-Wat is essentially a Buddhist temple, how comes it > to have on its walls _basso-relievos_ of completely an Assyrian > character; and Kabeirian gods which, though universally worshipped > as the most ancient of the Asiatic mystery-gods, had already been > abandoned 200 years B.C., and the Samothracian mysteries themselves > completely altered? Whence the popular tradition concerning the Prince > of Roma among the Cambodians, a personage mentioned by all the native > historians, who attribute to him the foundation of the temple? Is it > not barely possible that even the _Ramayâna_, itself, the famous epic > poem, is but the original of Homer’s _Iliad_, as it was suggested some > years ago? The beautiful Paris, carrying off Helen, looks very much > like Râvana, king of the giants, eloping with Sita, Râma’s wife? The > Trojan war is a counterpart of the _Ramayâna_ war; moreover, Herodotus > assures us that the Trojan heroes and gods date in Greece only from the > days of the _Iliad_. In such a case even Hanoumā, the monkey-god, would > be but Vulcan in disguise; the more so that the Cambodian tradition > makes the founder of Angkor come from _Roma_, which they place at the > western end of the world, and that the Hindu Roma also apportions the > west to the descendants of Hanoumā. > > Hypothetical as the suggestion may now seem, it is worthy of > consideration, if even for the sake of being refuted. The Abbé > Jaquenet, a Catholic missionary in Cochin China, ever ready to > connect the least glimmer of historical light with that of Christian > revelation, writes, “Whether we consider the commercial relations of > the Jews ... when, in the height of their power, the combined fleets > of Hiram and Solomon went to seek the treasures of Ophir, or whether > we come lower down, to the dispersion of the ten tribes who, instead > of returning from captivity, set out from the banks of the Euphrates, > and reached the shores of the ocean ... the shining of the light of > revelation in the far East is not the less incontestable.” > > It looks certainly “incontestable” enough if we reverse the position > and admit that all the light that ever shone on the Israelites came > to them from this “far East,” passing first through the Chaldeans > and Egyptians. The first thing to settle, is to find out who were > the Israelites themselves; and that is the most vital question. Many > historians seem to claim, with good reason, that the Jews were similar > or identical with the ancient Phœnicians, but the Phœnicians were {567} > beyond any doubt an Æthiopian race; moreover, the present race of > Punjaub are hybridized with the Asiatic Æthiopians. Herodotus traces > the Hebrews to the Persian Gulf; and south of that place were the > Himyarites (the Arabians); beyond, the early Chaldeans and Susinians, > the great builders. This seems to establish pretty well their Æthiopian > affinity. Megasthenes says that the Jews were an Indian sect called > _Kalani_, and their theology resembled that of the Indians. Other > authors also suspect that the colonized Jews or the Judeans were the > Yadus from Afghanistan—the old India.[847] Eusebius tells us that > “the Æthiopians came from the river Indus and settled near Egypt.” > More research may show that the Tamil Hindus, who are accused by the > missionaries of worshipping the Devil—Kutti-Sattan—only honor, after > all, Seth or Satan, worshipped by the biblical Hittites. > > But if the Jews were in the twilight of history the Phœnicians, the > latter may be traced themselves to the nations who used the old > Sanscrit language. Carthage was a Phœnician city, hence its name; for > Tyre was equally _Kartha_. In the _Bible_ the words _Kir_, _Kirjath_ > are frequently found. Their tutelar god was styled _Mel-Kartha_ (Mel, > Baal), or tutelar lord of the city. In Sanscrit a city or communal > was a _cûl_ and its lord was _Heri_.[848] Her-culeus is therefore > the translation of Melkarth and Sanscrit in origin. Moreover all > the Cyclopean races were Phœnicians. In the _Odyssey_ the Kuklopes > (Cyclops) are the Libyan shepherds; and Herodotus describes them as > miners and great builders. They are the ancient Titans or giants, who > in Hesiod forge bolts for Zeus. They are the biblical _Zamzummim_ from > the land of the giants, the Anakim. > > Now it is easy to see that the excavators of Ellora, the builders of > the old Pagodas, the architects of Copan and of the ruins of Central > America, those of Nagkon-Wat, and those of the Egyptian remains > were, if not of the same race, at least of the same religion—the one > taught in the oldest Mysteries. Besides, the figures on the walls of > Angkor are purely archaic, and have nothing to do with the images > and idols of Buddha, who may be of a far later origin. “What gives a > peculiar interest to this section,” says Dr. Bastian, “is the fact > that the artist has represented the different nationalities in all > their distinctive characteristic features, from the flat-nosed savage > in the tasselled garb of the Pnom and the short-haired Lao, to the > straight-nosed Rajaput, with sword and shield, and _the bearded Moor_, {568} > giving a catalogue of nationalities, like another _column of Trajan_, > in the predominant physical conformation of each race. On the whole, > there is such a prevalence of _Hellenic_ cast in features and profiles, > as well as in the elegant attitude of the horsemen, that one might > suppose Xenocrates of old, after finishing his labors in Bombay, had > made an excursion to the East.” > > Therefore, if we allow the tribes of Israel to have had a hand in the > building of Nagkon-Wat, it cannot be as the tribes numbered and sent, > from the wilderness of Paran in search of the land of Canaan, but as > their earlier ancestors, which amounts to the rejection of such tribes, > as the casting of a reflection of the _Mosaic_ revelation. And where is > the outside _historical_ evidence that such tribes were ever heard of > at all, before the compilation of the _Old Testament_ by Ezra? There > are archæologists who strongly regard the twelve tribes as utterly > mythical,[849] for there never was a tribe of Simeon, and that of Levi > was a _caste_. There still remains the same problem to solve—whether > the Judæans had ever been in Palestine before Cyrus. From the sons of > Jacob, who had all married Canaanites, except Joseph, whose wife was > the daughter of an Egyptian Priest of the Sun, down to the legendary > _Book of Judges_ there was an acknowledged general intermarrying > between the said tribes and the idolatrous races: “And the children > of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and > Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and they took their daughters > to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served > their gods,” says the third chapter of _Judges_, “ ... and the children > of Israel forgat their God and served Baalim, and the groves.” This > Baal was Moloch, M’lch Karta, or Hercules. He was worshipped wherever > the Phœnicians went. How could the Israelites possibly keep together > as tribes, while, on the authority of the _Bible_ itself, whole > populations were from year to year uprooted violently by Assyrian and > other conquerors? “So was Israel carried away out of their own land > to Assyria unto this day. And the king of Assyria brought men from > Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from > Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria _instead_ of the > children of Israel” (_2 Kings_, xvii. 23, 24). > > If the language of Palestine became in time Semitic, it is because of > Assyrian influence; for Phœnicia had become a dependency as early as > the days of Hiram, and the Phœnicians evidently changed their language > from Hamitic to Semitic. Assyria was “the land of Nimrod” (from _Nimr_, > spotted), and Nimrod was Bacchus, with his spotted leopard-skin. > This leopard-skin is a sacred appendage of the “Mysteries;” it was {569} > used in the Eleusinian as well as in the Egyptian Mysteries; it is > found sculptured on the _basso-relievos_ of Central American ruins, > covering the backs of the sacrificers; it is mentioned in the earliest > speculations of the Brahmans on the meaning of their sacrificial > prayers, the _Aytareya Brahmanam_.[850] It is used in the _Agnishtoma_, > the _initiation rites_ of the Soma Mystery. When the neophyte is “to be > born again,” he is covered with a leopard-skin, out of which he emerges > as from his mother’s womb. The Kabeiri were also Assyrian gods. They > had different names; in the common language they were known as Jupiter > and Bacchus, and sometimes as Achiochersus, Aschieros, Achiochersa, and > Cadmillus; and even the true number of these deities was uncertain with > the people. They had other names in the “sacred language,” known but to > the hierophants and priests; and “it was not lawful to mention them.” > How is it then that we find them reproduced in their Samothracian > “postures” on the walls of Nagkon-Wat? How is it again that we find > them pronounced—albeit slightly disfigured—as known in that same sacred > language, by the populations of Siam, Thibet, and India? > > The name Kabeiri may be a derivation from אבר, _Abir_, great; הבר, > _Ebir_, an astrologer, or חבר, _Chabir_, an associate; and they were > worshipped at Hebron, the city of the _Anakes_—the giants. The name > Abraham, according to Dr. Wilder, has “a very Kabeirian look.” The > word _Heber_, or _Gheber_ may be the etymological root of the Hebrews, > as applied to Nimrod and the Bible-giants of the sixth chapter of > _Genesis_, but we must seek for their origin far earlier than the days > of Moses. The name _Phœnician_ affords its own proof. They are called > Φοινικες by Manetho, or _Ph’ Anakes_, which shows that the Anakes or > _Anakim_ of Canaan, with whom the people of Israel, if not identical > in race, had, by intermarriage, become entirely absorbed, were the > Phœnicians, or the problematical Hyk-sos, as Manetho has it, and whom > Josephus once declared were the direct ancestors of the Israelites. > Therefore, it is in this jumble of contradictory opinions, authorities, > and historical _olla podrida_ that we must look for a solution of the > mystery. So long as the origin of the Hyk-sos is not positively settled > we can know nothing certain of the Israelitish people who, either > wittingly or otherwise, have mixed up their chronology and origin > in such an inextricable tangle. But if the Hyk-sos can be proved to > have been the Pali-Shepherds of the Indus, who partially removed to > the East, and came over from the nomadic Aryan tribes of India, then, > perhaps, it would account for the biblical myths being so mixed up with > the Aryan and Asiatic Mystery-gods. As Dunlap says: “The Hebrews came {570} > out of Egypt among the Canaanites; they need not be traced beyond > the _Exodus_. _That is their historical beginning._ It was very easy > to cover up this remote event by the recital of mythical traditions, > and to prefix to it an account of their origin in which the gods > (patriarchs) should figure as their ancestors.” But it is not _their > historical beginning_ which is the most vital question for the world > of science and theology. It is their _religious_ beginning. And if we > can trace it through the Hyk-sos—Phœnicians, the Æthiopian builders and > the Chaldeans—whether it is to the Hindus that the latter owe their > learning, or the Brahmans who owe it to the Chaldeans, we have the > means in hand to trace every so-called _revealed_ dogmatical assertion > in the _Bible_ to its origin, which we have to search for in the > twilight of history, and before the separation of the Aryan and Semitic > families. And how can we do it better or more surely than through means > afforded us by archæology? Picture-writing can be destroyed, but if > it survives it cannot lie; and, if we find the same myths, ideas, and > secret symbols on monuments all over the world; and if, moreover, these > monuments can be shown to antedate the twelve “chosen” tribes, then we > can unerringly show that instead of being a direct divine _revelation_, > it was but an incomplete recollection or tradition among a tribe which > had been identified and mixed up for centuries before the apparition of > Abraham, with all the three great world-families; namely, the Aryan, > Semitic, and Turanian nations, if so they must be called. > > The _Teraphim_ of Abram’s father, _Terah_, the “maker of images,” > were the Kabeiri gods, and we see them worshipped by Micah, by the > Danites, and others.[851] Teraphim were identical with the seraphim, > and these were serpent-images, the origin of which is in the Sanscrit > _sarpâ_ (the serpent), a symbol sacred to all the deities as a symbol > of immortality. _Kiyun_, or the god Kivan, worshipped by the Hebrews in > the wilderness, is Siva, the Hindu,[852] as well as Saturn.[853] The > Greek story shows that Dardanus, the Arcadian, having received them as > a dowry, carried them to Samothrace, and from thence to Troy; and they > were worshipped far before the days of glory of Tyre or Sidon, though > the former had been built 2760 B.C. From where did Dardanus derive them? > > It is an easy matter to assign an age to ruins on merely the external > evidence of probabilities; it is more difficult to prove it. Meanwhile > the rock-works of Ruad, Perytus, Marathos, resemble those of Petra, {571} > Baalbek, and other Æthiopian works, even externally. On the other hand > the assertions of certain archæologists who find no resemblance between > the temples of Central America and those of Egypt and Siam, leave the > symbologist, acquainted with the secret language of picture-writing, > perfectly unconcerned. He sees the landmarks of one and the same > doctrine on all of these monuments, and reads their history and > affiliation in signs imperceptible to the uninitiated scientist. > There are traditions also; and one of these speaks of the last of the > king-initiates—(who were but rarely admitted to the higher orders of > the Eastern Brotherhoods), who reigned in 1670. This king of Siam was > the one so ridiculed by the French ambassador, de la Loubère, as a > lunatic who had been searching all his life for the philosopher’s stone. > > One of such mysterious landmarks is found in the peculiar structure > of certain arches in the temples. The author of the _Land of the > White Elephant_ remarks as curious, “the absence of the keystone in > the arches of the building, and the undecipherable inscriptions.” In > the ruins of Santa Cruz del Quiché an arched corridor was found by > Stephens, equally without a keystone. Describing the desolate ruins of > Palenque, and remarking that the arches of the corridors were all built > on this model, and the ceilings in this form, he supposes that “the > builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the arch, and the > support was made by stones lapping over as they rose; as at Ocosingo, > and among Cyclopean remains in Greece and Italy.”[854] In other > buildings, though they belong to the same group, the traveller found > the missing keystone, which is a sufficient proof that its omission > elsewhere was _premeditated_. > > May we not look for the solution of the mystery in the Masonic manual? > The keystone has an esoteric meaning which ought to be, if it is not, > well appreciated by high Masons. The most important subterranean > building mentioned in the description of the origin of Freemasonry, > is the one built by Enoch. The patriarch is led by the Deity, whom > he sees in a vision, into the _nine_ vaults. After that, with the > assistance of his son, Methuselah, he constructs in the land of Canaan, > “in the bowels of the mountain,” nine apartments on the models that > were shown to him in the vision. Each was roofed with an arch, and > the apex of each _formed a keystone_, having inscribed on it the > mirific characters. Each of the latter, furthermore, represented one > of the nine names, traced in characters emblematical of the attributes > by which the Deity was, according to ancient Freemasonry, known to > the antediluvian brethren. Then Enoch constructed two deltas of the > purest gold, and tracing two of the mysterious characters on each, he > placed one of them in the deepest arch, and the other entrusted to {572} > Methuselah, communicating to him, at the same time, other important > secrets _now lost to Freemasonry_. > > And so, among these arcane secrets, now lost to their modern > successors, may be found also the fact that the keystones were used in > the arches only in certain portions of the temples devoted to special > purposes. Another similarity presented by the architectural remains of > the religious monuments of every country can be found in the identity > of parts, courses, and measurements. All these buildings belong to > the age of Hermes Trismegistus, and however comparatively modern or > ancient the temple may seem, their mathematical proportions are found > to correspond with the Egyptian religious edifices. There is a similar > disposition of court-yards, adyta, passages, and steps; hence, despite > any dissimilarity in architectural style, it is a warrantable inference > that like religious rites were celebrated in all. Says Dr. Stukely, > concerning Stonehenge: “This structure was not erected upon any Roman > measure, and this is demonstrated by the great number of fractions > which the measurement of each part, according to European scales, > gives. On the contrary the figures become even, as soon as we apply to > it the measurement of the ancient cubic, which was common to the Hebrew > children of Shem, as well as to the Phœnicians and Egyptians, children > of Ham (?), and imitators of the monuments of unhewn and oracular > stones.” > > The presence of the artificial lakes, and their peculiar disposition > on the consecrated grounds, is also a fact of great importance. The > lakes inside the precincts of Karnak, and those enclosed in the grounds > of Nagkon-Wat, and around the temples in the Mexican Copan and Santa > Cruz del Quichè, will be found to present the same peculiarities. > Besides possessing other significances the whole area was laid out > with reference to cyclic calculations. In the Druidical structures > the same sacred and mysterious numbers will be found. The circle > of stones generally consists of either twelve, or twenty-one, or > thirty-six. In these circles the centre place belongs to Assar, Azon, > or the god in the circle, by whatever other name he might have been > known. The thirteen Mexican serpent-gods bear a distant relationship > to the thirteen stones of the Druidical ruins. The ~T~ (Tau), and > the astronomical cross of Egypt [A circle with a horizontal diameter > and a vertical radius above] are conspicuous in several apertures of > the remains of Palenque. In one of the _basso-relievos_ of the Palace > of Palenque, on the west side, sculptured on a hieroglyphic, right > under the seated figure, is a _Tau_. The standing figure, which leans > over the first one, is in the act of covering its head with the left > hand with the veil of initiation; while it extends its right with the > index and middle finger pointing to heaven. The position is precisely > that of a Christian bishop giving his blessing, or the one in which > Jesus is often represented while at the Last Supper. Even the Hindu {573} > elephant-headed god of wisdom (or magic learning), Ganesha, may be > found among the stucco figures of the Mexican ruins. > > What explanation can the archæologists, philologists—in short, the > chosen host of Academicians—give us? None whatever. At best they have > but hypotheses, every one of which is likely to be pulled down by its > successor—a pseudo-truth, perhaps, like the first. The keys to the > biblical miracles of old, and to the phenomena of modern days; the > problems of psychology, physiology, and the many “missing links” which > have so perplexed scientists of late, are all in the hands of secret > fraternities. This mystery _must be_ unveiled some day. But till then > dark skepticism will constantly interpose its threatening, ugly shadow > between God’s truths and the spiritual vision of mankind; and many are > those who, infected by the mortal epidemic of our century—hopeless > materialism—will remain in doubt and mortal agony as to whether, when > man dies, he will live again, although the question has been solved > by long bygone generations of sages. The answers are there. They may > be found on the time-worn granite pages of cave-temples, on sphinxes, > propylons, and obelisks. They have stood there for untold ages, and > neither the rude assault of time, nor the still ruder assault of > Christian hands, have succeeded in obliterating their records. All > covered with the problems which were solved—who can tell? perhaps by > the archaic forefathers of their builders—the solution follows each > question; and this the Christian could not appropriate, for, except the > initiates, no one has understood the mystic writing. The key was in the > keeping of those who knew how to commune with the invisible Presence, > and who had received, from the lips of mother Nature herself, her grand > truths. And so stand these monuments like mute forgotten sentinels on > the threshold of that _unseen_ world, whose gates are thrown open but > to a few elect. > > Defying the hand of Time, the vain inquiry of profane science, the > insults of the _revealed_ religions, they will disclose their riddles > to none but the legatees of those by whom they were entrusted with the > MYSTERY. The cold, stony lips of the once vocal Memnon, and of these > hardy sphinxes, keep their secrets well. Who will unseal them? Who of > our modern, materialistic dwarfs and unbelieving Sadducees will dare to > lift the VEIL OF ISIS? > > CHAPTER XV. {574} > > “STE.—Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon us with > savages, and men of Inde?” > _The Tempest_, Act ii., Sc. 2. > > “We have now, so far forth as it is requisite for our design, > considered the _Nature and Functions of the Soule_; and have > plainly demonstrated that she is a substance distinct from the > body.” > —DR. HENRY MORE: _Immortality of the Soule_. 1659. > > “KNOWLEDGE IS POWER; IGNORANCE IS IMBECILITY.”—AUTHOR OF > “Art-Magic:” _Ghost-Land_. > > The “secret doctrine” has for many centuries been like the symbolical > “man of sorrows” of the prophet Isaiah. “Who hath believed our report?” > its martyrs have repeated from one generation to another. The doctrine > has grown up before its persecutors “as a tender plant and as a root > out of a dry ground; it hath no form, nor comeliness ... it is despised > and rejected of men; and they hid their faces from it.... They esteemed > him not.” > > There need be no controversy as to whether this doctrine agrees or not > with the iconoclastic tendency of the skeptics of our times. It agrees > with _truth_ and that is enough. It would be idle to expect that it > would be believed by its detractors and slanderers. But the tenacious > vitality it exhibits all over the globe, wherever there are a group > of men to quarrel over it, is the best proof that the seed planted by > our fathers on “the other side of the flood” was that of a mighty oak, > not the spore of a mushroom theology. No lightning of human ridicule > can fell to the ground, and no thunderbolts ever forged by the Vulcans > of science are powerful enough to blast the trunk, or even scar the > branches of this world-tree of KNOWLEDGE. > > We have but to leave unnoticed their letter that killeth, and catch the > subtile spirit of their hidden wisdom, to find concealed in the _Books > of Hermes_—be they the model or the copy of all others—the evidences > of a truth and philosophy which we feel _must_ be based on the eternal > laws. We instinctively comprehend that, however finite the powers of > man, while he is yet embodied, they must be in close kinship with > the attributes of an infinite Deity; and we become capable of better > appreciating the hidden sense of the gift lavished by the _Elohim_ on > _H’Adam_: “Behold, I have given you everything which is upon the face > of all the earth ... _subdue it_,” and “_have dominion_” over ALL. > > Had the allegories contained in the first chapters of _Genesis_ {575} > been better understood, even in their geographical and historical > sense, which involve nothing at all esoteric, the claims of its true > interpreters, the kabalists, could hardly have been rejected for so > long a time. Every student of the _Bible_ must be aware that the first > and second chapters of _Genesis_ could not have proceeded from the > same pen. They are evidently allegories and parables;[855] for the two > narratives of the creation and peopling of our earth diametrically > contradict each other in nearly every particular of order, time, > place, and methods employed in the so-called creation. In accepting > the narratives literally, and as a whole, we lower the dignity of the > unknown Deity. We drag him down to the level of humanity, and endow him > with the peculiar personality of man, who needs the “cool of the day” > to refresh him; who rests from his labors; and is capable of anger, > revenge, and even of using precautions against man, “lest he put forth > his hand, and take also of the tree of life.” (A tacit admission, by > the way, on the part of the Deity, that man _could do it_, if not > prevented by sheer force.) But, in recognizing the allegorical coloring > of the description of what may be termed historical facts, we find our > feet instantly on firm ground. > > To begin with—the garden of Eden as a locality is no myth at all; it > belongs to those landmarks of history which occasionally disclose to > the student that the _Bible_ is not all mere allegory. “Eden, or the > Hebrew גן־עדן GAN-EDEN, meaning the park or the garden of Eden, is > an archaic name of the country watered by the Euphrates and its many > branches, from Asia and Armenia to the Erythraian Sea.”[856] In the > Chaldean _Book of Numbers_, its location is designated in numerals, > and in the cipher Rosicrucian manuscript, left by Count St. Germain, > it is fully described. In the Assyrian _Tablets_, it is rendered > _gan-dunyas_. “Behold,” say the אלהים _Eloim_ of Genesis, “the man is > become as one of us.” The _Eloim_ may be accepted in one sense for > _gods_ or powers, and taken in another one for the _Aleim_, or priests; > the hierophants initiated into the good and the evil of this world; > for there was a college of priests called the _Aleim_, while the head > of their caste, or the chief of the hierophants, was known as _Java > Aleim_. Instead of becoming a neophyte, and gradually obtaining his > esoteric knowledge through a regular initiation, an _Adam_, or man, > uses his intuitional faculties, and, prompted by the Serpent—_Woman_ > and matter—tastes of the Tree of Knowledge—the esoteric or secret > doctrine—unlawfully. The priests of Hercules, or Mel-Karth, the “Lord” > of the Eden, all wore “coats of skin.” The text says: “And _Java > Aleim_, made for Adam and his wife כתנות עור, CHITONUTH OUR.” The {576} > first Hebrew word, _chitun_, is the Greek χιτων, _chiton_. It became > a Slavonic word by adoption from the _Bible_, and means a _coat_, an > upper garment. > > Though containing the same substratum of esoteric truth as every > early cosmogony, the Hebrew Scripture wears on its face the marks > of its double origin. Its _Genesis_ is purely a reminiscence of the > Babylonian captivity. The names of places, men, and even objects, can > be traced from the original text to the Chaldeans and the Akkadians, > the progenitors and Aryan instructors of the former. It is strongly > contested that the Akkad tribes of Chaldea, Babylonia, and Assyria > were in any way cognate with the Brahmans, of Hindustan; but there are > more proofs in favor of this opinion than otherwise. The Shemite, or > Assyrian, ought, perchance, to have been called the Turanian, and the > Mongolians have been denominated Scyths. But if the Akkadians ever > existed otherwise than in the imagination of some philologists and > ethnologists, they certainly would never have been a Turanian tribe, > as some Assyriologists have striven to make us believe. They were > simply emigrants on their way to Asia Minor from India, the cradle of > humanity, and their sacerdotal adepts tarried to civilize and initiate > a barbarian people. Halevy proved the fallacy of the Turanian mania in > regard to the Akkadian people, whose very name has been changed a dozen > times already; and other scientists have proved that the Babylonian > civilization was neither born nor developed in that country. It was > imported from India, and the importers were Brahmanical Hindus. > > It is the opinion of Professor A. Wilder, that if the Assyrians had > been called Turanians and the Mongolians Scyths, then, in such a case > the wars of Iran and Turan, Zohak and Jemshid, or Yima, would have > been fairly comprehended as the struggle of the old Persians against > the endeavors of the Assyrian satraps to conquer them, which ended in > the overthrow of Nineveh; “the spider weaving her web in the palace of > Afrasiab.”[857] > > “The Turanian of Prof. Müller and his school,” adds our correspondent, > “was evidently the savage and nomadic Caucasian, out of whom the > Hamite or Æthiopian builders come; then the Shemites—perhaps a hybrid > of Hamite and Aryan; and lastly the Aryan—Median, Persian, Hindu; and > later, the Gothic and Slavic peoples of Europe. He supposes the Celt > to have been a hybrid, analogous to the Assyrians—between the Aryan > invaders of Europe and the Iberic (probably Æthiopic) population of > Europe.” In such a case he must admit the possibility of our assertion > that the Akkadians were a tribe of the earliest Hindus. Now, whether {577} > they were Brahmans, from the Brahmanic planisphere proper (40° north > latitude), or from India (Hindustan), or, again, from the India of > Central Asia, we will leave to philologists of future ages to decide. > > An opinion which with us amounts to certitude, demonstrated by an > inductive method of our own, which we are afraid will be but little > appreciated by the orthodox methods of modern science, is based on what > will appear to the latter merely circumstantial evidence. For years we > have repeatedly noticed that the same esoteric truths were expressed in > identical symbols and allegories in countries between which there had > never been traced any historical affiliation. We have found the Jewish > _Kabala_ and the _Bible_ repeating the Babylonian “myths,”[858] and the > Oriental and Chaldean allegories, given in form and substance in the > oldest manuscripts of the Siamese Talapoin (monks), and in the popular > but oldest traditions of Ceylon. > > In the latter place we have an old and valued acquaintance whom we have > also met in other parts of the globe, a Pali scholar, and a native > Cingalese, who has in his possession a curious palm leaf, to which, > by chemical processes, a timeproof durability has been given, and an > enormous conch, or rather one-half of a conch—for it has been split > in two. On the leaf we saw the representation of a giant of Ceylonian > antiquity and fame, blind, and pulling down—with his outstretched > arms, which are embracing the four central pillars of a pagoda—the > whole temple on a crowd of armed enemies. His hair is long and reaches > nearly to the ground. We were informed by the possessor of this curious > relic, that the blind giant was “Somona, the Little;” so called in > contradistinction with Somona-Kadom, the Siamese saviour. Moreover, the > Pali legend, in its important particulars, corresponds with that of the > biblical Samson. > > The shell bore upon its pearly surface a pictorial engraving, divided > in two compartments, and the workmanship was far more artistic, as > to conception and execution, than the crucifixes and other religious > trinkets carved out of the same material in our days, at Jaffa and > Jerusalem. In the first panel is represented Siva, with all his Hindu > attributes, sacrificing his son—whether the “only-begotten,” or one > of many, we never stopped to inquire. The victim is laid on a funeral > pile, and the father is hovering in the air over him, with an uplifted > weapon ready to strike; but the god’s face is turned toward a jungle > in which a rhinoceros has deeply buried its horn in a huge tree and is > unable to extricate it. The adjoining panel, or division, represents {578} > the same rhinoceros on the pile with the weapon plunged in its side, > and the intended victim—Siva’s son—free, and helping the god to kindle > the fire upon the sacrificial altar. > > Now, we have but to remember that Siva and the Palentinian Baal, or > Moloch, and Saturn are identical; that Abraham is held until the > present day by the Mahometan Arabs as Saturn in the Kaaba;[859] that > Abraham and Israel were names of Saturn;[860] and that Sanchoniathon > tells us that Saturn offered his only-begotten son as a sacrifice to > his father Ouranos, and even circumcised himself and forced all his > household and allies to do the same,[861] to trace unerringly the > biblical myth to its source. But this source is neither Phœnician, nor > Chaldean; it is purely Indian, and the original of it may be found in > the _Maha-Bharata_. But, whether Brahmanical or Buddhistical, it must > certainly be much older than the Jewish _Pentateuch_, as compiled by > Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, and revised by the Rabbis of the > Great Synagogue. > > Therefore, we are bold enough to maintain our assertion against the > opinion of many men of learning, whom, nevertheless, we consider far > more learned than ourselves. Scientific induction is one thing, and > _knowledge of facts_, however unscientific they may seem at first, is > another. But science has discovered enough to inform us that Sanscrit > originals, of Nepaul, were translated by Buddhistic missionaries > into nearly every Asiatic language. Likewise Pali manuscripts were > translated into Siamese, and carried to Burmah and Siam; it is easy, > therefore, to account for the same religious legends and myths > circulating in all these countries. But Manetho tells us also of Pali > shepherds who emigrated westward; and when we find some of the oldest > Ceylonic traditions in the Chaldean _Kabala_ and Jewish _Bible_, we > must think that either Chaldeans or Babylonians had been in Ceylon or > India, or the ancient Pali had the same traditions as the Akkadians, > whose origin is so uncertain. Suppose even Rawlinson to be right, and > that the Akkadians did come from Armenia, he did not trace them farther > back. As the field is now opened for any kind of hypothesis, we submit > that this tribe might as well have come to Armenia from beyond the > Indus, following their way in the direction of the Caspian Sea—a part > which was also India, once upon a time—and from thence to the Euxine. > Or they might have come originally from Ceylon by the same way. It has > been found impossible to follow, with any degree of certitude, the > wanderings of these nomadic Aryan tribes; hence we are left to judge > from inference, and by comparing their esoteric myths. Abraham himself, > for all our scientists can know, might have been one of these Pali > shepherds who emigrated _West_. He is shown to have gone with his {579} > father, Terah, from “_Ur_ of the Chaldees;” and Sir H. Rawlinson found > the Phœnician city of Martu or Marathos mentioned in an inscription at > _Ur_, and shows it to signify THE WEST. > > If their language seems in one sense to oppose their identity with the > Brahmans of Hindustan, yet there are other reasons which make good our > claims that the biblical allegories of _Genesis_ are entirely due to > these nomadic tribes. Their name Ak-ad, is of the same class as Ad-Am, > Ha-va,[862] or Ed-En—“perhaps,” says Dr. Wilder, “meaning son of _Ad_, > like the sons of Ad in ancient Arabia. In Assyrian, _Ak_ is creator and > Ad-ad is AD, the father.” In Aramean Ad also means _one_, and Ad-ad the > _only-one_; and in the _Kabala Ad-am_ is the only-begotten, the first > emanation of the unseen Creator. _Adon_ was the “Lord” god of Syria > and the consort of Adar-gat, or Aster-‘t,’ the Syrian goddess, who was > Venus, Isis, Istar, or Mylitta, etc.; and each of these was “mother _of > all living_” the _Magna Mater_. > > Thus, while the first, second, and third chapters of _Genesis_ are > but disfigured imitations of other cosmogonies, the fourth chapter, > beginning at the sixteenth verse, and the fifth chapter to the end—give > purely historical facts; though the latter were never correctly > interpreted. They are taken, word for word, from the secret _Book of > Numbers_, of the Great Oriental _Kabala_. From the birth of Enoch, the > appropriated first parent of modern Freemasonry, begins the genealogy > of the so-called Turanian, Aryan, and Semitic families, if such they > be correctly. Every woman is an euhemerized land or city; every man > and patriarch a race, a branch, or a subdivision of a race. The wives > of Lamech give the key to the riddle which some good scholar might > easily master, even without studying the esoteric sciences. “And Ad-ah > bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and _of > such as have cattle_,” nomadic Aryan race; “ ... and his brother was > Jubal; he was the father of all such as _handle the harp and organ_; > ... and Zillah bare Tubal-Cain, an instructor _of every artificer in > brass and iron_,” etc. Every word has a significance; but it is no > _revelation_. It is simply a compilation of the most _historical_ > facts, although history is too perplexed upon this point to know how > to claim them. It is from the Euxine to Kashmere, and beyond that we > must search for the cradle of mankind and the sons of Ad-ah; and leave {580} > the particular garden of Ed-en on the Euphrates to the college of the > weird astrologers and magi, the Aleim.[863] No wonder that the Northern > seer, Swedenborg, advises people to search for the LOST WORD among the > hierophants of Tartary, China, and Thibet; for it is there, and only > there now, although we find it inscribed on the monuments of the oldest > Egyptian dynasties. > > The grandiose poetry of the four _Vedas_; the _Books of Hermes_; the > Chaldean _Book of Numbers_; the _Nazarene Codex_; the _Kabala_ of > the Tanaïm; the _Sepher Jezira_; the _Book of Wisdom_, of Schlomah > (Solomon); the secret treatise on _Muhta and Badha_,[864] attributed by > the Buddhist kabalists to Kapila, the founder of the Sankhya system; > the _Brahmanas_;[865] the _Stan-gyour_,[866] of the Thibetans; all > these volumes have the same groundwork. Varying but in allegories they > teach the same secret doctrine which, when once thoroughly eliminated, > will prove to be the Ultima Thulè of true philosophy, and disclose what > is this LOST WORD. > > It is useless to expect scientists to find in these works anything of > interest except that which is in direct relation to either philology > or comparative mythology. Even Max Müller, as soon as he refers to > the mysticism and metaphysical philosophy scattered through the old > Sanscrit literature, sees in it naught but “theological absurdities” > and “fantastic nonsense.” > > Speaking of the _Brahmanas_, all full of _mysterious_, therefore, as a > matter of course, absurd, meanings, we find him saying: “The greater > portion of them is simply twaddle, and what is worse, _theological > twaddle_. No person who is not acquainted beforehand with “the place > which the _Brahmanas_ fill in the history of the Indian mind, could > read more than ten pages _without being disgusted_.”[867] > > We do not wonder at the severe criticism of this erudite scientist. {581} > Without a clew to the real meaning of this “twaddle” of religious > conceptions, how can they judge of the esoteric by the exoteric? We > find an answer in another of the highly-interesting lectures of the > German savant: “No Jew, no Roman, no Brahman ever thought of converting > people to his own national form of worship. Religion was looked upon as > private or national property. It was to be guarded against strangers. > The most sacred names of the gods, the prayers by which their favor > could be gained, were kept secret. No religion was more exclusive than > that of the Brahmans.”[868] > > Therefore, when we find scholars who imagine, because they have learned > the meaning of a few exoteric rites from a srotriya, a Brahman priest > initiated in the sacrificial mysteries, that they are capable of > interpreting all the symbols, and have sifted the Hindu religions, we > cannot help admiring the completeness of their scientific delusions. > The more so, since we find Max Müller himself asserting that since “a > Brahman was born—nay, _twice-born_, and could not be made, not even the > lowest caste, that of the Sudras, would open its ranks to a stranger.” > How much less likely that he would allow that stranger to unveil to the > world his most sacred religious Mysteries, the secret of which has been > guarded so jealousy from profanation throughout untold ages. > > No; our scientists do not—nay, cannot understand correctly the old > Hindu literature, any more than an atheist or materialist is able to > appreciate at their just value the feelings of a seer, a mystic, whose > whole life is given to contemplation. They have a perfect right to > soothe themselves with the sweet lullaby of their self-admiration, > and the just consciousness of their great learning, but none at all > to lead the world into their own error, by making it believe that > they have solved the last problem of ancient thought in literature, > whether Sanscrit or any other; that there lies not behind the external > “twaddle” far more than was ever dreamed of by our modern exact > philosophy; or that above and beyond the correct rendering of Sanscrit > words and sentences there is no deeper thought, intelligible to some of > the descendants of those who veiled it in the morning hours of earth’s > day, if they are not to the profane reader. > > We do not feel in the least astonished that a materialist, and even > an orthodox Christian, is unable to read either the old Brahmanical > works or their progeny, the _Kabala_, the _Codex_ of Bardesanes, or > the Jewish _Scripture_ without disgust at their immodesty and apparent > lack of what the uninitiated reader is pleased to call “common sense.” > But if we can hardly blame them for such a feeling, especially in the {582} > case of the Hebrew, and even the Greek and Latin literature, and are > quite ready to agree with Professor Fiske that “it is a mark of wisdom > to be dissatisfied with imperfect evidence;” on the other hand we have > a right to expect that they should recognize that it is no less a mark > of honesty to confess one’s ignorance in cases where there are two > sides to the question, and in the solution of which the scientist may > as easily blunder as any ignoramus. When we find Professor Draper, in > his definition of periods in the _Intellectual Development of Europe_, > classifying the time from the days of Socrates, the precursor and > teacher _of Plato_, to Karneades, as “the age of faith;” and that from > Philo to the destruction of the Neo-platonic schools by Justinian—the > “age of decrepitude,” we may be allowed to infer that the learned > professor knows as little about the real tendency of Greek philosophy > and the Attic schools as he understood the true character of Giordano > Bruno. So when we see one of the best of Sanscrit scholars stating > on his own unsupported authority that the “greater portion of the > _Brahmanas_ is simply theological twaddle,” we deeply regret to think > that Professor Müller must be far better acquainted with the old > Sanscrit verbs and nouns than with Sanscrit thought; and that a scholar > so uniformly disposed to do justice to the religions and the men of old > should so effectually play into the hands of Christian theologians. > “What is the use of Sanscrit?” exclaims Jacquemont, who alone has > made more false statements about the East than all the Orientalists > put together. At such a rate there would be none indeed. If we are to > exchange one corpse for another, then we may as well dissect the dead > letter of the Jewish _Bible_ as that of the _Vedas_. He who is not > intuitionally vivified by the religious spirit of old, will never see > beyond the exoteric “twaddle.” > > When first we read that “in the cavity of the cranium of > Macroposopos—the Long-Face—lies hidden the aërial Wisdom which nowhere > is opened; and it is not discovered, and not opened;” or again, that > “the _nose_ of the ‘ancient of days’ is _Life_ in every part;” we are > inclined to regard it as the incoherent ravings of a lunatic. And > when, moreover, we are apprized by the _Codex Nazaræus_ that “she, the > _Spiritus_,” invites her son Karabtanos, “who is frantic and without > judgment,” to an unnatural crime with his own mother, we are pretty > well disposed to throw the book aside in disgust. But is this only > meaningless trash, expressed in rude and even obscene language? No > more can it be judged by external appearance than the sexual symbols > of the Egyptian and Hindu religions, or the coarse frankness of > expression of the “holy” _Bible_ itself. No more than the allegory of > Eve and the tempting serpent of Eden. The ever-insinuating, restless > spirit, when once it “falls into matter,” tempts Eve, or Hava, which > bodily represents chaotic matter “frantic and without judgment.” For > _matter_, Karabtanos, is the son of _Spirit_, or the _Spiritus_ of the {583} > Nazarenes, the _Sophia-Achamoth_, and the latter is the daughter of > the pure, intellectual spirit, the divine breath. When science shall > have effectually demonstrated to us the origin of matter, and proved > the fallacy of the occultists’ and old philosophers who held (as their > descendants now hold) that matter is but one of the correlations of > spirit, then will the world of skeptics have a right to reject the > old Wisdom, or throw the charge of obscenity in the teeth of the old > religions. > > “From time immemorial,”[869] says Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, “an emblem > has been worshipped in Hindustan as the type of creation, or the origin > of life. It is the most common symbol of Siva [Bala, or Maha-Deva], and > is universally connected with his worship.... Siva was not merely the > reproducer of human forms; he represented the fructifying principle, > the generative power that pervades the universe.... Small images of > this emblem carved in ivory, gold, or crystal, are worn as ornaments > about the neck.... The maternal emblem is likewise a religious > type; and worshippers of Vishnu represent it on their forehead by a > horizontal mark.... Is it strange that they regarded with reverence the > great mystery of human birth? Were _they_ impure thus to regard it? Or > are we impure that we do _not_ so regard it? We have travelled far, and > unclean have been the paths, since those old Anchorites first spoke of > God and the soul in the solemn depths of their first sanctuaries. Let > us not smile at their mode of tracing the infinite and incomprehensible > Cause throughout all the mysteries of nature, lest by so doing we cast > the shadow of our own grossness on their patriarchal simplicity.” > > Many are the scholars who have tried, to the best of their ability, to > do justice to old India. Colebrooke, Sir William Jones, Barthelemy St. > Hilaire, Lassen, Weber, Strange, Burnouf, Hardy, and finally Jacolliot, > have all brought forward their testimony to her achievements in > legislation, ethics, philosophy, and religion. No people in the world > have ever attained to such a grandeur of thought in ideal conceptions > of the Deity and its offspring, MAN, as the Sanscrit metaphysicians and > theologians. “My complaint against many translators and Orientalists,” > says Jacolliot, “while admiring their profound knowledge is, that _not > having lived in India_, they fail in exactness of expression and in > comprehension of the _symbolical_ sense of poetic chants, prayers, and > ceremonies, and thus too often fall into material errors, whether of > translation or appreciation.”[870] Further, this author who, from a > long residence in India, and the study of its literature, is better > qualified to testify than those who have never been there, tells us > that “the life of several generations would scarce suffice merely {584} > to read the works that ancient India has left us on history, ethics > (_morale_), poetry, philosophy, religion, different sciences, and > medicine.” And yet Louis Jacolliot is able to judge but by the few > fragments, access to which had ever depended on the complaisance > and friendship of a few Brahmans with whom he succeeded in becoming > intimate. Did they show him _all_ their treasures? Did they explain > to him _all_ he desired to learn? We doubt it, otherwise he would not > himself have judged their religious ceremonies so hastily as he has > upon several occasions merely upon circumstantial evidence. > > Still, no traveller has shown himself fairer in the main or more > impartial to India than Jacolliot. If he is severe as to her present > degradation, he is still severer to those who were the cause of > it—the sacerdotal caste of the last few centuries—and his rebuke > is proportionate to the intensity of his appreciation of her past > grandeur. He shows the sources whence proceeded the revelations of > all the ancient creeds, including the inspired _Books of Moses_, and > points at India directly as the cradle of humanity, the parent of > all other nations, and the hot-bed of all the lost arts and sciences > of antiquity, for which old India, herself, was lost already in the > Cimmerian darkness of the archaic ages. “To study India,” he says, “is > to trace humanity to its sources.” > > “In the same way as modern society jostles antiquity at each step,” > he adds, “as our poets have copied Homer and Virgil, Sophocles and > Euripides, Plautus and Terence; as our philosophers have drawn > inspiration from Socrates, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle; as our > historians take Titus Livius, Sallust, or Tacitus, as models; our > orators, Demosthenes or Cicero; our physicians study Hippocrates, > and our codes transcribe Justinian—so had antiquity’s self also an > antiquity to study, to imitate, and to copy. What more simple and > more logical? Do not peoples precede and succeed each other? Does > the knowledge, painfully acquired by one nation, confine itself to > its own territory, and die with the generation that produced it? Can > there be any absurdity in the suggestion that the India of 6,000 years > ago, brilliant, civilized, overflowing with population, impressed > upon Egypt, Persia, Judea, Greece, and Rome, a stamp as ineffaceable, > impressions as profound, as these last have impressed upon us? > > “It is time to disabuse ourselves of those prejudices which represent > the ancients as having almost spontaneously-elaborated ideas, > philosophic, religious, and moral, the most lofty—those prejudices that > in their naïve admiration explain all in the domain of science, arts, > and letters, by the intuition of some few great men, and in the realm > of religion by revelation.”[871] > > We believe that the day is not far off when the opponents of this {585} > fine and erudite writer will be silenced by the force of irrefutable > evidence. And when _facts_ shall once have corroborated his theories > and assertions, what will the world find? That it is to India, the > country less explored, and less known than any other, that all the > other great nations of the world are indebted for their languages, > arts, legislature, and civilization. Its progress, impeded for a few > centuries before our era—for, as this writer shows, at the epoch of > the great Macedonian conqueror, “India had already passed the period > of her splendor” was completely stifled in the subsequent ages. But > the evidence of her past glories lies in her literature. What people > in all the world can boast of such a literature, which, were the > Sanscrit less difficult, would be more studied than now? Hitherto > the general public has had to rely for information on a few scholars > who, notwithstanding their great learning and trustworthiness, are > unequal to the task of translating and commenting upon more than a > few books out of the almost countless number that, notwithstanding > the vandalism of the missionaries, are still left to swell the mighty > volume of Sanscrit literature. And to do even so much is the labor of > a European’s lifetime. Hence, people judge hastily, and often make the > most ridiculous blunders. > > Quite recently a certain Reverend Dunlop Moore, of New Brighton, > Pa., determined to show his cleverness and piety at a single stroke, > attacked the statement made by a Theosophist in a discourse delivered > at the cremation of Baron de Palm, that the _Code of Manu_ existed > a thousand years before Moses. “All Orientalists of any note,” he > says, “are now agreed that the _Institutes of Manu_ were written at > different times. _The oldest part of the collection probably dates > from the sixth century before the Christian era._”[872] Whatever other > Orientalists, encountered by this Pennsylvania pundit, may think, Sir > William Jones is of a different opinion. “It is clear,” he says, “that > the _Laws of Manu_, such as we possess them, and which comprise but 680 > slokas, cannot be the work attributed to Soumati, which is probably > that described under the name of _Vriddha Manava_, or _Ancient Code of > Manu_, which has not yet been entirely reconstructed, although many > passages of the book have been preserved by tradition, and are often > cited by commentators.” > > “We read in the preface to a treatise on legislation by Narada,” says > Jacolliot, “written by one of his adepts, a client of Brahmanical > power: ‘Manu having written the laws of Brahma, in 100,000 slokas, > or distichs, which formed twenty-four books and a thousand chapters, > gave the work to Narada, the sage of sages, who abridged it for the {586} > use of mankind to 12,000 verses, which he gave to a son of Brighou, > named Soumati, who, for the greater convenience of man, reduced them to > 4,000.’” > > Here we have the opinion of Sir William Jones, who, in 1794, affirmed > that the fragments in possession of the Europeans could not be _The > Ancient Code of Manu_, and that of Louis Jacolliot, who, in 1868, after > consulting all the authorities, and adding to them the result of his > own long and patient research, writes the following: “The Hindu laws > were codified by Manu _more than 3,000 years before the Christian era_, > copied by the whole of antiquity, and notably by Rome, which alone has > left us a written law—the _Code of Justinian_; which has been adopted > as the basis of all modern legislations.”[873] > > In another volume, entitled _Christna et le Christ_, in a scientific > arraignment of a pious, albeit very learned Catholic antagonist, M. > Textor de Ravisi, who seeks to prove that the orthography of the name > Christna is not warranted by its Sanscrit spelling—and has the worst > of it—Jacolliot remarks: “We know that the legislator Manu is lost in > the night of the ante-historical period of India; and that no Indianist > has dared to refuse him the title of the most ancient law-giver in the > world” (p. 350). > > But Jacolliot had not heard of the Rev. Dunlop Moore. This is why, > perhaps, he and several other Indiologists are preparing to prove that > many of the Vedic texts, as well as those of Manu, sent to Europe > by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, _are not genuine texts at all_, > but mostly due to the cunning tentative efforts of certain Jesuit > missionaries to mislead science, by the help of apocryphal works > calculated at once to throw upon the history of ancient India a cloud > of uncertainty and darkness, and on the modern Brahmans and pundits a > suspicion of systematical interpolation. “These facts,” he adds, “which > are so well established in India that they are not even brought in > question, _must be revealed to Europe_” (_Christna et le Christ_, p. > 347). > > Moreover, the _Code of Manu_, known to European Orientalists as that > one which is commented upon by Brighou, does not even form a part > of the ancient Manu called the _Vriddha-Manava_. Although but small > fragments of it have been discovered by our scientists, it does exist > as a whole in certain temples; and Jacolliot proves that the texts > sent to Europe disagree entirely with the same texts as found in the > pagodas of Southern India. We can also cite for our purpose Sir William > Jones, who, complaining of Callouca, remarks that the latter seems > in his commentaries to have never considered that “the laws of Manu > are _restricted to the first three ages_” (_Translation of Manu and > Commentaries_). > > According to computation we are now in the age of Kali-Yug, the {587} > _third_, reckoning from that of Satya or Kritayug, first age in which > Hindu tradition establishes the laws of Manu, and the authenticity of > which Sir William Jones implicitly accepted. Admitting all that may be > said as to the enormous exaggerations of Hindu chronology—which, by the > bye, dovetails far better with modern geology and anthropology than > the 6,000 years’ caricature chronology of the Jewish _Scripture_—still > as about 4,500 years have elapsed since the fourth age of the world, > or Kali-Yug, began, we have here a proof that one of the greatest > Orientalists that ever lived—and a Christian in the bargain, not a > Theosophist—believed that Manu is many thousand years older than Moses. > Clearly one of two things should happen: Either Indian history should > be remodelled for the _Presbyterian Banner_, or the writers for that > sheet should study Hindu literature before trying their hand again at > criticism of Theosophists. > > But apart from the private opinions of these reverend gentlemen whose > views very little concern us, we find even in the _New American > Cyclopædia_ a decided tendency to dispute the antiquity and importance > of the Hindu literature. The _Laws of Manu_, says one of the writers, > “do not date earlier than the third century B.C.” This term is a very > elastic one. If by the _Laws of Manu_ the writer means the _abridgment_ > of these laws, compiled and arranged by later Brahmans to serve as an > authority for their ambitious projects, and with an idea of creating > for themselves a rule of domination, then, in such a sense, they may > be right, though we are prepared to dispute even that. At all events > it is as little proper to pass off this abridgment for the genuine > old laws codified by Manu, as to assert that the Hebrew _Bible_ does > not date earlier than the tenth century of our era, because we have > no Hebrew manuscript older than that, or that the poems of Homer’s > _Iliad_ were neither known nor written before its first authenticated > manuscript was found. There is no Sanscrit manuscript in the possession > of European scholars much older than four or five centuries,[874] a > fact which did not in the least restrain them from assigning to the > _Vedas_ an antiquity of between four or five thousand years. There > are the strongest possible arguments in favor of the great antiquity > of the _Books of Manu_, and without going to the trouble of quoting > the opinions of various scholars, no two of whom agree, we will bring > forward our own, at least as regards this most unwarranted assertion of > the _Cyclopædia_. > > If, as Jacolliot proves, text in hand, the _Code of Justinian_ was > copied from the _Laws of Manu_, we have first of all to ascertain the {588} > age of the former; not as a written and perfect code, but its origin. > To answer, is not difficult we believe. > > According to Varro, Rome was built in 3961 of the Julian period (754 > B.C.). The Roman Law, as embodied by order of Justinian, and known as > the _Corpus Juris Civilis_, was not a code, we are told, but a digest > of the customs of legislation of many centuries. Though nothing is > actually known of the original authorities, the chief source from > which the _jus scriptum_, or written law, was derived, was the _jus > non scriptum_, or the law of custom. Now it is just on this law _of > custom_ that we are prepared to base our arguments. The law of the > twelve tables, moreover, was compiled about A.U.C. 300, and even this > as respects private law was compiled _from still earlier sources_. > Therefore, if these earlier sources are found to agree so well with > the _Laws of Manu_, which the Brahmans claim to have been codified in > the _Kritayug_, an age anterior to the actual _Kali-yug_, then we must > suppose that this source of the “Twelve Tables,” as laws of _custom_ > and tradition, are at least, by several hundred years, older than their > copyists. This, alone, carries us right back to more than 1,000 years > B.C. > > The _Manava Dharma Sastra_, embodying the Hindu system of cosmogony, > is recognized as next to the _Vedas_ in antiquity; and even Colebrooke > assigns the latter to the fifteenth century B.C. And, now, what is > the etymology of the name of _Manava Dharma Sastra_? It is a word > compounded of _Manu_; _d’harma_, institute; and _sastra_, command or > law. How then can Manu’s laws date only since the third century before > our Christian era? > > The Hindu _Code_ had never laid any claims to be divinely revealed. > The distinction made by the Brahmans themselves between the _Vedas_ > and every other sacred book of however respectable an antiquity, is > a proof of it. While every sect holds the _Vedas_ as the direct word > of God—_sruti_ (revelation)—the _Code of Manu_ is designated by them > simply as the _smriti_, a collection of oral traditions. Still these > traditions, or “recollections,” are among the oldest as well as the > most revered in the land. But, perhaps, the strongest argument in favor > of its antiquity, and the general esteem in which it is held, lies > in the following fact. The Brahmans have undeniably remodelled these > traditions at some distant period, and made many of the actual laws, > as they now stand in the _Code of Manu_, to answer their ambitious > views. Therefore, they _must have done it at a time when the burning > of widows (suttee) was neither practiced nor intended to be_, which it > has been for nearly 2,500 years. No more than in the _Vedas_ is there > any such atrocious law mentioned in the _Code of Manu_! Who, unless he > is completely unacquainted with the history of India, but knows that {589} > this country was once on the verge of a religious rebellion occasioned > by the prohibition of _suttee_ by the English government? The Brahmans > appealed to a verse from the _Rig-Veda_ which commanded it. But this > verse has been recently proved to have been falsified.[875] Had the > Brahmans been the sole authors of the _Code of Manu_, or had they > codified it entirely instead of simply filling it with interpolations > to answer their object not earlier than the time of Alexander, how is > it possible that they would have neglected this most important point, > and so imperilled its authority? This fact alone proves that the _Code_ > must be counted one of their most ancient books. > > It is on the strength of such circumstantial evidence—that of reason > and logic—that we affirm that, if Egypt furnished Greece with her > civilization, and the latter bequeathed hers to Rome, Egypt herself > had, in those unknown ages when Menes reigned,[876] received her laws, > her social institutions, her arts and her sciences, from pre-Vedic > India;[877] and that therefore, it is in that old initiatrix of the > priests—adepts of all the other countries—we must seek for the key to > the great mysteries of humanity. > > And when we say, indiscriminately, “India,” we do not mean the India of > our modern days, but that of the archaic period. In those ancient times > countries which are now known to us by other names were all called > India. There was an Upper, a Lower, and a Western India, the latter of > which is now Persia-Iran. The countries now named Thibet, Mongolia, and > Great Tartary, were also considered by the ancient writers as India. We > will now give a legend in relation to those places which science now > fully concedes to have been the cradle of humanity. > > Tradition says, and the records of the _Great Book_ explain, that > long before the days of Ad-am, and his inquisitive wife, He-va, where > now are found but salt lakes and desolate barren deserts, there was a > vast inland sea, which extended over Middle Asia, north of the proud > Himalayan range, and its western prolongation. An island, which for > its unparalleled beauty had no rival in the world, was inhabited by > the last remnant of the race which preceded ours. This race could live > with equal ease in water, air, or fire, for it had an unlimited control > over the elements. These were the “Sons of God;” not those who saw > the daughters of men, but the real _Elohim_, though in the Oriental > _Kabala_ they have another name. It was they who imparted Nature’s > most weird secrets to men, and revealed to them the ineffable, and now {590} > _lost_ “word.” This word, which is no word, has travelled once around > the globe, and still lingers as a far-off dying echo in the hearts of > some privileged men. The hierophants of all the Sacerdotal Colleges > were aware of the existence of this island, but the “word” was known > only to the _Java Aleim_, or chief lord of every college, and was > passed to his successor only at the moment of death. There were many > such colleges, and the old classic authors speak of them. > > We have already seen that it is one of the universal traditions > accepted by all the ancient peoples that there were many races of men > anterior to our present races. Each of these was distinct from the one > which preceded it; and each disappeared as the following appeared. In > _Manu_, six such races are plainly mentioned as having succeeded each > other. > > “From this Manu Swayambhouva (the minor, and answering to Adam Kadmon) > issued from Swayambhouva, or the Being existing through himself, > descended six other Manus (men typifying progenitors), each of whom > gave birth _to a race_ of men.... These Manus, all powerful, of whom > Swayambhouva is the first, have each, _in his period—autara_—produced > and directed this world composed of movable and unmovable beings” > (_Manu_, book i.). > > In the _Siva-Purana_,[878] it runs thus: > > “O Siva, thou god of fire, mayest thou destroy my sins, as the > bleaching-grass of the jungle is destroyed by fire. It is through thy > mighty Breath that Adhima (the first man) and Heva (completion of life, > in Sanscrit), _the ancestors of this race of men_ have received life > and covered the world with their descendants.” > > There was no communication with the fair island by sea, but > subterranean passages known only to the chiefs, communicated with it > in all directions. Tradition points to many of the majestic ruins of > India, Ellora, Elephanta, and the caverns of Ajunta (Chandor range), > which belonged once to those colleges, and with which were connected > such subterranean ways.[879] Who can tell but the lost Atlantis—which {591} > is also mentioned in the _Secret Book_, but, again, under another > name, pronounced in the sacred language—did not exist yet in those > days? The great lost continent might have, perhaps, been situated south > of Asia, extending from India to Tasmania?[880] If the hypothesis > now so much doubted, and positively denied by some learned authors > who regard it as a joke of Plato’s, is ever verified, then, perhaps, > will the scientists believe that the description of the god-inhabited > continent was not altogether fable. And they may then perceive that > Plato’s guarded hints and the fact of his attributing the narrative to > Solon and the Egyptian priests, were but a prudent way of imparting > the fact to the world and by cleverly combining truth and fiction, > to disconnect himself from a story which the obligations imposed at > initiation forbade him to divulge. > > And how could the name of Atlanta itself originate with Plato at all? > Atlante is _not_ a Greek name, and its construction has nothing of > the Grecian element in it. Brasseur de Bourbourg tried to demonstrate > it years ago, and Baldwin, in his _Prehistoric Nations and Ancient > America_, cites the former, who declares that “the word _Atlas_ and > _Atlantic_ have no satisfactory etymology in any language known in > Europe. They are not Greek, and cannot be referred to any known > language of the Old World. But in the Nahuatl (or Toltec) language we > find immediately the radical _a_, _atl_, which signifies water, war, > and the top of the head. From this comes a series of words, such as > _atlan_, or the border of or amid the water; from which we have the > adjective _Atlantic_. We have also _atlaca_, to combat.... A city named > _Atlan_ existed when the continent was discovered by Columbus, at the > entrance of the Gulf of Uraha, in Darien, with a good harbor. It is now > reduced to an unimportant _pueblo_ (village) named Aclo.”[881] > > Is it not, to say the least, very extraordinary to find in America a > city called by a name which contains a purely local element, foreign > moreover to every other country, in the alleged _fiction_ of a > philosopher of 400 years B.C.? The same may be said of the name of > _America_, which may one day be found more closely related to Meru, the > sacred mount in the centre of the _seven_ continents, according to the > Hindu tradition, then to Americus Vespucius, whose name by the bye, > was never Americus at all, but _Albericus_, a trifling difference not > deemed worth mentioning till very lately by _exact_ history.[882] We > adduce the following reasons in favor of our argument: > > 1st. Americ, Amerrique, or Amerique is the name in Nicaragua for the {592} > high land or mountain range that lies between Juigalpa and Libertad, in > the province of Chontales, and which reaches on the one side into the > country of the Carcas Indians, and on the other side into the country > of the Ramas Indians. > > _Ic_ or _ique_, as a terminal, means great, as _cazique_, etc. > > Columbus mentions, in his fourth voyage, the village _Cariai_, probably > _Caîcai_. The people abounded with sorcerers, or medicine men; and this > was the region of the Americ range, 3,000 feet high. > > Yet he omits to mention this word. > > The name _America Provincia_, first appeared on a map published at > Bâsle, in 1522. Till that time, the region was believed to be part of > India. That year Nicaragua was conquered by Gil Gonzales de Avida.[883] > > 2d. “The Northmen who visited the continent in the tenth century,[884] > a low level coast thickly covered with wood,” called it _Markland_, > from _mark_, a wood. The _r_ had a rolling sound as in _marrick_. A > similar word is found in the country of the Himalayas, and the name of > the World-Mountain, Meru, is pronounced in some dialects as MeruAH, the > letter _h_ being strongly aspirated. The main idea is, however, to show > how two peoples could possibly accept a word of similar sound, each > having used it in their own sense, and finding it applied to the same > territory. > > “It is most plausible,” says Professor Wilder, “that the State of > Central America, where we find the name _Americ_ signifying (like the > Hindu Meru we may add) great mountain, gave the continent its name. > Vespucius would have used his surname if he had designed to give a > title to a continent. If the Abbé de Bourbourg’s theory of _Atlan_ > as the source of Atlas and Atlantic is verified, the two hypotheses > could agree most charmingly. As Plato was not the only writer that > treated of a world beyond the pillars of Hercules, and as the ocean is > still shallow and grows sea-weed all through the tropical part of the > Atlantic, it is not wild to imagine that this continent projected, or > that there was an island-world on that coast. The Pacific also shows > signs of having been a populous island-empire of Malays or Javanese—if > not a continent amid the North and South. We know that Lemuria in the > Indian Ocean is a dream of scientists; and that the Sahara and the > middle belt of Asia were perhaps once sea-beds.” > > To continue the tradition, we have to add that the class of {593} > hierophants was divided into two distinct categories: those who were > instructed by the “Sons of God,” of the island, and who were initiated > in the divine doctrine of pure revelation, and others who inhabited > the lost Atlantis—if such must be its name—and who, being of another > race, were born with a sight which embraced all hidden things, and was > independent of both distance and material obstacle. In short, they were > the _fourth_ race of men mentioned in the _Popol-Vuh_, whose sight > was unlimited and who knew all things at once. They were, perhaps, > what we would now term “natural-born mediums,” who neither struggled > nor suffered to obtain their knowledge, nor did they acquire it at > the price of any sacrifice. Therefore, while the former walked in the > path of their divine instructors, and acquiring their knowledge by > degrees, learned at the same time to discern the evil from the good, > the born _adepts_ of the Atlantis blindly followed the insinuations > of the great and invisible “Dragon,” the King _Thevetat_ (the Serpent > of _Genesis_?). Thevetat had neither learned nor acquired knowledge, > but, to borrow an expression of Dr. Wilder in relation to the > tempting Serpent, he was “a sort of Socrates who _knew_ without being > initiated.” Thus, under the evil insinuations of their demon, Thevetat, > the Atlantis-race became a nation of wicked _magicians_. In consequence > of this, war was declared, the story of which would be too long to > narrate; its substance may be found in the disfigured allegories of the > race of Cain, the giants, and that of Noah and his righteous family. > The conflict came to an end by the submersion of the Atlantis; which > finds its imitation in the stories of the Babylonian and Mosaic flood: > The giants and magicians “ ... and all flesh died ... and every man.” > All except Xisuthrus and Noah, who are substantially identical with the > great Father of the Thlinkithians in the _Popol-Vuh_, or the sacred > book of the Guatemaleans, which also tells of his escaping in a large > boat, like the Hindu Noah—Vaiswasvata. > > If we believe the tradition at all, we have to credit the further > story that from the intermarrying of the progeny of the hierophants > of the island and the descendants of the Atlantian Noah, sprang up a > mixed race of righteous and wicked. On the one side the world had its > Enochs, Moseses, Gautama-Buddhas, its numerous “Saviours,” and great > hierophants; on the other hand, its “_natural_ magicians” who, through > lack of the restraining power of proper spiritual enlightenment, > and because of weakness of physical and mental organizations, > unintentionally perverted their gifts to evil purposes. Moses had no > word of rebuke for those adepts in prophecy and other powers who had > been instructed in the colleges of esoteric wisdom[885] mentioned {594} > in the _Bible_. His denunciations were reserved for such as either > wittingly or otherwise debased the powers inherited from their > Atlantian ancestors to the service of evil spirits, to the injury of > humanity. His wrath was kindled against the spirit of _Ob_, not that of > OD.[886] > > The ruins which cover both Americas, and are found on many West Indian {595} > islands, are all attributed to the submerged Atlantians. As well as > the hierophants of the old world, which in the days of Atlantis was > almost connected with the new one by land, the magicians of the now > submerged country had a net-work of subterranean passages running in > all directions. In connection with those mysterious catacombs we will > now give a curious story told to us by a Peruvian, long since dead, > as we were travelling together in the interior of his country. There > must be truth in it; as it was afterward confirmed to us by an Italian > gentleman who had seen the place and who, but for lack of means and > time, would have verified the tale himself, at least partially. The > informant of the Italian was an old priest, who had had the secret > divulged to him, at confession, by a Peruvian Indian. We may add, {596} > moreover, that the priest was compelled to make the revelation, being > at the time completely under the mesmeric influence of the traveller. > > The story concerns the famous treasures of the last of the Incas. The > Peruvian asserted that since the well-known and miserable murder of the > latter by Pizarro, the secret had been known to all the Indians, except > the _Mestitzos_ who could not be trusted. It runs thus: The Inca was > made prisoner, and his wife offered for his liberation a room full of > gold, “from the floor up to the ceiling, as high up as his conqueror > could reach” before the sun would set on the third day. She kept her > promise, but Pizarro broke his word, according to Spanish practice. > Marvelling at the exhibition of such treasures, the conqueror declared > that he would not release the prisoner, but would murder him, unless > the queen revealed the place whence the treasure came. He had heard > that the Incas had somewhere an inexhaustible mine; a subterranean > road or tunnel running many miles under ground, where were kept the > accumulated riches of the country. The unfortunate queen begged for > delay, and went to consult the oracles. During the sacrifice, the > chief-priest showed her in the consecrated “black mirror”[887] the > unavoidable murder of her husband, whether she delivered the treasures > of the crown to Pizarro or not. Then the queen gave the order to close > the entrance, which was a door cut in the rocky wall of a chasm. Under > the direction of the priest and magicians, the chasm was accordingly > filled to the top with huge masses of rock, and the surface covered > over so as to conceal the work. The Inca was murdered by the Spaniards > and his unhappy queen committed suicide. Spanish greed overreached > itself and the secret of the buried treasures was locked in the breasts > of a few faithful Peruvians. > > Our Peruvian informant added that in consequence of certain > indiscretions at various times, persons had been sent by different > governments to search for the treasure under the pretext of scientific > exploration. They had rummaged the country through, but without > realizing their object. So far this tradition is corroborated by the > reports of Dr. Tschuddi and other historians of Peru. But there are > certain additional details which we are not aware have been made public > before now. > > Several years after hearing the story, and its corroboration by the {597} > Italian gentleman, we again visited Peru. Going southward from Lima, by > water, we reached a point near Arica at sunset, and were struck by the > appearance of an enormous rock, nearly perpendicular, which stood in > mournful solitude on the shore, apart from the range of the Andes. It > was the tomb of the Incas. As the last rays of the setting sun strike > the face of the rock, one can make out, with an ordinary opera-glass, > some curious hieroglyphics inscribed on the volcanic surface. > > When Cusco was the capital of Peru, it contained a temple of the sun, > famed far and near for its magnificence. It was roofed with thick > plates of gold, and the walls were covered with the same precious > metal; the eave-troughs were also of solid gold. In the west wall > the architects had contrived an aperture in such a way that when the > sunbeams reached it, it focused them inside the building. Stretching > like a golden chain from one sparkling point to another, they encircled > the walls, illuminating the grim idols, and disclosing certain mystic > signs at other times invisible. It was only by understanding these > hieroglyphics—identical with those which may be seen to this day on > the tomb of the Incas—that one could learn the secret of the tunnel > and its approaches. Among the latter was one in the neighborhood of > Cusco, now masked beyond discovery. This leads directly into an immense > tunnel which runs from Cusco to Lima, and then, turning southward, > extends into Bolivia. At a certain point it is intersected by a royal > tomb. Inside this sepulchral chamber are cunningly arranged two doors; > or, rather, two enormous slabs which turn upon pivots, and close so > tightly as to be only distinguishable from the other portions of the > sculptured walls by the secret signs, whose key is in the possession of > the faithful custodians. One of these turning slabs covers the southern > mouth of the Liman tunnel—the other, the northern one of the Bolivian > corridor. The latter, running southward, passes through Trapaca > and Cobijo, for Arica is not far away from the little river called > Pay’quina,[888] which is the boundary between Peru and Bolivia. > > Not far from this spot stand three separate peaks which form a curious > triangle; they are included in the chain of the Andes. According > to tradition the only practicable entrance to the corridor leading > northward is in one of these peaks; but without the secret of its > landmarks, a regiment of Titans might rend the rocks in vain in the > attempt to find it. But even were some one to gain an entrance and > find his way as far as the turning slab in the wall of the sepulchre, {598} > and attempt to blast it out, the superincumbent rocks are so disposed > as to bury the tomb, its treasures, and—as the mysterious Peruvian > expressed it to us—“a thousand warriors” in one common ruin. There > is no other access to the Arica chamber but through the door in the > mountain near Pay’quina. Along the entire length of the corridor, > from Bolivia to Lima and Cusco, are smaller hiding places filled > with treasures of gold and precious stone, the accumulations of many > generations of Incas, the aggregate value of which is incalculable. > > We have in our possession an accurate plan of the tunnel, the > sepulchre, and the doors, given to us at the time by the old Peruvian. > If we had ever thought of profiting by the secret, it would have > required the coöperation of the Peruvian and Bolivian governments > on an extensive scale. To say nothing of physical obstacles, no one > individual or small party could undertake such an exploration without > encountering the army of smugglers and brigands with which the coast > is infested; and which, in fact, includes nearly the whole population. > The mere task of purifying the mephitic air of the tunnel, which had > not been entered for centuries, would also be a serious one. There, > however, the treasure lies, and there the tradition says it will lie > till the last vestige of Spanish rule disappears from the whole of > North and South America. > > The treasures exhumed by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenæ, have awakened > popular cupidity, and the eyes of adventurous speculators are being > turned toward the localities where the wealth of ancient peoples is > supposed to be buried, in crypt or cave, or beneath sand or alluvial > deposit. Around no other locality, not even Peru, hangs so many > traditions as around the Gobi Desert. In Independent Tartary this > howling waste of shifting sand was once, if report speaks correctly, > the seat of one of the richest empires the world ever saw. Beneath the > surface are said to lie such wealth in gold, jewels, statuary, arms, > utensils, and all that indicates civilization, luxury, and fine arts, > as no existing capital of Christendom can show to-day. The Gobi sand > moves regularly from east to west before terrific gales that blow > continually. Occasionally some of the hidden treasures are uncovered, > but not a native dare touch them, for the whole district is under the > ban of a mighty spell. Death would be the penalty. Bahti—hideous, but > faithful gnomes—guard the hidden treasures of this prehistoric people, > awaiting the day when the revolution of cyclic periods shall again > cause their story to be known for the instruction of mankind. > > According to local tradition, the tomb of Ghengiz Khan still exists > near Lake Tabasun Nor. Within lies the Mongolian Alexander, as though > asleep. After three more centuries he will awake and lead his people > to new victories and another harvest of glory. Though this prophetic {599} > tradition be received with ever so many grains of salt, we can affirm > as a fact that the tomb itself is no fiction, nor has its amazing > richness been exaggerated. > > The district of the Gobi wilderness and, in fact, the whole area of > Independent Tartary and Thibet is jealously guarded against foreign > intrusion. Those who are permitted to traverse it are under the > particular care and pilotage of certain agents of the chief authority, > and are in duty bound to convey no intelligence respecting places > and persons to the outside world. But for this restriction, even we > might contribute to these pages accounts of exploration, adventure, > and discovery that would be read with interest. The time will come, > sooner or later, when the dreadful sand of the desert will yield up > its long-buried secrets, and then there will indeed be unlooked-for > mortifications for our modern vanity. > > “The people of Pashai,”[889] says Marco Polo, the daring traveller > of the thirteenth century, “are great adepts in sorceries and the > _diabolic_ arts.” And his learned editor adds: “This Pashai, or Udyana, > was the native country of Padma Sambhava, one of the chief apostles > of lamaism, _i. e._, of Thibetan Buddhism, and a great master of > enchantments. The doctrines of Sakya, as they prevailed in Udâyna _in > old times_, were probably strongly tinged with Sivaïtic magic, and the > Thibetans still regard the locality as the classic ground of sorcery > and witchcraft.” > > The “old times” are just like the “modern times;” nothing is changed as > to magical practices except that they have become still more esoteric > and arcane, and that the caution of the adepts increases in proportion > to the traveller’s curiosity. Hiouen-Thsang says of the inhabitants: > “The men ... are fond of study, but pursue it with no ardor. _The > science of magical formulæ has become a regular professional business > with them._”[890] We will not contradict the venerable Chinese > pilgrim on this point, and are willing to admit that in the seventh > century _some_ people made “a professional business” of magic; so, > also, do _some_ people now, but certainly not the true adepts. It is > not Hiouen-Thsang, the pious, courageous man, who risked his life a > hundred times to have the bliss of perceiving Buddha’s shadow in the > cave of Peshawer, who would have accused the holy lamas and monkish > thaumaturgists of “making a professional business” of showing it to > travellers. The injunction of Gautama, contained in his answer to King > Prasenagit, his protector, who called on him to perform miracles, must {600} > have been ever present to the mind of Hiouen-Thsang. “Great king,” > said Gautama, “I do not teach the law to my pupils, telling them > ‘go, ye saints, and before the eyes of the Brahmans and householders > perform, by means of your supernatural powers, miracles greater than > any man can perform.’ I tell them, when I teach them the law, ‘Live, ye > saints, _hiding your good works, and showing your sins_.’” > > Struck with the accounts of magical exhibitions witnessed and recorded > by travellers of every age who had visited Tartary and Thibet, > Colonel Yule comes to the conclusion that the natives must have had > “at their command the whole encyclopædia of modern ‘Spiritualists.’ > Duhalde mentions among their sorceries the art of producing by their > invocations the figures of Laotsen[891] and their divinities _in the > air_, and _of making a pencil write answers to questions without > anybody touching it_.”[892] > > The former invocations pertain to religious mysteries of their > sanctuaries; if done otherwise, or for the sake _of gain_, they are > considered _sorcery_, necromancy, and strictly forbidden. The latter > art, that of making a pencil write _without contact_, was known and > practiced in China and other countries centuries before the Christian > era. It is the A B C of magic in those countries. > > When Hiouen-Thsang desired to adore the shadow of Buddha, it was not > to “professional magicians” that he resorted, but to the power of his > own soul-invocation; the power of prayer, faith, and contemplation. All > was dark and dreary near the cavern in which the miracle was alleged to > take place sometimes. Hiouen-Thsang entered and began his devotions. > He made 100 salutations, but neither saw nor heard anything. Then, > thinking himself too sinful, he cried bitterly, and despaired. But as > he was going to give up all hope, he perceived on the eastern wall a > feeble light, but it disappeared. He renewed his prayers, full of hope > this time, and again he saw the light, which flashed and disappeared > again. After this he made a solemn vow: he would not leave the cave > till he had the rapture to see at last the shadow of the “Venerable of > the Age.” He had to wait longer after this, for only after 200 prayers > was the dark cave suddenly “bathed in light, and the shadow of Buddha, > of a brilliant white color, rose majestically on the wall, as when the > clouds suddenly open, and, all at once, display the marvellous image of > the ‘Mountain of Light.’ A dazzling splendor lighted up the features > of the divine countenance. Hiouen-Thsang was lost in contemplation > and wonder, and would not turn his eyes away from the sublime and {601} > incomparable object.” Hiouen-Thsang adds in his own diary, _See-yu > kee_, that it is only when man prays with sincere faith, and if he > has received from above a hidden impression, that he sees the shadow > clearly, but he cannot enjoy the sight for any length of time.[893] > > Those who are so ready to accuse the Chinese of irreligion will do well > to read Schott’s _Essays on Buddhism in China and Upper Asia_.[894] > “In the years _Yuan-yeu_ of the Sung (A.D. 1086-1093) a pious matron > with her two servants lived entirely to the Land of Enlightenment. One > of the maids said one day to her companion: ‘To-night I shall pass > over to the Realm of Amita’ (Buddha). The same night a balsamic odor > filled the house, and the maid died without any preceding illness. > On the following day the surviving maid said to her lady: ‘Yesterday > my deceased companion appeared to me in a dream, and said: “Thanks > to the persevering supplications of our dear mistress, I am become > an inhabitant of Paradise, and my blessedness is past all expression > in words.”’ The matron replied: ‘If she will appear to me also, then > will I believe all you say.’ The next night the deceased really > appeared to her. The lady asked: ‘May I, for once, visit the Land > of Enlightenment?’ ‘Yea,’ answered the blessed soul; ‘thou hast but > to follow thine handmaiden.’ The lady followed her (in her dream), > and soon perceived a lake of immeasurable expanse, overspread with > innumerable red and white lotus flowers, of various sizes, some > blooming, some fading. She asked what those flowers might signify? The > maiden replied: ‘These are all human beings on the Earth whose thoughts > are turned to the Land of Enlightenment. The very first longing after > the Paradise of Amita produces a flower in the Celestial Lake, and this > becomes daily larger and more glorious as the self-improvement of the > person whom it represents advances; in the contrary case, it loses in > glory and fades away.’[895] The matron desired to know the name of an > enlightened one who reposed on one of the flowers, clad in a waving > and wondrously glistening raiment. Her whilom maiden answered: ‘That > is Yang-kie.’ Then asked she the name of another, and was answered: {602} > ‘That is Mahu.’ The lady then said: ‘At what place shall I hereafter > come into existence?’ Then the Blessed Soul led her a space further, > and showed her a hill that gleamed with gold and azure. ‘Here,’ said > she, ‘is your future abode. You will belong to the first order of the > blessed.’ When the matron awoke, she sent to inquire for Yang-kie > and Mahu. The first was already departed; the other still alive and > well. And thus the lady learned that the soul of one who advances in > holiness and never turns back, may be already a dweller in the Land of > Enlightenment, even though the body still sojourn in this transitory > world.” > > In the same essay, another Chinese story is translated, and to the > same effect: “I knew a man,” says the author, “who during his life had > killed many living beings, and was at last struck with an apoplexy. > The sorrows in store for his sin-laden soul pained me to the heart; I > visited him, and exhorted him to call on the Amita; but he obstinately > refused. His illness clouded his understanding; in consequence of his > misdeeds he had become hardened. What was before such a man when once > his eyes were closed? In this life the night followeth the day, and > the winter followeth the summer; that, all men are aware of. But that > life is followed by death, no man will consider. Oh, what blindness and > obduracy is this!” (p. 93). > > These two instances of Chinese literature hardly strengthen the > usual charge of irreligion and total materialism brought against the > nation. The first little mystical story is full of spiritual charm, > and would grace any Christian religious book. The second is as worthy > of praise, and we have but to replace “Amita” with “Jesus” to have > a highly orthodox tale, as regards religious sentiments and code of > philosophical morality. The following instance is still more striking, > and we quote it for the benefit of Christian revivalists: > > “Hoang-ta-tie, of T’anchen, who lived under the Sung, followed the > craft of a blacksmith. Whenever he was at his work he used to call, > without intermission, on the name of Amita Buddha. One day he handed to > his neighbors the following verses of his own composition to be spread > about:— > > ‘Ding dong! The hammer-strokes fall long and fast, > Until the iron turns to steel at last! > Now shall the long, long day of rest begin, > The _Land of Bliss Eternal_ calls me in!’ > > “Thereupon he died. But his verses spread all over Honan, and many > learned to call upon Buddha.”[896] > > To deny to the Chinese or any people of Asia, whether Central, Upper, {603} > or Lower, the possession of any knowledge, or even perception of > spiritual things, is perfectly ridiculous. From one end to the other > the country is full of mystics, religious philosophers, Buddhist > saints, and _magicians_. Belief in a spiritual world, full of invisible > beings who, on certain occasions, appear to mortals objectively, is > universal. “According to the belief of the nations of Central Asia,” > remarks I. J. Schmidt, “the earth and its interior, as well as the > encompassing atmosphere, are filled with spiritual beings, which > exercise an influence, partly beneficent, partly malignant, on the > whole of organic and inorganic nature.... Especially are deserts and > other wild or uninhabited tracts, or regions in which the influences > of nature are displayed on a gigantic and terrible scale, regarded as > the chief abode or rendezvous of evil spirits. And hence the steppes > of Turan, and in particular the great sandy Desert of Gobi have been > looked on as the dwelling-place of malignant beings, from days of hoary > antiquity.” > > Marco Polo—as a matter of course—mentions more than once in his curious > book of _Travels_, these tricky nature-spirits of the deserts. For > centuries, and especially in the last one, had his strange stories > been completely rejected. No one would believe him when he said he > had witnessed, time and again, with his own eyes, the most wonderful > feats of magic performed by the subjects of Kublai-Khan and adepts > of other countries. On his death-bed Marco was strongly urged to > retract his alleged “falsehoods;” but he solemnly swore to the truth > of what he said, adding that “he had not told _one-half_ of what he > had really seen!” There is now no doubt that he spoke the truth, since > Marsden’s edition, and that of Colonel Yule have appeared. The public > is especially beholden to the latter for bringing forward so many > authorities corroborative of Marco’s testimony, and explaining some of > the phenomena in the usual way, for he makes it plain beyond question > that the great traveller was not only a veracious but an exceedingly > observant writer. Warmly defending his author, the conscientious > editor, after enumerating more than one hitherto controverted and even > rejected point in the Venetian’s _Travels_, concludes by saying: “Nay, > the last two years have thrown a promise of light even on what seemed > _the wildest_ of Marco’s stories, and the bones of a veritable Ruc from > New Zealand lie on the table of Professor Owen’s cabinet!”[897] > > The monstrous bird of the _Arabian Nights_, or “Arabian Mythology,” > as Webster calls the _Ruc_ (or Roc), having been identified, the next > thing in order is to _discover_ and recognize that _Aladdin’s_ magical > lamp has also certain claims to reality. > > Describing his passage through the great desert of Lop, Marco Polo {604} > speaks of a marvellous thing, “which is that, when travellers are on > the move by night ... they will hear spirits talking. Sometimes the > spirits will call him by name ... even in the daytime one hears these > spirits talking. And sometimes you shall hear the sound of a variety of > musical instruments, and still more commonly the sound of drums.”[898] > > In his notes, the translator quotes the Chinese historian, Matwanlin, > who corroborates the same. “During the passage of this wilderness you > hear sounds,” says Matwanlin, “sometimes of singing, sometimes of > wailing; and it has often happened that travellers going aside to see > what those sounds might be, have strayed from their course and been > entirely lost; for they were voices of spirits and goblins.”[899] > “These goblins are not peculiar to the Gobi,” adds the editor, “though > that appears to have been their most favored haunt. _The awe of the > vast and solitary desert raises them in all similar localities._” > > Colonel Yule would have done well to consider the possibility of > serious consequences arising from the acceptance of his theory. If we > admit that the weird cries of the Gobi are due to the _awe_ inspired > “by the vast and solitary desert,” why should the goblins of the > Gadarenes (_Luke_ viii. 29) be entitled to any better consideration? > and why may not Jesus have been self-deceived as to his objective > tempter during the forty days’ trial in the “wilderness?” We are > quite ready to receive or reject the theory enunciated by Colonel > Yule, but shall insist upon its impartial application to all cases. > Pliny speaks of the phantoms that appear and vanish in the deserts > of Africa;[900] Æthicus, the early Christian cosmographer, mentions, > though incredulous, the stories that were told of the voices of singers > and revellers in the desert; and “Mas’udi tells of the _ghûls_, which > in the deserts appear to travellers by night and in lonely hours;” and > also of “Apollonius of Tyana and his companions, who, in a desert near > the Indus by moonlight, saw an _empusa_ or ghûl taking many forms.... > They revile it, and it goes off uttering shrill cries.”[901] And Ibn > Batuta relates a like legend of the Western Sahara: “If the messenger > be solitary, the demons sport with him and fascinate him, so that he > strays from his course and perishes.”[902] Now if all these matters are > capable of a “rational explanation;” and we do not doubt it as regards > most of these cases, then, the _Bible_-devils of the wilderness deserve > no more consideration, but should have the same rule applied to them. > They, too, are creatures of terror, imagination, and _superstition_; {605} > hence, the narratives of the _Bible_ must be false; and if one single > verse is false, then a cloud is thrown upon the title of all the > rest, to be considered _divine_ revelation. Once admit this, and this > collection of canonical documents is at least as amenable to criticism > as any other book of stories.[903] > > There are many spots in the world where the strangest phenomena have > resulted from what was later ascertained to be natural physical causes. > In Southern California there are certain places on the sea-shore where > the sand when disturbed produces a loud musical ring. It is known > as the “musical sand,” and the phenomenon is supposed to be of an > electrical nature. “The sound of musical instruments, chiefly of drums, > is a phenomenon of another class, and is really produced in certain > situations among sandhills when the sand is disturbed,” says the editor > of _Marco Polo_. “A very striking account of a phenomenon of this kind, > _regarded as supernatural_, is given by Friar Odoric, whose experience > I have traced to the Reg Ruwán or flowing sand north of Kabul. Besides > this celebrated example ... I have noted that equally well-known one > of the _Jibal Nakics_, or ‘Hill of the Bell’ in the Sinai desert; > ... Gibal-ul-Thabúl, or hill of the drums.... A Chinese narrative of > the tenth century mentions the phenomenon as known near Kwachau, on > the eastern border of the Lop desert, under the name of “the singing > sands.”[904] > > That all these are natural phenomena, no one can doubt. But what of the > questions and answers, plainly and audibly given and received? What > of conversations held between certain travellers and the _invisible_ > spirits, or unknown beings, that sometimes appear to whole caravans > in tangible form? If so many millions believe in the possibility > that spirits may clothe themselves with material bodies, behind the > curtain of a “medium,” and appear to the _circle_, why should they > reject the same possibility for the elemental spirits of the deserts? {606} > This is the “to be, or not to be” of Hamlet. If “spirits” can do all > that Spiritualists claim for them, why can they not appear equally to > the traveller in the wildernesses and solitudes? A recent scientific > article in a Russian journal attributes such “spirit-voices,” in the > great Gobi desert, _to the echo_. A very reasonable explanation, if it > can only be demonstrated that these voices simply repeat what has been > previously uttered by a living person. But when the “superstitious” > traveller gets intelligent _answers_ to his questions, this Gobi _echo_ > at once shows a very near relationship with the famous echo of the > Théâtre Porte St. Martin at Paris. “How do you do, sir?” shouts one of > the actors in the play. “Very poorly, my son; thank you. I am getting > old, very ... very old!” politely answers the echo! > > What incredulous merriment must the _superstitious_ and _absurd_ > narratives of Marco Polo, concerning the “supernatural” gifts of > certain shark and wild-beast charmers of India, whom he terms > _Abraiaman_, have excited for long centuries. Describing the > pearl-fishery of Ceylon, as it was in his time, he says that the > merchants are “obliged also to pay those men who _charm_ the great > fishes—to prevent them from injuring the divers whilst engaged in > seeking pearls under water—one-twentieth part of all that they take. > These fish-charmers are termed Abraiaman (Brahman?), and their charm > holds good for that day only, for at night they dissolve the charm, so > that the fishes can work mischief at their will. These Abraiaman know > also how to charm beasts and birds, and every living thing.” > > And this is what we find in the explanatory notes of Colonel Yule, in > relation to this _degrading_ Asiatic “superstition:” “Marco’s account > of the pearl-fishery is still substantially correct.... At the diamond > mines of the northern Circars, Brahmans are employed in the analogous > office of propitiating the tutelary genii. The shark-charmers are > called in Tamil, _Kadal-Katti_, “sea-binders,” and in Hindustani, > _Hai-banda_, or “shark-binders.” At Aripo they belong to one family, > supposed to have the monopoly of the charm.[905] The chief operator > is (or was, not many years ago) _paid by the government_, and he also > received ten oysters from each boat daily during the fishery. Tennent, > on his visit, found the incumbent of the office to be a _Roman Catholic > Christian_ (?), but that did not seem to affect the exercise of the > validity of his functions. _It is remarkable that not more than one > authenticated accident from sharks had taken place during the whole > period of the British occupation._”[906] > > Two items of fact in the above paragraph are worthy of being placed {607} > in juxtaposition. 1. The British authorities pay professional > shark-charmers a stipend to exercise their art; and, 2, only _one > life_ has been lost since the execution of the contract. (We have yet > to learn whether the loss of this _one_ life did not occur under the > Roman Catholic _sorcerer_.) Is it pretended that the salary is paid > as a concession to a _degrading_ native superstition? Very well; but > how about the sharks? Are they receiving salaries, also, from the > British authorities out of the Secret Service Fund? Every person who > has visited Ceylon must know that the waters of the pearl coast swarm > with sharks of the most voracious kind, and that it is even dangerous > to bathe, let alone to dive for oysters. We might go further, if we > chose, and give the names of British officials of the highest rank > in the Indian service, who, after resorting to native “magicians” > and “sorcerers,” to assist them in recovering things lost, or in > unravelling vexatious mysteries of one kind or another, and being > successful, and at the time _secretly_ expressing their gratitude, > have gone away, and shown their innate cowardice before the world’s > Areopagus, by publicly denying the truth of magic, and leading the jest > against Hindu “superstition.” > > Not many years ago, one of the worst of _superstitions_ scientists held > to be that of believing that the murderer’s portrait remained impressed > on the eye of the murdered person, and that the former could be easily > recognized by examining carefully the retina. The “superstition” > asserted that the likeness could be made still more striking by > subjecting the murdered man to certain old women’s fumigations, and the > like gossip. And now an American newspaper, of March 26, 1877, says: “A > number of years ago attention was attracted to a theory which insisted > that the last effort of vision materialized itself and remained as an > object imprinted on the retina of the eye after death. This has been > proved a fact by an experiment tried in the presence of Dr. Gamgee, > F.R.S., of Birmingham, England, and Prof. Bunsen, the subject being a > living rabbit. The means taken to prove the merits of the question were > most simple, the eyes being placed near an opening in a shutter, and > retaining the shape of the same after the animal had been deprived of > life.” > > If, from the regions of idolatry, ignorance, and superstition, as India > is termed by some missionaries, we turn to the so-called centre of > civilization—Paris, we find the same principles of magic exemplified > there under the name of _occult_ Spiritualism. The Honorable John > L. O’Sullivan, Ex-Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to > Portugal, has kindly furnished us with the strange particulars of a > semi-magical séance which he recently attended with several other > eminent men, at Paris. Having his permission to that effect, we print > his letter in full. > > “NEW YORK, Feb. 7, 1877. {608} > > “I cheerfully obey your request for a written statement of > what I related to you orally, as having been witnessed by me > in Paris, last summer, at the house of a highly respectable > physician, whose name I have no authority to use, but whom, > after the usual French fashion of anonymizing, I will call Dr. > X. > > “I was introduced there by an English friend, well-known in the > Spiritualist circles in London—Mr. Gledstanes. Some eight or > ten other visitors were present, of both sexes. We were seated > in _fauteuils_, occupying half of a long drawing-room, flush > with a spacious garden. In the other half of the room was a > grand piano, a considerable open space between it and us, and a > couple of _fauteuils_ in that space, evidently placed there to > be occupied by other sitters. A door near them opened into the > private apartments. > > “Dr. X. came in, and discoursed to us for about twenty minutes > with rapid and vehement French eloquence, which I could not > undertake to report. He had, for over twenty-five years, > investigated occult mysteries, of which he was about to exhibit > some phenomena. His object was to attract his brethren of the > scientific world, but few or none of them came to see for > themselves. He intended before long to publish a book. He > presently led in two ladies, the younger one his wife, the > other (whom I will call Madame Y.) a medium or sensitive, with > whom he had worked through all that period in the prosecution > of these studies, and who had devoted and sacrificed her whole > life to this work with him. Both these ladies had their eyes > closed, apparently in trance. > > “He stood them at the opposite ends of the long grand piano > (which was shut), and directed them to put their hands upon > it. Sounds soon began to issue from its chords, marching, > galloping, drums, trumpets, rolling musketry, cannon, cries, > and groans—in one word, a _battle_. This lasted, I should say, > some five to ten minutes. > > “I should have mentioned that before the two mediums were > brought in I had written in pencil, on a small bit of paper (by > direction of Mr. Gledstanes, who had been there before), the > names of three objects, to be known to myself alone, viz., some > _musical composer_, deceased, a _flower_, and a _cake_. I chose > _Beethoven_, a _marguerite_ (daisy), and a kind of French cake > called _plombières_, and rolled the paper into a pellet, which > I kept in my hand, without letting even my friend know its > contents. > > “When the battle was over, he placed Mme. Y. in one of the > two _fauteuils_, Mme. X. being seated apart at one side of > the room, and I was asked to hand my folded, or rolled, paper > to Mme. Y. She held it (unopened) between her fingers, on > her lap. She was dressed in white merino, flowing from her > neck and gathered in at the waist, under a blaze of light > from chandeliers on the right and left. After a while she > dropped the little roll of paper to the floor, and I picked it > up. Dr. X. then raised her to her feet and told her to make > “the evocation of the dead.” He withdrew the _fauteuils_ and > placed in her hand a steel rod of about four and half or five > feet in length, the top of which was surmounted with a short > cross-piece—the Egyptian _Tau_. With this she traced a circle > round herself, as she stood, of about six feet in diameter. She > did not hold the cross-piece as a handle, but, on the contrary, > she held the rod at the opposite end. She presently handed it > back to Dr. X. There she stood for some time, her hands hanging > down and folded together in front of her, motionless, and with > her eyes directed slightly upward toward one of the opposite > corners of the long _salon_. Her lips presently began to move, > with muttered sounds, which after a while became distinct in > articulation, in short broken sentences or phrases, very much {609} > like the recitation of a litany. Certain words, seeming to be > names, would recur from time to time. It sounded to me somewhat > as I have heard Oriental languages sound. Her face was very > earnest and mobile with expression, with sometimes a slight > frown on the brow. I suppose it lasted about fifteen or twenty > minutes, amidst the motionless silence of all the company, > as we gazed on the weird scene. Her utterance finally seemed > to increase in vehemence and rapidity. At last she stretched > forth one arm toward the space on which her eyes had been > fixed, and, with a loud cry, almost a scream, she exclaimed: > ‘BEETHOVEN!’—and fell backward, prostrate on the floor. > > “Dr. X. hastened to her, made eager magnetic passes about > her face and neck, and propped up her head and shoulders on > cushions. And there she lay like a person sick and suffering, > occasionally moaning, turning restlessly, etc. I suppose a > full half-hour then elapsed, during which she seemed to pass > through all the phases of gradual _death_ (this I was told was > a re-enacting of the death of Beethoven). It would be long to > describe in detail, even if I could recall all. We watched as > though assisting at a scene of real death. I will only say that > her pulse ceased; no beating of the heart could be perceived; > her hands first, then her arms became cold, while warmth was > still to be felt under her arm-pits; even they at last became > entirely cold; her feet and legs became cold in the same > manner, and they swelled astonishingly. The doctor invited us > all to come and recognize these phenomena. The gasping breaths > came at longer and longer intervals, and feebler and feebler. > At last came the end; her head fell sidewise, her hands, which > had been picking with the fingers about her dress, collapsed > also. The doctor said, ‘she is now dead;’ and so it indeed > seemed. In vehement haste he produced (I did not see from > where) two small _snakes_, which he seemed to huddle about her > neck and down into her bosom, making also eager transverse > passes about her head and neck. After a while she appeared > to revive slowly, and finally the doctor and a couple of men > servants lifted her up and carried her off into the private > apartments, from which he soon returned. He told us that this > was all very critical, but perfectly safe, but that no time was > to be lost, for otherwise the death, which he said was real, > would be permanent. > > “I need not say how ghastly the effect of this whole scene had > been on all the spectators. Nor need I remind you that this was > no trickery of a performer paid to astonish. The scene passed > in the elegant drawing-room of a respectable physician, to > which access without introduction is impossible, while (outside > of the phenomenal facts) a thousand indescribable details of > language, manner, expression, and action presented those minute > guarantees of sincerity and earnestness which carry conviction > to those who witness, though it may be transmitted to those who > only hear or read of them. > > “After a time Mme. Y. returned and was seated in one of the > two _fauteuils_ before mentioned, and I was invited to the > other by her side. I had still in my hand the unopened pellet > of paper containing the three words privately written by me, > of which (Beethoven) had been the first. She sat for a few > minutes with her open hands resting on her lap. They presently > began to move restlessly about. “Ah, it burns, it burns,” she > said, and her features contracted with an expression of pain. > In a few moments she raised one of them, and it contained a > _marguerite_, the flower I had written as my second word. I > received it from her, and after it had been examined by the > rest of the company, I preserved it. Dr. X. said it was of a > species not known in that part of the country; an opinion in > which he was certainly mistaken, as a few days afterwards I > saw the same in the flower-market of the Madeleine. Whether > this flower was _produced_ under her hands, or was simply an > _apport_, as in the phenomenon we are familiar with in the > experiences of Spiritualism, I do not know. It was the one > or the other, for she certainly did not have it as she sat {610} > there by my side, under a strong light, before it made its > appearance. The flower was perfectly fresh in every one of its > delicate petals. > > “The third word I had written on my bit of paper was the name > of a cake—_plombières_. She presently began to go through the > motions of eating, though no cake was visible, and asked me if > I would not go with her to _Plombières_—the name of the cake I > had written. This might have been simply a case of mind-reading. > > “After this followed a scene in which Madame X., the doctor’s > wife, was said, and seemed to be, possessed by the spirit of > Beethoven. The doctor addressed her as “Monsieur Beethoven.” > She took no notice until he called the name aloud in her ear. > She then responded with polite bows, etc. (You may remember > that Beethoven was extremely deaf.) After some conversation he > begged her to play, and she seated herself at the piano and > performed magnificently both some of his known music and some > improvisations which were generally recognized by the company > as in his style. I was told afterwards, by a lady friend of > Madame X., that in her normal state she was a very ordinary > amateur performer. After about half an hour spent in music and > in dialogue in the character of Beethoven, to whom her face in > expression, and her tumbled hair, seemed to acquire a strange > resemblance, the doctor placed in her hands a sheet of paper > and a crayon, and asked her to sketch the face of the person > she saw before her. She produced very rapidly a profile sketch > of a head and face resembling Beethoven’s busts, though as > a younger man; and she dashed off a rapid name under it, as > though a signature, ‘Beethoven.’ I have preserved the sketch, > though how the handwriting may correspond with Beethoven’s > signature I cannot say. > > “The hour was now late, and the company broke up; nor had I any > time to interrogate Dr. X. upon what we had thus witnessed. But > I called on him with Mr. Gledstanes a few evenings afterwards. > I found that he admitted the action of spirits, and was a > Spiritualist, but also a great deal more, having studied long > and deeply into the occult mysteries of the Orient. So I > understood him to convey, while he seemed to prefer to refer > me to his book, which he would probably publish in the course > of the present year. I observed a number of loose sheets on a > table all covered with Oriental characters unknown to me—the > work of Madame Y. in trance, as he said, in answer to an > inquiry. He told us that in the scene I had witnessed, she > became (_i. e._, as I presumed, was possessed by) _a priestess > of one of the ancient Egyptian temples_, and that the origin of > it was this: A scientific friend of his had acquired in Egypt > possession of the mummy of a priestess, and had given him some > of the linen swathings with which the body was enveloped, and > from the contact with this cloth of 2,000 or 3,000 years old, > the devotion of her whole existence to this occult relation, > and twenty years seclusion from the world, his medium, as > sensitive Madame Y., had become what I had seen. The language > I had heard her speak was the sacred language of the temples > in which she had been instructed, not so much by inspiration > but very much as we now study languages, by dictation, written > exercises, etc., being even chided and punished when she was > dull or slow. He said that Jacolliot had heard her in a similar > scene, and recognized sounds and words of the very oldest > sacred language as preserved in the temples of India, anterior, > if I remember right, to the epoch of the Sanscrit. > > “Respecting the _snakes_ he had employed in the hasty operation > of restoring her to life, or rather perhaps arresting the last > consummation of the process of death, he said there was a > strange mystery in their relation to the phenomena of life and > death. I understood that they were indispensable. Silence and > inaction on our part were also insisted upon throughout, and > any attempt at questioning him at the time was peremptorily, > almost angrily, suppressed. We might come and talk afterward, > or wait for the appearance of his book, but he alone seemed {611} > entitled to exercise the faculty of speech throughout > all these performances—which he certainly did with great > volubility, the while, with all the eloquence and precision > of diction of a Frenchman, combining scientific culture with > vividness of imagination. > > “I intended to return on some subsequent evening, but learned > from Mr. Gledstanes that he had given them up for the present, > disgusted with his ill-success in getting his professional > colleagues and men of science to come and witness what it was > his object to show them. > > “This is about as much as I can recall of this strange, weird > evening, excepting some uninteresting details. I have given > you the name and address of Dr. X. confidentially, because he > would seem to have gone more or less far on the same path as > you pursue in the studies of your Theosophical Society. Beyond > that I feel bound to keep it private, not having his authority > to use it in any way which might lead to publicity. > > “Very respectfully, > > “Your friend and obedient servant, > > “J. L. O’SULLIVAN.” > > In this interesting case simple Spiritualism has transcended its > routine and encroached upon the limits of magic. The features of > mediumship are there, in the double life led by the sensitive Madame > Y., in which she passes an existence totally distinct from the normal > one, and by reason of the subordination of her individuality to a > foreign will, becomes the permutation of a priestess of Egypt; and in > the personation of the spirit of Beethoven, and in the unconscious > and cataleptic state into which she falls. On the other hand, the > will-power exercised by Dr. X. upon his sensitive, the tracing of the > mystic circle, the evocations, the materialization of the desired > flower, the seclusion and education of Madame Y., the employment of > the wand and its form, the creation and use of the serpents, the > evident control of the astral forces—all these pertain to magic. Such > experiments are of interest and value to science, but liable to abuse > in the hands of a less conscientious practitioner than the eminent > gentleman designated as Dr. X. A true Oriental kabalist would not > recommend their duplication. > > Spheres unknown below our feet; spheres still more unknown and still > more unexplored above us; between the two a handful of moles, blind to > God’s great light, and deaf to the whispers of the invisible world, > boasting that they lead mankind. Where? Onward, they claim; but we have > a right to doubt it. The greatest of our physiologists, when placed > side by side with a Hindu fakir, who knows neither how to read nor > write, will very soon find himself feeling as foolish as a school-boy > who has neglected to learn his lesson. It is not by vivisecting living > animals that a physiologist will assure himself of the existence of > man’s soul, nor on the blade of the knife can he extract it from a > human body. “What sane man,” inquires Sergeant Cox, the President of > the London Psychological Society, “what sane man who knows nothing of > magnetism or physiology, who had never witnessed an experiment nor {612} > learned its principles, would proclaim himself _a fool_ by denying > its facts and denouncing its theory?” The truthful answer to this > would be, “two-thirds of our modern-day scientists.” The impertinence, > if truth can ever be impertinent, must be laid at the door of him > who uttered it—a scientist of the number of those few who are brave > and honest enough to utter wholesome truths, however disagreeable. > And there is no mistaking the real meaning of the imputation, for > immediately after the irreverent inquiry, the learned lecturer remarks > as pointedly: “The chemist takes his electricity from the electrician, > the physiologist looks to the geologist for his geology—each would deem > it an impertinence in the other if he were to pronounce judgment in the > branch of knowledge not his own. Strange it is, but true as strange, > that this rational rule is wholly set at naught in the treatment of > psychology. _Physical scientists deem themselves competent to pronounce > a dogmatic judgment upon psychology and all that appertains to it, > without having witnessed any of its phenomena, and in entire ignorance > of its principles and practice._”[907] > > We sincerely hope that the two eminent biologists, Mr. Mendeleyeff, > of St. Petersburg, and Mr. Ray Lankester, of London fame, will bear > themselves under the above as unflinchingly as their living victims do > when palpitating under their dissecting knives. > > For a belief to have become universal, it must have been founded on > an immense accumulation of facts, tending to strengthen it, from one > generation to another. At the head of all such beliefs stands magic, > or, if one would prefer—occult psychology. Who, of those who appreciate > its tremendous powers even from its feeble, half-paralyzed effects > in our civilized countries, would dare disbelieve in our days the > assertions of Porphyry and Proclus, that even inanimate objects, such > as statues of gods, could be made to move and exhibit a factitious life > for a few moments? Who can deny the allegation? Is it those who testify > daily over their own signatures that they have seen tables and chairs > move and walk, and pencils write, without contact? Diogenes Laërtius > tells us of a certain philosopher, Stilpo, who was exiled from Athens > by the Areopagus, for having dared to deny publicly that the Minerva > of Pheidias was anything else than a block of marble. But our own age, > after having mimicked the ancients in everything possible, even to > their very names, such as “senates,” “prefects,” and “consuls,” etc.; > and after admitting that Napoleon the Great conquered three-fourths of > Europe by applying the principles of war taught by the Cæsars and the > Alexanders, knows so much better than its preceptors about psychology, > that it would vote every believer in “animated tables” into Bedlam. > > Be this as it may, _the religion of the ancients is the religion of {613} > the future_. A few centuries more, and there will linger no sectarian > beliefs in either of the great religions of humanity. Brahmanism and > Buddhism, Christianity and Mahometanism will all disappear before the > mighty rush of _facts_. “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh,” > writes the prophet Joel. “Verily I say unto you ... greater works > than these shall you do,” promises Jesus. But this can only come > to pass when the world returns to the grand religion of the past; > the _knowledge_ of those majestic systems which preceded, by far, > Brahmanism, and even the primitive monotheism of the ancient Chaldeans. > Meanwhile, we must remember the direct effects of the revealed mystery. > The only means by which the wise priests of old could impress upon the > grosser senses of the multitudes the idea of the Omnipotency of the > Creative _will_ or FIRST CAUSE; namely, the divine animation of inert > matter, the soul infused into it by the potential will of man, the > microcosmic image of the great Architect, and the transportation of > ponderous objects through space and material obstacles. > > Why should the pious Roman Catholic turn away in disgust at the > “heathen” practices of the Hindu Tamil, for instance? We have witnessed > the miracle of San Gennaro in good old Naples, and we have seen the > same in Nârgercoil, in India. Where is the difference? The coagulated > blood of the Catholic saint is made to boil and fume in its crystal > bottle, to the gratification of the lazzaroni; and from its jewelled > shrine the martyr’s idol beams radiant smiles and blessings at the > Christian congregation. On the other hand, a ball of clay filled with > water, is stuffed into the open breast of the god Sûran; and while > the padre shakes _his_ bottle and produces his “miracle” of blood, > the Hindu priest plunges an arrow into the god’s breast, and produces > _his_ “miracle,” for the blood gushes forth in streams, and the water > is changed into blood. Both Christians and Hindus fall in raptures > at the sight of such a miracle. So far, we do not see the slightest > difference. But can it be that the Pagan learned the trick from San > Gennaro. > > “Know, O, Asclepius,” says Hermes, “that as the HIGHEST ONE is the > father of the celestial gods, so is man _the artisan of the gods who > reside in the temples_, and who delight in the society of mortals. > Faithful to its origin and nature, humanity perseveres in this > imitation of the divine powers; and, if the Father Creator has made in > His image the _eternal gods_, mankind in its turn makes its gods in its > own image.” “And, dost thou speak of statues of gods; O, Trismegistus?” > “Verily, I do, Asclepius, and however great thy defiance, perceivest > thou not that these statues are endowed _with reason_, that they are > animated with a soul, and that they can operate the greatest prodigies. {614} > How can we reject the evidence, when we find these gods possessing > the gift of predicting the future, which they are compelled to tell, > when forced to it by magic spells, as through the lips of the divines > and their visions?... It is the marvel of marvels that man could > have invented and created gods.... True, the faith of our ancestors > has erred, and in their pride they fell into error as to the precise > essence of these gods ... but they have still found out that art > themselves. Powerless to create soul and spirit, they evoke the souls > of angels and demons in order to introduce them into the consecrated > statues; and so make them preside at their Mysteries, by communicating > to idols their own faculty to _do good as well as evil_.” > > It is not antiquity alone which is full of evidence that the statues > and idols of the gods at times exhibited intelligence and locomotive > powers. Full in the nineteenth century, we see the papers recording the > capers played by the statue of the Madonna of Lourdes. This gracious > lady, the French Notre Dame, runs away several times to the woods > adjoining her usual residence, the parish church. The sexton is obliged > to hunt after the runaway, and bring her home more than once.[908] > After this begins a series of “miracles,” healing, prophesying, > letter-dropping from on high, and what not. These “miracles” are > implicitly accepted by millions and millions of Roman Catholics; > numbers of these belonging to the most intelligent and educated > classes. Why, then, should we disbelieve in testimony of precisely the > same character, given as to contemporary phenomena of the same kind, > by the most accredited and esteemed historians—by Titus Livy, for > instance? “Juno, would you please abandon the walls of Veii, and change > this abode for that of Rome?” inquires of the goddess a Roman soldier, > after the conquest of that city. Juno consents, and nodding her head in > token of acquiescence, her statue answers: “Yes, I will.” Furthermore, > upon their carrying off the figure, it seems to instantly “_lose its > immense weight_,” adds the historian, and the statue seems rather to > follow them than otherwise.[909] > > With _naïveté_, and a faith bordering on the sublime, des Mousseaux, > bravely rushes into the dangerous parallels, and gives a number of > instances of Christian as well as “heathen” _miracles_ of that kind. > He prints a list of such walking statues of saints and Madonnas, who > lose their weight, and move about as so many living men and women; > and presents unimpeachable evidence of the same, from classical > authors, who described their _miracles_.[910] He has but one thought, > one anxious and all-overpowering desire—to prove to his readers that {615} > magic does exist, and that Christianity beats it flat. Not that the > miracles of the latter are either more numerous, or more extraordinary, > or suggestive than those of the Pagans. Not at all; and he is a fair > historian as to facts and evidence. But, it is his arguments and > reflections that are priceless: one kind of miracle is produced by > God, the other by the Devil; he drags down the Deity and placing Him > face to face with Satan, allows the arch-enemy to beat the Creator by > long odds. Not a word of solid, evident proof to show the substantial > difference between the two kinds of wonders. > > Would we inquire the reason why he traces in one the hand of God and > in the other the horn and hoof of the Devil? Listen to the answer: > “The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolical Church declares the miracles > wrought by her faithful sons produced by the will of God; and all > others the work of the spirits of Hell.” Very well, but on what ground? > We are shown an endless list of holy writers; of saints who fought > during their whole lives with the fiends; and of fathers whose word > and authority are accepted as “word of God” by the same Church. “Your > idols, your consecrated statues are the abode of _demons_,” exclaims > St. Cyprian. “Yes, it is these _spirits_ who inspire your divines, who > animate the bowels of your victims, who govern the flight of birds, and > who, mixing incessantly falsehood with truth, render oracles, and ... > operate prodigies, their object being to bring you invincibly to their > worship.”[911] > > Fanaticism in religion, fanaticism in science, or fanaticism in any > other question becomes a hobby, and cannot but blind our senses. It > will ever be useless to argue with a fanatic. And here we cannot > help admiring once more the profound knowledge of human nature which > dictated to Mr. Sergeant Cox the following words, delivered in the same > address as before alluded to: “There is no more fatal fallacy than that > the truth will prevail by its own force, that it has only to be seen > to be embraced. In fact the desire for the actual truth exists in very > few minds, and the capacity to discern it in fewer still. When men say > that they are seeking the truth, they mean that they are looking for > evidence to support some prejudice or prepossession. Their beliefs are > moulded to their wishes. They see all, and more than all, that seems > to tell for that which they desire; they are blind as bats to whatever > tells against them. The scientists are no more exempt from this common > failing than are others.” > > We know that from the remotest ages there has existed a mysterious, > awful science, under the name of _theopœa_. This science taught the > art of endowing the various symbols of gods with temporary life and {616} > intelligence. Statues and blocks of inert matter became animated under > the potential will of the hierophant. The fire stolen by Prometheus had > fallen down in the struggle to earth; it embraced the lower regions > of the sky, and settled in the waves of the universal ether as the > potential _Akâsa_ of the Hindu rites. We breathe and imbibe it into > our organic system with every mouthful of fresh air. Our organism is > full of it from the instant of our birth. But it becomes potential only > under the influx of WILL and SPIRIT. > > Left to itself, this life-principle will blindly follow the laws of > nature; and, according to conditions, will produce health and an > exuberance of _life_, or cause _death_ and dissolution. But, guided > by the will of the adept, it becomes obedient; its currents restore > the equilibrium in organic bodies, they fill the waste, and produce > physical and psychological miracles, well-known to mesmerizers. Infused > in inorganic and inert matter, they create an appearance of life, hence > motion. If to that life an individual intelligence, a personality, > is wanting, then the operator must either send his _scin-lecca_, his > own astral spirit, to animate it; or use his power over the region of > nature-spirits to force one of them to _infuse_ his entity into the > marble, wood, or metal; or, again, be helped by human spirits. But the > latter—except the vicious, earth-bound class[912]—will _not_ infuse > their essence into these inanimate objects. They leave the lower kinds > to produce the similitude of life and animation, and only send their > influence through the intervening spheres like a ray of divine light, > when the so-called “miracle” is required for a good purpose. The > condition—and this is a law in spiritual nature—is purity of motive, > purity of the surrounding magnetic atmosphere, personal purity of the > operator. Thus is it, that a Pagan “miracle” may be by far holier than > a Christian one. > > Who that has seen the performance of the fakirs of Southern India, > can doubt the existence of _theopœa_ in ancient times? An inveterate > skeptic, though more than anxious to attribute every phenomenon to > jugglery, still finds himself compelled to testify to facts; and facts > that are to be witnessed daily if one chooses. “I dare not,” he says, > speaking of Chibh-Chondor, a fakir of Jaffna-patnam, “describe all > the exercises which he performed. There are things one _dares_ not {617} > say even after having witnessed them, for fear of being charged with > having been under an inexplicable hallucination! And yet, ten, nay, > twenty times, I saw and saw again the fakir obtain similar results > over inert matter.... It was but child’s play for our ‘charmer’ to > make the flame of candles which had, by his directions, been placed in > the remotest corners of the apartment, pale and become extinguished at > will; to cause the furniture to move, even the sofas on which we sat, > the doors to open and shut repeatedly: and all this without quitting > the mat upon which he sat on the floor. > > “Perhaps I will be told that I saw imperfectly. Possibly; but I will > say that hundreds and thousands of persons have seen and do see what I > have, and things more wonderful; has one of all these discovered the > secret, or been able to duplicate these phenomena? And I can never > repeat too often that all this does not occur on a stage, supplied with > mechanical contrivances for the use of the operator. No, it is a beggar > crouched, naked, on the floor, who thus sports with your intelligence, > your senses, and all that which we have agreed among ourselves to style > the immutable laws of nature, but which he appears to alter at will! > > “Does he change its course? ‘No, but he makes it act by using forces > which are yet unknown to us,’ say the believers. However that may be, I > have found myself twenty times at similar performances in company with > the most distinguished men of British India—professors, physicians, > officers. Not one of them but thus summarized his impressions upon > quitting the drawing-room. ‘This is something terrifying to human > intelligence!’ Every time that I saw repeated by a fakir the experiment > of reducing serpents to a cataleptic state, a condition in which these > animals have all the rigidity of the dry branch of a tree, my thoughts > have reverted to the biblical fable (?) which endows Moses and the > priests of Pharaoh with the like power.”[913] > > Assuredly, the flesh of man, beast, and bird should be as easily > endowed with magnetic life-principle as the inert table of a modern > medium. Either both wonders are possible and true, or both must fall > to the ground, together with the miracles of Apostolic days, and those > of the more modern Popish Church. As for vital proofs furnished to us > in favor of such possibilities, we might name books enough to fill > a whole library. If Sixtus V. cited a formidable array of spirits > attached to various talismans, was not his threat of excommunication > for all those who practiced the art, uttered merely because he would > have the knowledge of this secret confined within the precincts of the > Church? How would it do for his “divine” miracles to be studied and {618} > successfully reproduced by every man endowed with perseverance, a > strong positive magnetic power, and an unflinching will? Recent events > at Lourdes (of course, supposing them to have been truthfully reported) > prove that the secret is not wholly lost; and if there is no strong > magician-mesmerizer concealed under frock and surplice, then the statue > of Notre-Dame is moved by the same forces which move every magnetized > table at a spiritual seance; and the nature of these “intelligences,” > whether they belong to the classes of human, human elementary, or > elemental spirits depends on a variety of conditions. With one who > knows anything of mesmerism, and at the same time of the charitable > spirit of the Roman Catholic Church, it ought not to be difficult to > comprehend that the incessant curses of the priests and monks; and the > bitter anathemas so freely pronounced by Pius IX.—himself a strong > mesmerizer, and believed to be a _jetattore_ (evil eye)—have drawn > together legions of elementaries and elementals under the leadership > of the disembodied Torquemadas. These are the “angels” who play pranks > with the statue of the Queen of Heaven. Any one who accepts the > “miracle” and thinks otherwise blasphemes. > > Although it would seem as if we had already furnished sufficient proofs > that modern science has little or no reason to boast of originality, > yet before closing this volume we will adduce a few more to place > the matter beyond doubt. We have but to recapitulate, as briefly as > possible, the several claims to new philosophies and discoveries, the > announcement of which has made the world open its eyes so wide within > these last two centuries. We have pointed to the achievements in arts, > sciences, and philosophy of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chaldeans, > and Assyrians; we will now quote from an author who has passed long > years in India studying their philosophy. In the famous and recent work > of _Christna et le Christ_, we find the following tabulation: > > “_Philosophy._—The ancient Hindus have created from the foundation the > two systems of spiritualism and materialism, of metaphysical philosophy > and of positive philosophy. The first taught in the Vedantic school, > whose founder was Vyasa; the second taught in the Sankya school, whose > founder was Kapila. > > “_Astronomical Science._—They fixed the calendar, invented the zodiac, > calculated the precession of the equinoxes, discovered the general laws > of the movements, observed and predicted the eclipses. > > “_Mathematics._—They invented the decimal system, algebra, the > differential, integral, and infinitesimal calculi. They also discovered > geometry and trigonometry, and in these two sciences they constructed > and proved theorems _which were only discovered in Europe as late as > the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries_. It was the Brahmans in > fact who first deduced the superficial measure of a triangle from {619} > the calculation of its three sides, and calculated the relations of > the circumference to the diameter. Furthermore, we must restore to > them the square of the hypotenuse and the table so improperly called > Pythagorean, which we find engraved on the _gôparama_ of the majority > of great pagodas. > > “_Physics._—They established the principle which is still our own > to-day, that the universe is a harmonious whole, subject to laws which > may be determined by observation and experiment. They discovered > hydrostatics; and the famous proposition that every body plunged in > water loses of its own weight a weight equal to the volume which it > displaces, is only a loan made by the Brahmans to the famous Greek > architect, Archimedes. The physicists of the pagodas calculated the > velocity of light, fixed in a positive manner the laws which it > follows in its reflection. And finally, it is beyond doubt, from the > calculations of Surya-Sidhenta, that they knew and calculated the force > of steam. > > “_Chemistry._—They knew the composition of water, and formulated > for gases the famous law, _which we know only from yesterday, that > the volumes of gas are in inverse ratio to the pressures that they > support_. They knew how to prepare sulphuric, nitric, and muriatic > acids; the oxides of copper, iron, lead, tin, and zinc; the sulphurets > of iron, copper, mercury, antimony, and arsenic; the sulphates of zinc > and iron; the carbonates of iron, lead, and soda; nitrate of silver; > and powder. > > “_Medicine._—Their knowledge was truly astonishing. In Tcharaka and > Sousruta, the two princes of Hindu medicine, is laid down the system > which Hippocrates appropriated later. Sousruta notably enunciates the > principles of preventive medicine or hygiene, which he places much > above curative medicine—too often, according to him, empyrical. Are > we more advanced to-day? It is not without interest to remark that > the Arab physicians, who enjoyed a merited celebrity in the middle > ages—Averroès among others—constantly spoke of the Hindu physicians, > and regarded them as the initiators of the Greeks and themselves. > > “_Pharmacology._—They knew all the simples, their properties, their > use, and upon this point have not yet ceased to give lessons to Europe. > Quite recently we have received from them the treatment of asthma, with > the datura. > > “_Surgery._—In this they are not less remarkable. They made the > operation for the stone, succeeded admirably in the operation for > cataract, and the extraction of the fœtus, of which all the unusual > or dangerous cases are described by Tcharaka with an extraordinary > scientific accuracy. > > “_Grammar._—They formed the most marvellous language in the world—the > Sanscrit—which gave birth to the greater part of the idioms of the > Orient, and of Indo-European countries. > > “_Poetry._—They have treated all the styles, and shown themselves {620} > supreme masters in all. Sakuntala, Avrita, the Hindu Phædra, Saranga, > and a thousand other dramas have their superiors neither in Sophocles > nor Euripides, in Corneille nor Shakspere. Their descriptive poetry has > never been equalled. One must read, in the _Megadata_, “The Plaint of > an Exile,” who implores a passing cloud to carry his remembrances to > his cottage, his relatives and friends, whom he will never see more, to > form an idea of the splendor to which this style has been carried in > India. Their fables have been copied by all modern and ancient peoples, > who have not even given themselves the trouble to color differently the > subject of these little dramas. > > “_Music._—They invented the gamut with its differences of tones and > half-tones much before Gui d’ Arezzo. Here is the Hindu scale: > > Sa—Ri—Ga—Ma—Pa—Da—Ni—Sa. > > “_Architecture._—They seem to have exhausted all that the genius of man > is capable of conceiving. Domes, inexpressibly bold; tapering cupolas; > minarets, with marble lace; Gothic towers; Greek hemicycles; polychrome > style—all kinds and all epochs are there, betokening the origin and > date of the different colonies, which, in emigrating, carried with them > their souvenirs of their native art.” > > Such were the results attained by this ancient and imposing Brahmanical > civilization. What have we to offer for comparison? Beside such > majestic achievements of the past, what can we place that will seem so > grandiose and sublime as to warrant our boast of superiority over an > ignorant ancestry? Beside the discoverers of geometry and algebra, the > constructors of human speech, the parents of philosophy, the primal > expounders of religion, the adepts in psychological and physical > science, how even the greatest of our biologists and theologians seem > dwarfed! Name to us any modern discovery, and we venture to say, that > Indian history need not long be searched before the prototype will > be found of record. Here we are with the transit of science half > accomplished, and all our ideas in process of readjustment to the > theories of force-correlation, natural selection, atomic polarity, and > evolution. And here, to mock our conceit, our apprehensions, and our > despair, we may read what Manu said, perhaps 10,000 years before the > birth of Christ: > > “The first germ of life was developed by water and heat” (_Manu_, book > i., sloka 8). > > “Water ascends toward the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in > rain, from the rain are born the plants, and from the plants, animals” > (book iii., sloka 76). > > “Each being acquires the qualities of the one which immediately > precedes it, in such a manner that the farther a being gets away from {621} > the primal atom of its series, the more he is possessed of qualities > and perfections” (book i., sloka 20). > > “Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending, and passing > through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, > tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals.... Such is the > _inferior degree_” (Ibid.). > > “These are the transformations declared, from the plant up to Brahma, > which have to take place in his world” (Ibid.). > > “The Greek,” says Jacolliot, “is but the Sanscrit. Pheidias and > Praxiteles have studied in Asia the chefs-d’œuvre of Daonthia, Ramana, > and Aryavosta. Plato disappears before Dgeminy and Veda-Vyasa, whom > he literally copies. Aristotle is thrown into the shade by the > _Pourva-Mimansa_ and the _Outtara-Mimansa_, in which one finds all the > systems of philosophy which we are now occupied in re-editing, from > the Spiritualism of Socrates and his school, the skepticism of Pyrrho, > Montaigne, and Kant, _down to the positivism of Littré_.” > > Let those who doubt the exactness of the latter assertion read this > phrase, extracted textually from the _Outtara-Mimansa_, or _Vedanta_, > of Vyasa, who lived at an epoch which the Brahmanical chronology fixes > at 10,400 years before our era: > > “We can only study phenomena, verify them, and hold them to be > relatively true, but nothing in the universe, neither by perception > nor by induction, nor by the senses, nor by reasoning, being able to > demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Cause, which could, at a fixed > point of time, have given birth to the universe, Science has to discuss > neither the possibility nor impossibility of this Supreme Cause.” > > Thus, gradually but surely, will the whole of antiquity be vindicated. > Truth will be carefully sifted from exaggeration; much that is now > considered fiction may yet be proved fact, and the “facts and laws” > of modern science found to belong to the limbo of exploded myths. > When, centuries before our era, the Hindu Bramaheupto affirmed that > the starry sphere was immovable, and that the daily rising and > setting of stars confirms the motion of the earth upon its axis; and > when Aristarchus of Samos, born 267 years B.C., and the Pythagorean > philosopher Nicetè, the Syracusan, maintained the same, what was > the credit given to their theories until the days of Copernicus and > Galileo? And the system of these two princes of science—a system which > has revolutionized the whole world—how long will it be allowed to > remain as a complete and undisturbed whole? Have we not, at the present > moment, in Germany, a learned savant, a Professor Shoëpfer, who, in his > public lectures at Berlin, tries to demonstrate, 1, that the earth is > immovable; 2, the sun is but a little bigger than it seems; and 3, that {622} > Tycho-Brahe was perfectly right and Galileo perfectly wrong?[914] And > what was Tycho-Brahe’s theory? Why, that the earth stands immovable in > the centre of the universe, and that around it, as around its centre, > the whole of the celestial vault gravitates every twenty-four hours; > and finally, that the sun and moon, apart from this motion, proceed on > curved lines peculiar to themselves, while Mercury, with the rest of > the planets, describes an epicycloid. > > We certainly have no intention to lose time nor devote space to either > combating or supporting this _new_ theory, which suspiciously resembles > the _old_ ones of Aristotle and even the Venerable Bede. We will leave > the learned army of modern Academicians to “wash their family linen > among themselves,” to use an expression of the great Napoleon. But we > will, nevertheless, avail ourselves of such a good opportunity as this > defection affords to demand once more of science her diploma or patents > of infallibility. Alas! are these, then, the results of her boasted > progress? > > It was hardly more than yesterday when, upon the strength of facts > within our own observation, and corroborated by the testimony of > a multitude of witnesses, we timidly ventured the assertion that > tables, mediums, and Hindu fakirs were occasionally levitated. And > when we added that, if such a phenomenon should happen but once in > a century, “without a visible mechanical cause, then that rising is > a manifestation of a natural law of which our scientists are yet > ignorant,” we were called “iconoclastic,” and charged, in our turn, by > the newspapers, with ignorance of the law of gravitation. Iconoclastic > or not, we never thought of charging science with denying the rotation > of the earth on its axis, or its revolution around the sun. Those two > lamps, at least, in the beacon of the Academy, we thought would be > kept trimmed and burning to the end of time. But, lo! here comes a > Berlin professor and crushes our last hopes that Science should prove > herself exact in some one particular. The cycle is truly at its lowest > point, and a new era is begun. The earth stands still, and Joshua is > vindicated! > > In days of old—in 1876—the world believed in centrifugal force, and > the Newtonian theory, which explained the flattening of the poles by > the rotatory motion of the earth around its axis, was orthodox. Upon > this hypothesis, the greater portion of the globular mass was believed > to gravitate toward the equator; and in its turn the centrifugal > force, acting on the mass with its mightiest power, forced this mass > to concentrate itself on the equator. Thus is it that the credulous {623} > scientists believed the earth to rotate around its axis; for, were it > otherwise, there would exist no centrifugal force, and without this > force there could be no gravitation toward the equatorial latitudes. It > has been one of the accepted proofs of the rotation of the earth, and > it is this deduction, with several others, that the Berlin professor > declares that, “in common with many other scientists,” he “rejects.” > > “Is this not ridiculous, gentlemen,” he concludes, “that we, confiding > in what we were taught at school, have accepted the rotation of the > earth around its axis as a fact fully demonstrated, while there is > nothing at all to prove it, and it _cannot_ be demonstrated? Is it not > cause of astonishment that the scientists of the whole educated world, > commencing with Copernicus and Kepler, should have begun by accepting > such a movement of our planet, and then three and a half centuries > later be searching for such proofs? But, alas! though we search, we > find none, as was to be expected. All, all is vain!” > > And thus it is that at one stroke the world loses its rotation, and the > universe is bereaved of its guardians and protectors, the centrifugal > and centripetal forces! Nay, ether itself, blown out of space, is but > a “fallacy,” a myth born of a bad habit of using empty words; the sun > is a pretender to dimensions to which it was never entitled; the stars > are twinkling dots, and “were so expressly disposed at considerable > distances from one another by the Creator of the universe, probably > with the intention that they should simultaneously illumine the vast > spaces on the face of our globe” says Dr. Shoëpfer. > > And is it so that even three centuries and a half have not sufficed > the men of exact science to construct one theory that not a single > university professor would dare challenge? If astronomy, the one > science built on the adamantine foundation of mathematics, the one of > all others deemed as infallible and unassailable as truth itself, can > be thus irreverently indicted for false pretences, what have we gained > by cheapening Plato to the profit of the Babinets? How, then, do they > venture to flout at the humblest observer who, being both honest and > intelligent, may say he has seen a mediumistic, or magical phenomenon? > And how dare they prescribe the “limits of philosophical inquiry,” to > pass beyond which is not lawful? And these quarrelling hypothesists > still arraign as ignorant and superstitious those giant intellects of > the past, who handled natural forces like world-building Titans, and > raised mortality to an eminence where it allied itself with the gods! > Strange fate of a century boasting to have elevated exact science to > its _apex of fame_, and now invited to go back and begin its A B C of > learning again! > > Recapitulating the evidence contained in this work, if we begin with > the archaic and unknown ages of the Hermetic Pimander, and come down {624} > to 1876, we find that one universal belief in magic has run through > all these centuries. We have presented the ideas of Trismegistus in > his dialogue with Asclepius; and without mentioning the thousand and > one proofs of the prevalence of this belief in the first centuries > of Christianity, to achieve our purpose we have but to quote from an > ancient and a modern author. The first will be the great philosopher > Porphyry, who several thousand years after the days of Hermes, remarks > in relation to the prevailing skepticism of his century, the following: > “We need not be amazed in seeing the vulgar masses (οἱ πολλοι) perceive > in statues merely stone and wood. Thus it is generally with those who, > ignorant in letters, find naught in _stylæ_ covered with inscriptions > but stone, and in written books naught but the tissue of the papyrus.” > And 1,500 years later, we see Mr. Sergeant Cox, in stating the case of > the shameful prosecution of a medium by just such a blind materialist, > thus expressing his ideas: “Whether the medium is guilty or guiltless > ... certain it is that the trial has had the unlooked-for effect of > directing the attention of the whole public to the fact that the > phenomena _are asserted to_ exist, and by a great number of competent > investigators are _declared to be true_, and of the reality of which > every person may, if he pleases, satisfy himself by actual inspection, > thus sweeping away, thus and for ever, _the dark and debasing doctrines > of the materialists_.” > > Still, in harmony with Porphyry and other theurgists, who affirmed the > different natures of the manifesting “spirits” and the personal spirit > or will of man, Mr. Sergeant Cox adds, without committing himself > any further to a personal decision: “True, there are differences of > opinions ... and perhaps ever will be, as to the sources of the power > that is exhibited in these phenomena; but whether they are the product > of the psychic force of the circle ... or, if spirits of the dead be > the agents, as others say, or elemental spirits (whatever it may be) > as asserted by a third party, this fact at least is established—that > man is not wholly material, that the mechanism of man is moved and > directed by some non-material—that is, some non-molecular structure, > which possesses not merely intelligence, but _can exercise also a force > upon matter_, that something to which, for lack of a better title, we > have given the name of soul. These glad tidings have by this trial been > borne to thousands and tens of thousands, whose happiness here, and > hopes of a hereafter, have been blighted by the materialists, who have > preached so persistently that soul was but a superstition, man but an > automaton, mind but a secretion, present existence purely animal, and > the future—a blank.” > > “Truth alone,” says Pimander, “is eternal and immutable; _truth_ is > the first of blessings; but truth is not and cannot be on earth: it is > possible that God sometimes gifts a few men together with the faculty {625} > of comprehending divine things with that of rightly understanding > truth; but nothing is true on earth, for everything has matter on it, > clothed with a corporeal form subject to change, to alteration, to > corruption, and to new combinations. Man is not _the_ truth, for only > that which has drawn its essence from itself, and remains itself, > and unchangeable, is true. How can that which changes so as not to > finally be recognized, be ever true? Truth, then, is that only which > is immaterial and not enclosed within a corporeal envelope, that > which is colorless and formless, exempt from change and alteration; > that which is ETERNAL. All of that which perishes is a lie; earth > is but dissolution and generation; every generation proceeds from a > dissolution; the things of earth are but _appearances_ and imitations > of truth; they are what the picture is to reality. The things of > earth are not the TRUTH!... Death, for some persons, is an evil which > strikes them with profound terror. This is ignorance.... Death is the > destruction of the body; the being in it _dies not_.... The material > body loses its form, which is disintegrated in course of time; the > senses which animated it return to their source and resume their > functions; but they gradually lose their passions and their desires, > and _the spirit_ ascends to heaven to become a HARMONY. In the first > zone, it leaves behind itself the faculty of increasing and decreasing; > in the second, the power of doing evil and the frauds of idleness; in > the third, deceptions and concupiscence; in the fourth, insatiable > ambition; in the fifth, arrogance, audacity, and temerity; in the > sixth, all yearning after dishonest acquisitions; and in the seventh, > _untruthfulness_. The spirit thus purified by the effect on him of the > celestial harmonies, returns once more to its primitive state, strong > of a merit and power self-acquired, and which belongs to it properly; > and only then he begins to dwell with those that sing eternally their > praises of the FATHER. Hitherto, he is placed among the powers, and as > such has attained to the supreme blessing of knowledge. He is become a > GOD!... No, the things of earth are not the truth.” > > After having devoted their whole lives to the study of the records > of the old Egyptian wisdom, both Champollion-Figeac and Champollion, > Junior, publicly declared, notwithstanding many biassed judgments > hazarded by certain hasty and unwise critics, that the _Books of > Hermes_ “truly contain a mass of Egyptian traditions which are > constantly corroborated by the most authentic records and monuments of > Egypt of the hoariest antiquity.”[915] > > Closing up his voluminous summary of the psychological doctrines of the > Egyptians, the sublime teachings of the sacred Hermetic books, and {626} > the attainments of the initiated priests in metaphysical and practical > philosophy, Champollion-Figeac inquires—as he well may, in view of the > then attainable evidence—“whether there ever was in the world another > association or caste of men which could equal them in credit, power, > learning, and capability, in the same degree of good or evil? No, > _never_! And this caste was subsequently _cursed_ and stigmatized only > by those who, under I know not what kind of modern influences, have > considered it as the enemy of men and—science.”[916] > > At the time when Champollion wrote these words, Sanscrit was, we may > say, almost an unknown tongue for science. But little in the way of > a parallel could have been drawn between the respective merits of > the Brahmans and the Egyptian philosophers. Since then, however, it > has been discovered that the very same ideas, expressed in almost > identical language, may be read in the Buddhistic and Brahmanical > literature. This very philosophy of the unreality of mundane things and > the illusion of the senses—whose whole substance has been plagiarized > in our own times by the German metaphysicians—forms the groundwork of > Kapila’s and Vyasa’s philosophies, and may be found in Gautama Buddha’s > enunciation of the “four truths,” the cardinal dogmas of his doctrine. > Pimander’s expression “he is become a god” is epitomized in the one > word, _Nirvana_, which our learned Orientalists most incorrectly > consider as the synonym of _annihilation_! > > This opinion of the two eminent Egyptologists is of the greatest value > to us if it were only as an answer to our opponents. The Champollions > were the first in Europe to take the student of archæology by the > hand, and, leading him on into the silent crypts of the past, prove > that civilization did not begin with our generations; for “though the > origins of ancient Egypt are unknown, she is found to have been at the > most distant periods within the reach of historical research, with her > great laws, her established customs, her cities, her kings, and gods;” > and behind, far behind, these same epochs we find ruins belonging > to other still more distant and higher periods of civilization. “At > Thebes, portions of ruined buildings allow us to recognize remnants of > still anterior structures, the materials of which had served for the > erection of the very edifices which have now existed for thirty-six > centuries!”[917] “Everything told us by Herodotus and the Egyptian > priests is found to be exact, and has been corroborated by modern > scientists,” adds Champollion.[918] > > Whence the civilization of the Egyptians came, will be shown in volume > II., and in this respect it will be made to appear that our deductions, > though based upon the traditions of the Secret Doctrine, run parallel {627} > with those of a number of most respected authorities. There is a > passage in a well-known Hindu work which may well be recalled in this > connection. > > “Under the reign of Viswamitra, first king of the Dynasty of > Soma-Vanga. in consequence of a battle which lasted five days, > Manu-Vina, heir of the ancient kings, being abandoned by the Brahmans, > emigrated with all his companions, passing through Arya, and the > countries of Barria, till he came to the shores of Masra” (_History of > India_, by Collouca-Batta). Unquestionably this Manu-Vina and Menes, > the first Egyptian King, are identical. > > Arya, is Eran (Persia); Barria, is Arabia, and Masra, was the name of > Cairo, which to this day is called, _Masr_, Musr, and Misro. Phœnician > history names Maser as one of the ancestors of Hermes. > > And now we will bid farewell to thaumatophobia and its advocates, and > consider thaumatomania under its multifarious aspects. In vol. II., > we intend to review the “miracles” of Paganism and weigh the evidence > in their favor in the same scales with Christian theology. There is a > conflict not merely impending but already begun between science and > theology, on the one hand, and spirit and its hoary science, magic, on > the other. Something of the possibilities of the latter have already > been displayed, but more is to come. The petty, mean world, for whose > approving nod scientists and magistrates, priests and Christians > compete, have begun their latter-day crusade by sentencing in the same > year two innocent men, one in France, the other in London, in defiance > of law and justice. Like the apostle of circumcision, they are ever > ready to thrice deny an unpopular connection for fear of ostracism > by their own fellows. The Psychomantics and the Psychophobists must > soon meet in fierce conflict. The anxiety to have their phenomena > investigated and supported by scientific authorities has given place > with the former to a frigid indifference. As a natural result of so > much prejudice and unfairness as have been exhibited, their respect > for scientists is waning fast, and the reciprocal epithets bandied > between the two parties are becoming far from complimentary to either. > Which of them is right and which wrong, time will soon show and future > generations understand. It is at least safe to prophesy that the > Ultima Thulè of God’s mysteries, and the key to them are to be sought > elsewhere than in the whirl of Avogadro’s molecules. > > People who either judge superficially, or, by reason of their natural > impatience would gaze at the blazing sun before their eyes are well > fitted to bear lamp-light, are apt to complain of the exasperating > obscurity of language which characterizes the works of the ancient > Hermetists and their successors. They declare their philosophical > treatises on magic incomprehensible. Over the first class we can afford {628} > to waste no time; the second, we would beg to moderate their anxiety, > remembering those sayings of Espagnet—“Truth lies hid in obscurity,” > and “Philosophers never write more deceitfully than when plainly, nor > ever more truly than when obscurely.” Furthermore, there is a third > class, whom it would compliment too much to say that they judge the > subject at all. They simply denounce _ex-cathedra_. The ancients they > treat as dreamy fools, and though but physicists and thaumatophobic > positivists, they commonly claim a monopoly of spiritual wisdom! > > We will select Irenæus Philaletha to answer this latter class. “In > the world our writings shall prove a curious-edged knife; to some > they shall carve out dainties, but to others they shall only serve to > cut their fingers; yet we are not to be blamed, for we do seriously > admonish all who shall attempt this work that they undertaketh the > highest piece of philosophy in nature; and though we write in English, > yet our matter will be as hard as Greek to some, who will think, > nevertheless, that they understand as well, when they misconstrue our > meaning most perversely; for is it imaginable that they who are fools > in nature should be wise in books, which are testimonies unto nature?” > > The few elevated minds who interrogate nature instead of prescribing > laws for her guidance; who do not limit her possibilities by the > imperfections of their own powers; and who only disbelieve because they > do not know, we would remind of that apothegm of Narada, the ancient > Hindu philosopher: > > “Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this—therefore it is false.’” > > “One must study to know, know to understand, understand to judge.” > > END OF VOLUME I. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [1] Lightfoot assures us that this voice, which had been used in times > past for a testimony from heaven, “was indeed performed by magic > art” (vol. ii., p. 128). This latter term is used as a supercilious > expression, just because it was and is still misunderstood. It is the > object of this work to correct the erroneous opinions concerning “magic > art.” > > [2] Encyclical of 1864. > > [3] “Fragments of Science.” > > [4] See the last chapter of this volume, p. 622. > > [5] “Recollections of a Busy Life,” p. 147. > > [6] Henry Ward Beecher. > > [7] Cocker: “Christianity and Greek Philosophy,” xi., p. 377. > > [8] Gospel according to Matthew, xiii. 11, 13. > > [9] “The accusations of atheism, the introducing of foreign deities, > and corrupting of the Athenian youth, which were made against Socrates, > afforded ample justification for Plato to conceal the arcane preaching > of his doctrines. Doubtless the peculiar diction or ‘jargon’ of the > alchemists was employed for a like purpose. The dungeon, the rack, > and the fagot were employed without scruple by Christians of every > shade, the Roman Catholics especially, against all who taught even > natural science contrary to the theories entertained by the Church. > Pope Gregory the Great even inhibited the grammatical use of Latin > as heathenish. The offense of Socrates consisted in unfolding to his > disciples the arcane doctrine concerning the gods, which was taught > in the Mysteries and was a capital crime. He also was charged by > Aristophanes with introducing the new god Dinos into the republic as > the demiurgos or artificer, and the lord of the solar universe. The > Heliocentric system was also a doctrine of the Mysteries; and hence, > when Aristarchus the Pythagorean taught it openly, Cleanthes declared > that the Greeks ought to have called him to account and condemned him > for blasphemy against the gods,”—(“Plutarch”). But Socrates had never > been initiated, and hence divulged nothing which had ever been imparted > to him. > > [10] See Thomas Taylor: “Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries,” p. 47. New > York: J. W Bouton, 1875. > > [11] Cousin, “History of Philosophy,” I., ix. > > [12] “Theol. Arithme.,” p. 62: “On Pythag. Numbers.” > > [13] Plato: “Parmenid.,” 141 E. > > [14] See Stobœus’ “Ecl.,” i., 862. > > [15] Sextus: “Math.,” vii. 145. > > [16] “Metaph.,” 407, a. 3. > > [17] Appendix to “Timæus.” > > [18] Stob.: “Ecl.,” i., 62. > > [19] Krische: “Forsch.,” p. 322, etc. > > [20] Clem.: “Alex. Stro.,” v., 590. > > [21] Plutarch: “De Isid,” chap. 25, p. 360. > > [22] “Plato und die Alt. Akademie.” > > [23] “Tusc.,” v., 18, 51. > > [24] Ibid. Cf. p. 559. > > [25] “Plato und die Alt. Akademie.” > > [26] Ed. Zeller: “Philos. der Griech.” > > [27] “Plato und die Alt. Akademie.” > > [28] One of the five solid figures in Geometry. > > [29] “The Sun and the Earth.” > > [30] “De Ente Spirituali,” lib. iv.; “de Ente Astrorum,” book i.; and > _opera omnia_, vol. i., pp. 634 and 699. > > [31] Or more commonly chārkh pūjā. > > [32] Persons who believe in the clairvoyant power, but are disposed to > discredit the existence of any other spirits in nature than disembodied > human spirits, will be interested in an account of certain clairvoyant > observations which appeared in the _London Spiritualist_ of June 29, > 1877. A thunder-storm approaching, the seeress saw “a bright spirit > emerge from a dark cloud and pass with lightning speed across the > sky, and, a few minutes after, a diagonal line of dark spirits in > the clouds.” These are the _Maruts_ of the “Vedas” (See Max Müller’s > “Rig-Veda Sanhita”). > > The well-known and respected lecturer, author, and clairvoyant, > Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten, has published accounts of her frequent > experiences with these elemental spirits. > > [33] Translated by Max Müller, Professor of Comparative Philology at > the Oxford University, England. > > [34] “Dyaríh vah pitâ, prithivi mâtâ sômah bhrâtâ âditih svásâ.” > > [35] As the perfect identity of the philosophical and religious > doctrines of antiquity will be fully treated upon in subsequent > chapters, we limit our explanations for the present. > > [36] “Rig-Veda-Anhita,” p. 234. > > [37] Philostratus assures us that the Brahmins were able, in his time, > to perform the most wonderful cures by merely pronouncing certain > magical words. “The Indian Brahmans carry a staff and a ring, by means > of which they are able to do almost anything.” Origenes states the same > (“Contra Celsum”). But if a strong mesmeric fluid—say projected from > the eye, and without any other contact—is not added, no magical words > would be efficacious. > > [38] Akiba was a friend of Aher, said to have been the Apostle Paul of > Christian story. Both are depicted as having visited Paradise. Aher > took branches from the Tree of Knowledge, and so fell from the true > (Jewish) religion. Akiba came away in peace. See 2d Epistle to the > Corinthians, chapter xii. > > [39] Taley means ocean or sea. > > [40] See “Aytareya Brahmanan,” 3, 1. > > [41] See Pantheon: “Myths,” p. 31; also Aristophanes in “Vœstas,” i., > reg. 28. > > [42] The oracle of Apollo was at Delphos, the city of the δελφυς, womb > or abdomen; the place of the temple was denominated the _omphalos_ > or navel. The symbols are female and lunary; reminding us that the > Arcadians were called Proseleni, pre-Hellenic or more ancient than the > period when Ionian and Olympian lunar worship was introduced. > > [43] From the accounts of Strabo and Megasthenes, who visited > Palibothras, it would seem that the persons termed by him Samanean, > or Brachmane priests, were simply Buddhists. “The singularly subtile > replies of the Samanean or Brahman philosophers, in their interview > with the conqueror, will be found to contain the spirit of the Buddhist > doctrine,” remarks Upham. (See the “History and Doctrine of Buddhism;” > and Hale’s “Chronology,” vol. iii., p. 238.) > > [44] In their turn, the heathen may well ask the missionaries what sort > of a spirit lurks at the bottom of the sacrificial beer-bottle. That > evangelical New York journal, the “Independent,” says: “A late English > traveller found a simple-minded Baptist mission church, in far-off > Burmah, using for the communion service, and we doubt not with God’s > blessing, Bass’s pale ale instead of wine.” Circumstances alter cases, > it seems! > > [45] “Book of Brahmanical Evocations,” part iii. > > [46] Bulwer-Lytton: “Last Days of Pompeii,” p. 147. > > [47] “Select Works,” p. 159. > > [48] Ibid., p. 92. > > [49] “Aitareya Brahmanan,” Introduction. > > [50] The name is used in the sense of the Greek word ανθροπος. > > [51] The traditions of the Oriental Kabalists claim their science to be > older than that. Modern scientists may doubt and reject the assertion. > They _cannot_ prove it false. > > [52] Clement of Alexandria asserted that in his day the Egyptian > priests possessed forty-two Canonical Books. > > [53] “Chips from a German Work-shop,” vol. ii., p. 7. “Comparative > Mythology.” > > [54] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” ch. i. > > [55] In another place, we explain with some minuteness the Hermetic > philosophy of the evolution of the spheres and their several races. > > [56] J. Burges: “The Works of Plato,” p. 207, note. > > [57] From the Sanskrit text of the Aitareya Brahmanam. Rig-Veda, v., > ch. ii., verse 23. > > [58] Aitareya Brahmanam, book iii., c. v., 44. > > [59] Ait. Brahm., vol. ii., p. 242. > > [60] Ait. Brahm., book iv. > > [61] Septenary Institutions; “Stone him to Death,” p. 20. > > [62] See Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” > > [63] See Turner; also G. Higgins’s “Anacalypsis.” > > [64] Genesis, i., 30. > > [65] Sir William Drummond: “Œdipus Judicus,” p. 250. > > [66] The absolute necessity for the perpetration of such pious frauds > by the early fathers and later theologians becomes apparent, if we > consider that if they had allowed the word _Al_ to remain as in > the original, it would have become but too evident—except for the > initiated—that the _Jehovah_ of Moses and the sun were identical. The > multitudes, which ignore that the ancient hierophant considered our > _visible_ sun but as an emblem of the central, invisible, and spiritual > Sun, would have accused Moses—as many of our modern commentators have > already done—of worshipping the planetary bodies; in short, of actual > Zabaism. > > [67] Exodus, xxv., 40. > > [68] “The Physical Basis of Life.” A Lecture by T. H. Huxley. > > [69] Huxley: “Physical Basis of Life.” > > [70] Prof. J. W. Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science.” > > [71] Bulwer’s “Zanoni.” > > [72] See the Code published by Sir William Jones, chap. ix., p. 11. > > [73] Pliny: “Hist. Nat.,” xxx. 1; Ib., xvi., 14; xxv., 9, etc. > > [74] Pomponius ascribes to them the knowledge of the highest sciences. > > [75] Cæsar, iii., 14. > > [76] Pliny, xxx. > > [77] Munter, on the most ancient religion of the North before the time > of Odin. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de France. Tome ii., p. > 230. > > [78] Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi., 6. > > [79] In some respects our modern philosophers, who think they make new > discoveries, can be compared to “the very clever, learned, and civil > gentleman” whom Hippocrates having met at Samos one day, describes > very good-naturedly. “He informed me,” the Father of Medicine proceeds > to say, “that he had lately discovered an herb never before known in > Europe or Asia, and that no disease, however malignant or chronic, > could resist its marvellous properties. Wishing to be civil in turn, I > permitted myself to be persuaded to accompany him to the conservatory > in which he had transplanted the wonderful specific. What I found > was one of the commonest plants in Greece, namely, garlic—the plant > which above all others has least pretensions to healing virtues.” > Hippocrates: “De optima prædicandi ratione item judicii operum magni.” > I. > > [80] Schweigger: “Introduction to Mythology through Natural History.” > > [81] Ennemoser: “History of Magic,” i., 3. > > [82] “Hist. of Magic,” vol. i., p. 9. > > [83] Philo Jud.: “De Specialibus Legibus.” > > [84] Zend-Avesta, vol. ii., p. 506. > > [85] Cassian: “Conference,” i., 21. > > [86] “De Vita et Morte Mosis,” p. 199. > > [87] Acts of the Apostles, vii., 22. > > [88] Justin, xxxvi., 2. > > [89] Molitor: “Philosophy of History and Traditions,” Howitt’s > Translation, p. 285. > > [90] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 329. > > [91] See “Gazette du Midi,” and “Le Monde,” of 3 May, 1864. > > [92] Shakspere: “Richard III.” > > [93] Literally, the _screaming_ or the howling ones. > > [94] The half-demented, the _idiots_. > > [95] But such is not always the case, for some among these beggars make > a regular and profitable trade of it. > > [96] Webster declares very erroneously that the Chaldeans called > _saros_, the cycle of eclipses, a period of about 6,586 years, “the > time of revolution of the moon’s node.” Berosus, himself a Chaldean > astrologer, at the Temple of Belus, at Babylon, gives the duration of > the sar, or sarus, 3,600 years; a neros 600; and a sossus 60. (See, > Berosus from Abydenus, “Of the Chaldæan Kings and the Deluge.” See also > Eusebius, and Cary’s _MS._ Ex. Cod. reg. gall. gr. No. 2360, fol. 154.) > > [97] Before scientists reject such a theory—traditional as it is—it > would be in order for them to demonstrate why, at the end of the > tertiary period, the Northern Hemisphere had undergone such a reduction > of temperature as to utterly change the torrid zone to a Siberian > climate? Let us bear in mind that the _helicocentric system came to us > from upper India_; and that the germs of all great astronomical truths > were brought thence by Pythagoras. So long as we lack a mathematically > correct demonstration, one hypothesis is as good as another. > > [98] Censorinus: “De Natal Die.” Seneca: “Nat. Quæst.,” iii., 29. > > [99] Euseb.: “Præp. Evan.” Of the Tower of Babel and Abraham. > > [100] This is in flat contradiction of the Bible narrative, which > tells us that the deluge was sent for the special destruction of these > _giants_. The Babylon priests had _no_ object to invent lies. > > [101] Coleman, who makes this calculation, allowed a serious error > to escape the proof-reader; the length of the manwantara is given at > 368,448,000, which is just sixty million years too much. > > [102] S. Davis: “Essay in the Asiatic Researches;” and Higgins’s > “Anacalypsis;” also see Coleman’s “Mythology of the Hindus.” Preface, > p. xiii. > > [103] Bunsen: “Egypte,” vol. i. > > [104] The forty-two Sacred Books of the Egyptians mentioned by Clement > of Alexandria as having existed in his time, were but a portion of the > Books of Hermes. Iamblichus, on the authority of the Egyptian priest > Abammon, attributes 1200 of such books to Hermes, and Manetho 36,000. > But the testimony of Iamblichus as a neo-Platonist and theurgist is of > course rejected by modern critics. Manetho, who is held by Bunsen in > the highest consideration as a “purely historical personage” ... with > whom “none of the later native historians can be compared ...” (see > “Egypte,” i., p. 97), suddenly becomes a Pseudo-Manetho, as soon as the > ideas propounded by him clash with the scientific prejudices against > magic and the occult knowledge claimed by the ancient priests. However, > none of the archæologists doubt for a moment the almost incredible > antiquity of the Hermetic books. Champollion shows the greatest regard > for their authenticity and great truthfulness, corroborated as it is > by many of the oldest monuments. And Bunsen brings irrefutable proofs > of their age. From his researches, for instance, we learn that there > was a line of sixty-one kings before the days of Moses, who preceded > the Mosaic period by a clearly-traceable civilization of several > thousand years. Thus we are warranted in believing that the works of > Hermes Trismegistus were extant many ages before the birth of the > Jewish law-giver. “Styli and inkstands were found on monuments of the > fourth Dynasty, the oldest in the world,” says Bunsen. If the eminent > Egyptologist rejects the period of 48,863 years before Alexander, to > which Diogenes Laertius carries back the records of the priests, he > is evidently more embarrassed with the ten thousand of astronomical > observations, and remarks that “if they were actual observations, they > _must have_ extended over 10,000 years” (p. 14). “We learn, however,” > he adds, “from one of their own old chronological works ... that the > genuine Egyptian traditions concerning the mythological period, treated > of _myriads_ of years.” (“Egypte,” i, p. 15). > > [105] Higgins: “Anacalypsis.” > > [106] “De Vite Pythag.” > > [107] “The Rosicrucians,” etc., by Hargrave Jennings. > > [108] W. Crookes, F.R.S.: “Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism.” > > [109] W. Crookes: “Experiments on Psychic Force,” page 25. > > [110] W. Crookes: “Spiritualism Viewed by the Light of Modern Science.” > See “Quarterly Journal of Science.” > > [111] A. Aksakof: “Phenomena of Mediumism.” > > [112] A. N. Aksakof: “Phenomena of Mediumism.” > > [113] “The Last of Katie King,” pamphlet iii., p. 119. > > [114] Ibid., pamp. i., p. 7. > > [115] “The Last of Katie King,” pamp. iii., p. 112. > > [116] Ibid., p. 112. > > [117] “Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism,” p. 45. > > [118] Pfaff’s “Astrology.” Berl. > > [119] “Medico-Surgical Essays.” > > [120] “The Philosophy of Hist.” > > [121] On Theoph. Paracelsus.—Magic. > > [122] Kemshead says in his “Inorganic Chemistry” that “the element > _hydrogen_ was first mentioned in the sixteenth century by Paracelsus, > but very little was known of it in any way.” (P. 66.) And why not be > fair and confess at once that Paracelsus was the _re_-discoverer of > hydrogen as he was the _re_-discoverer of the hidden properties of > the magnet and animal magnetism? It is easy to show that according > to the strict vows of secrecy taken and faithfully observed by every > Rosicrucian (and especially by the alchemist) he kept his knowledge > secret. Perhaps it would not prove a very difficult task for any > chemist well versed in the works of Paracelsus to demonstrate that > _oxygen_, the discovery of which is credited to Priestley, was known to > the Rosicrucian alchemists as well as hydrogen. > > [123] “Letter to J. Glanvil, chaplain to the king and a fellow of > the Royal Society.” Glanvil was the author of the celebrated work on > Apparitions and Demonology entitled “Sadducismus Triumphatus, or a > full and plain evidence concerning witches and apparitions,” in two > parts, “proving partly by Scripture, and partly by a choice collection > of modern relations, the real existence of apparitions, spirits and > witches.“1700. > > [124] Plato: “Timæus Soerius,” 97. > > [125] See Movers’ “Explanations,” 268. > > [126] Cory: “Chaldean Oracles,” 243. > > [127] Philo Judæus: “On the Creation,” x. > > [128] Movers: “Phoinizer,” 282. > > [129] K. O. Müller, 236. > > [130] Weber: “Akad. Vorles,” 213, 214, etc. > > [131] Plutarch, “Isis and Osiris,” i., vi. > > [132] “Spirit History of Man,” p. 88. > > [133] Movers: “Phoinizer,” 268. > > [134] Cory: “Fragments,” 240. > > [135] “Parerga,” ii., pp. 111, 112. > > [136] See Huxley: “Physical Basis of Life.” > > [137] Schopenhauer: “Parerga.” Art. on “Will in Nature.” > > [138] “Revue des Deux Mondes,” Jan. 15, 1855, p. 108. > > [139] Comte de Mirville: “Question des Esprits.” > > [140] Bulwer-Lytton: “Zanoni.” > > [141] T. Wright: “Narratives of Sorcery and Magic.” > > [142] See Des Mousseaux’s “Dodone,” and “Dieu et les dieux,” p. 326. > > [143] “Apparitions,” translated by C. Crowe, pp. 388, 391, 399. > > [144] “De Abstinentia,” etc. > > [145] C. Crowe: “On Apparitions,” p. 398. > > [146] Upham: “Salem Witchcraft.” > > [147] Brierre de Boismont: “On Hallucinations,” p. 60. > > [148] See de Mirville’s “Question des Esprits,” and the works on the > “Phénomènes Spirites,” by de Gasparin. > > [149] Honorary Secretary to the National Association of Spiritualists > of London. > > [150] Job. > > [151] See Dr. F. R. Marvin’s “Lectures on Mediomania and Insanity.” > > [152] Vapereau: “Biographie Contemporaine,” art. Littré; and Des > Mousseaux: “Les Hauts Phénomènes de la Magie,” ch. 6. > > [153] A. Comte: “Système de Politique Positive,” vol. i. p. 203, etc. > > [154] Ibid. > > [155] Ibid. > > [156] See des Mousseaux: “Hauts Phénomènes de la Magie,” chap. 6. > > [157] Littré: “Paroles de Philosophie Positive.” > > [158] Littré: “Paroles de Philosophie Positive,” vii., 57. > > [159] “Spiritualism and Charlatanism.” > > [160] Prof. Hare: “On Positivism,” p. 29. > > [161] “Journal des Débats,” 1864. See also des Mousseaux’s “Hauts Phén. > de la Magie.” > > [162] “Philosophic Positive,” vol. iv., p. 279. > > [163] Dr. F. R. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity.” > > [164] See Howitt: “History of the Supernatural,” vol. ii. > > [165] Prof. Huxley: “Physical Basis of Life.” > > [166] Reference is made to a card which appeared some time since in a > New York paper, signed by three persons styling themselves as above, > and assuming to be a scientific committee appointed two years before to > investigate spiritual phenomena. The criticism on the triad appeared in > the “New Era” magazine. > > [167] Dr. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity,” N. Y., 1875. > > [168] Tyndall: “Fragments of Science.” > > [169] Tyndall: Preface to “Fragments of Science.” > > [170] Deuteronomy, chap. xvii., 6. > > [171] Montesquieu: Esprit des Lois I., xii., chap. 3. > > [172] C. B. Warring. > > [173] Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii., 6. > > [174] The Rishis were seven in number, and lived in days anteceding > the Vedic period. They were known as sages, and held in reverence like > demi-gods. Haug shows that they occupy in the Brahmanical religion a > position answering to that of the twelve sons of Jacob in the Jewish > Bible. The Brahmans claim to descend directly from these Rishis. > > [175] The fourth Veda. > > [176] Orthography of the “Archaic Dictionary.” > > [177] We do not mean the current or accepted Bible, but the _real_ > Jewish one explained kabalistically. > > [178] “Dissertations Relating to Asia.” > > [179] Dr. Gross, p. 195. > > [180] Brahma does _not_ create the earth, _Mirtlok_, any more than > the rest of the universe. Having evolved himself from the soul of the > world, once separated from the First Cause, he emanates in his turn > all nature out of himself. He does not stand above it, but is mixed up > with it; and Brahma and the universe form one Being, each particle of > which is in its essence Brahma himself, who proceeded out of himself. > [Burnouf: “Introduction,” p. 118.] > > [181] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” 180. > > [182] “Des Tables,” vol. i., p. 213. > > [183] Ibid., 216. > > [184] “Des Tables,” vol. i., p. 48. > > [185] Ibid., p. 24. > > [186] Ibid., p. 35. > > [187] De Mirville: “Des Esprits,” p. 26. > > [188] “Avant propos,” pp. 12 and 16. > > [189] Vol. i., p. 244. > > [190] Vol. ii., p. 524. > > [191] “Medico-Psychological Annals,” Jan. 1, 1854. > > [192] De Mirville: “Des Esprits,” “Constitutionnel,” June 16, 1854. > > [193] Chevalier des Mousseaux: “Mœurs et Pratiques des Démons,” p. x. > > [194] De Mirville: “Des Esprits,” p. 4. > > [195] Ibid. “Revue des Deux Mondes,” January 15, 1854, p. 108. > > [196] This is a repetition and variation of Faraday’s theory. > > [197] “Revue des Deux Mondes,” p. 410. > > [198] “Revue des Deux Mondes,” January, 1854, p. 414. > > [199] “Revue des Deux Mondes,” May 1, 1854, p. 531. > > [200] We translate _verbatim_. We doubt whether Mr. Weekman was the > first investigator. > > [201] Babinet: “Revue des Deux Mondes,” May 1, 1854, p. 511. > > [202] De Mirville: “Des Esprits,” p. 33. > > [203] Notes, “Des Esprits,” p. 38. > > [204] De Mirville: “Faits et Théories Physiques,” p. 46. > > [205] See Monograph: “Of the Lightning considered from the point of > view of the history of Legal Medicine and Public Hygiene,” by M. > Boudin, Chief Surgeon of the Military Hospital of Boule. > > [206] De Gasparin: vol. i, page 288. > > [207] Crookes: “Physical Force,” page 26. > > [208] De Gasparin: “Science _versus_ Spirit,” vol i, p. 313. > > [209] Ibid, vol. 1, p. 313. > > [210] De Mirville pleads here the devil-theory, of course. > > [211] “Des Tables,” vol. i., p. 213. > > [212] Vol. i, p. 217. > > [213] Crookes: “Psychic Force,” part i., pp. 26-27. > > [214] Plato: “Phædo,” § 44. > > [215] Ibid., § 128. > > [216] “Philosophy of Magic,” English translation, p. 47. > > [217] De Mirville: “Des Esprits,” p. 159. > > [218] See F. Gerry Fairfield’s “Ten Years with Spiritual Mediums,” New > York, 1875. > > [219] Marvin: “Lecture on Mediomania.” > > [220] “Scientific American,” N. Y., 1875. > > [221] > > “De par le Roi, defense à Dieu, De faire miracle, en ces lieux.” > > A satire that was found written upon the walls of the cemetery at the > time of the Jansenist miracles and their prohibition by the police of > France. > > [222] Polier: “Mythologie des Indous.” > > [223] Genesis vi. 4. > > [224] Mallett: “Northern Antiquities,” Bohn’s edition, pp. 401-405. > > [225] In the “Quarterly Review” of 1859, Graham gives a strange account > of many now deserted Oriental cities, in which the stone doors are > of enormous dimensions, often seemingly out of proportion with the > buildings themselves, and remarks that dwellings and doors bear all of > them the impress of an ancient race of giants. > > [226] Dr. More: “Letter to Glanvil, author of ‘Saducismus Triumphatus.’” > > [227] J. S. Y.: “Demonologia, or Natural Knowledge Revealed,” 1827, p. > 219. > > [228] Pausanias: “Eliæ,” lib. i., cap. xiv. > > [229] We apprehend that the noble author coined his curious names by > contracting words in classical languages. _Gy_ would come from _gune_; > _vril_ from _virile_. > > [230] P. B. Randolph: “Pre-Adamite Man,” p. 48. > > [231] On this point at least we are on firm ground. Mr. Crookes’s > testimony corroborates our assertions. On page 84 of his pamphlet > on “Phenomenal Spiritualism” he says: “The many hundreds of facts I > am prepared to attest—facts which to imitate by known mechanics or > physical means would baffle the skill of a Houdin, a Bosco, or an > Anderson, backed with all the resources of elaborate machinery and > the practice of years—have all taken place in my own house; at times > appointed by myself and under circumstances which absolutely precluded > the employment of the very simplest instrumental aids.” > > [232] In this appellation, we may discover the meaning of the puzzling > sentence to be found in the Zend-Avesta that “fire gives knowledge > of the future, science, and amiable speech,” as it develops an > extraordinary eloquence in some sensitives. > > [233] Dunlap: “Musah, His Mysteries,” p. iii. > > [234] “Hercules was known as the king of the Musians,” says Schwab, > ii., 44; and Musien was the feast of “Spirit and Matter,” Adonis and > Venus, Bacchus and Ceres. (See Dunlap: “Mystery of Adonis,” p. 95.) > Dunlap shows, on the authority of Julian and Anthon (67), Æsculapius, > “the Savior of all,” identical with Phtha (the creative Intellect, the > Divine Wisdom), and with Apollo, Baal, Adonis, and Hercules (ibid., p. > 93), and Phtha is the “Anima mundi,” the Universal Soul, of Plato, the > Holy Ghost of the Egyptians, and the Astral Light of the Kabalists. > M. Michelet, however, regards the Grecian Herakles as a different > character, the adversary of the Bacchic revellings and their attendant > human sacrifices. > > [235] Plato: “Ion” (Burgess), vol. iv., p. 294. > > [236] “Attic.” i., xiv. > > [237] Plato: “Theages.” Cicero renders this word δαιμονιον, quiddam > divinum, a divine something, not anything personal. > > [238] “Cratylus,” p. 79. > > [239] “Arnobius,” vi., xii. > > [240] As we will show in subsequent chapters, the sun was not > considered by the ancients as the direct cause of the light and heat, > but only as an agent of the former, through which the light passes > on its way to our sphere. Thus it was always called by the Egyptians > “the eye of Osiris,” who was himself the _Logos_, the First-begotten, > or light made manifest to the world, “which is the mind and divine > intellect of the Concealed.” It is only that light of which we are > cognizant that is the Demiurge, the _creator_ of our planet and > everything pertaining to it; with the invisible and unknown universes > disseminated through space, none of the sun-gods had anything to do. > The idea is expressed very clearly in the “Books of Hermes.” > > [241] “Orphic Hymn,” xii.; Hermann; Dunlap: “Musah, His Mysteries,” p. > 91. > > [242] Movers, 525. Dunlap: “Mysteries of Adonis,” 94. > > [243] Preller: ii., 153. This is evidently the origin of the Christian > dogma of Christ descending into hell and overcoming Satan. > > [244] This important fact accounts admirably for the gross polytheism > of the masses, and the refined, highly-philosophical conception of > _one_ God, which was taught only in sanctuaries of the “pagan” temples. > > [245] Anthon: “Cabeiria.” > > [246] Plato: “Phædrus,” Cary’s translation. > > [247] John xx. 22. > > [248] “Heathen Religion,” 104. > > [249] Alkahest, a word first used by Paracelsus, to denote the > menstruum or universal solvent, that is capable of reducing all things. > > [250] Josephus: “Antiquities,” vol. viii., c. 2, 5. > > [251] “The Land of Charity,” p. 210. > > [252] The claims of certain “adepts,” which do not agree with those of > the students of the purely Jewish _Kabala_, and show that the “secret > doctrine” has originated in India, from whence it was brought to > Chaldea, passing subsequently into the hands of the Hebrew “Tanaïm,” > are singularly corroborated by the researches of the Christian > missionaries. These pious and learned travellers have inadvertently > come to our help. Dr. Caldwell, in his “Comparative Grammar of the > Dravidian Languages,” p. 66, and Dr. Mateer, in the “Land of Charity,” > p. 83, fully support our assertions that the “wise” King Solomon got > all his kabalistic lore from India, as the above-given magical figure > well shows. The former missionary is desirous to prove that very old > and huge specimens of the baobab-tree, which is not, as it appears, > indigenous to India, but belongs to the African soil, and “found only > at several ancient sites of foreign commerce (at Travancore), may, > for aught we know,” he adds, “have been introduced into India, and > planted by the servants of King Solomon.” The other proof is still more > conclusive. Says Dr. Mateer, in his chapter on the Natural History of > Travancore: “There is a curious fact connected with the name of this > bird (the peacock) which throws some light upon Scripture history. King > Solomon sent his navy to Tarshish (1 Kings, x. 22), which returned > once in three years, bringing ‘gold and silver, ivory and apes, and > peacocks.’ Now the word used in the Hebrew Bible for peacock is > ‘_tukki_,’ and as the Jews had, of course, no word for these fine birds > till they were first imported into Judea by King Solomon, there is no > doubt that ‘tukki’ is simply the old Tamil word ‘_toki_,’ the name of > the peacock. The ape or monkey also is, in Hebrew, called ‘_koph_,’ > the Indian word for which is ‘_kaphi_.’ Ivory, we have seen, is > abundant in South India, and gold is widely distributed in the rivers > of the western coast. Hence the ‘Tarshish’ referred to was doubtless > the western coast of India, and Solomon’s ships were ancient ‘East > Indiamen.’” And hence also we may add, besides “the gold and silver, > and apes and peacocks,” King Solomon and his friend Hiram, of masonic > renown, got their “magic” and “wisdom” from India. > > [253] Cooke: “New Chemistry,” p. 22. > > [254] Eliphas Levi: “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie.” > > [255] Plato hints at a ceremony used in the Mysteries, during the > performance of which the neophyte was taught that men are _in > this life_ in a kind of prison, and taught _how to escape from it > temporarily_. As usual, the too-learned translators disfigured this > passage, partially because they _could not_ understand it, and > partially because they _would not_. See _Phædo_ § 16, and commentaries > on it by Henry More, the well-known Mystic philosopher and Platonist. > > [256] The _akasa_ is a Sanscrit word which means sky, but it also > designates the imponderable and intangible life-principle—the astral > and celestial lights combined together, and which two form the _anima > mundi_, and constitute the soul and spirit of man; the celestial light > forming his νοὺς, πνευμα, or divine spirit, and the other his ψυχη soul > or _astral_ spirit. The grosser particles of the latter enter into the > fabrication of his outward form—the body. _Akasa_ is the mysterious > fluid termed by scholastic science, “the all-pervading ether;” it > enters into all the magical operations of nature, and produces > mesmeric, magnetic, and spiritual phenomena. _As_, in Syria, Palestine, > and India, meant the sky, _life_, and the _sun_ at the same time; > the sun being considered by the ancient sages as the great magnetic > well of our universe. The softened pronunciation of this word was > _Ah_—says Dunlap, for “the _s_ continually softens to _h_ from Greece > to Calcutta.” _Ah_ is Iah, Ao, and Iao. God tells Moses that his name > is “I am” (_Ahiah_), a reduplication of Ah or Iah. The word “As” Ah, or > Iah means _life_, _existence_, and is evidently the root of the word > _akasa_, which in Hindustan is pronounced a_h_asa, the life-principle, > or Divine life-giving fluid or medium. It is the Hebrew _ruah_, and > means the “wind,” the breath, _the air in motion_, or “moving spirit,” > according to Parkhurst’s _Lexicon_; and is identical with the spirit of > God _moving_ on the face of the waters. > > [257] Bear in mind that Kavindasami made Jacolliot swear that he would > neither approach nor _touch_ him during the time he was entranced. The > least contact with _matter_ would have paralyzed the action of the > freed spirit, which, if we are permitted to use such an unpoetical > comparison, would re-enter its dwelling like a frightened snail, > drawing in its horns at the approach of any foreign substance. In some > cases such a _brusque_ interruption and oozing back of the spirit > (sometimes it may suddenly and altogether break the delicate thread > connecting it with the body) kills the entranced _subject_. See the > several works of Baron du Potet and Puysegur on this question. > > [258] “La Magie Devoilée,” p. 147. > > [259] “Magie au XIXme Siècle,” p. 268. > > [260] Ibid. > > [261] Brierre de Boismont: “Des Hallucinations, ou Histoire raisonnée > des apparitions, des songes, des visions, de l’extase du Magnetisme,” > 1845, p. 301 (French edition). See also Fairfield: “Ten Years Among the > Mediums.” > > [262] Cabanis, seventh memoir: “De l’Influence des Maladies sur la > Formation des Idées,” etc. A respected N. Y. legislator has this > faculty. > > [263] Irenæus: Book iii., chap. ii., sec. 8. > > [264] The cow is the symbol of prolific generation and of intellectual > nature. She was sacred to Isis in Egypt; to Christna, in India, and > to an infinity of other gods and goddesses personifying the various > productive powers of nature. The cow was held, in short, as the > impersonation of the Great Mother of all beings, both of the mortals > and of the gods, of physical and spiritual generation of things. > > [265] In Genesis the river of Eden was parted, “and became into _four_ > heads” (Gen. ii. 5). > > [266] Genesis iii. 21. > > [267] This is claimed to be one of the missing books of the sacred > Canon of the Jews, and is referred to in Joshua and II. Samuel. It > was discovered by Sidras, an officer of Titus, during the sack of > Jerusalem, and published in Venice in the seventeenth century, as > alleged in its preface by the Consistory of Rabbins, but the American > edition, as well as the English, is reputed by the modern Rabbis, to be > a forgery of the twelfth century. > > [268] See Godfrey Higgins: “Anacalypsis,” quoting Faber. > > [269] See Cory’s “Ancient Fragments.” BEROSUS. > > [270] We refer the reader for further particulars to the “Prose Edda” > in Mallett’s “Northern Antiquities.” > > [271] It is worthy of attention that in the Mexican “Popol-Vuh” the > human race is created out of a reed, and in Hesiod out of the ash-tree, > as in the Scandinavian narrative. > > [272] See Kanne’s “Pantheum der Æltesten Philosophie.” > > [273] “Origin of Species,” p. 484. > > [274] Ibid. Which latter word we cannot accept unless that “primordial > form” is conceded to be the primal concrete form that spirit assumed as > the _revealed_ Deity. > > [275] Ibid., p. 488. > > [276] Lecture by T. H. Huxley, F. R. S.: “Darwin and Haeckel.” > > [277] “Migration of Abraham,” § 32. > > [278] Cory: “Ancient Fragments.” > > [279] “Origin of Species,” pp. 448, 489, first edition. > > [280] Huxley: “Darwin and Haeckel.” > > [281] Mithras was regarded among the Persians as the _Theos ek > petros_—god of the rock. > > [282] Bordj is called a fire-mountain—a volcano; therefore it contains > fire, rock, earth, and water—the male and active, and the female or > passive elements. The myth is suggestive. > > [283] Virgil: “Georgica,” book ii. > > [284] Porphyry and other philosophers explain the nature of the > _dwellers_. They are mischievous and deceitful, though some of them > are perfectly gentle and harmless, but so weak as to have the greatest > difficulty in communicating with mortals whose company they seek > incessantly. The former are not wicked through intelligent malice. The > law of spiritual evolution not having yet developed their instinct into > intelligence, whose highest light belongs but to immortal spirits, > their powers of reasoning are in a latent state and, therefore, they > themselves, irresponsible. > > But the Latin Church contradicts the Kabalists. St. Augustine has even > a discussion on that account with Porphyry, the Neo-platonist. “These > spirits,” he says, “are deceitful, _not by their nature_, as Porphyry, > the theurgist, will have it, but through malice. They pass themselves > off for _gods_ and _for the souls of the defunct_” (“Civit. Dei,” book > x., ch. 2). So far Porphyry agrees with him; “but they do not claim > to be _demons_ [read devils], for they are such in reality!” adds the > bishop of Hippo. But then, under what class should we place the men > _without heads_, whom Augustine wishes us to believe he saw himself? > or the satyrs of St. Jerome, which he asserts were exhibited for a > considerable length of time at Alexandria? They were, he tells us, “men > with the legs and tails of goats;” and, if we may believe him, one of > these Satyrs was actually _pickled_ and sent in a cask to the Emperor > Constantine! > > [285] “Tria capita exsculpta sunt, una intra alterum, et alterum supra > alterum” (Sohar; “Idra Suta,” sectio vii.) > > [286] Gentle gale (lit.) > > [287] Higgins: “Anacalypsis;” also “Dupruis.” > > [288] Mallett: “Northern Antiquities,” pp. 401-406, and “The Songs of a > Völuspa” Edda. > > [289] From a London Spiritualist Journal. > > [290] Hemmann: “Medico-Surgical Essays,” Berl., 1778. > > [291] Robert Fludd: “Treatise III.” > > [292] Prof. J. P. Cooke: “New Chemistry.” > > [293] In the “Bulletin de l’Academie de Medecine,” Paris, 1837, vol. > i., p. 343 et seq., may be found the report of Dr. Oudet, who, to > ascertain the state of insensibility of a lady in a magnetic sleep, > pricked her with pins, introducing a long pin in the flesh up to its > head, and held one of her fingers for some seconds in the flame of > a candle. A cancer was extracted from the right breast of a Madame > Plaintain. The operation lasted twelve minutes; during the whole time > the patient talked very quietly with her mesmerizer, and never felt the > slightest sensation (“Bul. de l’Acad. de Med.,” Tom. ii., p. 370). > > [294] Prophecy, Ancient and Modern, by A. Wilder: “Phrenological > Journal.” > > [295] The theory that the sun is an incandescent globe is—as one of the > magazines recently expressed it—“going out of fashion.” It has been > computed that if the sun—whose mass and diameter is known to us—“were > a solid block of coal, and sufficient amount of oxygen could be > supplied to burn at the rate necessary to produce the effects we see, > it would be completely consumed in less than 5,000 years.” And yet, > till comparatively a few weeks ago, it was maintained—nay, is still > maintained, that the sun is a reservoir of vaporized metals! > > [296] See Youmans: “Chemistry on the Basis of the New System—Spectrum > Analysis.” > > [297] Professor of Physics in the Stevens Institute of Technology. See > his “The Earth a Great Magnet,“a lecture delivered before the Yale > Scientific Club, 1872. See, also, Prof. Balfour Stewart’s lecture on > “The Sun and the Earth.” > > [298] “De Magnetica Vulner Curatione,” p. 722, l. c. > > [299] See “On the Influence of the Blue Ray.” > > [300] Ennemoser: “History of Magic.” > > [301] “Du Magnetisme Animal, en France.” Paris, 1826. > > [302] “The Conservation of Energy.” N. Y., 1875. > > [303] “Fundamental Principles of Natural Philosophy.” > > [304] “Simpl. in Phys.,” 143; “The Chaldean Oracles,” Cory. > > [305] Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science.” > > [306] J. R. Buchanan, M.D.: “Outlines of Lectures on the Neurological > System of Anthropology.” > > [307] W. and Elizabeth M. F. Denton: “The Soul of Things; or > Psychometric Researches and Discoveries.” Boston, 1873. > > [308] “Religion of Geology.” > > [309] “Principles of Science,” vol. ii., p. 455. > > [310] J. W. Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science,” pp. 132, > 133. > > [311] “Unseen Universe,” p. 159. > > [312] F. R. Marvin: “Lecture on Mediomania.” > > [313] “Unseen Universe,” p. 84, et seq. > > [314] Ibid., p. 89. > > [315] Behold! great scientists of the nineteenth century, corroborating > the wisdom of the Scandinavian fable, cited in the preceding chapter. > Several thousand years ago, the idea of a bridge between the visible > and the invisible universes was allegorized by ignorant “heathen,” in > the “Edda-Song of Völuspa,” “The Vision of Vala, the Seeress.” For what > is this bridge of Bifrost, the radiant rainbow, which leads the gods > to their rendezvous, near the Urdar-fountain, but the same idea as > that which is offered to the thoughtful student by the authors of the > “Unseen Universe?” > > [316] “L’Ami des Sciences,” March 2, 1856, p. 67. > > [317] Cooke: “New Chemistry,” p. 113. > > [318] Ibid., pp. 110-111. > > [319] Ibid., p. 106. > > [320] “De Secretis Adeptorum.” Werdenfelt; Philalethes; Van Helmont; > Paracelsus. > > [321] Youmans: “Chemistry,” p. 169; and W. B. Kemshead, F. R. A. S.: > “Inorganic Chemistry.” > > [322] “Origin of Metalliferous Deposits.” > > [323] John Bumpus: “Alchemy and the Alkahest,” 85, J. S. F., edition of > 1820. > > [324] See Boyle’s works. > > [325] Deleuze: “De l’Opinion de Van Helmont sur la Cause, la Nature et > les Effets du Magnetisme.” Anim. Vol. i., p. 45, and vol. ii., p. 198. > > [326] A. R. Wallace: “An Answer to the Arguments of Hume, Lecky, etc., > against Miracles.” > > [327] CROOKES: “Researches, etc.,” p. 96. > > [328] Lucian: “Pharsalia,” Book v. > > [329] “De Divinatio,” Book i., chap. 3. > > [330] “De Occulta Philosoph.,” p. 355. > > [331] Plato: “Timæus,” vol. ii., p. 563. > > [332] Crookes: “Researches, etc.,” p. 101. > > [333] Ibid., p. 101. > > [334] Crookes: “Researches, etc.,” p. 83. > > [335] In 1854, M. Foucault, an eminent physician and a member of the > French Institute, one of the opponents of de Gasparin, rejecting the > mere possibility of any such manifestations, wrote the following > memorable words: “That day, when I should succeed in moving a straw > under the action of my will only, I would feel terrified!” The word > is ominous. About the same year, Babinet, the astronomer, repeated in > his article in the “Revue des Deux Mondes,” the following sentence > to exhaustion: “The levitation of a body _without contact_ is as > _impossible_ as the perpetual motion, because on the day it would be > done, _the world would crumble down_.” Luckily, we see no sign as yet > of such a cataclysm; yet bodies _are_ levitated. > > [336] “Researches, etc.,” p. 91. > > [337] Ibid., pp. 86-97. > > [338] Ibid., p. 94. > > [339] Ibid., p. 95. > > [340] Ibid., p. 94. > > [341] “Antidote,” lib. i., cap. 4. > > [342] “Letter to Glanvil, the author of ‘Sadducismus Triumphatus,’ May > 25, 1678.” > > [343] “History of Magic,” vol. ii., p. 272. > > [344] “Apologie pour tous les grands personnages faussement accusés de > magie.” > > [345] Berlin, 1817. > > [346] “Nova Medicina Spirituum,” 1675. > > [347] “History of Magic.” > > [348] It would be a useless and too long labor to enter here upon the > defence of Kepler’s theory of relation between the five regular solids > of geometry and the magnitudes of the orbits of five principal planets, > rather derided by Prof. Draper in his “Conflict.” Many are the theories > of the ancients that have been avenged by modern discovery. For the > rest, we must bide our time. > > [349] “Magia Naturalis,” Lugduni, 1569. > > [350] Athanasis Kircher: “Magnes sive de arte magnetici, opus > tripartitum.” Coloniæ, 1654. > > [351] Lib. iii., p. 643. > > [352] “Notes from a New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam,” by > de la Loubère, French Ambassador to Siam in the years 1687-8. Edition > of 1692. > > [353] Baptist Van Helmont: “Opera Omnia,” 1682, p. 720, and others. > > [354] De la Loubère: “Notes,” etc. (see _ante_), p. 115. > > [355] Ibid., p. 120. > > [356] Ibid., p. 63. > > [357] See his “Conf.,” xiii., l. c. in præfatione. > > [358] 1 Samuel, xvi. 14-23. > > [359] “Aphorisms,” 22. > > [360] Ibid., p. 69. > > [361] Ibid., p. 70. > > [362] “Philosophie des Sciences Occultes.” > > [363] 1 Kings, i. 1-4, 15. > > [364] Josephus: “Antiquities,” viii. 2. > > [365] “The Diakka and their Victims; an Explanation of the False and > Repulsive in Spiritualism.” > > [366] See Chapter on the human spirits becoming the denizens of the > _eighth_ sphere, whose end is generally the _annihilation_ of personal > individuality. > > [367] Porphyry: “On the Good and Bad Demons.” > > [368] “De Mysteriis Egyptorum,” lib. iii., c. 5. > > [369] Epes Sargent: “Proof Palpable of Immortality,” p. 45. > > [370] See Matthew xxiv. 26. > > [371] See Wallace, “Miracles and Modern Spiritualism,” and W. Howitt, > “History of the Supernatural,” vol. ii. > > [372] See Wallace’s paper read before the Dialectical Society, in 1871: > “Answer to Hume, etc.” > > [373] “Φιλολογος” (Bailey’s), second edition. > > [374] See Art. on “Æthrobacy.” > > [375] Psalm cv. 23. “The Land of Ham,” or _chem_, Greek χημι, whence > the terms _alchemy_ and _chemistry_. > > [376] “Œdipi Ægyptiaci Theatrum Hieroglyphicum,” p. 544. > > [377] “Lib. de Defectu Oraculorum.“ > > [378] Lib. i., Class 3, _Cap. ult._ > > [379] The details of this story may be found in the work of Erasmus > Franciscus, who quotes from Pflaumerus, Pancirollus, and many others. > > [380] ”_Sulphur. Alum_ ust. a ℥ iv.; sublime them into flowers to > ℥ ij., of which add of crystalline Venetian borax (powdered) ℥ j.; > upon these affuse high rectified spirit of wine and digest it, then > abstract it and pour on fresh; repeat this so often till the sulphur > melts like wax without any smoke, upon a hot plate of brass: this is > for the _pabulum_, but the wick is to be prepared after this manner: > gather the threads or thrums of the _Lapis asbestos_, to the thickness > of your middle and the length of your little finger, then put them into > a Venetian glass, and covering them over with the aforesaid depurated > sulphur or aliment, set the glass in sand for the space of twenty-four > hours, so hot that the sulphur may bubble all the while. The wick > being thus besmeared and anointed, is to be put into a glass like a > scallop-shell, in such manner that some part of it may lie above the > mass of prepared sulphur; then setting this glass upon hot sand, you > must melt the sulphur, so that it may lay hold of the wick, and when it > is lighted, it will burn with a perpetual flame and you may set this > lamp in any place where you please.” > > The other is as follows: > > “℞ _Salis tosti_, lb. j.; affuse over it strong wine vinegar, and > abstract it to the consistency of oil; then put on fresh vinegar and > macerate and distill it as before. Repeat this four times successively, > then put into this vinegar _vitr. antimonii subtilis lœvigat_, lb. > j.; set it on ashes in a close vessel for the space of six hours, to > extract its tincture, decant the liquor, and put on fresh, and then > extract it again; this repeat so often till you have got out all the > redness. Coagulate your extractions to the consistency of oil, and then > rectify them in Balneo Mariæ (bain Marie). Then take the antimony, > from which the tincture was extracted, and reduce it to a very fine > meal, and so put it into a glass bolthead; pour upon it the rectified > oil, which abstract and cohobate seven times, till such time as the > powder has imbibed all the oil, and is quite dry. This extract again > with spirit of wine, so often, till all the essence be got out of it, > which put into a Venice matrass, well luted with paper five-fold, and > then distill it so that the spirit being drawn off, there may remain at > the bottom an inconsumable oil, to be used with a wick after the same > manner with the sulphur we have described before.” > > “These are the eternal lights of Tritenheimus,” says Libavius, his > commentator, “which indeed, though they do not agree with the pertinacy > of naphtha, yet these things can illustrate one another. Naphtha is not > so durable as not to be burned, for it exhales and deflagrates, but if > it be fixed by adding the juice of the _Lapis asbestinos_ it can afford > perpetual fuel,” says this learned person. > > We may add that we have ourselves seen a lamp so prepared, and we are > told that since it was first lighted on May 2, 1871, it has not gone > out. As we know the person who is making the experiment incapable to > deceive any one, being himself an ardent experimenter in hermetic > secrets, we have no reason to doubt his assertion. > > [381] “Commentary upon St. Augustine’s ‘Treatise de Civitate Dei.’” > > [382] The author of “De Rebus Cypriis,” 1566 A.D. > > [383] “Book of Ancient Funerals.” > > [384] “Comment. on the 77th Epigram of the IXth Book of Martial.” > > [385] “De Defectu Oraculorum.” > > [386] “Vulgar Errors,” p. 124. > > [387] “London Dialectical Society’s Report on Spiritualism,” p. 229. > > [388] Ibid., p. 230. > > [389] Ibid., p. 265. > > [390] Ibid., p. 266. > > [391] Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 121. > > [392] Milton: “Paradise Lost.” > > [393] See Ennemoser: “History of Magic,” vol. ii., and Schweigger: > “Introduction to Mythology through Natural History.” > > [394] “History of Magic,” vol. ii. > > [395] B. Jowett, M. A.: “The Dialogues of Plato,” vol. ii., p. 508. > > [396] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 240. > > [397] “Plutarch,” translated by Langhorne. > > [398] Some kabalistic scholars assert that the Greek original > Pythagoric sentences of Sextus, which are now said to be lost, existed > still, in a convent at Florence, at that time, and that Galileo was > acquainted with these writings. They add, moreover, that a treatise on > astronomy, a manuscript by Archytas, a direct disciple of Pythagoras, > in which were noted all the most important doctrines of their school, > was in the possession of Galileo. Had some _Ruffinas_ got hold of > it, he would no doubt have perverted it, as Presbyter Ruffinas has > perverted the above-mentioned sentences of Sextus, replacing them with > a fraudulent version, the authorship of which he sought to ascribe to a > certain Bishop Sextus. See Taylor’s Introduction to Iamblichus’ “Life > of Pythagoras,” p. xvii. > > [399] Jowett: Introduction to the “Timæus,” vol. ii., p. 508. > > [400] Ibid. > > [401] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 14. > > [402] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 311. > > [403] “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., p. 88. > > [404] W. R. Grove: “Preface to the Correlation of Physical Forces.” > > [405] “Timæus,” p. 22. > > [406] Beginning with Godfrey Higgins and ending with Max Müller, every > archæologist and philologist who has fairly and seriously studied the > old religions, has perceived that taken literally they could only lead > them on a false track. Dr. Lardner disfigured and misrepresented the > old doctrines—whether unwittingly or otherwise—in the grossest manner. > The _pravritti_, or the existence of nature when alive, in activity, > and the _nirvritti_, or the rest, the state of non-living, is the > Buddhistic esoteric doctrine. The “pure nothing,” or non-existence, > if translated according to the esoteric sense, would mean the “pure > spirit,” the NAMELESS or something our intellect is unable to grasp, > hence nothing. But we will speak of it further. > > [407] This is the exact opposite of the modern theory of evolution. > > [408] Ficinus: See “Excerpta” and “Dissertation on Magic;” Taylor: > “Plato,” vol. i., p. 63. > > [409] “Modern American Spiritualism,” p. 119. > > [410] The full and correct name of this learned Society is—“The > American Association for the _Advancement_ of Science.” It is, however, > often called for brevity’s sake, “The American Scientific Association.” > > [411] See Taylor’s translation of “Select Works of Plotinus,” p. 553, > etc. > > [412] Iamblichus: “De Vita Pythag.,” additional notes (Taylor). > > [413] “The National Quarterly Review,” Dec., 1875. > > [414] Ibid., p. 94. > > [415] “Force and Matter,” p. 151. > > [416] Burnouf: “Introduction,” p. 118. > > [417] “The National Quarterly Review,” Dec., 1875, p. 96. > > [418] “De Anima,” lib. i., cap. 3. > > [419] De Maistre: “Soirées de St. Petersburg.” > > [420] We need not go so far back as that to assure ourselves that many > great men believed the same. Kepler, the eminent astronomer, fully > credited the idea that the stars and all heavenly bodies, even our > earth, are endowed with living and thinking souls. > > [421] We are not aware that a copy of this ancient work is embraced in > the catalogue of any European library; but it is one of the “Books of > Hermes,” and it is referred to and quotations are made from it in the > works of a number of ancient and mediæval philosophical authors. Among > these authorities are Arnoldo di Villanova’s “Rosarium philosoph.;” > Francesco Arnolphim’s “Lucensis opus de lapide,” Hermes Trismegistus’ > “Tractatus de transmutatione metallorum,” “Tabula smaragdina,” and > above all in the treatise of Raymond Lulli, “Ab angelis opus divinum de > quinta essentia.” > > [422] Quicksilver. > > [423] “Hermes,” iv. 6. Spirit here denotes the Deity—Pneuma, ὁ θέος. > > [424] “Magia Adamica,” p. 11. > > [425] _The ignorance of the ancients of the earth’s sphericity is > assumed without warrant._ What proof have we of the fact? It was only > the literati who exhibited such an ignorance. Even so early as the > time of Pythagoras, the Pagans taught it, Plutarch testifies to it, > and Socrates died for it. Besides, as we have stated repeatedly, all > knowledge was concentrated in the sanctuaries of the temples from > whence it very rarely spread itself among the uninitiated. If the > sages and priests of the remotest antiquity were not aware of this > astronomical truth, how is it that they represented Kneph, the spirit > of the _first hour_, with an egg placed on his lips, the egg signifying > our globe, to which he imparts life by his breath. Moreover, if, owing > to the difficulty of consulting the Chaldean “Book of Numbers,” our > critics should demand the citation of other authorities, we can refer > them to Diogenes Laertius, who credits Manetho with having taught that > the earth was in the shape of a ball. Besides, the same author, quoting > most probably from the “Compendium of Natural Philosophy,” gives the > following statements of the Egyptian doctrine: “The beginning is matter > Αρχῆν μὲν εῖναι ὕλην ἴλλεσθα, and from it the four elements separated.... > The true form of God is unknown; but the world had a beginning and > is therefore perishable.... The moon is eclipsed when it crosses > the shadow of the earth” (Diogenes Laertius: “Proœin,” §§ 10, 11). > Besides, Pythagoras is credited with having taught that the earth was > round, that it rotated, and was but a planet like any other of these > celestial bodies. (See Fenelon’s “Lives of the Philosophers.”) In the > latest of Plato’s translations (“The Dialogues of Plato,” by Professor > Jowett), the author, in his introduction to “Timæus,” notwithstanding > “an unfortunate doubt” which arises in consequence of the word ἵλλεσθαι > capable of being translated either “circling” or “compacted,” feels > inclined to credit Plato with having been familiar with the rotation > of the earth. Plato’s doctrine is expressed in the following words: > “The earth which is our nurse (compacted or) _circling_ around the > pole which is extended through the universe.” But if we are to believe > Proclus and Simplicius, Aristotle understood this word in “Timæus” > “to mean circling or revolving” (De Cœlo), and Mr. Jowett himself > further admits that “Aristotle attributed to Plato the doctrine of the > rotation of the earth.” (See vol. ii. of “Dial. of Plato.” Introduction > to “Timæus,” pp. 501-2.) It would have been extraordinary, to say > the least, that Plato, who was such an admirer of Pythagoras and who > certainly must have had, as an initiate, access to the most secret > doctrines of the great Samian, should be ignorant of such an elementary > astronomical truth. > > [426] “Wisdom of Solomon,” xi. 17. > > [427] Eugenius Philalethes: “Magia Adamica.” > > [428] Hargrave Jennings: “The Rosicrucians.” > > [429] “Timæus.” > > [430] “Our Place among Infinities,” p. 313. > > [431] Ibid. > > [432] Ibid., p. 314. > > [433] The library of a relative of the writer contains a copy of a > French edition of this unique work. The prophecies are given in the > old French language, and are very difficult for the student of modern > French to decipher. We give, therefore, an English version, which > is said to be taken from a book in the possession of a gentleman in > Somersetshire, England. > > [434] See Rawlinson, vol. xvii., pp. 30-32, Revised edition. > > [435] Jowett: Introduction to “Timæus,” “Dial. of Plato,” vol. i., p. > 509. > > [436] N. B.—He lived in the first century B. C. > > [437] Stobæus: “Eclogues.” > > [438] Kieser: “Archiv.,” vol. iv., p. 62. In fact, many of the old > symbols were mere puns on names. > > [439] See “Rig-Vedas,” the Aitareya-Brahmanan. > > [440] Brahma is also called by the Hindu Brahmans Hiranyagarbha or the > _unit_ soul, while _Amrita_ is the supreme soul, the first cause which > emanated from itself the creative Brahma. > > [441] Marbod: “Liber lapid. ed Beekmann.” > > [442] “The Sun and the Earth,” Lecture by Prof. Balfour Stewart. > > [443] “La Loi Naturelle,” par Volney. > > [444] “Diction. Philosophique,” Art. “Philosophie.” > > [445] “Boston Lecture,” December, 1875. > > [446] Weber: “Ind. Stud.,” i. 290. > > [447] Wilson: “Rig-Veda Sanhita,” ii. 143. > > [448] “Duncker,” vol. ii., p. 162. > > [449] “Wultke,” ii. 262. > > [450] Daniel vii. 9, 10. > > [451] Book of Enoch, xiv. 7, ff. > > [452] This proposition, which will be branded as _preposterous_, but > which we are ready to show, on the authority of Plato (see Jowett’s > Introd. to “the Timæus;” last page), as a Pythagorean doctrine, > together with that other of the sun being but the lens through which > the light passes, is strangely corroborated at the present day, > by the observations of General Pleasonton of Philadelphia. This > experimentalist boldly comes out as a revolutionist of modern science, > and calls Newton’s centripetal and centrifugal forces, and the law of > gravitation, “fallacies.” He fearlessly maintains his ground against > the Tyndalls and Huxleys of the day. We are glad to find such a learned > defender of one of the oldest (and hitherto treated as the _most > absurd_) of hermetic _hallucinations_ (?) (See General Pleasonton’s > book, “The Influence of the Blue Ray of the Sunlight, and of the Blue > Color of the Sky, in developing Animal and Vegetable Life,” addressed > to the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture.) > > [453] In no country were the true esoteric doctrines trusted to > writing. The Hindu Brahma Maia, was passed from one generation to > another by _oral_ tradition. The Kabala was never written; and Moses > intrusted it orally but to his elect. The primitive pure Oriental > gnosticism was completely corrupted and degraded by the different > subsequent sects. Philo, in the “de Sacrificiis Abeli et Caini,” states > that there is a mystery _not to be revealed_ to the uninitiated. > Plato is silent on many things, and his disciples refer to this > fact constantly. Any one who has studied, even superficially, these > philosophers, on reading the institutes of Manu, will clearly perceive > that they all drew from the same source. “This universe,” says Manu, > “existed only _in the first divine idea, yet unexpanded, as if involved > in darkness_, imperceptible, indefinable, undiscoverable by reason, and > undiscovered _by revelation_, as if it were wholly immersed in sleep; > then the sole self-existing Power himself undiscerned, appeared with > undiminished glory, _expanding his idea_, or dispelling _the gloom_.” > Thus speaks the first code of Buddhism. Plato’s idea is the _Will_, or > Logos, the deity which manifests itself. It is the Eternal Light from > which proceeds, as an _emanation_, the visible and _material_ light. > > [454] It appears that in descending from Mont Blanc, Tyndall suffered > severely from the heat, though he was knee-deep in the snow at the > time. The Professor attributed this to the burning rays of the sun, but > Pleasonton maintains that if the rays of the sun had been so intense > as described, they would have melted the snow, which they did not; he > concludes that the heat from which the Professor suffered came from his > own body, and was due to the electrical action of sunlight upon his > dark woolen clothes, which had become electrified positively by the > heat of his body. The cold, dry ether of planetary space and the upper > atmosphere of the earth became negatively electrified, and falling upon > his warm body and clothes, positively electrified, evolved an increased > heat (see “The Influence of the Blue Ray,” etc., pp. 39, 40, 41, etc.). > > [455] The most curious of all “curious coincidences,” to our mind is, > that our men of science should put aside facts, striking enough to > cause them to use such an expression when speaking of them, instead of > setting to work to give us a philosophical explanation of the same. > > [456] See Charles Elam, M.D.: “A Physician’s Problems,” London, 1869, > p. 159. > > [457] Jowett: “Timæus.” > > [458] Ibid. > > [459] According to General Pleasonton’s theory of positive and negative > electricity underlying every psychological, physiological, and cosmic > phenomena, the abuse of alcoholic stimulants transforms a man into > a woman and _vice versa_, by changing their _electricities_. “When > this change in the condition of his electricity has occurred,” says > the author, “his attributes (those of a drunkard) become _feminine_; > he is irritable, irrational, excitable ... becomes violent, and if > he meets his wife, whose normal condition of electricity is like his > present condition, positive, they repel each other, become mutually > abusive, engage in conflict and deadly strife, and the newspapers of > the next day announce the verdict of the coroner’s jury on the case.... > Who would expect to find the discovery of the moving cause of all > these terrible crimes in the perspiration of the criminal? and yet > science has shown that the metamorphoses of _a man into a woman_, by > changing the negative condition of his electricity into the _positive_ > electricity of the woman, with all its attributes, is disclosed by the > character of his perspiration, superinduced by the use of alcoholic > stimulants” (“The Influence of the Blue Ray,” p 119). > > [460] Plato: “Timæus.” > > [461] Littré: “Revue des Deux Mondes.” > > [462] See des Mousseaux’s “Œuvres des Demons.” > > [463] Du Potet: “Magie Devoilée,” pp. 51-147. > > [464] Ibid., p. 201. > > [465] Baron Du Potet: “Cours de Magnetisme,” pp. 17-108. > > [466] “De Occulto Philosophiâ,” pp. 332-358. > > [467] Cicero: “De Natura Deorum,” lib. i., cap. xviii. > > [468] Eliphas Levi. > > [469] “Timæus.” Such like expressions made Professor Jowett state in > his Introduction that Plato taught the attraction of similar bodies > to similar. But such an assertion would amount to denying the great > philosopher even a rudimentary knowledge of the laws of magnetic poles. > > [470] Alfred Marshall Mayer, Ph.D.: “The Earth a Great Magnet,” a > lecture delivered before the Yale Scientific Club, Feb. 14, 1872. > > [471] “Strange Story.” > > [472] See Taylor’s “Pausanias;” MS. “Treatise on Dæmons,” by Psellus, > and the “Treatise on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries.” > > [473] Iamblichus: “De Vita Pythag.” > > [474] “Anacalypsis,” vol. i., p. 807. > > [475] Iamblichus: “Life of Pythagoras,” p. 297. > > [476] Bulwer-Lytton: “Zanoni.” > > [477] Cory: “Phædrus,” i. 328. > > [478] This assertion is clearly corroborated by Plato himself, who > says: “You say that, in my former discourse, I have not sufficiently > explained to you the nature of the _First, I purposely spoke > enigmatically_, that in case the tablet should have happened with any > accident, either by land or sea, a person, _without some previous > knowledge of the subject, might not be able to understand its > contents_” (“Plato,” Ep. ii., p. 312; Cory: “Ancient Fragments”). > > [479] “Josephus against Apion,” ii., p. 1079. > > [480] See chapter ix., p. > > [481] “Illusion; matter in its triple manifestation in the earthly, and > the astral or fontal soul, or the body, and the Platonian dual soul, > the rational and the irrational one,” see next chapter. > > [482] “Perfection of Wisdom.” > > [483] Porphyry gives the credit to Plotinus his master, of having been > united with “God” six times during his life, and complains of having > attained to it but twice, himself. > > [484] Orpheus is said to have ascribed to the grand cycle 120,000 years > of duration, and Cassandrus 136,000. See Censorinus: “de Natal. Die;” > “Chronological and Astronomical Fragments.” > > [485] W. and E. Denton; “The Soul of Things,” vol. i. > > [486] See the “Cosmogony of Pherecydes.” > > [487] See a few pages further on the quotation from the “Codex of the > Nazarenes.” > > [488] See Plato’s “Timæus.” > > [489] On the authority of Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and the “Codex” > itself, Dunlap shows that the Nazarenes treated their “spirit,” or > rather soul, as a female and _Evil Power_. Irenæus, accusing the > Gnostics of heresy, calls Christ and the Holy Ghost “the _gnostic pair_ > that produce the Æons” (Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 52, > foot-note). > > [490] Fetahil was with the Nazarenes the king of light, and the > _Creator_; but in this instance he is the unlucky Prometheus, who fails > to get hold of the _Living Fire_, necessary for the formation of the > divine soul, as he is ignorant of the _secret_ name (the ineffable or > incommunicable name of the kabalists). > > [491] The spirit of matter and concupiscence. > > [492] See Franck’s “Codex Nazaræus” and Dunlap’s “Sod, the Son of the > Man.” > > [493] “Codex Nazaræus,” ii. 233. > > [494] This Mano of the Nazarenes strangely resembles the Hindu Manu, > the heavenly man of the “Rig-Vedas.” > > [495] “I am the _true vine_ and my Father is the husbandman” (John xv. > 1). > > [496] With the Gnostics, Christ, as well as Michael, who is identical > in some respects with him, was the “Chief of the Æons.” > > [497] “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 135. > > [498] Ibid. > > [499] “Codex Nazaræus,” iii. 61. > > [500] The Astral Light, or _anima mundi_, is dual and bi-sexual. The > male part of it is purely divine and spiritual; it is the _Wisdom_; > while the female portion (the spiritus of the Nazarenes) is tainted, > in one sense, with matter, and therefore is evil already. It is the > life-principle of every living creature, and furnishes the astral > soul, the fluidic _perisprit_ to men, animals, fowls of the air, and > everything living. Animals have only the germ of the highest immortal > soul as a third principle. It will develop but through a series of > countless evolutions; the doctrine of which evolution is contained in > the kabalistic axiom: “A stone becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a > beast a _man_; a man a _spirit_; and the spirit a god.” > > [501] See Commentary on “Idra Suta,” by Rabbi Eleashar. > > [502] _Sod_ means a religious Mystery. Cicero mentions the _sod_, as > constituting a portion of the _Idean_ Mysteries. “The members of the > _Priest-Colleges_ were called _Sodales_,” says Dunlap, quoting Freund’s > “Latin Lexicon,” iv. 448. > > [503] The author of the “Sohar,” the great kabalistic work of the first > century B.C. > > [504] See Abbé Huc’s works. > > [505] “The Sohar,” iii. 288; “Idra Suta.” > > [506] Everard: “Mystères Physiologiques,” p. 132. > > [507] See Plato’s “Timæus.” > > [508] “Supernatural Religion; an Inquiry into the Reality of Divine > Revelation,” vol. ii. London, 1875. > > [509] See “Heavenly Arcana.” > > [510] Burges: Preface. > > [511] “Seventh Letter.” > > [512] “The True Christian Religion.” > > [513] E. A. Hitchcock: “Swedenborg, a Hermetic Philosopher.” > > [514] “Ripley Revived,” 1678. > > [515] “Mosaicall Philosophy,” p. 173. 1659. > > [516] “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical Forces,” by J. > Le Conte. > > [517] “Archives des Sciences,” vol. xlv., p. 345. December, 1872. > > [518] Aristotle: “De Generat. et Corrupt.,” lib. ii. > > [519] “De Part.,” an. lib. i., c. 1. > > [520] A Pythagorean oath. The Pythagoreans swore by their master. > > [521] See Lemprière: “Classical Dictionary.” > > [522] Psel. in Alieb: “Chaldean Oracles.” > > [523] Proc. in 1 “Alieb.” > > [524] From the Latin word _mensa_—table. This curious letter is copied > in full in “La Science des Esprits,” by Eliphas Levi. > > [525] The Sulanuth is described in chap. lxxx., vers. 19, 20, of > “Jasher.” > > [526] “And when the Egyptians hid themselves on account of the swarm” > (one of the plagues alleged to have been brought on by Moses) “ ... > they locked their doors after them, and God ordered the _Sulanuth_ ...” > (a _sea-monster_, naively explains the translator, in a foot-note) > “which was then in the sea, to come up and go into Egypt ... and she > had long arms, ten cubits in length ... and she went upon the roofs > and uncovered the rafting and cut them ... and stretched forth her arm > into the house and removed the lock and the bolt and opened the houses > of Egypt ... and the swarm of animals destroyed the Egyptians, and it > grieved them exceedingly.” > > [527] “Strom,” vi., 17, § 159. > > [528] Ibid., vi., 3, § 30. > > [529] “Gorgias.” > > [530] “Timæus.” > > [531] Cory: “Phædro,” i. 69. > > [532] Ibid., i. 123. > > [533] Cory: “Phædras;” Cory’s “Plato,” 325. > > [534] See “The Unseen Universe,” pp. 205, 206. > > [535] See Bulwer-Lytton: “Strange Story,” p. 76. We do not know where > in literature can be found a more vivid and beautiful description of > this difference between the life-principle of man and that of animals, > than in the passages herein briefly alluded to. > > [536] A. R. Wallace: “The Action of Natural Selection on Man.” > > [537] W. Denton: “The Soul of Things,” p. 273. > > [538] “Herodotus,” b. i., c. 181. > > [539] “Anthropology,” p. 125. > > [540] “Of Sacrifices to Gods and Dæmons,” chap. ii. > > [541] “Odyssey,” book vii. > > [542] Porphyry: “Of Sacrifices to Gods and Dæmons,” chap. ii. > > [543] Ibid. > > [544] Iamblichus: “De Mysteriis Egyptorum.” > > [545] Ibid.: “On the Difference between the Dæmons, the Souls, etc.” > > [546] Du Potet: “La Magie Devoilée.” > > [547] We wonder if Father Felix is prepared to include St. Augustine, > Lactantius, and Bede in this category? > > [548] For instance, Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo? For further > particulars see the “Index Expurgatorius.” Verily, wise are such > popular sayings, as that, “Boldness carries off cities at one shout.” > > [549] This statement, neither Herbert Spencer nor Huxley will be likely > to traverse. But Father Felix seems insensible of his own debt to > science; if he had said this in February, 1600, he might have shared > the fate of poor Bruno. > > [550] “Le Mystère et la Science,” conferences, P. Felix de Notre Dame; > des Mousseaux: “Hauts Phen. Magie.” > > [551] Damascius, in the “Theogony,” calls it _Dis_, “the disposer of > all things.” Cory: “Ancient Fragments,” p. 314. > > [552] Plato: “Timæus.” > > [553] “Suidas: v. Tyrrhenia.” > > [554] The reader will understand that by “years” is meant “ages,” not > mere periods of twelve lunar months each. > > [555] See the Greek translation by Philo Byblius. > > [556] Cory: “Ancient Fragments.” > > [557] We give the spelling and words of this Kabalist who lived and > published his works in the seventeenth century. Generally he is > considered as one of the most famous alchemists among the Hermetic > philosophers. > > [558] The most positive of materialistic philosophers agree that all > that exists was evolved from ether; hence, air, water, earth, and fire, > the four primordial elements must also proceed from ether and chaos > the first _Duad_; all the imponderables, whether now known or unknown, > proceed from the same source. Now, if there is a spiritual essence in > matter, and that essence forces it to shape itself into millions of > individual forms, why is it illogical to assert that each of these > spiritual kingdoms in nature is peopled with beings evolved out of its > own material? Chemistry teaches us that in man’s body there are air, > water, earth, and heat, or fire—_air_ is present in its components; > _water_ in the secretions; _earth_ in the inorganic constituents; > and _fire_ in the animal heat. The Kabalist knows by experience that > an elemental spirit contains only one, and that each one of the four > kingdoms has its own peculiar elemental spirits; man being higher than > they, the law of evolution finds its illustration in the combination of > all four in him. > > [559] Görres: “Mystique,” lib. iii., p. 63. > > [560] The ancients called “the soul” the spirits of bad people; the > soul was the _larva_ and _lemure_. Good human spirits became gods. > > [561] Porphyry: “De Sacrificiis.” Chapter on the true Cultus. > > [562] “Mysteries of the Egyptians.” > > [563] Second century, A.D. “Du Dieu de Socrate,” Apul. class., pp. > 143-145. > > [564] “Eastern Monachism,” p. 9. > > [565] “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” iv. 385. > > [566] Hardy: “Manual of Buddhism;” Dunlap: “The World’s Religions.” > > [567] Lemprière (“Classical Dictionary,” art. “Pythagoras”) says that > “there is great reason to suspect the truth of the whole narrative of > Pythagoras’ journey into India,” and concludes by saying that this > philosopher had never seen either Gymnosophists or their country. If > this be so, how account for the doctrine of the metempsychosis of > Pythagoras, which is far more that of the Hindu in its details than > the Egyptian? But, above all, how account for the fact that the name > MONAS, applied by him to the First Cause, is the identical appellation > given to that Being in the Sanscrit tongue? In 1792-7, when Lemprière’s > “Dictionary” appeared, the Sanscrit was, we may say, utterly unknown; > Dr. Haug’s translation of the “Aitareya Brahmana” (“Rig-Vedas”), in > which this word occurs, was published only about _twenty_ years ago, > and until that valuable addition to the literature of archaic ages was > completed, and the precise age of the “Aitareya” now fixed by Haug at > 2000-2400 B.C.—was a mystery, it might be suggested, as in the case > of Christian symbols, that the Hindus _borrowed_ it from Pythagoras. > But now, unless philology can show it to be a “coincidence,” and that > the word _Monas_ is not the same in its minutest definitions, we have > a right to assert that Pythagoras was in India, and that it was the > Gymnosophists who instructed him in his metaphysical theology. The > fact alone that “Sanscrit, as compared with Greek and Latin, is an > elder sister,” as Max Müller shows, is not sufficient to account for > the perfect identity of the Sanscrit and Greek words MONAS, in their > most metaphysical, abstruse sense. The Sanscrit word Deva (god) has > become the Latin _deus_, and points to a common source; but we see in > the Zoroastrian “Zend-Avesta” the same word, meaning diametrically the > opposite, and becoming _daêva_, or evil spirit, from which comes the > word _devil_. > > [568] Haug: “Aitareya Brahmanam.” > > [569] Ibid. > > [570] Berosus: fragment preserved by Alex. Polyhostor; Cory: “Of the > Cosmogony and the Deluge.” > > [571] Some writer has employed a most felicitous expression in > describing the majesty of the Hindu archaic monuments, and the > exquisite finish of their sculpture. “They built,” says he, “like > giants, and finished like jewelers.” > > [572] “Anatomie Cerebrale,” Malacorne, Milan. > > [573] Psellus, 6, Plet. 2; Cory: “Chaldean Oracles.” > > [574] See “Lecture on the Vedas.” > > [575] In order to avoid being contradicted by some spiritualists > we give verbatim the language in question, as a specimen of the > unreliability of the oracular utterances of certain “spirits.” Let them > be human or elemental, but spirits capable of such effrontery may well > be regarded by occultists as anything but safe guides in philosophy, > exact science, or ethics. “It will be remembered,” says Mrs. Cora V. > Tappan, in a public discourse upon the “History of Occultism and its > Relations to Spiritualism” (see “Banner of Light,” Aug. 26, 1876), > “that the ancient word witchcraft, or the exercise of it, was forbidden > among the Hebrews. The translation is that no witch should be allowed > to live. That has been supposed to be the literal interpretation; and > acting upon that, your very pious and devout ancestors put to death, > without adequate testimony, numbers of very intelligent, wise, and > sincere persons, under the condemnation of witchcraft. It has now > turned out that the interpretation or translation should be, that no > witches should be allowed to obtain a living by the practice of their > art. That is, it should not be made a profession.” May we be so bold > as to inquire of the celebrated speaker, through _whom or according to > what_ authority such a thing has ever _turned out_? > > [576] Mr. Cromwell F. Varley, the well-known electrician of the > Atlantic Cable Company, communicates the result of his observations, in > the course of a debate at the Psychological Society of Great Britain, > which is reported in the “Spiritualist” (London, April 14, 1876, pp. > 174, 175). He thought that the effect of free nitric acid in the > atmosphere was able to drive away what he calls “unpleasant spirits.” > He thought that those who were troubled by unpleasant spirits at home, > would find relief by pouring one ounce of vitriol upon two ounces of > finely-powdered nitre in a saucer and putting the mixture under the > bed. Here is a scientist, whose reputation extends over two continents, > who gives a recipe to drive away bad spirits. And yet the general > public mocks as a “_superstition_” the herbs and incenses employed by > Hindus, Chinese, Africans, and other races to accomplish the self-same > purpose. > > [577] “Art-Magic,” p. 97. > > [578] This phantom is called _Scin Lecca_. See Bulwer-Lytton’s “Strange > Story.” > > [579] In the Strasbourg edition of his works (1603), Paracelsus writes > of the wonderful _magical_ power of man’s spirit. “It is possible,” > he says, “that my spirit, without the help of the body, and through > a fiery will alone, and without a sword, can stab and wound others. > It is also possible that I can bring the spirit of my adversary into > an image, and then double him up and lame him ... the exertion of > will is a great point in medicine.... Every imagination of man comes > through the heart, for this is the sun of the microcosm, and out of > the microcosm proceeds the imagination into the great world (universal > ether) ... the imagination of man is a seed which is _material_.” (Our > atomical modern scientists have proved it; see Babbage and Professor > Jevons.) “Fixed thought is also a means to an end. The magical is a > great _concealed wisdom_, and reason is a great public foolishness. No > armor protects against magic, for it injures the _inward_ spirit of > life.” > > [580] “Salem Witchcraft; With an Account of Salem Village,” by C. W. > Upham. > > [581] “Odyssey,” A. 82. > > [582] “Æneid,” book vi., 260. > > [583] “De Dæmon,” cap. “Quomodo dæm occupent.” > > [584] Numquid dæmonum corpora pulsari possunt? Possunt sane, atque > dolere solido quodam _percussa_ corpore. > > [585] Ubi secatur, mox in se iterum recreatur et coalescit ... dictu > velocius dæmoni cus spiritus in se revertitor. > > [586] A magistrate of the district. > > [587] This appalling circumstance was authenticated by the Prefect of > the city, and the Proconsul of the Province laid the report before the > Emperor. The story is modestly related by Mrs. Catherine Crowe (see > “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 335). > > [588] Pliny, xxx., 1. > > [589] T. Wright, M.A., F.S.A., etc.: “Sorcery and Magic,” vol. iii. > > [590] “Art-Magic,” pp. 159, 160. > > [591] “Art-Magic,” p. 28. > > [592] Fakir, beggar. > > [593] A juggler so called. > > [594] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons.” > > [595] “Histoire du Merveilleux dans les Temps Modernes,” vol. ii., p. > 262. > > [596] Ibid. > > [597] Ibid., p. 265. > > [598] Ibid., pp. 267, 401, 402. > > [599] Ibid., pp. 266, etc., 400. > > [600] Ibid., p. 403. > > [601] “Histoire du Merveilleux,” vol. i., p. 397. > > [602] Ibid., pp. 26-27. > > [603] Ibid., p. 238. > > [604] Des Mousseaux: “Magie au XIXme Siècle,” p. 452. > > [605] Hume: “Philosophical Essays,” p. 195. > > [606] “Histoire du Merveilleux,” p. 401. > > [607] Ibid. > > [608] Ibid., vol. ii., pp. 410, 411. > > [609] Ibid., p. 407. > > [610] Villecroze: “Le Docteur H. d’Alger,” 19 Mars, 1861. Pierrart: > vol. iv., pp. 254-257. > > [611] Bruce: “Travels to Discover the Sources of the Nile,” vol. x., > pp. 402-447; Hasselquist: “Voyage in the Levant,” vol. i., pp. 92-100; > Lemprière: “Voyage dans l’Empire de Maroc, etc., en 1790,” pp. 42-43. > > [612] Salverte: “La Philosophie de la Magie. De l’Influence sur les > Animaux,” vol. i. > > [613] Thibaut de Chanvallon: “Voyage à la Martinique.” > > [614] Salverte: “Philosophy of Magic.” > > [615] Forbes: “Oriental Memoirs,” vol. i., p. 44; vol. ii., p. 387. > > [616] Stedmann: “Voyage in Surinam,” vol. iii., pp. 64, 65. > > [617] See “Edinburgh Review,” vol. lxxx., p. 428, etc. > > [618] Elam: “A Physician’s Problems,” p. 25. > > [619] The “Immortality of the Soul,” by Henry More. Fellow of Christ’s > College, Cambridge. > > [620] D^r H. More: “Immortality of the Soul,” p. 393. > > [621] “Transactions of the Medical Society of N. Y.,” 1865-6-7. > > [622] “Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science,” vol. xv., p. 263, > 1853. > > [623] “Recherches d’Anatomie transcendante et Pathologique, etc.,” > Paris, 1832. > > [624] “Silliman’s Journal of Science and Art,” vol. x., p. 48. > > [625] “Precis Elementaire de Physiologie,” p. 520. > > [626] Ibid., p. 521. > > [627] “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,” p. 175. > > [628] “Transactions of Medical Society, etc.,” p. 246. > > [629] Fournié: “Physiologie du Système Nerveux, Cerebro-spinal,” Paris, > 1872. > > [630] Ibid. > > [631] “Night-Side of Nature,” by Catherine Crowe, p. 434, _et seq._ > > [632] Henry More: “Immortality of the Soul,” p. 399. > > [633] By the word _soul_, neither Demokritus nor the other philosophers > understood the _nous_ or _pneuma_, the divine _immaterial_ soul, but > the _psychè_, or astral body; that which Plato always terms the second > _mortal_ soul. > > [634] Balfour Stewart, LL.D., F.R.S.: “The Conservation of Energy,” p. > 133. > > [635] Fournié: “Physiologie du Système Nerveux,” p. 16. > > [636] “A System of Logic.” Eighth ed., 1872, vol. ii., p. 165. > > [637] Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 22. > > [638] Edward L. Youmans, M.D.; “A Class-book of Chemistry,” p. 4. > > [639] Sprengel, in his “History of Medicine,” makes Van Helmont > appear as if disgusted with the charlatanry and ignorant presumption > of Paracelsus. “The works of this latter,” says Sprengel, “which he > (Van Helmont) had attentively read, aroused in him the spirit of > reformation; but they alone did not suffice for him, because his > erudition and judgment were infinitely superior to those of that > author, and he _despised_ this _made egoist_, this ignorant and > ridiculous vagabond, who often seemed to have fallen into insanity.” > This assertion is perfectly false. We have the writings of Helmont > himself to refute it. In the well-known dispute between two writers, > Goclenius, a professor in Marburg, who supported the great efficacy of > the sympathetic salve discovered by Paracelsus, for the cure of every > wound, and Father Robert, a Jesuit, who condemned all these cures, as > he attributed them to the Devil. Van Helmont undertook to settle the > dispute. The reason he gave for interfering was that all such disputes > “affected Paracelsus as their discoverer and _himself as his disciple_” > (see “De Magnetica Vulner.,” and l. c., p. 705). > > [640] Demokritus said that, as from nothing, nothing could be produced, > so there was not anything that could ever be reduced _to nothing_. > > [641] J. Le Conte: “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical > Forces,” appendix. > > [642] The date is incorrect; it should be 1784. > > [643] Ecclesiastes i. 10. > > [644] Ibid., i. 6. > > [645] Ibid., i. 7. > > [646] Siljeström: “Minnesfest öfver Berzelius,” p. 79. > > [647] “Séance de l’Academie de Paris,” 13 Août, 1807. > > [648] Mollien: “Voyage dans l’interieur de l’Afrique,” tome ii., p. 210. > > [649] “The Popular Science Monthly,” May, 1876, p. 110. > > [650] Malte-Brun, pp. 372, 373; Herodotus. > > [651] “The Popular Science Monthly,” Dec., 1874, p. 252, New York. > > [652] The “Periplus of Hanno.” > > [653] The original was suspended in the temple of Saturn, at Carthage. > Falconer gave two dissertations on it, and agrees with Bougainville in > referring it to the sixth century before the Christian era. See Cory’s > “Ancient Fragments.” > > [654] Professor Jowett. > > [655] “On the Atlantic Island (from Marcellus) Ethiopic History.” > > [656] “Alchemy, or the Hermetic Philosophy.” > > [657] See “Revue Encyclopédique,” vol. xxxiii., p. 676. > > [658] “Bulletin de la Soc. Geograph,” vol. vi., pp. 209-220. > > [659] See “Revue Encyclopédique,” vols. xxxiii. and xxxiv., pp. 676-395. > > [660] Porphyry: “Epistola ad Anebo., ap. Euseb. Præp. Evangel,” v. 10; > Iamblichus: “De Mysteriis Ægypt.; “Porphyrii: “Epistola ad Anebonem > Ægyptium.” > > [661] “Porphyry,” says the “Classical Dictionary” of Lemprière, “was a > man of universal information, and, according to the testimony of the > ancients, he excelled his contemporaries in the knowledge of history, > mathematics, music, and _philosophy_.” > > [662] “On the Scientific Use of the Imagination.” > > [663] Epes Sargent. See his pamphlet, “Does Matter do it All?” > > [664] In his “Essay on Classification” (sect. xvii., pp. 97-99), > Louis Agassiz, the great zoölogist, remarks: “Most of the arguments > in favor of the immortality of man apply equally to the permanency > of this principle in other living beings. May I not add that a > future life in which man would be deprived of that great source of > enjoyment and intellectual and moral improvement, which results from > the contemplation of the harmonies of an organic world would involve > a lamentable loss? And may we not look to a spiritual concert of the > combined worlds and _all_ their inhabitants in the presence of their > creator as the highest conception of paradise?” > > [665] “Diog. in Vita.” > > [666] See the works of Robertus de Fluctibus; and the “Rosicrucians,” > by Hargrave Jennings. > > [667] Professor B. Stewart: “Conservation of Energy.” > > [668] Cabanis: “Histoire de la Medecine.” > > [669] “De Vatibus in Problemate,” sect. 21. > > [670] See Max Müller: “The Meaning of Nirvana.” > > [671] “The Lankâvatâra,” transl. by Burnouf, p. 514. > > [672] “Classical Dictionary.” > > [673] See Cabanis, “Histoire de la Medecine.” > > [674] “Le Lotus de la bonne Loi,” by E. Burnouf, translated from the > Sanscrit. > > [675] “Cosmos,” vol. iii., part i., p. 168. > > [676] “Lecture on the Vedas.” > > [677] “The Classical Journal,” vol. iv., pp. 107, 348. > > [678] See “Mosheim.” > > [679] “New Platonism and Alchemy.” > > [680] Origen: “Contra Celsum.” > > [681] “Fatti relativi al Mesmerismo,” pp. 88, 93, 1842. > > [682] “Leonard de Vair,” l. ii., ch. ii.; “La Magie au 19me Siècle,” p. > 332. > > [683] “The Tinnevelly Shanars,” p. 43. > > [684] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” chapter on “Vampirism.” > > [685] Maimonides: “Abodah Sarab,” 12 Absh, 11 Abth. > > [686] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste.” > > [687] Dr. Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” vol. iv., p. 104. > > [688] See “Hauts Phen.,” p. 199. > > [689] “Huetiana,” p. 81. > > [690] Dom Calmet: “Apparitions,” etc. Paris, 1751, vol. ii., p. 47; > “Hauts Phen. de la Magie,” 195. > > [691] “Hauts Phen.,” p. 196. > > [692] Ibid. > > [693] See the same sworn testimony in official documents: “De l’Inspir. > des Camis,” H. Blanc, 1859. Plon, Paris. > > [694] Dom Calmet: “Apparit.,” vol. ii., chap, xliv., p. 212. > > [695] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” vol. iv., p. 104. > > [696] “Sadducismus Triumphatus,” vol. ii., p. 70. > > [697] Görres: “Complete Works,” vol. iii., ch. vii., p. 132. > > [698] “Ashes to Ashes,” London: Daldy, Isbister & Co., 1875. > > [699] The author refers all those who may doubt such statements to G. > A. Walker’s “Gatherings from Graveyards,” pp. 84-193, 194, etc. > > [700] Horst: “Zauber Bibliothek,” vol. v., p. 52. > > [701] See Eliphas Levi: “La Science des Esprits.” > > [702] Henry Maudsley: “Body and Mind.” > > [703] Josiah Cooke, Jr.: “The New Chemistry.” > > [704] Henry Maudsley: “The Limits of Philosophical Inquiry,” p. 266. > > [705] “Scientific American,” August 12, 1868. > > [706] Le Conte: “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical > Forces.” > > [707] The wood-apple. > > [708] Incorrect; the Hindustani word for monkey is _rūkh-charhä_. > Probably _chokra_, a little native servant is meant. > > [709] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., pp. 306, 307. > > [710] Delrio: “Disquis. Magic,” pp. 34, 100. > > [711] Col. H. Yule: “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 308. > > [712] Edward Melton: “Engelsh Edelmans, Zeldzaame en Geden Kwaardige > Zee en Land Reizen, etc.,” p. 468. Amsterdam, 1702. > > [713] “Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangire,” pp. 99, 102. > > [714] J. Hughes Bennett: “Text Book of Physiology,” Lippincott’s > American Edition, pp. 37-50. > > [715] “Curiosités Inouïes.” > > [716] “Thoughts on the Birth and Generation of Things.” > > [717] C. Crowe: “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 111. > > [718] Pliny: “Hist. Nat.,” vii., c. 52; and Plutarch: “Discourse > concerning Socrates’ Dæmon,” 22. > > [719] “De Res. Var.,” v. iii., i., viii., c. 43. Plutarch: “Discourse > concerning Socrates’ Dæmon,” 22. > > [720] Nasse: “Zeitschrift fur Psychische Aerzte,” 1820. > > [721] Osborne: “Camp and Court of Rundjit Singh;” Braid: “On France.” > > [722] Mrs. Catherine Crowe, in her “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 118, > gives us the particulars of a similar burial of a fakir, in the > presence of General Ventura, together with the Maharajah, and many of > his Sirdars. The political agent at Loodhiana was “present when he was > disinterred, ten months after he had been buried.” The coffin, or box, > containing the fakir “being buried in a vault, the earth was thrown > over it and trod down, after which a crop of barley was sown on the > spot, and sentries placed to watch it. The Maharajah, however, was so > skeptical that in spite of all these precautions, he had him, twice in > the ten months, dug up and examined, and each time he was found to be > _exactly in the same state_ as when they had shut him up.” > > [723] Todd: Appendix to “Occult Science,” vol. i. > > [724] “A Cornel. Cels.,” lib. ii., cap. vi. > > [725] “Hist. Nat.,” lib. vii., cap. lii. > > [726] “Morning Herald,” July 21, 1836. > > [727] “La Science des Esprits.” > > [728] “Vit. Apollon. Tyan.,” lib. iv., ch. xvi. > > [729] Salverte: “Sciences Occultes,” vol. ii. > > [730] “La Science des Esprits.” > > [731] It would be beneficial to humanity were our modern physicians > possessed of the same inestimable faculty; for then we would have on > record less horrid deaths _after_ inhumation. Mrs. Catherine Crowe, > in the “Night-Side of Nature,” records in the chapter on “Cases > of Trances” _five_ such cases, in England alone, and during the > present century. Among them is Dr. Walker of Dublin and a Mr. S——, > whose stepmother was accused of poisoning him, and who, upon being > disinterred, was found lying on his face. > > [732] A. Wilder: “Neo-platonism and Alchemy.” > > [733] Iamblichus was the founder of the Neo-platonic theurgy. > > [734] See the “Sketch of the Eclectic Philosophy of the Alexandrian > School.” > > [735] See “Medium and Daybreak,” July 7, 1876, p. 428. > > [736] In Volume II., we will distinctly prove that the _Old Testament_ > mentions the worship of more than one god by the Israelites. The > El-Shadi of Abraham and Jacob was not the Jehovah of Moses, or the > Lord God worshipped by them for forty years in the wilderness. And the > God of Hosts of Amos is not, if we are to believe his own words, the > Mosaic God, the Sinaïtic deity, for this is what we read: “I hate, I > despise your feast-days ... your meat-offerings, I will not accept > them.... Have ye offered unto _me_ sacrifices and offerings in the > wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?... No, but _ye have borne > the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun_ (Saturn), your images, the > star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.... Therefore, will I > cause you to go into captivity ... saith the _Lord, whose name is The > God of hosts_” (Amos v. 21-27). > > [737] Chapter xviii. > > [738] This word “_up_” from the spirit of a prophet whose abode ought > certainly to be in heaven and who therefore ought to have said “to > bring me down,” is very suggestive in itself to a Christian, who > locates paradise and hell at two opposite points. > > [739] Ezekiel iii. 12-14. > > [740] William Howitt: “History of the Supernatural,” vol. ii., ch. i. > > [741] Lib. i., Sat. 8. > > [742] Porphyry: “Of Sacrifices.” > > [743] Genesis xviii. i. > > [744] Daniel x. 8. > > [745] 1 Samuel, x. 6. > > [746] Gospel according to John vii. 20. > > [747] Our informant, who was an eye-witness, is Mr. N—— ff of St. > Petersburg, who was attached to the flag-ship _Almaz_, if we are not > mistaken. > > [748] “What forces were in operation to cause this oscillation of the > newspaper?” asks J. W. Phelps, who quotes the case—“These were the > rapid upward motion of heated air, the downward motion of cold air, > the translatory motion of the surface breeze, and the circular motion > of the whirlwind. But how could these combine so as to produce the > oscillation?” (Lecture on “Force Electrically Explained.”) > > [749] “Revue des Deux Mondes,” p. 414, 1858. > > [750] “Conservation of Energy,” p. 140. > > [751] Eugenius Philalethes. > > [752] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 215. > > [753] See “Sage’s Dictionnaire des Tissus,” vol. ii., pp. 1-12. > > [754] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 230. > > [755] “Alchemy, or the Hermetic Philosophy,” p. 25. > > [756] See Plutarch: “Symposiacs,” viii. 2. “Diogenianas began and said: > ‘Let us admit Plato to the conference and inquire upon what account > he says—supposing it to be his sentence—that _God always plays the > geometer_.‘ I said: ‘This sentence was not plainly set down in any of > his books; yet there are good arguments that it is his, and it is very > much like his expression.’ Tyndares presently subjoined: ‘He praises > geometry as a science that takes off men from sensible objects, and > makes them apply themselves to the intelligible and Eternal Nature—the > contemplation of which is the end of philosophy, as a view of the > mysteries of initiation into holy rites.’” > > [757] Prof. Ed. L. Youmans: “Descriptive Chemistry.” > > [758] In ancient nations the Deity was a trine supplemented by a > goddess—the _arba-Ih_, or fourfold God. > > [759] Josiah Cooke: “The New Chemistry.” > > [760] Prof. Sterry Hunt’s theory of metalliferous deposits contradicts > this; but is it right? > > [761] Peisse: “La Médecine et les Médecins,” vol. i., pp. 59, 283. > > [762] “The Conservation of Energy.” > > [763] Ibid., p. 136. > > [764] Extracts from Robertus di Fluctibus in “The Rosicrucians.” > > [765] “Philopseud.” > > [766] Diog. Laert. in “Demokrit. Vitæ.” > > [767] “Satyric. Vitrus D. Architect,” lib. ix., cap. iii. > > [768] Pliny: “Hist. Nat.” > > [769] “Conflict between Religion and Science.” > > [770] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., pp. 133-135. > > [771] “Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” > > [772] See vol. ii., chap. 8. > > [773] J. M. Peebles: “Around the World.“ > > [774] John Fiske: ” The North American Review,” art. The Laws of > History, July 1869. > > [775] J. M. Peebles: “Around the World.” > > [776] Savary: “Letters on Egypt,” vol. ii., p. 67. London, 1786. > > [777] John Fiske: “North American Review,” art. The Laws of History, > July, 1869. > > [778] Sir G. C. Lewis: “Astronomy of the Ancients.” > > [779] J. Fiske: “North American Review,” art. The Laws of History. > > [780] We shall attempt to demonstrate in Vol. II., chapter viii., that > the ancient Æthiopians were never a Hamitic race. > > [781] Servius: “Virgil,” Eclog. vi., v. 42. > > [782] Ovid: “Fast.,” lib. iii., v. 285-346. > > [783] “Titus Livius,” lib. i., cap. xxxi. > > [784] Pliny: “Hist. Nat.,” lib. ii., cap. liii. > > [785] Lucius: “Piso;” Pliny: “Hist. Nat.,” lib. xxviii., c. ii. > > [786] “Columella,” lib. x., vers. 346, etc. > > [787] See “Notice sur les Travaux de l’Academie du Gard,” part i., pp. > 304-314, by la Boissière. > > [788] “Bell. Jud. adv. Roman,” lib. v., cap. xiv. > > [789] “Magasin Scientifique de Goëthingen,” 3me. année, 5me. cahier. > > [790] “Ammian. Marcel.,” lib. xxiii., cap. vi. > > [791] “Oupnek-hat,” Brahman xi. > > [792] “Ktesias, in India ap. Photum.,” Bibl. Cod. lxxii. > > [793] Buffon: “Histoire Naturelle des Mineraux,” 6me Mem., art. ii. > > [794] “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. iv., p. 462. > > [795] “Archæologia,” vol. xv., p. 320. > > [796] Lib. ii., c. 50. > > [797] Galen: “De Composit. Medec.,” lib. v. > > [798] “Ancient Fragments:” see chapter on the Early Kings of Egypt. > > [799] “Pliny,” lib. vii., c. 56. > > [800] Jablonski: “Pantheon Ægypti.,” ii., Proleg. 10. > > [801] Cicero: “De Divinatione.” > > [802] “Telegraphic Journal,” art. Scientific Prophecy. > > [803] Professor Albrecht Müller: “The First Traces of Man in Europe.” > Says the author: “And this bronze age reaches to _and overlaps_ the > beginning of the historic period in some countries, and so includes the > great epochs of the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires, _B.C. circa_ 1500, > and the earlier eras of the next succeeding age of iron.” > > [804] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” chap. i. > > [805] Psellus: “Chaldean Oracles,” 4, cxliv. > > [806] Psellus: “Zoroast. Oracles,” 4. > > [807] Proctor: “Saturn and the Sabbath of the Jews,” p. 309. > > [808] Dioscorides: “Περι Ὑλης Ιατρικῆς,” lib. v., cap. clviii. > > [809] Pliny: “Histoire Naturelle,” lib. xxxviii., cap. vii. > > [810] Le P. Paulin de St. Barthelemi: “Voyage aux Indes Orientales,” > vol. i., p. 358. > > [811] Max Müller, Professor Wilson, and H. J. Bushby, with several > other Sanscrit students, prove that “Oriental scholars, both native > and European, have shown that the rite of widow-burning was not > only unsanctionable but imperatively forbidden by the earliest and > most authoritative Hindu Scriptures” (“Widow-burning,” p. 21). See > Max Müller’s “Comparative Mythology.” “Professor Wilson,” says Max > Müller, “was the first to point out the falsification of the text and > the change of ‘_yonim agre_’ into ‘_yonim agne_’ (womb of fire).... > According to the hymns of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ and the Vaidic ceremonial > contained in the ‘Grihya-Sûtras,’ the wife accompanies the corpse of > the husband to the funeral pile, but she is there addressed with a > verse taken from the ‘Rig-Veda,’ and ordered to leave her husband, and > to return to the world of the living” (“Comparative Mythology,” p. 35). > > [812] Hence the story that Moses fabricated there the serpent or seraph > of brass which the Israelites worshipped till the reign of Hezekiah. > > [813] A. Gell: “Noet. Attic.,” lib. x., cap. xiii. > > [814] Such is _not_ our opinion. They were probably built by the > Atlantians. > > [815] “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan,” > vol. ii., p. 457. > > [816] Max Müller: “Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. ii., p. 269. > > [817] Max Müller: “Popol-Vuh,” p. 327. > > [818] Why not to the sacrifices of men in ancient worship? > > [819] “Odyssey,” xii. 71. > > [820] “Chips from a German Workshop,” p. 268. > > [821] Villemarque, Member of the Institute. Vol. lx.; “Collect et > Nouvelle Serie,” 24, p. 570, 1863; “Poesie des Cloitres Celtiques.” > > [822] “Archæol.,” vol. xxv., p. 220. London. > > [823] “Archæol.,” vol. xxv., p. 292. London. > > [824] Brasseur de Bourbourg: “Cartas,” p. 52. > > [825] See Stephens: “Travels in Central America,” etc. > > [826] “Cartas,” 53, 7-62. > > [827] “Die Phönizier,” 70. > > [828] See Sanchoniaton in “Eusebius,” Pr. Ev. 36; Genesis xiv. > > [829] “Archæological Society of the Antiquaries of London,” vol. xxv., > p. 220. > > [830] “Cartas,” 51. > > [831] “Hauts Phénomenes de la Magie,” 50. > > [832] Genesis xlix. > > [833] Dunlap, in his introduction to “SOD, the Mysteries of Adonis,” > explains the word “Sod,” as _Arcanum_; religious mystery on the > authority of Shindler’s “Penteglott” (1201). “The SECRET of the Lord is > with them that fear Him,” says Psalm xxv. 14. This is a mistranslation > of the Christians, for it ought to read “_Sod_ Ihoh (the mysteries of > Iohoh) are for _those who fear Him_” (Dunlap: “Mysteries of Adonis,” > xi.). “Al (El) is terrible in the great Sod of the _Kedeshim_ (the > priests, the holy, the _Initiated_), Psalm lxxxix. 7” (_Ibid._). > > [834] “The members of the _priest-colleges_ were called _Sodales_,” > says Freund’s “Latin Lexicon” (iv. 448). “SODALITIES were constituted > in the Idæan Mysteries of the MIGHTY MOTHER,” writes Cicero (“De > Senectute,” 13); Dunlap: “Mysteries of Adonis.” > > [835] See Wilkinson: “Ancient Egyptians,” vol. v., p. 65. > > [836] Brasseur de Bourbourg: “Mexique,” pp. 135-574. > > [837] “Catholic World,” N. Y., January, 1877: Article Nagualism, > Voodooism, etc. > > [838] In “Hesiod,” Zeus creates his _third_ race of men out of > ash-trees. In “Popol-Vuh,” we are told the _third_ race of men is > created out of the tree “tzite,” and women are made from the marrow of > a reed which was called “sibac.” This also is a strange coincidence. > > [839] “Popol-Vuh,” reviewed by Max Müller. > > [840] Frank Vincent, Jun.: “The Land of the White Elephant,” p. 209. > > [841] The Hanoumā is over three feet tall, and black as a coal. The > _Ramayana_, giving the biography of this sacred monkey, relates that > Hanoumā was formerly a powerful chieftain, who being the greatest > friend of Rama, helped him to find his wife, Sithâ, who had been > carried off to Ceylon by Râvana, the mighty king of the giants. After > numerous adventures Hanoumā was caught by the latter, while visiting > the city of the giant as Rama’s spy. For this crime Râvana had the poor > Hanoumā’s tail oiled and set on fire, and it was in extinguishing > it that the monkey-god became so black in the face that neither > himself nor his posterity could ever get rid of the color. If we have > to believe Hindu legends this same Hanoumā was the _progenitor_ of > the Europeans; a tradition which, though strictly Darwinian, hence, > scientific, is by no means flattering to us. The legend states that for > services rendered, Rama, the hero and demi-god, gave in marriage to the > monkey-warriors of his army the daughters of the giants of Ceylon—the > Bâkshasas—and granted them, moreover, as a dowry, all western parts of > the world. Repairing thence, the monkeys and their giant-wives lived > happily and had a number of descendants. The latter are the present > Europeans. Dravidian words are found in Western Europe, indicating > that there was an original unity of race and language between the > populations. May it not be a hint that the traditions are akin, of > elfin and kobold races in Europe, and monkeys, actually cognate with > them in Hindustan? > > [842] “Incidents of Travels in Central America, etc.,” vol. i., p. 105. > > [843] They stand no more, for the obelisk alone was removed to Paris. > > [844] See “The Land of the White Elephant,” p. 221. > > [845] The President of the Royal Geographical Society of Berlin. > > [846] “The Land of the White Elephant,” p. 215. > > [847] The Phœnician Dido is the feminine of David דוד , דידו. Under > the name of Astartè, she led the Phœnician colonies, and her image was > on the prow of their ships. But David and Saul are names belonging to > Afghanistan also. > > [848] (Prof. A. Wilder.) This archæologist says: “I regard the > Æthiopian, Cushite and Hamitic races as the building and artistic race > who worshipped Baal (Siva), or Bel—made temples, grottos, pyramids, and > used a language of peculiar type. Rawlinson derives that language from > the _Turanians_ in Hindustan.” > > [849] Prof. A. Wilder among others. > > [850] See Martin Haug’s translation: “The Aytareya Brahmanam.“ > > [851] Judges xvii.-xviii., etc. > > [852] The Zendic _H_ is _S_ in India. Thus Hapta is Sapta; _Hindu_ is > _Sindhaya_. (A. Wilder.) ” ... the _S_ continually softens to _H_ from > Greece to Calcutta, from the Caucasus to Egypt,” says Dunlap. Therefore > the letters _K_, _H_, and _S_ are interchangeable. > > [853] Guignant: “Op. cit.,” vol. i., p. 167. > > [854] “Incidents of Travel in Central America, etc.” > > [855] See Paul to the Galatians, iv. 24, and Gospel according to > Matthew, xiii. 10-15. > > [856] A. Wilder says that “Gan-duniyas,” is a name of Babylonia. > > [857] The appropriate definition of the name “Turanian” is, any ethnic > family that ethnologists know nothing about. > > [858] See Berosus and Sanchoniathon: Cory’s “Ancient Fragments:” Movers > and others. > > [859] Movers, 86. > > [860] Ibid. > > [861] Sanchon.: in Cory’s “Fragments,” p. 14. > > [862] In an old Brahmanical book called the “Prophecies,” by > Ramatsariar, as well as in the Southern MSS. in the legend of Christna, > the latter gives nearly word for word the first two chapters of > Genesis. He recounts the creation of man—whom he calls _Adima_, in > Sanscrit, the ‘first man’—and the first woman is called _Heva_, that > which completes life. According to Louis Jacolliot (“La Bible dans > l’Inde”), Christna existed, and his legend was written, over 3,000 > years B. C. > > [863] _Adah_ in Hebrew is גן־עדן, and Eden, אלהים. The first is a > woman’s name; the second the designation of a country. They are closely > related to each other; but hardly to Adam and Akkad—כתנות צור, which > are spelled with aleph. > > [864] The two words answer to the terms, _Macroprosopos_, or > macrocosm—the absolute and boundless, and the _Microprosopos_ of > the “Kabala,” the “short face,” or the microcosm—the finite and > conditioned. It is not translated; nor is it likely to be. The > Thibetean monks say that it is the real “Sutrâs.” Some Buddhists > believe that Buddha was, in a previous existence, Kapila himself. We > do not see how several Sanscrit scholars can entertain the idea that > Kapila was an atheist, while every legend shows him the most ascetic > mystic, the founder of the sect of the Yogis. > > [865] The “Brahmanas” were translated by Dr. Haug; see his “Aitareya > Brâhmanam.” > > [866] The “Stan-gyour” is full of rules of magic, the study of occult > powers, and their acquisition, charms, incantations, etc.; and is as > little understood by its lay-interpreters as the Jewish “Bible” is by > our clergy, or the “Kabala” by the European Rabbis. > > [867] “Aitareya Brahmana,” Lecture by Max Müller. > > [868] Ibid., “Buddhist Pilgrims.” > > [869] “Progress of Religious Ideas through Successive Ages,” vol. i., > p. 17. > > [870] “La Bible dans l’Inde.” > > [871] “La Bible dans l’Inde.” > > [872] “Presbyterian Banner,” December 20, 1876. > > [873] “La Bible dans l’Inde.” > > [874] See Max Müller’s “Lecture on the Vedas.” > > [875] See Roth’s “The Burial in India;” Max Müller’s “Comparative > Mythology” (Lecture); Wilson’s article, “The Supposed Vaidic Authority > for the Burning of Hindu Widows,” etc. > > [876] Bunsen gives as the first year of Menes, 3645; Manetho as 3892 > B.C. “Eqypt’s Place,” etc., vol. v., 34; Key. > > [877] Louis Jacolliot, in “The Bible in India,” affirms the same. > > [878] _Purana_ means ancient and sacred history or tradition. See > Loiseleur Des-longchamp’s translations of “Manu;” also L. Jacolliot’s > “La Genèse dans l’Humanité.” > > [879] There are archæologists, who, like Mr. James Fergusson, deny > the great antiquity of even one single monument in India. In his > work, “Illustrations of the Rock-Cut Temples of India,” the author > ventures to express the very extraordinary opinion that “Egypt had > ceased to be a nation before the earliest of the cave-temples of India > was excavated.” In short, he does not admit the existence of any > cave anterior to the reign of Asoka, and seems willing to prove that > most of these rock-cut temples were executed from the time of that > pious Buddhist king, till the destruction of the Andhra dynasty of > Maghada, in the beginning of the fifth century. We believe such a claim > perfectly arbitrary. Further discoveries are sure to show how erroneous > and unwarranted it was. > > [880] It is a strange coincidence that when first discovered, America > was found to bear among some native tribes the name of Atlanta. > > [881] Baldwin: “Prehistoric Nations,” p. 179. > > [882] Alberico Vespuzio, the son of Anastasio Vespuzio or Vespuchy, is > now gravely doubted in regard to the naming of the New World. Indeed > the name is said to have occurred in a work written several centuries > before. A. Wilder (Notes). > > [883] See Thomas Belt: “The Naturalists in Nicaragua.” London, 1873. > > [884] Torfæus: “Historia Vinlandiæ Antiquæ.” > > [885] 2 Kings, xxii. 14; 2 Chronicles, xxxiv. 22. > > [886] As we are going to press with this chapter, we have received > from Paris, through the kindness of the Honorable John L. O’Sullivan, > the complete works of Louis Jacolliot in twenty-one volumes. They are > chiefly upon India and its old traditions, philosophy, and religion. > This indefatigable writer has collected a world of information from > various sources, mostly authentic. While we do not accept his personal > views on many points, still we freely acknowledge the extreme value of > his copious translations from the Indian sacred books. The more so, > since we find them corroborating in every respect the assertions we > have made. Among other instances is this matter of the submergence of > continents in prehistoric days. > > In his “Histoire des Vierges: Les Peuples et les Continents Disparus,” > he says: “One of the most ancient legends of India, preserved in the > temples by oral and written tradition, relates that several hundred > thousand years ago there existed in the Pacific Ocean, an immense > continent which was destroyed by geological upheaval, and the fragments > of which must be sought in Madagascar, Ceylon, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, > and the principal isles of Polynesia. > > “The high plateaux of Hindustan and Asia, according to this hypothesis, > would only have been represented in those distant epochs by great > islands contiguous to the central continent.... According to the > Brahmans this country had attained a high civilization, and the > peninsula of Hindustan, enlarged by the displacement of the waters, at > the time of the grand cataclysm, has but continued the chain of the > primitive traditions born in this place. These traditions give the name > of _Rutas_ to the peoples which inhabited this immense equinoctial > continent, and from their speech _was derived the Sanscrit_.” (We will > have something to say of this language in our second volume.) > > “The Indo-Hellenic tradition, preserved by the most intelligent > population which emigrated from the plains of India, equally relates > the existence of a continent and a people to which it gives the name of > Atlantis and Atlantides, and which it locates in the Atlantic in the > northern portion of the Tropics. > > “Apart from the fact that the supposition of an ancient continent in > those latitudes, the vestiges of which may be found in the volcanic > islands and mountainous surface of the Azores, the Canaries and Cape > Verd, is not devoid of geographical probability, the Greeks, who, > moreover, never dared to pass beyond the pillars of Hercules, on > account of their dread of the mysterious ocean, appeared too late > in antiquity for the stories preserved by Plato to be anything else > than an echo of the Indian legend. Moreover, when we cast a look on a > planisphere, at the sight of the islands and islets strewn from the > Malayan Archipelago to Polynesia, from the straits of Sund to Easter > Island, it is impossible, upon the hypothesis of continents preceding > those which we inhabit, not to place there the most important of all. > > “A religious belief, common to Malacca and Polynesia, that is to say > to the two opposite extremes of the Oceanic world, affirms ‘that all > these islands once formed two immense countries, inhabited by yellow > men and black men, always at war; and that the gods, wearied with their > quarrels, having charged Ocean to pacify them, the latter swallowed up > the two continents, and since, it had been impossible to make him give > up his captives. Alone, the mountain-peaks and high plateaux escaped > the flood, by the power of the gods, who perceived too late the mistake > they had committed.’ > > “Whatever there may be in these traditions, and whatever may have been > the place where a civilization more ancient than that of Rome, of > Greece, of Egypt, and of India was developed, it is certain that this > civilization did exist, and that it is highly important for science > to recover its traces, however feeble and fugitive they may be” (pp. > 13-15). > > This last tradition, translated by Louis Jacolliot from the Sanscrit > manuscripts, corroborates the one we have given from the “Records of > the Secret Doctrine.” The war mentioned between the yellow and the > black men, relates to a struggle between the “sons of God” and the > “sons of giants,” or the inhabitants and magicians of the Atlantis. > > The final conclusion of M. Jacolliot, who visited personally all the > islands of Polynesia, and devoted years to the study of the religion, > language, and traditions of nearly all the peoples, is as follows: > > “As to the Polynesian continent which disappeared at the time of the > final geological cataclysms, its existence rests on such proofs that to > be logical we can doubt no longer. > > “The three summits of this continent, Sandwich Islands, New Zealand, > Easter Island, are distant from each other from fifteen to eighteen > hundred leagues, and the groups of intermediate islands, Viti, Samoa, > Tonga, Foutouna, Ouvea, Marquesas, Tahiti, Poumouton, Gambiers, are > themselves distant from these extreme points from seven or eight > hundred to one thousand leagues. > > “All navigators agree in saying that the extreme and the central groups > could never have communicated in view of their actual geographical > position, and with the insufficient means they had at hand. It is > physically impossible to cross such distances in a pirogue ... without > a compass, and travel months without provisions. > > “On the other hand, the aborigines of the Sandwich Islands, of Viti, > of New Zealand, of the central groups, of Samoa, Tahiti, etc., _had > never known each other, had never heard of each other_ before the > arrival of the Europeans. _And yet, each of these people maintained > that their island had at one time formed a part of an immense stretch > of land which extended toward the West, on the side of Asia._ And all, > brought together, were found to speak the same language, to have the > same usages, the same customs, the same religious belief. And all to > the question, ‘Where is the cradle of your race?’ for sole response, > _extended their hand toward the setting sun_” (Ibid., p. 308). > > [887] These “magic mirrors,” generally black, are another proof of > the universality of an identical belief. In India these mirrors are > prepared in the province of Agra and are also fabricated in Thibet and > China. And we find them in Ancient Egypt, from whence, according to the > native historian quoted by Brasseur de Bourbourg, the ancestors of the > Quichès brought them to Mexico; the Peruvian sun-worshippers also used > it. When the Spaniards had landed, says the historian, the King of the > Quichès, ordered his priests to consult the mirror, in order to learn > the fate of his kingdom. “The _demon_ reflected the present and the > future as in a mirror,” he adds (De Bourbourg: “Mexique,” p. 184). > > [888] Pay’quina, or _Payaquina_, so called because its waves used to > drift particles of gold from the Brazil. We found a few specks of > genuine metal in a handful of sand that we brought back to Europe. > > [889] The regions somewhere about _Udyana_ and _Kashmere_, as the > translator and editor of Marco Polo (Colonel Yule), believes. Vol. i., > p. 173. > > [890] “Voyage des Pèlerins Bouddhistes,” vol. 1.; “Histoire de la Vie > de Hiouen-Thsang,” etc., traduit du Chinois en français, par Stanislas > Julien. > > [891] Lao-tsi, the Chinese philosopher. > > [892] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 318. See also, in this > connection, the experiments of Mr. Crookes, described in chapter vi. of > this work. > > [893] Max Müller: “Buddhist Pilgrims.” > > [894] Berlin Academy of Sciences, 1846. > > [895] Colonel Yule makes a remark in relation to the above Chinese > mysticism which for its noble fairness we quote most willingly. “In > 1871,” he says, “I saw in Bond street an exhibition of the (so-called) > ‘spirit’ drawings, _i.e._, drawings executed by a ‘medium’ under > extraneous and invisible guidance. A number of these extraordinary > productions (for extraordinary they were undoubtedly) professed to > represent the ‘Spiritual Flowers’ of such and such persons; and the > explanation of these as presented in the catalogue was in substance > exactly that given in the text. It is highly improbable that the > artist had any cognizance of Schott’s Essays, and the coincidence was > certainly very striking” (“The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. > 444). > > [896] Schott: “Essay on Buddhism,” p. 103. > > [897] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., Preface to the second > edition, p. viii. > > [898] Ibid., vol. i., p. 203. > > [899] “Visdelon,” p. 130. > > [900] “Pliny,” vii., 2. > > [901] “Philostratus,” book ii., chap. iv. > > [902] Ibid., book iv., p. 382; “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. > 206. > > [903] There are pious critics who deny the world the same right to > judge the “Bible” on the testimony of deductive logic as “any other > book.” Even exact science must bow to this decree. In the concluding > paragraph of an article devoted to a terrible onslaught on Baron > Bunsen’s “Chronology,” which _does not quite agree_ with the “Bible,” > a writer exclaims, “the subject we have proposed to ourselves is > completed.... We have endeavored to meet Chevalier Bunsen’s charges > against the inspiration of the “Bible” on its own ground.... An > inspired book ... never can, as an expression of its own teaching, or > as a part of its own record, bear witness to any untrue or ignorant > statement of fact, whether in history or doctrine. _If it be untrue > in its witness of one, who shall trust its truth in the witness of > the other_?” (“The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record,” > edited by the Rev. H. Burgess, Oct., 1859, p. 70.) > > [904] Remusat: “Histoire du Khotan,” p. 74; “Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. > 206. > > [905] Like the _Psylli_, or serpent-charmers of Libya, whose gift is > hereditary. > > [906] “Ser Marco Polo,” vol. ii., p. 321. > > [907] “The Spiritualist.” London, Nov. 10, 1876. > > [908] Read any of the papers, of the summer and autumn of 1876. > > [909] Tite-Livy, v. déc. i.,—Val. Max., 1, cap. vii. > > [910] See “Les Hauts Phénomenes de la Magie;” “La Magie au XIXme > Siècle;” “Dieu et les Dieux,” etc. > > [911] “De Idol. Vanit.,” lib. i., p. 452. > > [912] These, after their bodily death, unable to soar higher, > attached to terrestrial regions, delight in the society of the kind > of elementals which by their affinity with vice attract them the > most. They identify themselves with these to such a degree that they > very soon lose sight of their own identity, and become a part of the > elementals, the help of which they need to communicate with mortals. > But as the nature-spirits are _not_ immortal, so the human elementary > who have lost their divine guide—spirit—can last no longer than the > essence of the elements which compose their astral bodies holds > together. > > [913] L. Jacolliot: “Voyage au Pays des Perles.” > > [914] “Ultimate Deductions of Science; The Earth Motionless.” A lecture > demonstrating that our globe does neither turn about its own axis nor > around the sun; delivered in Berlin by Doctor Shoëpfer. Seventh Edition. > > [915] Champ.-Figeac: “Egypte,” p. 143. > > [916] Ibid., p. 119. > > [917] Ibid., p. 2. > > [918] Ibid., p. 11. > > INDEX. > > Abarbanel, his explanation of the sign of the coming of the Messiah, > ii. 256 > > Abracadabra, diabolical, evoked anew, ii. 4 > > Abraham, his history, ii. 217; > belongs to the universal mythology, ii. 216; > _Zeruan_, _ib._; > Isaac, and Judah, from Brahma, Ikshwaka and Yada, ii. 488; > and his sons, the story an allegory, ii. 493 > > Abraiaman, or charmers of fishes and wild beasts in Ceylon, i. 606 > > Absolution and penance authorized in the Church of England, ii. 544 > > Absorbed, a state of intimate union, ii. 117 > > Abuses of magic denounced by the ancients, ii. 97, 99 > > Abydos, a pre-Menite dynasty, ii. 361 > > Academicians, French, i. 60; > reject theurgical magic, i. 281 > > Academy, French, indignant at the charge of Satanism, i. 101; > rejected mesmerism, i. 165, 171; > Committee of 1784, i. 171; > Committee of 1826, i. 173 > > Acari, produced by chemical experiments, i. 465 > > Accuser of Souls at the judgment, ii. 487 > > Acher (Paul) in the garden of delights, ii. 119; > “made depredations,” _ib._ > > Actions guided by spiritual beings, i. 366 > > Ad, its meaning, i. 579 > > Adah, her sons from the Euxine to Kashmere, i. 579 > > Ad-Am, only-begotten, i. 579 > > Adam (ανθροπως), Divine essence emanating from, > i. 1; > the primitive man, i. 2; > the second, i. 297; > the same as the “gods,” or Elohim, i. 299; > of dust, i. 302; > Kadmon, androgynous, i. 297; > the first man evolved, _ib._; > same as the Logos, Prometheus, Pimander, Hermes, and Herakles, i. > 298; > of Eden, eat without initiation of the Tree of Knowledge or secret > doctrine, i. 575; > invested with the _chitun_, or coat of skin, _ib._; > the fall, not personal transgression, but a law of dual evolution, > ii. 277; > conducted from Hell, ii. 517; > same as Tamuz, Adonis, and Helios, _ib._; > sends Seth on an errand to paradise, ii. 520; > Kadmon, ii. 36; > Kadmon, i. 93; > Kadmon, the first race of men his emanations, ii. 276; > Primus, the Microprosopus, ii. 452 > > Adamic Earth, i. 51 > > Adamite, the third race, produced by two races, i. 305 > > Adanari, the Hindu goddess, ii. 451, 453 > > Adar-gat, Aster’t, etc., the _Magna Mater_, i. 579 > > Adept, the first self-made, ii. 317; > of the highest order, may live indefinitely, ii. 563; > of the seventh rite, ii. 564 > > Adepts few, i. 17; > in Paris and elsewhere ii. 403; > “travellers,” _ib._ > > Adhima and Heva, created by Siva, and ancestors of the present race, > i. 590 > > A’di Buddha, the Unknown, ii. 156; > the father of the Yezidis, ii. 571 > > Adima and Heva, in the prophecies of Ramatsariar, i. 579 > > Adonai or Adamites, i. 303 > > Adonim, i. 301 > > Adonis, his rites celebrated in the grotto at Bethlehem, ii. 139 > > Adonis-worship, at the Jordan, ii. 181 > > Adrian supposed the Christians to worship Serapis, ii. 336 > > Æbel-Zivo, the Metatron, or Anointed spirit, ii. 154; ii. 236, 247; > the same as the Angel Gabriel, ii. 247 > > Æneas drives away ghosts with his sword, i. 362, 363 > > Æons, or genii, i. 300 > > Aërolites, used in the Mysteries, i. 282; > in the tower of Belos, ii. 331; > used to develop prophetic power, _ib._ > > Æther, i. 56; > in that form the Deity pervading all, i. 129; > the primordial chaos, i. 134; > the spirit of cosmic matter, i. 156; > deified, i. 158; > source whence all things come and whither they will return, i. 189; > the fifth element, i. 342; > a medium between this world and the other, _ib._; > the Breath of the Father, the Holy Ghost, ii. 50 > > Æthiopia, east of Babylonia, ii. 434 > > Æthiopians from the Indus, who settled near Egypt, probably Jews, i. > 567; > originally an Indian race, ii. 437; > law of inheritance by the mother, _ib._ > > Affinity of soul for body, i. 344; > acknowledged between the _Syllabus_ and the _Koran_, ii. 82 > > Afrasiah, the King of Assyria, i. 575 > > Africa, phantoms appearing in the desert, i. 604 > > Afrits, i. 141; > nature-spirits, Shedim, demons, i. 313; > studying antediluvian literature, ii. 29 > > Agassiz, Prof. L., unfairness of, i. 63; > his argument in favor of the immortality of all orders of living > beings, i. 420 > > Agathodaimon and Kakothodaimon, i. 133 > > Agathadæmon, the serpent on a pole, ii. 512 > > Age of paper, i. 535 > > Aged of the aged, ii. 244 > > Ages, golden, silver, copper and iron, no fiction, i. 34; > or Aions, ii. 144 > > Agni, the sun-god and fire-god, i. 270 > > Agrippa, Cornelius, i. 167, 200; > his remarks on the marvellous power of the human soul, i. 280 > > Ahab and his sons encouraged by the prophets, ii. 525 > > Ahaz, his family deposed, ii. 440 > > Ahijah the prophet instigates Jeroboam to revolt against Solomon, ii. > 439 > > Ahriman, his contest with Ormazd, ii. 237; > to be purified in the fiery lake, ii. 238 > > Aij-Taïon, the Supreme God of the Yakuts of Siberia, ii. 568 > > Ain-Soph, ii. 210 > > Ajunta, Buddhistic caverns of, i. 349 > > Akâsa, or life-principle, i. 113; > known to Hindu magicians, _ib._; > same as Archæus, i. 125; > a designation of astral and celestial lights combined, forming > the _anima mundi_, and constituting the soul and spirit of man, > i. 139; > the will, i. 144 > > Ak-Ad or Akkad, meaning suggested, i. 579 > > Akkadians, introduced the worship of Bel or Baal, i. 263; > progenitors and Aryan instructors of the Chaldeans, i. 576; > never a Turanian tribe, _ib._; > a tribe of Hindus, _ib._; > from Armenia, perhaps from Ceylon, i. 578; > invented by Lenormant, ii. 423 > > Akiba in the garden of delights, ii. 119 > > Aksakof, i. 41, 46; protests against the decision of Prof. > Mendeleyeff and commission adverse to mediumism, i. 118 > > Alba petra, or white stone of initiation, ii. 351 > > Alberico and not Amerigo, the name of Vespucius or Vespuzio, i. 591 > > Albertus Magnus, ii. 20 > > Albigenses, descendants of the Gnostics, ii. 502 > > Albumazar on the identity of the myths, ii. 489 > > Alchemical principles, i. 191 > > Alchemists, i. 66, 205 > > Alchemy, universally studied, i. 502; > old as tradition, i. 503; > books destroyed by Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, _ib._ > > Alchemy and magic prevalent among the clergy, ii. 57 > > Aleim or Eloim, gods or powers, also priests, i. 575 > > Alexander of Macedonia, his expedition into India doubtful, ii. 429 > > Alexandrian library, the most precious rolls preserved, ii. 27; > learned Copts do not believe it destroyed, ii. 28; > obtained from the Asiatics, _ib._; > school, derived the soul from the ether or world-soul, i. 316. > > Algebra, i. 536 > > Alkahest, i. 50; > the universal solvent clear water, i. 133; > overlooked by the French Academy, i. 165; > explained by Van Helmont and Paracelsus, i. 191 > > Allegory, becomes sacred history, ii. 406; > reserved for the inner sanctuary, ii. 493 > > Alligators do not disturb fakirs, i. 383 > > Allopathists in medicine enemies to psychology, i. 88; > oppose everything till stamped as regular, _ib._; > oppose discoveries, _ib._ > > All things formed after the model, i. 302 > > “Almighty, the Nebulous,” i. 129 > > Al-om-jah, an Egyptian hierophant, ii. 364 > > Alsatians believe Paracelsus to be only sleeping in his grave, ii. 500 > > Amasis, King of Egypt, sends a linen garment to Lindus, i. 536 > > Amazons, their circle-dance in Palestine, ii. 45 > > Amberley, Viscount, regards Jesus as an iconoclastic idealist, ii. > 562; > looks down upon the social plane indicated by the great Sopher, > _ib._ > > Amenthes, or Amenti, has no blazing hell, ii. 11 > > Americ, or great mountain, the name of a range in Central America > visited by Columbus, i. 592 > > America, Central, lost cities, i. 239; > not named from Vespucius, i. 591; > name found in Nicaragua, i. 592; > first applied to the continent in 1522, _ib._; > Markland, _ib._; > note of A. Wilder, _ib._; > the conservatory of spiritual sensitives, ii. 19 > > American lodges know nothing of esoteric Masonry, ii. 376; > templarism, its three degrees, ii. 383 > > Americans to join the Catholic Church, ii. 379 > > Amita or Buddha, his realm, i. 601 > > Ammonius Sakkas, i. 443; > dated his philosophy from Hermes, ii. 342 > > Amrita, the supreme soul, i. 265 > > Amulet, a soldier made proof by one against bullets, i. 378 > > Amulets and relics, spells and phylacteries, ii. 352 > > Amun, i. 262 > > An, spirits of, ii. 387 > > Anæsthesia, its discovery by Wells, i. 539; > the improvements by Morton, Simpson, and Colton, i. 540; > understood by the Egyptians and Brahmans, _ib._ > > Anahit, the earth, i. 11 > > Anathems, a custom original with Christians, ii. 334 > > Anaxagoras, belief concerning spiritual prototypes, i. 158 > > Anaximenes held the doctrine of evolution or development, i. 238 > > Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite a Jesuitical product, ii. 390 > > Ancient Philosophies, based on the doctrine of God the universal mind > diffused throughout nature, i. 289; > books written symbolically, i. 19; > of the ancient, i. 302; > Code of Manu, not in our possession, i. 585, 586; > landmarks of Masonry departed from, ii. 380; > mysteries hidden only from the profane, ii. 121; > religions, the wisdom or doctrine, their basis, ii. 99; > identical as to their secret meaning, ii. 410; > derived from one primitive worship, ii. 412; > word, note of Emanuel Swedenborg, ii. 470; > in Buddhistic Tartary, ii. 471 > > Ancients, monotheistical before Moses, i. 23; > knew certain sciences better than modern savants, i. 25; > regarded the physical sun as only an emblem, i. 270; > practiced psychometry, i. 331; > their religion that of the future, i. 613 > > Anderson, author of the Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, a Masonic > impostor, ii. 389; > Steve, his spiritual advisers anxious for his speedy execution lest > he should fall from grace, ii. 543 > > Angelo, Michel, his remarkable gem, i. 240 > > Angkor, figures purely archaic, i. 567 > > Anglican Church adopting again the Roman usages, ii. 544 > > Anima, i. 37 > > Anima Mundi, or world-soul, i. 56, 258; > same as Nirvana, i. 291; > feminine with the Gnostics and Nazarenes, i. 300; > bi-sexual, i. 301; > same as the astral light, _ib._; > an igneous, ethereal nature, i. 316, 317; > the human soul born upon leaving, i. 345 > > Animals, perhaps immortal, argument of Agassiz, i. 420, 427; > argument from natural instinct, i. 426, 427; > shut up in the ark, ii. 447 > > Animation, suspended, i. 483; > voluntarily, _ib._; > in cataleptic clairvoyance, i. 489 > > Anna, St., going in quest of her daughter Mary, ii. 491; > the origin of the name, _ib._ > > Annas and Caiaphas confess Jesus to be the Son of God, ii. 522 > > Annihilation, the meaning of the Buddhist doctrine, i. 290; > of the soul, i. 319 > > Annoia, ii. 282, 286 > > Anthesteria, the baptism and passage through the gate, ii. 245, 246 > > Anthropomorphic devil the bottom card, ii. 479 > > Anti-Christ, a fable invented as a precaution, ii. 535 > > Antichristianism, seeking to overthrow Christianity by science, i. 337 > > Anti-Masonic Convention denying the validity of an oath, ii. 373-375 > > Antipathy, its beginning, i. 309 > > Antitypes of men to be born, i. 310 > > Antiquity of human race, over 250,000 years, i. 3; > of necromancy and spiritualism, remote, i. 205; > lost natural philosophy, i. 235; > of optical instruments, gunpowder, the steam-engine, astronomical > science, i. 240, 241; > of the flood, i. 241; > opinion of Aristotle, i. 428 > > Ape, astral body, i. 327; > a degenerated man, ii. 278 > > Apis, the bull, secret book concerning his age, i. 406 > > Apocryphal Gospels first received and then discarded, ii. 518 > > Apollo made the prince of demons and lord of the under-world, ii. 488 > > Apollonius of Tyana, his journey an allegory, i. 19; > regard for stones, i. 265; > cast out devils, i. 356; > his power to witness the present and the future, i. 486; > beheld an empusa or ghûl, i. 604; > testimony of Justin Martyr respecting his powers, ii. 97; > not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > his mistake, ii. 341; > his conjurations when wrapped in a woolen mantle, ii. 344; > visited Kashmere, ii. 434; > the faculty of his soul to quit the body, ii. 597; > vanished from sight and renewal elsewhere, _ib._ > > Apollyon, his various characters, ii. 511 > > Apophis, or Apap, the dragon, infests the soul, ii. 368 > > Apostles, Acts of, rejected, ii. 182; > Creed a forgery, ii. 514 > > Apostles of Buddhism, ii. 608 > > Apparitions of spirits of animals, i. 326 > > Appleton’s New American Cyclopædia misstates the date of the laws of > Manu, i. 587 > > Apuleius’ doctrine concerning birth and death of the soul, ii. 345; > on the beatific vision, ii. 145; > accused of black magic, ii. 149 > > Aquinas, Thomas, destroys the brazen oracular head of Albertus > Magnus, ii. 56 > > Arabic manuscripts, 80,000 burned at Granada, i. 511 > > Aralez, Armenian gods who revivify men, ii. 564 > > Arcane powers in Man, ii. 112; > knowledge and sorcery, ii. 583 > > Archæus, i. 14; > same as Chaos, fire, sidereal or astral light, psychic or ektenic > force, Akasa, etc., i. 125; > the principle of life, i. 400 > > Archæologists, their attacks on each other, ii. 471, 472 > > Archetypal man a spheroid, ii. 469 > > Architecture of the Egyptian temples, i. 517 > > Architectural remains in different countries, their remarkable > identity of parts, i. 572 > > Archons of this world, ii. 89, 90 > > Archytas, instructor of Plato, constructed a wooden dove, i. 543; > invented the screw and crane, _ib._ > > Arctic regions visited by the Phœnicians, i. 545 > > Argha, or ark, ii. 444 > > Arhat, i. 291; > reaches Nirvana while on earth, ii. 320 > > Arhats, free from evil desire, i. 346 > > Aristotle on the human soul and the world-soul, i. 251; > three natural principles, i. 310; > on gas from the earth, i. 200; > on form, i. 312; > on the _nous_ and _psuche_, i. 316; > on the filth element, i. 317; > believed in the nous and psuche, the reasoning and the animal soul, > i. 317; > borrowed doctrines from Pythagoras, i. 319, 320; > believed in a past eternity of human existence, i. 428; > doctrine of two-fold soul, i. 429; > taught the Buddhistic doctrine, i. 430; > believed light to be itself an energy, i. 510; > contradicted by the Neo-Platonists, i. 430; > taught that the earth was the centre of the universe, i. 408; > obnoxious to Christian theology, ii. 34; > upon Jon or יהוה, ii. 302 > > Ark, what it represents, ii. 444 > > Armenian tradition of giving life to a slain warrior, ii. 564 > > Armor, Prof., theory of malformations, i. 392 > > Arnobius, believed the soul corporeal, i. 317 > > Artesian well, used in China, i. 517 > > Articles of faith of the ancient wisdom-religions, ii. 116 > > Artificial lakes in ancient temples in Egypt, Asia, and America, i. > 572 > > Artificially fecundated woman, i. 77, 81 > > Arts in the archaic ages, i. 405, 406 > > Artufas, the temples of nagualism, i. 557 > > Aryan, Median, Persian, and Hindu, also the Gothic and Slavic > peoples, i. 576; > nations, had no devil, ii. 10; > carried bronze manufacture into Europe, i. 539; > united, 3,000 B.C., ii. 433; > in the valley of the upper Indus, _ib._; > did not borrow from the Semites, ii. 426 > > Asbestos, i. 229; > thread and oil made from it, i. 504 > > Asclepiadotus, reproduces chemically the exhalations of the sacred > oracle-grotto, i. 531 > > Asdt, אשדת (_Deut._ xxxiii. 2), signifies emanations, but > mistranslated, ii. 34 > > Asgârtha, temple in India, ii. 31 > > Ash-trees, third race of men created from, i. 558 > > Ashmole, Elias, the Rosicrucian, the first operative Mason of note, > ii. 349 > > Asia, middle belt, perhaps once a sea-bed, i. 590, 592 > > Asideans, or Khasdims, the same as Pharsi or Pharisees, ii. 441 > > Asmodeus, or Æshma-deva, ii. 482 > > Asmonean priest-kings promulgated the _Old Testament_ in opposition > to the Apocrypha, ii. 135; > first Pharisees, and then Sadducees, _ib._ > > Asoka and Augustine, ii. 32; > his missionaries, ii. 42; > the Buddhist, sent missionaries to other countries, ii. 491 > > Ass, the form of Typhon, ii. 484; > its Coptic name, AO, a phonetic of Iao, _ib._; > head found in the temple, ii. 523 > > Assyria, the land of Nimrod, or Bacchus, i. 568 > > Assyrians basso-relievos at Nagkon-Wat, i. 566; > sphinxes, ii. 451; > tablets, the flood, ii. 422 > > Assyrians, their archaic empire, ii. 486 > > Astral atmosphere, i. 314; > body or doppelganger, i. 360; > of the ape, i. 327; > fire, represented by the serpent, i. 137; > fluid can be compressed about the body, to protect it from > violence, i. 378, 380; > a bolt of it can be directed with fatal force, i. 380; > form oozing out of the body, i. 179; > bound to the corpse and infesting the living, i. 432; > light, i. 56, 156, 247; > the Ob or Python, i. 158; > currents, i. 247; > same as the anima mundi, i. 301; > dual and bi-sexual, _ib._; > Soul or Spirit, i. 12; > divided by H. More into the aërial and ætherial vehicles, i. 206; > said to linger about the body 3,000 years, i. 226; > doctrine of Epicurus, i. 250; > the perisprit, composed of matter, i. 289; > not immortal, i. 432; > virgin, i. 126 > > Astrograph, i. 385 > > Astrologers, Chaldean, i. 205 > > Astrology, i. 259 > > Astronomus, the title of the highest initiate, ii. 365 > > Astronomical calculations of Chaldeans and Egyptians, i. 21; > of Chaldeans and Aztecs, i. 11, 241; > of Chinese, i. 241 > > Aswatha, the Hindu tree of life, i. 152, 153 > > Athanor, the, the Archimedean lever, i. 506 > > Atheism, not a Buddhistical doctrine, i. 292 > > Atharva-Veda, great value, ii. 414, 415 > > Athbach, ii. 299 > > Atheists, none among heathen populations, ii. 240; > none in days of old, ii. 530 > > Athos, Mount, story of the manuscripts, ii. 52 > > Athothi, king of Egypt, writes a book on anatomy, i. 406 > > Athtor, or Mother Night, i. 91 > > Atlantis, the legend believed, i. 557 > > Atlantic ocean, once intersected by islands and a continent, i. 557, > 558; > mentioned in the _Secret Book_, i. 590; > perhaps the actual name of the great Southern continent in the > Indian Ocean, i. 591; > name not Greek, _ib._; > probable etymology of the name, _ib._; > two orders of inhabitants, i. 592, 593; > their fall, and the submersion of the island, i. 593 > > Atma, i. 346 > > Atman, the spiritual self, recognized as God, ii. 566 > > Atmospheric electricity embodied in demi-gods, i. 261 > > Atoms, doctrine taught by Demokritus, i. 249 > > Atonement, origin of the doctrine, ii. 41; > error of Prof. Draper, _ib._; > mysteries of initiation, ii. 42 > > Attraction, the great mystery, i. 338 > > Audhumla, the cow or female principle, i. 147 > > Augoeides, or part of the divine spirit, i. 12, 306, 315; > cannot be communed with by a hierophant with a touch of mortal > passion, i. 358; > self-shining vision of the future self, ii. 115; > the âtman or self, ii. 317 > > Augsburgian Jesuits desirous to change the Sabean emblems, ii. 450 > > Augustine, his accession to Christianity placed theology and science > at everlasting enmity, ii. 88; > his directions about the ladies’ toilet, ii. 331; > scouted the sphericity of the earth, ii. 477; > affirmed a predestinated state of happiness and predetermined > reprobation, ii. 546 > > A U M, meaning of the sacred letters, ii. 31; > the holy primitive syllable, ii. 39; > and Tum, ii. 387 > > Aur, i. 158 > > Aura Placida, deified into two martyrs, ii. 248 > > Aureole, from Babylonia, ii. 95 > > Auricular confession in the Anglican church, ii. 544 > > Aurora borealis, conjectures concerning it of scientists, i. 417 > > Aurumgahad, i. 349; > Buddhistic mementos, i. 349 > > Austin Friars, or Augustinians, outdone in magic by the Jesuits, i. > 445 > > Avany, the Virgin, by whom the first Buddha was incarnated, ii. 322 > > Avatar, i. 291; > the earliest, ii. 427 > > Avatars and emanations, ii. 155, 156; > of Vishnu, ii. 274; > they symbolize evolution of races, ii. 275 > > Avicenna, on chickens with hawks’ heads, i. 385 > > Azaz-El, or Siva, ii. 302, 303 > > Azoth, or creative principle, symbol, i. 462; > blunder of de Mirville, _ib._ > > Aztecs, of Mexico, their calendar, i. 11; > resembled the ancient Egyptians, i. 560 > > Baal, prophets danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > Tsephon, god of the crypt, ii. 487; > how his hierophants procured apparitions, ii. 567 > > Babies speaking good French, i. 371 > > Babinet on table-turning, i. 60, 101, 104; > declares levitation impossible and is refuted, i. 105; > his story of a fire-globe resembling a cat, i. 107 > > Babylon, built by those who escaped the deluge, i. 31; > after three conquerors, i. 534; > the great mother, or Magna Mater, ii. 501 > > Babylonia, the seat of Sanscrit literature, ii. 428 > > Babylonian priests, asserted their observations to have extended back > 470,000 years, i. 533; > system defined, ii. 170 > > Bacchic fan, held by Osiris, ii. 494 > > Bacchus, a saint of the Roman calendar, i. 160; > worship among the Jews, ii. 128; > “the son of God,” ii. 492; > myth, contains the history of the gods, ii. 527; > the Prophet-God, ii. 527, 528; > a saint in the calendar, ii. 528; > or Dionysus, his Indian origin, ii. 560 > > Bacon, Roger, miracles, i. 69; > predicted the use of steam and other modern inventions, i. 413 > > Badagas, a people of Hindustan who revere and maintain the Todas, ii. > 613-615 > > Bad demons, i. 343 > > Bael-tur, sacred to Siva, i. 469 > > Baggage from the Pagan mysteries, ii. 334 > > Bahak-Zivo, i. 298; > ordered to create, i. 299; > the creator, ii. 134 > > Bahira, the Nestorian monk, ii. 54 > > Balahala, the fifth degree, ii. 365 > > Balam Acan, a Toltecan king, i. 553 > > Ban, on spiritualistic writings, ii. 8 > > Banyan, the tree of knowledge and life, ii. 293 > > Baphomet, the alleged god of the Templars, ii. 302 > > Baptism of blood, the slaughter of a hierophant or an animal, ii. 42; > a general practice, ii. 134 > > Baptismal font in Egyptian pyramids, i. 519 > > Baptist preachers’ meeting in New York, ii. 473, 474; > a warm doctrine, _ib._ > > Baptista Porta, i. 66 > > Baptists, ii. 291 > > Bardesanian system, ii. 224 > > Barjota, Curé de, his magical powers, ii. 60; > saves the Pope’s life, _ib._ > > Barlaam and Josaphat, a ridiculous romance, ii. 580 > > Barrachias-Hassan-Oglu, i. 43 > > Barri (Italy), a statue of the Madonna with crinoline, ii. 9 > > Bart, his testimony in regard to Herakles, ii. 515 > > Basic matter of gold, i. 50 > > Basileus, the archon taking charge of the Eleusinians, ii. 90 > > Basilidean system, the exposition of Irenæus, ii. 157 > > Basilides, description of Clement, ii. 123; > derived his doctrines from the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 155; > his doctrines set forth by Tertullian, ii. 189 > > Bastian, Dr., his conception of the temple of Angkor or Nagkon-Wat, > i. 567, 568 > > Batria, the wife of Pharaoh, teacher of Moses, i. 25 > > Battle of life, ii. 112 > > Baubo, in the Mysteries, what she directed, ii. 112 > > Bayle, his testimony on spurious relics, ii. 72 > > Beads and rosaries, of Buddhistic origin, ii. 95. > > Beatific vision or epopteia, testimony of Paul and Apuleius, ii. 146 > > Beaujeu, Count, his Masonic imposture, ii. 381 > > Beaumont, Elie de, on terrestrial circulation, i. 503 > > Beausobre, on the Rasit or Principle, ii. 36 > > Beel-Zebub (more properly Beel-Zebul, the Baal of the Temple) the > same as Apollo, the Oracle-God, ii. 481; > nicknamed Beel-Zebub, a god of flies, ii. 486 > > Beer made in ancient Egypt, i. 543 > > Bel, a personification of the Hindu Siva, i. 263; > and the dragon, i. 550; > Baal, the Devil, i. 552 > > Belial, a Diakka, ii. 482 > > Believers in magic, mesmerism and spiritualism, 800,000,000, i. 512 > > Bellarmin, Cardinal, his vision about the bottomless pit, ii. 8 > > Bells before the shrine of Jupiter-Ammon, ii. 95; > in Jewish and Buddhistic rites, _ib._ > > Belus, the first Assyrian king, deified, i. 552 > > Ben Asai, in the garden of delights, ii. 119; > Zoma, in the garden of delights, ii. 119 > > Benedict, St., and his black raven, ii. 78 > > Bengal, magical seance, i. 467 > > Bengalese conjurers and jugglers, i. 457; > planting trees, etc., which grew at once, _ib._ > > Bethlehem, grotto of, temple of Adonis, ii. 139 > > Beverages to produce visions, ii. 117 > > Bhagaved-gita, opinion of du Perron, ii. 562; > reverenced by the Brahmans, _ib._; > contains the greatest mysteries of the Brahmanic religion, ii. 563; > reverenced alike by Brahmanists and Buddhists, _ib._ > > Bhagavant, the same as Parabrahma, i. 91; > endued Brahma with creative power, i. 90; > not a creator, i. 347; > enters the world-egg, _ib._ > > Bhagaved, i. 148 > > Bhangulpore, Round Tower, ii. 5 > > Bhutavan, the Spirit of Evil, created to destroy the incarnation of > the sin of Brahma, i. 265 > > Bible, antedated by Vedas, i. 91; > its allegories repeated in Talapoin and Ceylonese traditions and > manuscripts, i. 577; > used as a weapon against the people who furnished it, ii. 96; > an allegorical screen of the Kabala, ii. 210; > the great light of modern Masonry, ii. 389; > four or five times written over, ii. 470; > when made up, ii. 471; > a secret volume, _ib._; > Patriarchs only zodiacal signs, ii. 459 > > Bilocation, i. 361 > > Binlang-stone, ii. 234 > > Biographers of the Devil, ii. 15 > > Birds, sung a mass for St. Francis, ii. 77 > > Birs-Nimrud, the temple of seven stages, i. 261 > > Birth of the human soul, i. 345 > > Birth-marks, i. 384 > > Bisexual, the first man, i. 559 > > Bishops of the fourth century illiterate, ii. 251 > > Black-faced Christ in India, ii. 532 > > Black gods worshipped by the Yakuts, ii. 568, 569 > > Blackguardism of Father Weninger, ii. 379 > > Black magic practised at the Vatican, ii. 6; > sorcery and witchcraft, an abuse, ii. 118; > mirror, i. 596; > reveals to the Inca queen her husband’s death, _ib._; > virgins in French cathedrals, figures of Isis, ii. 95 > > “Bleeding Head” of a murdered child employed as an oracle, ii. 56; > image, ii. 17 > > Blessed Virgin gives a demoniac a sound thrashing, ii. 76 > > Blind Force plus intelligence, i. 199; > psychic force, _ib._ > > Blood, the baptism, ii. 42; > of Jesus Christ, a phial of it presented to Henry III. of England, > ii. 71; > eagerness of spirits for it, i. 344; > its circulation understood by the Egyptians, i. 544; > liquefied at Naples and Nargercoil, in India, i. 613; > its emanations serve spirits with material for their apparitions, > ii. 567; > the universal Proteus and arcanum of life, _ib._; > -demons, i. 353; > -evocation by the Yakuts, Bulgarians and Moldavians, ii. 569, 570 > > Bloody legislation of Protestant countries against witchcraft, ii. > 503; > rites in Hayti, ii. 572 > > Blue, held in aversion as the symbol of evil, ii. 446; > ray, i. 137, 264; > -violet, the seventh ray, most responsive of all, i. 514 > > Body, the sepulchre of the soul, ii. 112; > how long it may be kept alive, ii. 563; > of Moses, a symbol for Palestine, ii. 482; > may be obsessed by spirits during the temporary absence of the > soul, ii. 589 > > Boismont, de, Brierre, on hallucinations, i. 144 > > Boodhasp, the founder of Sabism or baptism, ii. 290, 291 > > Book of the Dead, Egyptian, i. 517, 518; > quoted in the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 548; > older than Menes, ii. 361; > of Jasher, i. 549; > of Jasher, the _Old Testament_ condensed, ii. 399; > of Numbers, Chaldean, i. 32 > > Books lost and destroyed, i. 24; > of Hermes, i. 33; > of Hermes, attested by the Champollions, i. 625 > > Births, feast of, supposed to be Bacchic, ii. 44, 45 > > Bosheth, Israelites consecrated, ii. 130 > > Both-al, Batylos, and Beth-el, i. 550 > > Bourbourg, Brasseur de, publishes _Popol Vuh_, i. 2 > > Boussingault on table-turning, i. 60 > > Bozrah, the convent there the place where the seed of Islam was sown, > ii. 54 > > Brachmans in Greece, ii. 321 > > Brahm, i. 291 > > Brahma, a secondary deity, like Jehovah, the demiurgos, i. 91; > evolved himself, and then brought nature from himself, i. 93; > creates Lomus, i. 133; > produces spiritual beings, then daints or giants, and, finally, the > castes of men, i. 148; > the name of the universal germ, ii. 261; > night of, ii. 272, 273, 421; > manifested as twelve attributes or gods, i. 348; > day and night, ii. 421 > > Brahma-Prajapati committed the first sin, i. 265; > his repentance and the hottest tear, _ib._ > > Brahm-âtma, or chief of the initiates, had the two crossed keys, ii. > 31 > > Brahman, his astounding declaration to Jacolliot, ii. 585 > > Brahmanas, ii. 409, 410; > the key to the Rig-Veda, ii. 415 > > Brahmanical religion, stated in the doctrine of God as the Universal > mind diffused through all things, i. 289 > > Brahmanism, pre-Vedic, identical with Buddhism, ii. 142; > Buddhism its primitive source, ii. 169 > > Brahman gods, Siva, Surya, and the Aswins denounced in the _Avesta_, > ii. 482, 483 > > Brahman-Yoggins, i. 307; > story of descent from giants, i. 122; > theories of the sun and moon, i. 264; > their powers of prediction and clairvoyance, i. 446; > possess secrets of anæsthesia, i. 540; > widows burned without hurting them, _ib._; > know that the rite of widow-burning was never prescribed, i. 541; > their religion exclusive, and not to be disseminated, i. 581; > dispossessed the Jaina natives of India, ii. 323; > in Babylonia, ii. 428; > and Buddhists, their extraordinary probity, ii. 474; > how it has deteriorated by Christian association, _ib._ > > Brain, substance changed by thought and sensation, i. 249, 250; > silvery spark in, i. 329 > > Brazen serpent, the caduceus of Mercury or Asklepios, i. 556; > symbol of Esculapius or Iao, ii. 481; > worshipped by the Israelites, _ib._; > broken by Hezekiah, ii. 440 > > Bread-and-mutton protoplasms, i. 421 > > Bread and wine, a sacrifice of great antiquity, ii. 43, 44, 513 > > Breath, immortal, infusing life, i. 302 > > Brighou, the pragâpati and his patriarchal descendants, ii. 427 > > Bronze age, i. 534 > > Bronze introduced into Europe 6,000 years ago by Aryan immigrants, i. > 539 > > Brothers of the Shadow, i. 319 > > Broussard on magnetism and medicine, ii. 610 > > Bruno, why slaughtered, i. 93; > Prof. Draper misrepresents him, i. 94; > held Jesus to be a magician, _ib._; > accusation against him, i. 95; > his reply, i. 96; > declared this world a star, _ib._; > acknowledged an universal Providence, _ib._; > doubted the Trinity, i. 97; > a Pythagorean, i. 98 > > Brutal force adored by Christendom, ii. 334 > > Buchanan, Prof. J. R., criticises Agassiz, i. 63; > his bridge from physical impression to consciousness, i. 87; > theory of psychometry, i. 182; > on tendency of gestures to follow the phrenological organs, i. 500 > > Buddha, the formless Brahm, i. 291; > the monad, _ib._, 550; > incarnation, _ib._; > his lama representative, i. 437, 438; > appearing of his shadow to Hiouen-Thsang, i. 600; > never deified by his followers, ii. 240; > a social rather than a religious reformer, ii. 339; > tempted and victorious, ii. 513; > never wrote, ii. 559; > his lessons to his disciples, _ib._; > taught the new birth, ii. 566; > breaks with the old mysteries, _ib._; > or Sommona-Cadom, the Siamese Saviour, ii. 576; > changed by the Vatican into St. Josaphat, ii. 579; > “just as if he had been a Christian,” ii. 581 > > Buddha-Siddârtha, i. 34; > -Gautama, i. 92; > lived 2,540 years ago, ii. 537; > teaches how to escape reincarnation, i. 346 > > Buddhism based on the doctrine of God, the universal Mind diffused > through all things, i. 289; > prehistoric, the once universal religion, ii. 123; > preached by Jesus, ii. 123; > its ethics, ii. 124; > identical with pre-Vedic Brahmanism, ii. 142; > the primitive source of Brahmanism, ii. 169; > its groundwork the kabalistic doctrine, i. 271; > its doctrine based on works, ii. 288; > esoteric doctrines, ii. 319; > the religion of the earlier Vedas, ii. 436; > degenerated into Lamaism, ii. 582 > > Buddhist patriarch of Nangasaki, ii. 79; > system, how mastered, i. 289; > monks in Syria and Babylon, ii. 290; > went so far as Ireland, _ib._; > theories of sun and moon, i. 264; > respect for the sapphire-stone, _ib._ > > Buddhistic element in Gnosticism and missionaries in Greece, ii. 321; > theology, four schools, ii. 533 > > Bull the emblem of life everywhere, ii. 235, 236; > against the comet, ii. 509; > and syllabus burned by the Bohemians, ii. 560 > > Bull’s eye in the target of Christianity, ii. 476 > > Bullets successfully resisted by talismans, i. 378 > > Bulwer-Lytton, his description of the _vril_, or primal force, i. 64, > 125; > elementary beings, i. 285, 289; > the Vril-ya, or coming race, i. 296 > > Bunsen, testimony concerning the Origines of Egypt, i. 529; > description of the Pyramid of Cheops, i. 518; > account of the Egyptian skill in quarrying, _ib._; > on the word PTR, ii. 93; > his opinion respecting Zoroaster and the Baktrian emigration, ii. > 432; > his opinion of Khamism, ii. 435; > on the exodus of the Israelites, ii. 558 > > Bur, the offspring of Audhumla, i. 147 > > Burning men to avoid shedding their blood, i. 64; > scientists about as ready as clergy, i. 85 > > Buried cities in Hindustan, i. 350 > > Butlerof, Prof. A., on the facts of spiritualism, ii. 3 > > Cabeirians, i. 23 > > Cable-tow, the Brahmanical cord, ii. 393 > > Cadière, Mlle., her seduction by a Jesuit priest, ii. 633, 634 > > Cagliostro, an Hermetic philosopher, persecuted by the Church of > Rome, i. 200; > said to have made gold and diamonds, i. 509 > > Cain, ancestor of the Hivites, or Serpents, ii. 446; > and Siva, ii. 448; > or Kenu, the eldest, ii. 464 > > Calmeil imputes theomania of the Calvinists to hysteria and epilepsy, > i. 371; > his explanation of their extraordinary power of resistance to > blows, i. 375 > > Calmet, Dom, on vampires, i. 452 > > Calvin affirmed election, original sin, and reprobation, ii. 547 > > Carnac, the serpent’s mount, i. 554 > > Campanile Column, of St. Mark’s, in Venice, its original, ii. 5 > > Canals of Egypt, i. 516, 517 > > Canonical books, enforced eliminations, ii. 143; > selected by sortilege, ii. 251 > > Capuchins, their Christmas observances, ii. 365 > > Carpenter, W. B., lecture on Egypt, i. 440 > > Carthage more civilized than Rome, i. 520; > built long before the taking of Troy, _ib._; > not built by Dido, _ib._ > > Cataclysms, periodical, i. 31 > > Catalepsy and vampirism, i. 449, 450 > > Catherine of Medicis employed a sorcerer, ii. 55; > her resort to the charm of “the bleeding head,” ii. 56 > > Catholic ritual of pagan origin, ii. 85; > miracle in Poland means revolution, ii. 17; > must be Ultramontane and Jesuit, ii. 356; > missionaries becoming Talapoins, ii. 531 > > Catholicism more fetish-worshipping than Hinduism, ii. 80 > > Catholics persecute other Christians, ii. 81 > > Causes, Platonic division, i. 393 > > Cave-men of Les Eyzies, i. 295 > > Cave-temples of Ajunta, Buddhistic, i. 349; > of India, claimed by the Jainas, ii. 323 > > Caves of Mithras, ii. 491 > > Celestial Virgin pursued by the Dragon, a mystery and representation > in the constellations, ii. 490 > > Celsus, his accusations of the Christians, ii. 51; > not being refuted, his books burned, ii. 51, 52; > a copy probably existing at a monastery on Mount Athos, ii. 52; > his opinion of Jesus, ii. 530 > > Celebrated vase of the Genoa Cathedral, its material not known, i. > 537, 538 > > Celt, probably a hybrid of the Aryan and Iberians of Europe, i. 576 > > Cement, ancient, i. 239 > > Cenchrea, Paul shorn and Lucius initiated there, ii. 90 > > Centenarians, Parr, Jenkins, and others, ii. 564 > > Central America, her peoples to be traced to the Phœnicians and > Mosaic Israelites, i. 555; > Asia, the face of the country changed, ii. 426; > Invisible, i. 302 > > Cerebral electricity, its dependence upon the statical, i. 322 > > Ceremony of withdrawing the soul, ii. 603 > > Ceres or Demeter, the female or passive productive principle, ii. 560 > > Cerinthus, his doctrines described by Irenæus, ii. 176 > > Cevennes, prophets of, i. 221; > the Convulsionaires, miraculous occurrences, i. 370; > statement by Figuier, i. 370, 371 > > Chair of St. Fiacre and its prolificating virtue, ii. 332 > > Chaldean Arba and Christian Four, ii. 171; > oracles, i. 535; > denounce augury, _ib._ > > Chaldeans, their correct astronomical calculations, i. 11; > their magic, i. 66; > their theory of magic, i. 459; > their origin, ii. 46; > Hebrew Sanscrit, _ib._ > > Champollion declares the Egyptians monotheists, i. 24; > his description of Karnak, i. 523; > synopsis of his discoveries, i. 530 > > Chandragupta, his exploits, ii. 607, 608 > > Chaos, the Female Principle, i. 61; > Archæus, Akasa, i. 125; > the Soul of the World, i. 129; > and ether, the first two, i. 341 > > Charlatan only will ever use mercury as a medicine, ii. 621 > > Charms, the Dharani, their extraordinary powers, i. 471 > > Charmed life, i. 379 > > Charmers, their power over beasts and reptiles, i. 381 > > Charybdis, the maëlstrom, i. 545 > > Chemi, or Chem, the ancient name of Egypt, i. 541 > > Chemical vapors taking forms, i. 127 > > Chemicals keep away disagreeable physical phenomena, i. 356, 357 > > Chemist and magician compared, i. 464 > > Chemistry, ancient proficiency, i. 50; > revolution, i. 163; > Egypt its cradle, i. 541; > called alchemy, i. 542 > > Cheops, his engraved ring, i. 240; > pyramid of, its measure and weight, i. 518; > Prof. Smyth’s descriptions, i. 520 > > Cherub, one of his nails preserved as a relic, ii. 71; > of Jeheskiel, ii. 451 > > Cherubs, the vehans of deity, ii. 231 > > Chess played in Egypt and India 5,000 years ago, i. 544 > > Chevalier Ramsay, the Jesuit inventor of the Scottish Rite, ii. 390 > > Chicago murderers converted in prison, ii. 543 > > Child, Mrs. Lydia M., remarks on Hindu emblems, i. 583; ii. 445 > > Child-burning by the Jesuits, ii. 65 > > Child-medium, Sanscrit written in her presence, i. 368; > Kate Fox’s son, i. 439 > > Children, born malformed, wounded, and parts cut away, i. 386; > may kill their parents, ii. 363; > sacrificed to Moloch-Hercules, at Tophet, in the valley of Hinnom, > ii. 11 > > China, the glass, i. 537; > metal work, i. 538 > > Chinese believe in the art of overcoming mortality, i. 214; > ancient emperor puts two astronomers to death, i. 241 > > _Chitonuth our_, chitons or coats of skin, a priestly garb, i. 575; > Adam and his wife invested by יהוה אלהים, Java Aleim, _ib._ > > Chrestians before Christians, ii. 323 > > Chrestos, worshipped many centuries before Christ, ii. 324; > Christians and Jews alike united, ii. 558 > > Christ a reïncarnationist, ii. 145; > destroyed Jehovah-worship, ii. 527; > a modified Christna, ii. 532; > a personage rather than a person, ii. 576 > > Christian spiritualists, i. 54; > denominations, peculiarity of their deity, ii. 2, 354, 485, 581; > spent on their buildings, ii. 2; > the spiritualists in them, ii. 2; > hatred of spiritualism, ii. 4; > symbols, presence of phallism, ii. 5; > Church, with the rites and priestly robes of heathenism, ii. 96; > doctrines classified, ii. 145; > doctrines, their origin in Middle Asia, ii. 338; > Gnostics, ii. 324; > appeared just as the Essenes disappeared, _ib._; > Sabbath, its date, ii. 419; > theology, its origin, ii. 525 > > Christianity, early, based on the doctrine of God, the universal mind > diffused through all things, i. 285; > description of Max Müller, ii. 10; > pure heathenism, ii. 80; > primitive, had secret pass-words and rites, ii. 204; > doctrines taken from Brahmanism and Buddhism, the ceremonials and > pageantry from Lamaism, ii. 211; > its true spirit found only in Buddhism, ii. 240; > made little change from Roman paganism, ii. 334; > its doctrines plagiarized, ii. 346; > and a personal God repudiated by Freemasons at Lausanne, ii. 377; > bull’s eye in its target, ii. 476; > theological, the Devil its patron genius, ii. 478; > its symbols anticipated by the older religions, ii. 557; > Paul the real founder, ii. 574; > stripped of every feature to make it acceptable to the Siamese, ii. > 579 > > Christians, few understand Jewish theology, i. 17; > divided into three unequal parties, ii. 3; > why they quarrelled with the Pagans, ii. 51; > accepted the worship of the God of the gardens, _ib._; > Old, called Nazarenes, ii. 151; > only seven to twelve in each church, ii. 175; > Pauline and Petrine controversy, _ib._; > of St. John, or Mendæans, ii. 289, 290; > do not believe in Christ, ii. 290; > accused of child-murder at their “perfect passover,” ii. 333; > originally composed of secret societies, ii. 335; > anciently kept no Sabbaths, ii. 419; > claim the discovery of the Devil, ii. 477; > praiseworthy, modified Buddhists, ii. 540; > Russian and Bulgarian, cursed by the Pope, ii. 560 > > Christism, before Christ, ii. 32 > > Christmas festivals of Capuchins, ii. 365 > > Christna, orthography of the name, i. 586; > crushing the head of the serpent, ii. 446; > and his mother with the aureole, ii. 95; > raises the daughter of Angashuna to life, ii. 241; > the good shepherd, crushes the serpent Kalinaga, is crucified, ii. > 447; > Sakya-muni, and Jesus, three men exalted to deity, ii. 536; > lived 6,877 years ago (1877), ii. 537; > his dying words to the hunter, ii. 545, 546; > his eulogy of works rather than contemplations, ii. 563 > > Christos or Crestos, ii. 142; > his entering into the man Jesus at the Jordan, ii. 186; > the Angel Gabriel, ii. 193; > from the Sanskrit kris or sacred, ii. 158; > an aggregation of the emanations, etc., ii. 159 > > Christs of the pre-Christian ages, ii. 43 > > Church and priest, benefits if they were to pass away, ii. 586 > > Church of Rome in 1876, excommunicating and cursing, ii. 6; > her powerless fury against the Bulgarians and Servians, ii. 7; > pre-eminent in murderous propensity, i. 27; > has mightier enemies than “heretics” and “infidels,” ii. 30; > believes in magic, ii. 76; > its maxim to deceive and lie to promote its ends, ii. 303 > > Churches, their phallic symbols, ii. 5; > ancient, only seven to twelve in each, ii. 175. > > Cicero, on divine exhalations from the earth, i. 200; > concerning the gods, i. 280 > > Cipher of the S. P. R. C., the Knight Rosy Cross of Heredom, and of > the Knights Kadosh, ii. 395; > Royal Arch, ii. 396 > > Circle, perfect, decussated, ii. 469; > of necessity, i. 296; > of necessity, when completed, i. 346; > of necessity, the sacred mysteries at Thebes, i. 553; > of stones, i. 572 > > Circle-dance or chorus of the Amazons, performed by King David and > others, ii. 45; > of the Amazons around a priapic image, a common usage and > sanctioned by a Catholic priest, ii. 331, 332; > taught to initiates in the sixth degree, ii. 365 > > Circulation, terrestrial, i. 503; > of the blood, understood by the Egyptians, i. 544 > > City, the mysterious, story of, i. 547 > > Civilization, ancient, i. 239; > of the east preceded that of the west, i. 539 > > Clairvoyance, cataleptic, the subject practically dead, i. 484 > > Clearchus gives five cases of larvæ or vampires, i. 364; > story of the boy whose soul was led away from the body and returned > again, i. 365, 366 > > Clear vision obstructed by physical memory, ii. 591 > > Clemens Alexandrinus, believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > denounces the Mysteries, ii. 100 > > Cleonymus returned after dying, i. 364 > > Cleopatra sent news by a wire, i. 127 > > Clergy, Greek, Roman and Protestant, discountenance spiritual > phenomena, i. 26; > Roman and Protestant burned and hanged mediums, _ib._; > Protestant, their hatred of spiritualism, ii. 4; > their cast-off garb worn by men of science, ii. 8; > attired in the cast-off garb of the heathen priesthood, _ib._ > > Clerkship of the Templars, ii. 385 > > Clermont system, the Scottish Rite, ii. 381 > > Clinton, De Witt, Grand Master of the first Grand Encampment General, > ii. 383 > > Clocks and dials in ancient periods, i. 536 > > Coats of skin, i. 2, 149; > explained, i. 293; > worn by the priests of Hercules, i. 575; > Adam and his wife so invested, _ib._; > _Chitonuth our_, ii. 458 > > Code of Justinian copied from Manu, i. 586 > > _Codex Nazaræus_ prohibits the worship of Adonai the Sun-god, ii. 131; > denounces Jesus, ii. 132 > > Coffin, from Egypt, dated by astronomical delineations, i. 520, 521 > > Colenso, Bishop, exiled the _Old Testament_, ii. 4 > > Colleges for teaching prophecy and occult sciences, i. 482 > > Collouca-Batta, account of the migrations of Manu-Vina from India to > Egypt, i. 627 > > Collyridians asserted Mary to be virgin-born, ii. 110; > transferred their worship from Astoreth to Mary, ii. 444 > > Colob, a planet on which the Mormon chief god lives, ii. 2 > > Colored masonry not acknowledged, ii. 391 > > Colquhoun, J. C., on the doctrine of a personal devil, ii. 477 > > Commission, Russian, to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 117 > > Communication, subjective, with spirits, ii. 115 > > Communication, supposed, with the dead, with angels, devils, and > gods, i. 323 > > Communion with God, a pagan sentiment, ii. 470 > > Companions, or Kabalists, ii. 470 > > Compensation, the law never swerves, ii. 545 > > Comte, Auguste, i. 76; > catechism of religion of positivism, i. 78; > his feminine mystery, i. 81; > his doctrines repudiated by Huxley, i. 82; > his philosophy belonging to David Hume, _ib._; > the ventriloquist, on spiritual phenomena, i. 101 > > Comtists, or positivists, despised and hated, ii. 3 > > Conflict between the world-religions, i. 307 > > Conical monuments imputed to Hermes Trismegistus, i. 551 > > Conjurers, i. 73 > > Consciousness a quality of the soul, i. 199 > > Constitutions, secret, of the Jesuits, ii. 354 > > Continent, Atlantian, i. 591; > Lemuria, i. 592; > Great Equinoctial, i. 594; > in the Pacific, i. 594; > inhabited by the Rutas, _ib._ > > “Control,” i. 360 > > Convulsionaries cured by marriage, i. 375 > > Convulsionary, extraordinary resistance to external injury, i. 373 > > Corcoran, Catherine, malformed child, i. 392 > > Cordanus, power of leaving his body to go on errands, i. 477 > > Corinthian bride, resuscitated by Apollonius of Tyana, i. 481 > > Correspondences, Swedenborg’s doctrine that of Pythagoras and > Kabalists, i. 306 > > Corson, Prof., on science and its contests with religion, i. 403 > > Cory, exceptions to his view of Plato and Pythagoras, i. 288 > > Cosmo, St., traffic by the Italian clergy in his phallic _ex-votos_, > ii. 5 > > Cosmogonical doctrines based on one formula, i. 341 > > Counterfeit relics palmed off on Prince Radzivil, ii. 72; > they work miracles, _ib._ > > Counterfeits in thaumaturgy are proofs of an original, ii. 567 > > Covercapal, the serpent-god, converted, ii. 509 > > Cox, Sergeant, proposition concerning the physical phenomena of > spiritualism, i. 195; > his denial, i. 201 > > Creation, doctrine of Hermetists and Rosicrucians, i. 258; > cycle of, ii. 272, 273; > Plato’s discourse, ii. 469; > of mankind, Hindu legend, i. 148; > Norse legend, i. 146, 151; > of men from the tree _tzite_ and women from the reed _sibac_, i. > 558 > > Creative Principle, proclaimed at Lausanne by the supreme councils of > Freemasonry, ii. 377; > denounced by Gen. Pike, _ib._ > > Creator, not the Highest God, i. 309; > the father of matter and the bad, _ib._ > > Credo, as amended by Robert Taylor, ii. 522 > > Creed, suggested for Protestant and Catholic bodies, ii. 473 > > Crime of every kind sanctioned by Jesuit doctrine, ii. 353; > by ecclesiastics in the United States, ii. 573 > > Crimean war, i. 260 > > Crook, Episcopal, adopted from the Etrurian augurs, ii. 94 > > Crookes, Prof., begins to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 44; > on psychic force, i. 45; > theories, i. 47; > remarks on Prof. Thury, i. 112; > his experiment with the planchette, i. 199; > acknowledges the evidence of spiritual phenomena overwhelming, i. > 202; > weighing light, i. 281 > > Cross, philosophical, i. 508; > or Tau, an ancient symbol, ii. 393; > Egyptian, found at Palenque, i. 572; > a sign of recognition, long before the Christian era, ii. 87; > found on the walls of the Serapeum, ii. 253, 254; > used in the Mysteries, _ib._; > of the Zodiac, ii. 452; > revered by every nation, ii. 453; > the geometrical basis of religious symbolism, _ib._; > acknowledged by the Jews, ii. 454 > > Crosse, Andrew, producing living insects by chemical action, i. 465 > > Crowe, Catherine, on stigmata or birth marks, i. 396 > > Crusade of des Mousseaux and de Mirville against the arch-enemy, ii. > 15 > > Cryptographs of the Sovereign Princes Rose Croix, ii. 394 > > Crypts of Thebes and Memphis, i. 553; > mysteries of the circle of necessity, _ib._ > > Cults derived from one primitive religion, ii. 412 > > Cup, consecrated in the Bacchic mysteries, ii. 513 > > Cures effected at the Egyptian temples, i. 531, 532 > > Curse inheres in matter, i. 433; > allegorical, of the earth, ii. 420 > > Cursing, a Christian, and not a pagan practice, ii. 334; > prohibited because it will return, ii. 608 > > Cusco, its temples and hieroglyphics, i. 597; > tunnel to Lima and Bolivia, _ib._ > > Cycle, at the bottom, i. 247; > doctrine demonstrated, i. 348; > the Unavoidable, the Mysteries, i. 553 > > Cycles of human existence, i. 5, 6, 247, 293; > of the universe, ii. 420 > > Cyclopeans were Phœnicians, i. 567; > were shepherds in Libya, miners and builders, and forged bolts for > Zeus, _ib._; > same as Anakim, _ib._ > > Cyclopes, or Cuclo-pos, the Rajpoot race, ii. 438 > > Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, anthropomorphized Isis as Mary, ii. 41; > his murder of Hypatia, ii. 53; > the assassin of Hypatia sold church vessels, etc., ii. 253 > > Czechs of Bohemia burn the Bull and Syllabus, ii. 560 > > Dactyls, Phrygian, i. 23 > > Daguerre declared by a physician to be insane because he declared his > discovery, ii. 619 > > Daimonion of Socrates the cause of his death, ii. 117 > > Daimonia, i. 276 > > Daityas, i. 313 > > Damiano, St., traffic in Isernia, in his limbs and _ex-voto_, ii. 5 > > Dam-Sâdhna, a practice of fakirs like the rabbinic method of > “entering paradise,” ii. 590 > > Danger, the greatest to be feared, ii. 122 > > Daniel a Babylonian Rabbi, astrologer, and magus, ii. 236 > > Dardanus received the Kabeiri gods as a dowry, i. 570; > carried their worship to Samothrace and Troy, _ib._ > > Darius Hystaspes, teacher of the Mazdean religion, ii. 140; > put down the magian rites, ii. 142; > restored the worship of Ormazd, ii. 220; > added the Brahman to the Magian doctrine, ii. 306; > the institutor of magism, ii. 502; > established a Persian colony in Judea, ii. 441 > > Dark races of Hindustan worshipped Bala-Mahadeva, ii. 434 > > Darkness and the bad, how produced, i. 302 > > Darwin, his theory, i. 14 > > Darwinian line of descent, i. 154; > theory, in book of Genesis, i. 303 > > Daughters of Shiloh, their dance, ii. 45 > > David, King, exorcised the evil spirit of God, i. 215; > how he reinforced his failing vigor, i. 217; > danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > knew nothing of Moses, _ib._; > performing a phallic dance before the ark, ii. 79; > brought the name Jehovah to Palestine, ii. 297; > established the Sadducean priesthood, _ib._; > ascends out of hell, ii. 517; > the Israelitish King Arthur, ii. 439; > establishes a new religion in Palestine, _ib._ > > Davis, A. J., on Diakka, i. 218 > > Day and night of Brahma, ii. 421 > > Daytha, the Hindu Nimrod, ii. 425 > > Dead, their ashes assuming their likeness, ii. 663 > > Death, when it actually occurs, i. 482; > when resuscitation is possible, i. 485; > planetary, i. 254; > no certain signs, i. 479; > exposition, i. 480; > language of Pimander, i. 624, 625; > the penalty for divulging secrets of initiation, ii. 99; > the Gates, ii. 364; > the second, ii. 368 > > Death-symbol at the orgies, ii. 138 > > Decameron, Boccaccio’s, prudery beside the _Golden Legend_, ii. 79 > > Decimal notation unknown to Pythagoras, ii. 300; > known to the Pythagoreans, _ib._ > > Degeneracy of Christians, ii. 575 > > Degrees, the three, ii. 364 > > Deicide, never charged on the Jews by Jesus, ii. 193 > > Deity, from deva, and devil from daeva, the same etymology, ii. 512; > represented by three circles in one, ii. 212 > > Delegatus, ii. 154 > > Deluge, i. 30; > Hindu story, ii. 425 > > Demeter, the Kabeirian, her picture represented with the electrified > head, i. 234; > or Ceres, the intellectual soul, ii. 112 > > Demigod philosophers, ii. 536 > > Demigods and atmospheric electricity, i. 261 > > Demiurgic Mind, i. 55 > > Demiurgos, or architect of the world, Brahma, i. 191; > Jehovah, _ib._ > > Democritus, i. 61; > on death, i. 365; > on the soul, i. 401; > a student of the Magi, i. 512; > his belief concerning magic, _ib._ > > Demon and Martin Luther, ii. 73; > of Socrates, ii. 283, 284; > same as the _nous_, _ib._ > > Demons, the doctrine of Buddha, i. 448; > in the Western Sahara, fascinate travellers, i. 604; > sometimes speak the truth, ii. 71; > opinion of Proclus, i. 312 > > Demoniac, sulphurous flames, ii. 75; > one receives a sound thrashing from the Blessed Virgin, ii. 76 > > Demonologia, i. 89 > > Demon-worship and saint-worship substantially the same, ii. 29 > > Dendera, the temple, the female figures, i. 524 > > De Negre, Grand Hierophant of the Rite of Memphis, ii. 380 > > Denon, his description of the ruins of Karnak, i. 524 > > Dentists in ancient Egypt, i. 545 > > Denton, Prof., examples of psychometrical power, i. 183; > illustrates archæology by psychometry, i. 295 > > Dervish, their initiation, ii. 317 > > Desatir, or book of Shet, on light, ii. 113 > > Descartes believed in occult medicine, i. 71; > his system of physics, i. 206 > > Descendants, resemblance to ancestors, i. 385 > > Descent into hell, ii. 177; > to subdue the rebellious archangel, i. 299; > how explained by Kabalists, _ib._; > of spirit to matter, i. 285 > > Designations of the virgin-mothers, Hindu, Egyptian, and Catholic, > ii. 209 > > Des Mousseaux, his reply to Calmeil and Figuier in regard to > Convulsionaries, i. 375, 376; > on miracles, magic, etc., i. 614, 615; > Chevalier, his crusade against the devil, ii. 15; > proves magic and spiritualism to be twin-sciences, _ib._ > > Despres made the diamond, i. 509 > > Destiny, an influence that each man weaves round himself, ii. 593; > how guided, _ib._ > > Devas and Asuras, their battles, i. 12 > > Devs, i. 141; > nature-spirits, called also shedim, demons, and afrites, i. 313 > > Devil, memoir of, i. 102; > the chief pillar of faith, i. 103; > not an entity, but an errant force, i. 138; > and deity, words of the same etymology, ii. 512; > the Shadow of God, i. 560; > the anthropomorphic, a creation of man, i. 561; > Aryan nations had none, ii. 10; > called by des Mousseaux the Serpent of _Genesis_, ii. 15; > a whole community possessed, ii. 16; > pesters St. Dominic as a flea and as a monkey, ii. 78; > Christians claim the discovery, ii. 477; > the patron genius of theological Christianity, ii. 477; > to deny him equivalent to denying the Saviour, ii. 478; > what he is, ii. 480; > an essential antagonistic force, _ib._; > the key found in the book of Job, ii. 493; > the fundamental stone of Christianity, ii. 501; > origin of the English notions, _ib._; > the European, ii. 502; > with horns and hoof, only known in Popish Encyclicals, ii. 503; > his various delineations by authors, ii. 511 > > Devils, 15,000 in a man, ii. 75; > the Fathers made them from the pagan gods, ii. 502 > > Devil-worshippers of Travancore, i. 135; > falsely-termed, their practice, i. 446, 447 > > Dew from heaven, i. 307 > > Dewel, a demon of Ceylon, i. 448 > > Dharana, or catalepsy, ii. 590, 591 > > Dharm-Asoka, the great propagandist of Buddhism, ii. 607 > > Dhyâna or perfection, ii. 287 > > Diabolical manifestations, frowned at by the Roman Church, ii. 4 > > Diagram of the Nazarenes, ii. 295 > > Diakka, discovered by A. J. Davis, i. 218; > what Porphyry said, i. 219 > > Dialogue of David and the devils, ii. 75 > > Diamond, made by Desprez, i. 509 > > Dido, Elissa, or Astarte, the virgin of the sea, ii. 446 > > Dirghatamas’ hymns, ii. 411 > > Di Franciscis, Don Pasquale, “professor of flunkeyism in things > spiritual,” ii. 7; > pious collection of papal fishwoman’s talk, _ib._ > > Dii minores, or twelve gods, ii. 451 > > Diktamnos, i. 264 > > Diobolos (son of Zeus) changed to Diabolos, an accuser, ii. 485 > > Dionysus, his worship superseded by the rites of Mithras, ii. 491; > or Bacchus, his Hindu origin, ii. 560 > > Diploteratology or production of monsters, i. 390 > > Disbelievers in magic cannot share the faith of the church, ii. 71 > > Diocletian burned libraries of books upon the secret arts, i. 405 > > Dionysius Areopagita and the Kabala, i. 26 > > Dionè pursued by Typhon to the Euphrates, ii. 490 > > Disciples of John, ii. 289, 290; > do not believe in Christ, ii. 290 > > Dissimilarities between Buddhism and Christianity, ii. 540, 541 > > “Distractions” of adversaries of spiritualism, i. 116 > > Divination by the lot, ii. 20, 21; > prohibited by the Council of Varres, i. 21; > devoid of sin, ii. 353 > > Divine book, i. 406; > magic, i. 26 > > Djin reading magic rolls, ii. 29 > > Docetæ or illusionists, believed in the Maya, ii. 157 > > Documents sure to reappear, ii. 26 > > Dodechædron, the geometrical figure of the universe, i. 342 > > Domes, the reproductions of the lithos, ii. 5 > > Dominic and the devils, ii. 73, 75; > receives a rosary from the Virgin Mary, ii. 74; > most hated by devils, ii. 75; > and the devil flea and monkey, ii. 78 > > Dominicans, none in hell, ii. 75 > > Dodona, priestesses, prophesied by means of the oak, ii. 592 > > Doppelganger, or astral body, i. 360 > > Double cross of Chaldea, ii. 453; > existence, i. 179, 180; > life of the adept, ii. 564; > perverted into the offering of human sacrifices, ii. 565 > > Double-sexed creators, i. 156 > > Dove, represented Noah, worshipped, ii. 448 > > Dowager mother alone the mediatrix, ii. 9; > owes the present Pope for the finest gem in her coronet, _ib._ > > Dracontia, or temples to the dragon, i. 554 > > Dragon and the sun, the basis of heliolatrous religion, i. 550; > sons of, the hierophants, i. 553; > cured of a sore eye by Simeon Stylites, and adored God, ii. 77; > Apophis, his influence on the soul, ii. 368; > Horus piercing his head, ii. 446; > pursues Thuesis and her son, ii. 490; > glided over the cradle of Mary, ii. 505; > of Ceylon, Rawho, ii. 509 > > Dragons, oriental in character, i. 448 > > Drama of Job explained, ii. 494, 495 > > Draper, Prof., on pagan belief concerning the human spirit, i. 429; > asserts that Aristotle taught the Buddhistic doctrine, i. 430; > probably meant to misrepresent the Neo-platonic philosophers, i. > 431; > defines the “age of faith” and “age of decrepitude,” i. 582; > on Olympus restored by Constantine, ii. 49; > on the conflict instituted by Augustine between religion and > science, ii. 88 > > Dream produced by the inner ego of a Shaman at the author’s request, > ii. 628 > > Dress of the Christian clergy like that of ancient pagans, ii. 94 > > Druidical structures like other ancient works, i. 572 > > Druids denominated themselves snakes, i. 554 > > Drummer of Tedworth, i. 363 > > Druzes of Mount Lebanon, ii. 306; > their 80,000 warriors, ii. 308; > never became Christians, ii. 309; > their doctrines, ii. 309, 310; > believe in “two souls,” ii. 315; > their tricks with strangers, _ib._; > correct and garbled versions of their commandments, ii. 311 > > Duad or second, i. 212; > ether and chaos the first, i. 343 > > Dual evolution represented in Adam, ii. 277; > taught by Plato and others, ii. 279 > > Dudim, or mandragora, i. 465 > > Dunbar, George, endeavor to derive the Sanscrit from the Greek > language, i. 443 > > Duomo of Milan, its original, ii. 5 > > Du Potet, Baron, Grand Master of Mesmerism, i. 166; > views of sorcery, epidemics, antipathies, magic, i. 279, 333 > > Dupuis mistook ancient symbolism, i. 24 > > Durga, the active virtue, or Shekinah, ii. 276 > > Dust of the earth to become the constituent of living soul, ii. 420 > > Dynasties, two in India, ii. 437 > > Dwellers of the threshold, i. 285 > > Early Christian Church invented the doctrine of Second Advent to shut > off periodical incarnations, ii. 535; > Christianity itself a heresy, ii. 123; > its history imparted to the first Knight Templars, ii. 382 > > Earth, queen of the Serpents, i. 10; > the goddess Anahit or Venus, i. 11; > magical exhalations, i. 199, 200; > a magnet, i. 282 > > Earths germinate, i. 389 > > East, the land of knowledge, i. 89; > its civilization preceded that of the West, i. 539 > > Eastern Æthiopians an Aryan stock, ii. 435; > magic, its adepts uniformly in good health, ii. 595; > requires no “conditions” like mediums, _ib._ > > Ebers Papyrus in the Astor library, i. 3; > quoted, i. 23; > its curious contents, i. 529 > > Ebionites, ii. 127; > the first Christians, ii. 180; > the relatives of Jesus, ii. 181; > used only the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 182; > the Nazarenes their instructors, ii. 190; > condemned as heretics, ii. 307 > > Ecbatana, her seven walls and other wonders, i. 534 > > Echo in the desert of Gobi, i. 606 > > Ecclesia non novit sanguinem, ii. 58 > > Eclectic Platonists adopt the inductive method, ii. 34; > school, its dispersion desired by Christians, ii. 52; > its groundwork, ii. 342, 343 > > Ecstasy, power of conversing with Deity, i. 121; > doctrine of Paracelsus and Van Helmont, i. 170; > defined by Plotinus, i. 486 > > Ectenic force, i. 55; > same as psychic force, i. 113; > same as the Akasa, _ib._ > > Eden, the allegory of the Book of Genesis, i. 575 > > Edison, of Newark, N. J., supposed discovery of a new force, i. 126 > > Egg, spiritual or mundane, i. 56; > evolved by Emepht, the supreme, i. 146; > Isle of Chemmis produced from it, i. 147; > Bhagavant enters and emerges as Brahma, i. 346; > and bird, which appeared first?, i. 426, 428 > > _Egkosmioi_, i. 312 > > Ego, the sentient soul, inseparable from the brain, ii. 590 > > Egypt, resort of philosophers, i. 25; > priests could communicate from temple to temple, i. 127; > doctrine of evolution taught, i. 154; > the perpetual lamp discovered there, i. 226; > taught the secret to Moses, i. 228; > Pythagoras twenty-two years in the temple, i. 284; > Hermetic brothers, ii. 307; > secret biography of its gods, i. 406; > books before Menes, _ib._; > did not learn her wisdom from her Semitic neighbors, i. 515; > akin with India, _ib._; > probably colonized by the Eastern Ethiopians, _ib._; > 20,000 years’ antiquity, i. 519; > the birthplace of chemistry, i. 541; > dentists and oculists, i. 545; > no doctor allowed to practice more than one specialty, _ib._; > trial by jury, _ib._; > received her laws from pre-Vedic India, i. 589; > colonized from India in the dynasty of Soma-Vanga, i. 627 > > Egyptian temples, architecture of, i. 517; > monuments defeat the efforts of the fathers, ii. 520; > saints reappearing as a serpent, ii. 490 > > Egyptians, civilized before the first dynasties, i. 6; > astronomical calculations, i. 21; > were monotheists, i. 23; > knowledge of engineering, i. 516; > changed the course of the Nile, _ib._; > their astronomical erudition, i. 520; > their high civilization disputed, i. 521; > arts of war, i. 531; > gods in the Grecian pantheon, i. 543; > made beer, manufactured glass and imitated gems, i. _ib._; > the best music-teachers, i. 544; > understood the circulation of the blood, _ib._; > their sacred books older than the Genesis, ii. 431; > ancient Indians, ii. 434; > the Caucasian race, ii. 436 > > Eight powers of the soul, ii. 593 > > Eight hundred million believers in magic, mesmerism, and > spiritualism, i. 512 > > Eight-pointed star or double cross, ii. 453 > > El, i. 13; > the sun-god, same as Seth, Saturn, Seth, Siva, ii. 524 > > Elcazar, Rabbi, expelled demons, ii. 350 > > Electric waves, i. 278 > > Electrical photography, i. 395 > > Electricity, personated by Thor in Norse legends, i. 160, 161; > two kinds, i. 188, 322; > occult properties anciently understood, i. 234; > represented at Samothrace by the Kabeirian Demeter, _ib._; > denoted by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the fire on the altar, i. 283; > blind and intelligent, i. 322; > cerebral, _ib._; > developed from magnetic currents, i. 395; > used anciently to supply fire to the altars, i. 526 > > Electro-magnetism, i. 103; > employed by Paracelsus, i. 164 > > Elion, or Elon, the highest god, i. 554 > > Eliphas Levi, on resuscitation of the dead, i. 485 > > Elixir of life regarded as absurd, i. 501; > possible, i. 502; > curious accounts, i. 503 > > Elizabeth, Queen, Jesuitic attempt to murder her, ii. 373 > > Elemental demon driven away with a sword, i. 364; > spirits, i. 67, 311; > inhabit the universal ether, i. 284; > psychic embryos, i. 311; > live in the ether, _ib._; > power to assume tangible bodies, _ib._ > > Elementary spirits, i. 67; > three classes, i. 310; > called demons by Proclus, i. 312; > terrestrial spirits, i. 319; > four classes, _ib._; > peril of evoking them, i. 342; > afraid of sharp weapons, i. 362 > > Elephanta, the Mahody, ii. 5 > > Eleusinian Mysteries, ii. 44 > > Elihu, the hierophant of Job, ii. 497 > > Elisha anointed Jehu that he might unite the Israelites, ii. 525 > > Ellenborough, Lady, her talisman, ii. 255, 256 > > Elohim inhabiting an island in the ancient inland sea of Middle Asia, > i. 589, 590, 599 > > Eloim, gods or powers, priests; also Aleim, i. 575 > > Emanation of souls from divinity, doctrine of, i. 13 > > Emanations, doctrine of, ii. 34 > > Embalming in Thibet, ii. 603 > > Emanuel, not Christ, but the son of Isaiah, ii. 166; > the son of the Alma, in whose days Syria and Israel were overcome, > ii. 440 > > Embryo, stamped with a resemblance by the imagination of the mother, > i. 385; > its nucleus, i. 389 > > Emepht, the supreme, first principle, i. 146; > emanation from him of the creative God, ii. 41 > > Emigration from India to the West, ii. 428 > > Eminent men called gods, i. 24, 280 > > Emmerich, Catherine, the Tyrolese ecstatic, i. 398 > > Empedocles believed in two souls, i. 317; > restored a woman to life, i. 480; > arrested a water-spout, ii. 597 > > Empusa or ghûl, beheld by Apollonius of Tyana, i. 604 > > Enmity, everlasting, between theology and science, ii. 88 > > Ennemoser on seership, etc., in India, i. 460 > > Enoch, sacred delta of, i. 20; > Masonic legend, i. 571; > builds a subterranean structure with nine chambers, _ib._; > communicates secrets to Methuselah, _ib._; > the type of the dual man, spiritual and terrestrial, ii. 453; > and Elias ascending from hell, ii. 517 > > Enoch-Verihe, i. 560 > > En-Soph, i. 16, 67, 270, 272; > means No-Thing, _quo ad non_, the same as nirvana, i. 292; > the first principle, i. 347; > within its first emanation, ii. 37 > > Enthusiastic energy, ii. 591 > > Ephesus a focus of the universal secret doctrines, ii. 155 > > Epicurus disbelieved in God, i. 317; > believed the soul constituted of the roundest, finest atoms, _ib._; > testimony concerning the gods, i. 436 > > Epidemic in moral and physical affairs, i. 274, 276, 277; > of assassination, i. 277; > of possession in Germany, i. 374 > > Epimenides, i. 364; > power to make his soul leave his body and return, ii. 597 > > Epiphanius, a Gnostic renegade, who betrayed his associates as > state’s evidence, ii. 249; > belied the Gnostics, ii. 330 > > Episcopalian crook adopted from the augurs of Etruria, ii. 94 > > Epopt, master-builder, adept, ii. 91 > > Epoptæ, knew nothing of the last and dreaded rite, ii. 563 > > Epopteia, revelation and clairvoyance, the last stage in initiation, > ii. 90 > > Erring spirits, their re-incarnation, i. 357 > > Eslinger, Elizabeth, the apparition, i. 68 > > Esoteric catechism, i. 19; > doctrines never committed to writing, i. 271; > Masonry not known in American lodges, ii. 376 > > Essaoua or sorcerers, i. 488 > > Essenes, hermetic fraternities, i. 16; > had greater and minor mysteries, ii. 42; > had the same customs as the Apostles, ii. 196; > believed in pre-existence, ii. 280; > declared by Eusebius to have been the first Christians, ii. 323; > older than the Christians, _ib._; > never employed oaths, ii. 373; > probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Eternal torments of hell, why pagans are condemned to them, ii. 8; > letter of Virgin Mary on the subject, _ib._; > damnation, the only doctrine invented originally by Christians, ii. > 334; > meaning of the word, ii. 12 > > Eternity, the duad or second, i. 212; > no Hebrew word to express the idea, ii. 12 > > Ether, the universal, i. 128, 156, 284; > properties, i. 181; > directed by an intelligence, i. 199; > disturbed by planetary aspects, i. 275; > influenced by Divine thought, i. 310; > the universal world-soul, i. 316, 341; > universal, the womb of the universe, i. 389; > universal, the repository of the spiritual images of all forms and > thoughts, i. 395; > the Orphean doctrine denounced by the early Christians, ii. 35 > > Ethereal body, i. 281 > > Ethiopians, eastern, the builders, colonists of Egypt, i. 515 > > Etruscans understood electricity and employed it in worship, i. 527; > invented lightning-rods, _ib._ > > Eucharist, common to many ancient nations, ii. 43 > > Eurinus returned after dying, i. 365 > > European science, without the knowledge of the secrets of herbs of > dreams, ii. 589 > > Europeans cannot see certain colors, i. 211 > > Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, perverted chronology, i. 288; > convicted of mendacity, ii. 327 > > Evapto, or initiation, same as epopteia, ii. 90, 91 > > Eve, the name and its affinity with the Tetragrammaton, ii. 299; > her story told kabalistically, ii. 223-225 > > Every nation has believed in a God, ii. 121 > > Evil possessed space as the intelligences retired, i. 342; > essential to the evolving of the good, ii. 480; > eye, i. 380; > Pope Pio Nono said to have the gift, _ib._; > magic, i. 26 > > Evocation, of souls, objected to, i. 321; > of the dead, i. 492; > the “souls of the blessed” do not come, i. 493; > blood used for the purpose, _ib._ > > Evocations, magical, pronounced in a particular dialect, ii. 46; > a formula, _ib._ > > Evolution, taught by science, the secret doctrine and the Bible, i. > 152; > theory found in India and Assyria, i. 154; > held by Anaximenes and accepted by the Chaldeans, i. 238; > taught by Hermes, i. 257; > doctrine of Robert Fludd, i. 258; > ancient belief, i. 285, 295; > doctrine of A. R. Wallace, i. 294; > operation defined, i. 329, 330; > spiritual and physical, i. 352; > theory does not solve the ultimate mystery, i. 419; > of man out of primordial spirit-matter, i. 429; > Darwin begins his theory at the wrong end, _ib._; > as taught by the Bhagavat and Manu, ii. 260; > by Sanchoniathon and Darwin, ii. 261; > of our own planet, ii. 420; > for six days, and one of repose, ii. 422; > of the universe, ii. 467; > of man from the highest to lowest, ii. 424 > > Exorcising a girl in Catalonia, ii. 68 > > Exorcism, ii. 66; > new ritual, ii. 69 > > Exorcist-priest, ii. 66 > > Exoteric religion, its God an idol or fiction, i. 307 > > Exposures, pretended, of impostors, i. 75 > > Extinction at death, those who believe it will commit, in > consequence, any sin they choose, ii. 566 > > _Ex votos_, Phallic, traffic by the Roman clergy, ii. 5 > > Ezekiel’s wheel, a wheel of the Adonai, ii. 451; > explained, ii. 455; > exoteric, ii. 461; > esoteric, ii. 462 > > Ezra compiled the _Pentateuch_, i. 578 > > Fables, allegorical science and anthropology, i. 122; > allegorized the gods and natural phenomena, i. 261 > > Fairfield, Francis Gerry, his testimony in regard to the > phantom-hand, ii. 594, 595 > > Faith, the Devil the chief pillar, i. 103; > its power to heal disease, i. 216; > phenomena of, i. 323; > its great power, ii. 597; > of the Church, disbelievers in magic cannot share, ii. 76; > omni-perceptive, inside of human credulity, ii. 120 > > Faithful daughters of the church, ii. 54 > > Fakir buried six weeks and resuscitated, i. 477; > and his guru, ii. 105 > > Fakirs not harmed by alligators, i. 383; > use the force known as Akasa, i. 113; > raised from the ground, i. 115, 224 > > Fall of Adam, not a personal transgression, but an evolution, ii. 277 > > Fallen angels, hurled by Siva into Onderah, ii. 11 > > Familiar spirit, those having one, refused initiation, ii. 118 > > Famines follow missionaries, ii. 531 > > Faraday, i. 11; > his medium-catcher, i. 63 > > Fascination, i. 380, 381; > at a precipice, i. 501 > > Fatalism rejected by ancients, ii. 593 > > Fate, defined by Henry More, i. 206 > > “Father” of Jesus, the hierophant of the mysteries, ii. 561 > > Fathers, selected narratives for their saints, from the poets and > pagan legends, ii. 78 > > Fauste asserts that the evangeliums or gospels were not written by > Jesus or the apostles, but by unknown persons, ii. 38 > > Fav-Atma, or sentient soul, ii. 590 > > Favre, Jules, counsel for Madam Roger, i. 166 > > Feast of the dead in Moldavia and Bulgaria, ii. 569, 570 > > Felix, preacher of Notre Dame, on mystery and science, i. 337 > > Felt, George H., i. 22 > > Female trinity, ii. 444 > > Ferho, the greatest, i. 300; > first cause, i. 301; > believed in by Jesus and John, ii. 290 > > Fessler’s rite, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390 > > Fetahil, i. 298; > called to aid in creation, i. 299; > the newest man and creator, i. 300; > the “newest man,” ii. 175 > > Fiery serpents (_Numbers_, xxi.), a name given to the Levites, i. 555; > or seraphs, the Levites, or serpent-tribe, ii. 481; > the allegory explained, ii. 129 > > Fifteen thousand devils in a man, ii. 75 > > Fifth degree, ii. 365; > element, i. 317; > stage of initiation the most awful and sublime, ii. 101 > > Fifty millions slaughtered by Christians since Jesus said, “Love your > enemies,” ii. 479 > > Fifty-five thousand Protestant clergymen in the United States, ii. 1 > > Final absorption, i. 12 > > Finger of the Holy Ghost preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Fiords of Norway described in the Odyssey, i. 549 > > Fire, living, i. 129; > on the altar, electric, i. 283; > its triple potency, i. 423; > from heaven, always employed by the ancients in the temples, i. 526; > preserved by the magi, i. 528; > and brimstone, the lake, ii. 12 > > Fire-proof mediums, i. 445, 446 > > Fūkara-Yogis, ii. 164 > > First Air, or anima mundi, ii. 227; > adept, ii. 317; > begotten, constructed the world, i. 342; > cause, denied by Vyasa and Kapila, ii. 261; > Christians, the Elianites, ii. 180; > the disciples of Paul, ii. 178; > cycle, i. 301; > gods, a hierarchy of higher powers, ii. 451; > light, i. 302; > man created bi-sexual, i. 559; > races of men spiritual, ii. 276; > direct emanations of the Tikkun or Adam Kadmon, _ib._; > sin, committed by Brahma-Pragâpati and his daughter Ushas, i. 265; > the spirit of evil created to destroy its incarnation, _ib._; > trinity, i. 341. > > Fish displaying magnetic affinity, i. 210 > > Fish-charming in Ceylon, i. 606 > > Fisher (Dr. G.) on deploteratology, i. 390 > > Fishwife, talk of papal discourses, ii. 7 > > Fiske, Prof. J., i. 42; > disputes the doctrine of cycles and the high civilization of the > Egyptians, i. 521; > declares the theories of profound science in ancient Egypt and the > East utterly destroyed, i. 525 > > Five thousand Roman Catholic clergy in the United States, ii. 1 > > Flammarion the astronomer, his avowal, i. 195; > Camille, his curious revelation, ii. 450 > > Flight of the alone to the Alone, ii. 413 > > Flood, 10,000 years B.C., i. 241; > as described in the Assyrian tablets, ii. 422; > Hindu legend, ii. 428; > the old serpent, ii. 447 > > Florentine scientist witnessing a re-incarnation of a Dalai-Lama, i. > 437 > > “Flowers of Speech,” Mr. Gladstone’s catalogue, ii. 7 > > Fludd, Robert (_de Fluctibus_), on magnetism, i. 71; > on minerals as rudimentary of plants, etc., i. 258; > chief of the “philosophers by fire,” i. 309; > on the essence of gold, i. 511 > > Flute-player of Vaucanson, i. 543 > > Fœtal life, little known about it, i. 386 > > Fœtus, its sensitive surface like a collodionized plate, i. 385; > its signature, _ib._; > extinguished, i. 402 > > Foraisse, M., his story respecting Masonry, ii. 381 > > Forbidden ground, i. 418 > > Force, magnetic, body nourished by, i. 169; > produced by will, i. 285; > the supreme artist and providence, ii. 40 > > Force-correlation, i. 235; > taught in prehistoric time, i. 241, 242; > the A B C of Occultism, i. 243 > > Fore-heaven, ii. 534 > > Fall of man an allegory, and so regarded, ii. 541 > > Forever, meaning of the word, ii. 12 > > Forgery the basis of the Church, ii. 329 > > Former life, i. 347 > > Forms, images impressed on the ether, i. 395 > > Formula of an evocation, ii. 46 > > Formulas, secret, i. 66; > for inextinguishable fire, i. 229 > > Four ages or yugs, ii. 275; > ages of the Bible like those of the nations, ii. 443; > gospels, their doctrines found elsewhere, ii. 337; > kingdoms in nature, i. 329; > men not begotten by the gods, nor born of women, i. 558; > the gods afraid of them, and give them wives, i. 558; > races of men, i. 559; > Tanaïm, etc., entered the garden, ii. 119; > “Truths,” i. 290, 291 > > Fournié, Dr., declares that no physiology of the nervous system > exists, i. 407; > remarkable declaration concerning the human ovule, i. 397 > > Fourth degree, ii. 365; > race, parents of men “whose daughters were fair,” i. 559 > > Fourfold emanations, ii. 272 > > Francis, St., preached to the birds, ii. 77; > preached to a wolf till he repented, _ib._ > > Francke, A., remarks on the transmutations of Christianity, ii. 38; > the Sephiroth and Providence, ii. 40 > > Free and Accepted Masons, and the Masonic impostor, Anderson, ii. 389 > > Free-Masonry, its origin in London, ii. 349; > proclaims a creative principle as Great Architect, ii. 377 > > French Revolution, what it achieved for freedom, ii. 22 > > Fretheim, Abbé, his faculty of conversing by power of will, i. 476 > > Friar Pietro presents a demon to Dr. Torralva, ii. 60 > > Fundamental doctrine identical in all the ancient religions, ii. 99 > > Funeral ritual of the Egyptians, ii. 367 > > Future life, better to believe in it, ii. 566; > self, beheld at the moment of initiation, ii. 115; > man, primitive shape, i. 388, 389; > religion of, i. 76; > woman of, artificially fecundated, i. 77; > also offered to the incubi, i. 78 > > Gabriel, the same as Christos, ii. 193 > > Gaffarillus, on the form of a burned plant remaining in the ashes, i. > 475, 476 > > Galileo, i. 35; > anticipated, i. 159, 238 > > Gallæus, quotation from, ii. 504 > > Gan-Duniyas, an Assyrian name of Babylonia, i. 575 > > Gan-Eden, or garden of Eden, also Ganduniyas, a name of Babylonia, i. > 575 > > Ganesor, the elephant-headed god found in Central America, i. 572, 573 > > Ganges, the paradisiacal river, ii. 30 > > Gap between Christianity and Judaism, ii. 526 > > Garden of delight (Eden), the mysterious science, ii. 119; > of Eden, allegory, i. 575; > name of Babylonia, _ib._; > explanation as a sacerdotal college, _ib._ > > Garibaldi, his testimony concerning priests, ii. 347; > a Mason, ii. 391 > > Garlic, story by Hippocrates, i. 20 > > Gasparin, Count Agenor de, i. 99; > makes no differences between magnetic phenomena and will-force, i. > 109; > his labors, ii. 15 > > Gate of the House of Life, and of Dionysus, ii. 245, 246 > > Gates of Death, in the hall of initiation, ii. 364 > > Gautama-Buddha, his birth announced to Maya his mother by a vision, > i. 92; > called an atheist, i. 307; > his answer to King Prasenagit on miracles, i. 599, 600; > a disciple of a Jaina guru, ii. 322; > his legends wrought into the evangelists, ii. 491, 492; > his history copied into _The Golden Legend_, ii. 579; > his esoteric doctrines, ii. 319; > first opened the sanctuary to the pariah, _ib._ > > Gayatri, its metre, ii. 410 > > Gegen Chutuktu, late patriarch of Mongolia, an incarnation of Buddha, > ii. 617 > > Gehenna, a valley near Jerusalem, where the Israelites immolated > their children, ii. 11; > of the universe, or eighth sphere or planet, i. 328; > repentance possible, i. 352 > > Gemantria, ii. 298 > > Gemma, Cornelius, account of a child born wounded, i. 386 > > Genealogy of the gods, astronomical, i. 267 > > Generations, fall into, i. 315 > > Genesis, Book of, a reminiscence of the Babylonish captivity, i. 576; > first three chapters transcribed from other cosmogonies, the fourth > and fifth from the secret _Book of Numbers_, the _Kabala_, i. > 579; > the introductory chapters do not treat of creation, ii. 421; > the book later than the invention of the sign Libra, ii. 457 > > Genghis Khan, his tomb and promised reappearance, i. 598 > > Genii, or Æons, lord of, i. 300 > > Genius, the divine spirit, i. 277 > > Genoa cathedral, the celebrated vase, i. 537, 538 > > Geographers in pre-Mosaic days, i. 406 > > Geometers of the Alexandrian Museum, i. 7 > > Germany depopulated by the thirty years’ war, ii. 503; > priestesses, how they hypnotized themselves, ii. 592 > > Ghosts, unlike materialized spirits, i. 69; i. 345 > > Ghouls, i. 319; > or ghûls, in the deserts, i. 604; > and vampires, ii. 564 > > Giants, i. 31; > progenitors of Brahmans, i. 122; > remains of a prehistorical race, i. 303, 304 > > Gibbon, his praise of the Gnostics, ii. 249 > > Gilbert on magnetism, i. 497 > > Giles, Rev. Chauncey, on spiritual death, i. 317 > > Ginnungagap, the cup of illusion, i. 147; > the boundless abyss of the mundane pit, i. 160 > > Girard, Father, his employment of sorcery and revolting crimes, ii. > 633 > > Gladstone, Hon. W. E., “Speeches of Pius IX.,” ii. 4; > catalogue of “flowers of speech” in papal discourses, ii. 7 > > Glass that would not break, i. 50; > malleable, i. 239; > in Pompeii, China, and Genoa, i. 537 > > Glass-blowing in Egypt, i. 543 > > Gliddon, George R., description of the moving of an obelisk, i. 519; > eloquent testimony to Egyptian civilization, i. 521, 522 > > Glycerine, a compound of three hydroxyl groups, i. 505, 506 > > Gnosis, the Kabala, or secret knowledge, still existing, ii. 38 > > Gnostic, wrote _Gospel according to John_, i. 2; > serpent with the seven vowels, ii. 489 > > Gnosticism, oriental, i. 271; > Buddhistic elements, ii. 321 > > Gnostics, ii. 41; > believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > early Christians and followers of the Essenes, i. 26; > originated many Christian doctrines, ii. 41, 42; > their greatest heresies, ii. 155, 156; > praised by Gibbon, ii. 259; > their doctrines falsified by the Christian Fathers, ii. 326; > their view of the Jewish God, ii. 526 > > Gobi desert, the seat of empire, i. 598; > jealousy of foreign intrusion, i. 599; > testimony of Marco Polo, _ib._; > believed to be inhabited by malignant beings, i. 603 > > Goblins, elementary, i. 68 > > God, personal, denied by modern scientists, i. 16; > an intelligent, omnipotent, individual will, i. 58; > his existence denied by Comte and the Positivists, i. 76; > to be sought in nature, and not outside, i. 93; > belief of Henry More, the English Platonist, i. 205, 206; > Kircher’s doctrine of the one magnet, i. 208; > the monad, i. 212; > doctrines of Voltaire and Volney, i. 268; > the central sun, i. 270; > the universal mind, the original doctrine, i. 289; > is no-thing, not a concrete or visible being like objects, i. 292; > belief of the Stoics, i. 317; > of the several Christian denominations, ii. 2; > the Father, ii. 50; > of the gardens, his rites adopted by the Fathers, ii. 51; > each immortal spirit, ii. 153; > “manifest in the flesh,” a forged text, ii. 178; > his actions subject to necessity, ii. 251; > Masonic testimony, ii. 377; > the Father, the beguiling serpent, ii. 492; > prepares hell for priers into his mysteries, ii. 524; > every man’s, bounded by his own conceptions, ii. 567 > > God-man, the first man, i. 297 > > God’s comedy and our tragedy, ii. 534 > > Godfrey Higgins in error about Roman Catholic esoterism, ii. 121 > > Gods, eminent men so called, i. 24, 280; > inferior to deities, i. 287; > supercelestial and intercosmic, i. 312; > pagan, Christian archangels, i. 316; > kind and beneficent demons, i. 332; > their names kept secret, i. 581; > not incarnations of the Supreme Being, ii. 153 > > Gogard, the Hellenic tree of life, i. 297 > > Gold, basic matter of, i. 50; > its manufacture asserted, i. 503; > testimony of Francesco Picos, i. 504; > assertion of Dr. Peisse, i. 508, 509; > made by Theodore Tiffereau, i. 509; > the deposit of light, i. 511 > > _Golden Legend_, a conservatory of pious lies, ii. 74; > choice excerpts, ii. 76-79; > beats the _Decameron_, ii. 79; > a parodized or plagiarized history of Buddha, ii. 579 > > Good demons appear, i. 333; > spirits hardly ever appear, i. 344; > enough Morgan, ii. 372; > Shepherd, a Gnostic symbol, ii. 149 > > Goodale, Miss Annie, death, i. 479 > > Goodness must be alternated by its opposite, ii. 480 > > Gorillas mentioned by Hanno, i. 412 > > Gospel according to Peter, ii. 181; > fourth, full of Gnostic expressions, ii. 205; > fourth, blends Christianity with the Gnosis and Kabala, ii. 211 > > Gospels, their authors and compilers not known, ii. 37, 38 > > Gossein, fakir, contest with a sorcerer, i. 368 > > Græco-Russian church never under the Roman Catholics, i. 27 > > Grand council of the emperors, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390; > secours, i. 374; > cycle, Orpheus, i. 294; > its character, i. 296; > cycle completed, i. 303 > > Grandville, Dr., on mummy-bandaging, i. 539 > > Gravitation, none in the Newtonian sense, i. 271 > > Gray brain-matter the god, i. 36 > > Great Dragon, crushed under the foot of the Virgin of the Sea, ii. > 446; > Vasaki, casting out a flood of poison which the earth swallows, ii. > 490; > equinoctial continent, i. 594; > Masonic revolution of 1717, ii. 389; > secret of evocation, ii. 114; > snake, worshipped by the pueblo-chiefs of Mexico, i. 557; > spirit of the Indian, the manifested Brahma, i. 560; > synagogue revised the Pentateuch, i. 578; > universal soul, absorption into it does not involve loss of > individuality, ii. 116; > year, i. 30 > > Greatest scientists inanimate corpses, i. 318 > > Greece derived its art from Egypt, i. 521 > > Gregory VII., pope, a magician, ii. 56, 57; > of Tours, exposition of sortilege, ii. 20 > > Gross, T., denounces those opposed to investigation, ii. 96 > > Grote assimilates the Pythagoreans to the Jesuits, ii. 529 > > Gunpowder, anciently used by the Chinese, i. 241 > > Guru-astara, a spiritual teacher, ii. 141 > > Gymnosophists of India, i. 90; > knew the Akâsa, i. 113 > > Half-death, i. 452 > > Half-gods, i. 323; > or mukti, men regenerate on earth, ii. 566 > > Hierophant, transfer of his life to a candidate, ii. 563 > > Hakem, the wise one of the Druzes, ii. 310 > > Haideck, Countess, a Mason, ii. 391 > > Hall of spirits, ii. 365 > > Hamites preferred to settle near rivers and oceans, ii. 458 > > Hamsa, the Messiah of the Druzes, ii. 308; > the precursor, ii. 310 > > Hanno, mention of gorillas, i. 412 > > Hanuma, or Hanuman the sacred monkey, the progenitor of the > Europeans, i. 563; > resembles the Egyptian cynocephalus, i. 564; > endowed with speech, ii. 274 > > Hare, Prof., i. 38; > views of Comte’s positive philosophy, i. 79; > mistreated by Harvard professors, i. 176, 177; > declared _non compos mentis_, i. 233; > bullied by Prof. Henry, i. 245 > > Harmony and justice analagous, i. 330 > > Hasty burial deprecated, i. 453 > > Haug, Dr., asserts the affinity of the Zoroastrian, Jewish, and > Christian religions, ii. 486 > > Haunted house, i. 69 > > Hayes, Moses Michael, introduced Royal Arch Masonry into this > country, ii. 393 > > Hayti, a centre of secret societies, where infants are immolated, ii. > 572 > > Healing art in the temples always magical, ii. 502 > > Heathen processions and priapic emblems at Easter in France, ii. 332; > priesthood, their cast-off garb worn by Christian clergy, ii. 8 > > Heavenly Man, Tikkun, Protogonos, ii. 276 > > Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible the oldest, ii. 430; > burned by the Inquisition, _ib._ > > Hebron, or Kirjath-Arba, city of the four Kabeiri, ii. 171; > Smaragdine tablet of Hermes found, i. 507 > > Heliocentric system known by Hindus 2,000 B.C., i. 9; > denied alike by scholars and the clergy, i. 84; > known by the priests of Egypt, i. 532 > > Hel, or Hela, neither a state nor place of punishment, ii. 11; > cold and cheerless, _ib._ > > Hell, a German goddess, ii. 11; > not a place of punishment in Scandinavian mythology, _ib._; > nowhere so set forth in Egyptian or Hindu mythology, nor in the > Jewish Scriptures, _ib._; > the Archimedean lever of Christian theology, _ib._; > said to be located in the sun, ii. 12; > denied by Origen, ii. 13; > hypothesis of Mr. Swinden, _ib._; > Augustine’s theory of miracles, _ib._; > eternal torments of, all pagans condemned to, ii. 8; > Virgin Mary testifying to it with her own signature, _ib._; > the damned, ii. 25; > priests there, but no monks, _ib._; > no Dominicans, _ib._; > a hallucination, ii. 507; > never means eternal torment, ii. 507; > the translation in the Bible a forgery, ii. 506; > its prince quarrelling with Satan, ii. 515 > > Hellenic figures at Nagkon-Wat, i. 568 > > Hell-torments, their perpetuity denied by Origen, ii. 13 > > Helps, artificial, to clairvoyance, ii. 592 > > Heptaktis, the seven-rayed god, ii. 417 > > Herakleitus on fighting with anger, i. 248; > the Ephesian, his philosophical doctrine of fire and flux, i. 422; > the spirit of fire, i. 423 > > Herakles, the Grecian Hercules, the Logos, i. 298; > disseminated a mild religion, ii. 515; > the only-begotten, ii. 515; > the saviour, _ib._; > ascending from the nether house of Pluto, ii. 517; > slew the sacrificers of men, ii. 565 > > Herbs of dreams and enchantments, ii. 589 > > Her-cules, the Sanscrit form of Mel-Kartha, i. 567 > > Hercules, the magnet named from him, i. 130; > not the same as the Grecian Herakles, _ib._; > creator and father, i. 131; > killed by the devil, i. 132; > and Thor, i. 261; > the first-begotten, Bel, Baal, and Siva, ii. 492; > the Titan, restores Jupiter or Zeus to his throne, i. 299; > descends to Hades, _ib._; > Invictus, his initiation into the Eleusynia and descent into hell, > ii. 516 > > Herder places the cradle of mankind in India, ii. 30 > > Heredom Rosy Cross, ii. 394 > > Heresies, early Christianity among them, ii. 123; > secret sects of the Christians, ii. 289; > one still in existence, ii. 290 > > Hermas, the pastor of, a book quoting from the _Sohar_, ii. 243, 244 > > Hermes, the counterpart of the serpent, ii. 508; > his prediction to Prometheus, ii. 514, 515; > Trismegistus, 20,000 books written before Menes, i. 406; > his _Smaragdine Tablet_ or manual of alchemy, i. 507; > reputed author of serpent-worship and heliolatry, i. 551; > an evocation of angels and demons to preside at Mysteries, i. 613; > and Hostanes believed in one God, ii. 88 > > Hermetic books on medicine, i. 3; > their antiquity, i. 37; > Brothers of Egypt, ii. 307; > doctrine accounts most reasonably for the formation of the world, > i. 341; > fraternities, i. 16; > gold, i. 511; > philosophers, i. 1 > > Hermetists’ doctrine of creation, i. 258; > why they wrote incomprehensibly, i. 627 > > Hermodorus or Hermotimus, i. 364, 476 > > Hero invented a steam-engine, i. 241 > > Herodotus mentioned a night of six months, i. 412; > testimony concerning the pyramids, i. 518, 519; > description of the labyrinth, i. 522 > > Hezekiah, the Redeemer and Messiah, ii. 440, 441; > the rod or scion from the stem of Jesse, ii. 441; > a prince from Bethlehem establishes a sacred college and a new > religion, terminating Baal and serpent-worship, ii. 440; > succeeded on the extinction of the family of Ahaz, ii. 166 > > Hiarchus and Hiram, i. 19 > > Hieroglyph of Knights Kadosh, ii. 391 > > Hieroglyphics on the stones of the Temple of Dendera, i. 524 > > Hierophant offered his own life, ii. 42; > did not allow candidates to see or hear him personally, ii. 93 > > Hierophants, Egyptian, i. 90 > > Higgins, Godfrey, i. 33; > rebuke of skeptics who accept the Bible stories, i. 284; > had not the key to the esoteric doctrine, i. 347; > on the Rasit, ii. 35 > > High Hierophant transferring his life, ii. 564 > > Highest pyrotechny, i. 306 > > Hildebrand, the seventh Pope Gregory, a magician, ii. 557 > > Hindu demigods, ii. 103; > wonderful appearance seen by Jacolliot, _ib._; > gods, masks without actors, ii. 261, 262; > populations in Greece, ii. 428; > rites belong to a religion older than the present one, ii. 535 > > Hindus, more susceptible to magnetism, ii. 610; > and Iranians, battles, i. 12; > ancient, their philosophy and science, i. 618-620; > their great probity, ii. 474; > corrupted by European associations, _ib._ > > Hindustan, once called Æthiopia, ii. 434; > dark races worshipped Maha Deva, _ib._ > > Hiouen-Thsang, his description of the magicians of Peshawer, i. 599; > his vision of the shade of Buddha, i. 600 > > Hippocrates, his views like of Herakleitos, i. 423; > identical with those of the Rosicrucians, _ib._; > his doctrine of man’s inner sense, i. 425; > praise of instinct, i. 434 > > Hiram, i. 19 > > Hiram Abiff, i. 29 > > Hitchcock, E. A., exposition of alchemy, i. 308; > Prof., on psychometric photography, i. 184 > > Hivim, or Hivites, descendants of the Serpent, i. 554; > Ophites, or serpent-tribe, Cain their ancestor, ii. 446; > of Palestine a serpent-tribe, ii. 481 > > Hobbs, Abigail, confederated with the devil, i. 361 > > Holy Ghost, the Æther, the breath of God, ii. 50; > a bit of his finger kept as a relic, ii. 71. > > Holy kiss, and toilet directions of Augustine, ii. 331; > limbs of Sts. Cosmo and Damiano, phallic symbols, ii. 5; > syllable, supreme mystery, ii. 114; > thief ascends out of hell, ii. 517 > > Homer, the Iliad probably plagiarized, ii. 436 > > Homunculi of Paracelsus, i. 465 > > Hononer, the Persian Logos, or living manifested word, i. 560 > > Horse with fingers, i. 411, 412 > > Horse-shoe magnet applied to the phantom-hand, ii. 594 > > Horus piercing the head of the serpent, ii. 446 > > Hospitals anciently established near temples, ii. 98 > > Houdin Robert, i. 73, 100; > testimony in regard to table-rapping and levitation, i. 358, 359; > suspected of magic, i. 379 > > House of David deposed by the Israelites, ii. 439 > > Howitt William, explanation of exorcism, ii. 66 > > Huc, Abbé, his testimony concerning the infant Dalai-Lama, i. 438; > his book placed on the _Index Expurgatorius_, _ib._; > his account of the marvellous tree, i. 440; > the picture of the moon, i. 441; > punishment for his candor, ii. 345, 346; > his testimony of the Lamaic doctrines, ii. 582; > his story of the children compelled to swallow mercury, ii. 604. > > Hufeland, Dr., theory of magnetic sympathy, i. 207 > > Human body once half ethereal, i. 1; > made as a prison of earlier races, i. 2; > credulity contains inside of it an omni-perceptive faith, ii. 120; > embryo, evolved, i. 302, 303; > fœtus, transient forms like those of fœtal animals, i. 388; > process of development, i. 389; > race, many before Adam, i. 2; > imprisoned in bodies, i. 2; > antiquity more than 250,000 years, i. 3; > authorities differ in regard to original barbarism, i. 4; > sacrifices, an ancient practice, ii. 547; > abolished in Egypt, Africa, and Greece, ii. 568; > offered to the Virgin Mary as heretics, _ib._; > soul an immortal god, i. 345; > is born and dies like man, _ib._; > spirit, sees all things as in the present, i. 185 > > Humanity, happy day for it, ii. 586. > > Humboldt, Alexander von, suspected intercourse between Mexicans and > Hindus, i. 548 > > Humboldt, Alexander, on presumptuous skepticism, i. 223 > > Hume, David, exalted by Prof. Huxley, i. 421; > the real founder of the positive philosophy, i. 82; > testimony in the miracles at the tomb of Abbé Paris, i. 373 > > Hunt, Prof. Sterry, on solutions, i. 192 > > Huss, John, his memory sacred in Bohemia, ii. 560 > > Huxley, physical basis of life, i. 15; > classes spiritualism outside of philosophical inquiry, i. 15; > repudiates positive philosophy as Catholicism minus Christianity, > i. 82; > defines what constitutes proof, i. 121; > confesses ignorance of matter, i. 408; > his theory formulated, i. 419 > > Hyk-sos, or shepherds of Egypt, the ancestors of the earlier > Israelites, ii. 487 > > Hymns by Dirghatamas, ii. 411 > > Hyneman, Leopold, testimony on Masonry becoming sectarian, ii. 380 > > Hypatia, her atrocious murder by order of St. Cyril, ii. 53; > letter of Synesius, _ib._; > why Cyril caused her to be murdered, ii. 253 > > Hystaspes, Gushtasp, Vistaspa, ii. 141; > visited Kashmere, ii. 434 > > Hysteria imputed to the prophets of the Cevennes, i. 371 > > I was, but am no more, ii. 393 > > I. H. S., in hoc signum, ii. 527 > > Iachus, an Egyptian physician, i. 406 > > Iaho, variety of etymologies, ii. 301; > statement of Aristotle, ii. 302 > > Iamblichus, i. 33; > raised ten cubits from the ground, i. 115; > forbids endeavors to procure phenomena, i. 219; > explanation of Pythagoras, i. 248, 284; > on manifestations of demons, etc., i. 333; > the founder of theurgy, his practice, i. 489; > his explanation of the objects of the Mysteries, ii. 101 > > Iao, the male essence of the Phœnicians, i. 61 > > Yava, יהוה, the secret name of the mystery-god, ii. 165 > > Idæic finger, i. 23 > > Identity of all ancient religions and secret fraternities between the > ancient faiths, ii. 100 > > Idiots, reborn, i. 351 > > Iessaens, ii. 190 > > Ievo, not the same as Iao, ii. 296 > > Iezedians, came from Basrah, ii. 197 > > Ignition of stars, i. 254 > > Ilda-Baoth, the son of Chaos, ii. 183; > his sons, _ib._; > creates man, ii. 184; > punishes him for transgression, ii. 185; > his abode in the planet Saturn, ii. 236; > transformed into the Devil, ii. 501 > > Illuminati and their purposes, ii. 391 > > Illusion (_Maya_), the veil of the arcana, i. 271 > > Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin, an element of old phallic > religion, ii. 5; > why promulgated, ii. 110 > > Imagination, the plastic power of the soul, i. 396; > not identical with fancy, _ib._; > a memory of preceding states, _ib._; > its power upon physical condition, i. 385; > its influence on fœtal life doubted by Magendie, i. 390 > > Immodesty of the _Vedas_ exceeded by that of the Bible, ii. 88 > > Immoral principles of the Jesuits, ii. 355 > > Immorality, sexual, said to be produced by religious instinct, i. 83 > > Ilus or Hyle, the slime or earth-matter, i. 146 > > Immortal, Chinese, Siamese, etc., believe some know the art of > becoming, i. 214; > theory of Maxwell, i. 216; > breath, i. 302; > portion of immortal matter, ii. 262 > > Immortality of the soul, the doctrine as old as the twelfth Egyptian > dynasty, ii. 361; > of the spirit, Moksha and Nirvana, ii. 116; > of all, a false idea, i. 316; > to be won, _ib._ > > Imparting the secret to the successor, ii. 671 > > Impostor-demons, seven, ii. 234 > > Incarnation explained, ii. 152, 153; > prophetic star, ii. 454; > exhibited before the author, ii. 599-602 > > Incarnations, the five of the Buddhists, ii. 275; > known in all the old world-religions, ii. 503; > of the deity, periodical, ii. 535 > > Incas, the lost treasures, i. 596; > the story of the last queen, _ib._; > their tomb, i. 597; > the tunnel, i. 598 > > Incendiarism, epidemic, i. 276 > > India, magic in, i. 89; > gymnosophists, i. 80; > of the archaic period, i. 589; > included Persia, Thibet, Mongolia, and Great Tartary, _ib._; > the alma mater of the world-religions, ii. 30; > said to be the cradle of the human race, _ib._; > derived her rites from some foreign source, ii. 535; > Southern, the law of inheritance, ii. 437 > > Indian dynasties, solar and lunar, ii. 437, 438 > > Indicator, Prof. Faraday, i. 63 > > Individual life in the future to be won, i. 316; > existence, how sustained, i. 318, 319; > existence of the spirit a Hindu doctrine, ii. 534 > > Individualization depends on the spirit, i. 315 > > Indranee and her son painted with the aureole, ii. 95 > > Induction, not the usual mode of great discoveries, i. 513 > > Ineffable name employed by Jesus, ii. 387 > > Infant, temporarily animated by the spirit of a lama, ii. 601, 602 > > Infant-girl burned as a witch, ii. 65 > > Infant-prophet in France, i. 438 > > Infants, dying, prematurely born a second time, i. 351; > unborn, how influenced, i. 395; > eaten at the sacrifices in Hayti, ii. 572 > > Initiation, the practice in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > represented the experience of the soul after death, ii. 494; > of a Druze, ii. 313 > > Injunction of secresy, ii. 40 > > Inman, Dr. Thos., defines greatest curse of a nation, ii. 121, 122; > on Christian heathenism, ii. 80, 81; > declares the Atheism imputed to Buddha Sakya not supported, ii. 533; > comparison of Christians and Buddhists, ii. 540 > > Inner Man, can withdraw from the body, ii. 588 > > Inner Sense, doctrine of Hippocrates, i. 424, 425; > of Iamblichus, i. 435 > > Innocent III., bull against magic, ii. 69 > > Innocents of Bethlehem, their massacre, a myth copied from India, ii. > 199 > > Inquisition, the slaughter-house of the church, destroyed by Napoleon > I., ii. 22; > its atrocious cruelty, ii. 55; > its bloodshed and human sacrifices unparalleled in paganism, ii. 5, > 6; > why invented, ii. 58; > its origin in Paradise, ii. 59; > burned Hebrew Bibles, ii. 430 > > Inquisitors of our days, the scientists, i. 99 > > Insanity from spiritualism in the United States, ii. 7; > the obsession by spirits, ii. 589 > > Inscription on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept, i. 92 > > Instinct, i. 425; > its miracles, i. 433 > > Integral whole, ii. 116 > > Intelligence of the electric bolt, i. 188; > ether directed, i. 199 > > Intelligent electricity, i. 322 > > Intercosmic gods, i. 312 > > Interior Man, doctrine of Socrates and Plato, ii. 283 > > Interview with a young lama re-incarnated Buddha, ii. 598 > > Intuition the guide of the seer, i. 433; > a rudiment in every one, i. 434; > doctrine of Iamblichus, i. 435 > > Investigation denounced as a criminal labor, ii. 96 > > Invisible Sun, i. 302 > > Invocation of ancestors by Moldavian Christians, ii. 570 > > Invulnerability, can be imparted, i. 379 > > Iran and Turan, their wars conflicts between Persians and Assyrians > or Aturians, i. 576 > > Irenæus, makes Christ fifty years old, ii. 305; > on the trine in man, ii. 285; > and the Gnostics, their contests, ii. 51; > believed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > attempted to establish a new doctrine on the basis of Plato, i. 289; > found guilty of falsehood, ii. 327 > > Irenæus Philaletha, explanation of the peculiar style of Hermetic > writers, i. 628 > > Ireland visited by Buddhist missionaries, ii. 290, 291 > > Iron in the sun, i. 513; > found in the Pyramid of Cheops, i. 542. > > Isaiah the prophet, his vision of seraphs, i. 358; > terminated the direct line of David, ii. 440; > celebrates the new chief, Hezekiah, _ib._ > > Isarim or Essenean initiates, ii. 42; > found the Smaragdine Tablet at Hebron, i. 507 > > Isernia, worship of the _limbs_ of Saints Cosmo and Damiano, and > traffic in phallic _ex-votos_, ii. 5 > > Ishmonia, the petrified city, traditions of books and magic > literature, ii. 29 > > Isis, the name of a medicine, i. 532; > the Virgin Mother of Egypt, ii. 10; > queen of Heaven, ii. 50; > immaculate, her titles applied to the Virgin Mary, ii. 95; > anthropomorphised into Mary, ii. 41; > the “woman clothed with the sun,” ii. 489 > > Isitwa, the divine power, ii. 593 > > Islam, the minarets, ii. 5 > > Islamism, the outgrowth of the Nestorian controversy, ii. 54 > > Island of Middle Asia, inhabited by Elohim, i. 589; > empire of the Pacific Ocean, i. 592 > > Israel, what the name means, ii. 401; > the enumeration of 12 tribes supposed to be purely mythical, i. 568 > > Israelites, intermarried perpetually with the other nations of > Palestine, i. 568; > why their language was Semitic, _ib._; > their symbols relate to sun-worship, ii. 401; > the plebeian were Canaanites and Phœnicians, ii. 134; > worshipped Baal or Bacchus and the Serpent, ii. 523; > their prophets disapproved of sacrificial worship, ii. 525; > offered human sacrifices, ii. 524; > their prophetesses, _ib._ > > Israelitish Tabernacle, elegant workmanship, i. 536 > > Istar, Astoreth, the same as Venus, Queen of Heaven, ii. 444 > > Isvara, a psychological condition, ii. 591 > > “Itself” met by the disembodied soul at the gates of Paradise, ii. 635 > > Iurbo Adonai, ii. 185, 189 > > Ixtlilxochitl, author of the Popul-Vuh, i. 548 > > Jacob, extraordinary fecundity of his family, ii. 558; > the Zouave, i. 165, 217, 218 > > Jacob’s pillar a lingham, ii. 445 > > Jacolliot, Louis, i. 139; > criticises orientalists, i. 583; > testimony in regard to theopœia, i. 616, 617; > branded as a humbug, ii. 47; > denounces the theory of Turanians and Semitism, ii. 48; > on vulgar magic in India, ii. 70; > description of Brahmanic initiations, ii. 103; > sees a living spectre, ii. 104, 105; > on Hindu metaphysics, ii. 262; > disbelieves in the chastity of Buddhistic monks, ii. 321; > knew no secrets, ii. 584 > > Jadūgar or sorcerers in India, ii. 69 > > Jaga-nath, ii. 297 > > Jah-Buh-Sun, ii. 348 > > Jaina sect claims Buddhism, ii. 321; > owners of the cave-temples, ii. 323 > > Jains, taught the existence of two ethereal bodies, i. 429 > > Jairus, resuscitation of his daughter by Jesus, i. 481 > > James the Just, never called Jesus the Son of God, ii. 202 > > Japanese, their probity, ii. 573 > > Jasher, Book of, ii. 399 > > Java Aleim, יהוה אלהים (Lord-God), head of the priest-caste of > Eden or Babylonia, i. 575; > invests man with the coat of skin, _ib._; > of the Sacerdotal College, ii. 293 > > Javanese, island empire, i. 592 > > Jehovah, his castle of fire, i. 270; > a cruel anthropomorphic deity, i. 307; > not the sacred name at all, ii. 398; > only a Masoretic invention, _ib._; > feminine, ii. 399; > resembled Siva, ii. 524 > > Jehovah-Nissi or Iao-Nisi, the same as Osiris or Bacchus the > Dio-Nysos or Jove of Nysa, ii. 165, 526 > > Jehovah-worship and Christianity abandoned by Freemasons at Lausanne, > ii. 377 > > Jeroboam made the lawful king of the Israelites, ii. 439 > > Jerome, St., mentions Jews of Lydda and Tiberias as mystic teachers, > i. 26; > procured the Gospel of Matthew from the Nazarenes, ii. 181; > his perverted text of Job, ii. 496 > > Jerusalem, the temple not so ancient as pretended, ii. 389 > > Jesuit cryptography, ii. 397 > > Jesuits, a secret society, now control the Roman Church, ii. 352; > their magic, ii. 353; > their secret constitution, ii. 354; > Mackenzie’s description, ii. 355; > their profession of faith, ii. 358; > their expulsion from Venice, _ib._; > declare Christianity not evidently true, ii. 358, 359; > sanction the murder of parents, ii. 363; > disguised as Talapoins, i. 371; > contest of magic with the Augustinians, i. 445; > two, desiring to change Sabean for Christian names, ii. 450; > adopt the institute and habit of Siamese Talapoins, ii. 577; > set aside Christian doctrines, ii. 578 > > Jesus, of Renan, Strauss and Viscount Amberley, ii. 562; > Talmudic story, ii. 201; > discovered and revealed the occult theology, ii. 202; > or Nebo, inspired by Mercury, ii. 132; > and Christna, united to their Chrestos, ii. 558; > his life a copy of Christna, his character of Buddha, ii. 339; > preached Buddhism, ii. 123; > believed in Ferho or Fo, ii. 290; > did not give any name to the Father, _ib._; > his true history imparted to the Templars, ii. 382; > regarded as a brother, _ib._; > an avatar like Melchizedek, becomes a son of God by baptism, ii. > 566; > son of Panther, a high pontiff of the universal secret doctrines, > ii. 386; > proclaims himself the Son of God and humanity, _ib._; > represented by a great serpent, ii. 490; > an Essene and Nazarene, ii. 131; > used oil and drank wine, _ib._; > of the church, the ideal of Irenæus, ii. 33; > classified his teachings, ii. 145, 147; > said to have been a Pharisee, ii. 148; > said to have been a magician, _ib._; > the materialized divine spirit, ii. 576; > deified because of his dramatic death, ii. 339; > why he died, ii. 545; > always called a _man_, ii. 239; > forgave his enemies, ii. 8; > the heirs of Peter curse theirs, ii. 9; > cast out devils by purifying the atmosphere, i. 356; > taught the _Logia_, or secret doctrines, ii. 191; > transmitted magnetic or theurgical powers, i. 130; > healed by word of command, i. 217; > his followers innovators, ii. 132; > endeavored to give the arcane truth to the many, ii. 561; > made little impression upon his own century, ii. 335; > familiar with the Koinoboi, ii. 336; > who rejected him as the Son of God, ii. 455; > said to have been hanged and stoned, ii. 255; > never pronounced the name of Jehovah, ii. 163; > his doctrines like those of Manu, ii. 164; > and Buddha never wrote, ii. 559; > unwilling to die, hence, no self-sacrificing Savior, ii. 545 > > Jewish colonists of Palestine imbued with Magdean notions, ii. 481; > people regard the Mosaic books as an allegory, i. 554, 555; > theology not understood by Christians, i. 17 > > Jews excluded from Masonic lodges, ii. 390; > their doubtful origin, ii. 438; > worshipped Baal or Hercules, ii. 524; > brought the Persian dualism to Palestine, ii. 500, 501; > named Ormazd and Ahriman, Satan, ii. 501; > an Indian sect, the Kaloni, i. 567; > probably came from Afghanistan or India, _ib._; > similar or identical with the Phœnicians, i. 566 > > Job, book of, Satan or Typhon appears, ii. 483; > the allegory explained in the Book of the Dead, ii. 493; > a representation of initiation, ii. 494; > will give the key to the whole matter of the Devil, ii. 493; > his trials and vindication, ii. 485; > seeing God, ii. 485, 486; > the neophyte, hears God in the whirlwind, ii. 498; > vindicated by his Redeemer or champion, ii. 499, 500 > > Jobard, on two kinds of electricity, i. 188 > > John, Gospel written by a Gnostic, i. 2; > travelled in Asia Minor and learned of the Mithraic rites, ii. 507; > the Baptist, his disciples Essenean dissenters, ii. 130; > disciples of, same as Nazareans or Mendæans, do not believe in > Christ, ii. 290 > > Jonah, the prophet, the allegory explained, ii. 258 > > Jones, Sir William, on the laws of Manu, i. 585; > rules for constructing a purana, ii. 492 > > Josaphat, St., a transmogrified Buddha, ii. 579 > > Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Masonry erected on the same > cosmical myths, i. 405 > > Joseph, studied in Egypt, i. 25; > became an Egyptian, i. 566 > > Josephus, interpolated, ii. 196; > his passage concerning Jesus, ii. 328 > > Joshua, fugitives, i. 545 > > Jowett, translator of Plato, exceptions to his criticism, i. 288 > > Judæans, whether they were ever in Palestine before Cyrus, a problem, > i. 568 > > Judæi, the designation of the Jews, an Indian term, ii. 441 > > Judea, its primitive history a distortion of Indian fable, ii. 471 > > Judgment of the Dead, ii. 364 > > Juggernaut, his procession imitated by missionaries in Ceylon, ii. 113 > > Jugglers of India and Egypt, i. 73; > walking from tree-top to tree-top, i. 495 > > Julian, the emperor, a son of God or Mithra by initiation, ii. 566 > > Juno, her temple covered with pointed blades of swords, i. 527; > her abandoning of Veii for Rome, i. 614 > > Jupiter and four moons discovered in Assyria, i. 261; > his mythological adventures, astronomical phenomena, i. 267, 268; > or Zeus originally the cosmic force, i. 262; > also the demiurg, _ib._; > the chief deity of the Orphic hymn, i. 263 > > Jury-trial, introduced by the Egyptians, i. 545 > > Justice and harmony analogous, i. 330 > > Justin Martyr, criticised for his heretical opinion about Socrates, > ii. 8; > his testimony concerning the talismans of Apollonius of Tyana, ii. > 97; > on the non-observance of the Sabbath by Christians, ii. 419 > > Justinian, code of, copied from the code of Manu, i. 586 > > K----, a positivist and skeptic, his experiences in Thibet, ii. > 599-602 > > Kabala, its fundamental geometrical figure the key to the problem, i. > 14; > Chaldean, not known, i. 17; > included in the Arcane doctrines, i. 205; > same as the laws of Manu, i. 271; > solves esoteric doctrines of every religion, i. 271; > never written, _ib._; > concerning _Shedim_, i. 313; > its system of Sephiroth and emanations, ii. 213; > repeated in Talapoin manuscripts, i. 577; > Oriental, or secret Book of Numbers, i. 579 > > Kabalists, Chaldean, claim science above 70,000 years old, i. 1; > explanation of the allegory of descent into hell, i. 299 > > Kabeiri, Assyrian divinities, i. 569; > differently named and numbered in different places, _ib._; > reproduced in their Samothracian postures on the walls of > Nagkon-Wat, _ib._; > had similar names east as west, _ib._; > worshipped at Hebron, the city of Beni-Anak or _anakim_, _ib._; > number hardly known, ii. 478; > their names, ii. 170 > > Kabeirian gods represented at Nagkon-Wat, i. 565, 566 > > Kadeshim, or Galli, in the Hebrew sanctuaries, ii. 45 > > Kadeshuth, or Nautch-girls in India, ii. 45 > > Kadosh degree invented at Lyons, ii. 384 > > Kalani, an Indian sect, progenitors of the Jews, i. 567 > > Kalavatti, raised from the dead by Christna, ii. 241 > > Kalmucks, described earlier human races than the present, i. 2 > > Kalpas, i. 31 > > Kali, the “fall of man,” ii. 275 > > Kali-Yug, the designation of the present third yug or age of mankind, > i. 587; > began 4,500 years ago, _ib._ > > Kaliadovki, or Christian mysteries, ii. 119 > > Kangalins, or witches in India, ii. 69 > > Kanhari caves at Salsette, the abode of St. Josaphat, ii. 580, 581 > > Kanni, or bad virgins, ii. 447 > > Kansa of Madura, commands the murder of Christna and the massacre of > the infants, ii. 199 > > Kapila, a skeptic, i. 121; i. 307; > denied a First Cause, ii. 261 > > Karabtanos, i. 300 > > Karnak, the representative of Thebes, its archeological remains, i. > 523; > lakes and mountains in its sanctuary, i. 524 > > Kasbeck, the mountain where Prometheus was punished, i. 298 > > Katie King, i. 48, 54; > soulless, i. 67 > > Kavindisami the fakir, causes a seed to grow miraculously, i. 139 > > Kebar-Zivo, i. 300 > > Kepler believed the stars to be intelligences, i. 207, 208, 253 > > Kerrenhappuch, a mystic name, ii. 496 > > Kerner, Dr., witnessing case of Elizabeth Eslinger, i. 68; > account of the encounter of the Cossack and Frenchman, i. 398 > > Keto or Cetus, the same as Dagon or Poseidon, ii. 258 > > Key to the Buddhist system, i. 289; > to the mysteries lost by the Roman Catholic Church, ii. 121; > G. Higgins mistaken, _ib._ > > Keys of St. Peter, where they originated, ii. 31; > cross and fishes, eastern symbols, ii. 255; > to Masonic ciphers, ii. 394 > > Keystone, absent at Nagkon-Wat, Santa Cruz del Quichè, Ocosingo, and > the Cyclopean structures of Greece and Italy, i. 571; > has an esoteric meaning, _ib._ > > Khaldi, worshippers of the moon-god, ii. 48 > > Khamism, an ancient deposit from Western Asia, ii. 435 > > Khansa, remarkable juggling trick, i. 473 > > Kidder, Bishop, remarkable testimony concerning the religion a wise > man would choose, ii. 240 > > King, John, i. 75 > > Kings and statesmen, Jesuit method for assassinating, ii. 373 > > Kircher, Father, taught universal magnetism, i. 208 > > Kiyun or Kivan, the same as Siva, i. 570 > > Klikoucha, i. 28 > > Klippoth, i. 141 > > Kneph, his snake-emblem, i. 133; > producing the mundane egg, ii. 226 > > Knights Kadosch, cipher, ii. 395; > hieroglyph, ii. 396; > Rose Croix, cipher, ii. 395; > Templars, i. 30; > Templars, the modern, have no secrets dangerous to the Church, ii. > 381; > Templars, French Order, ii. 384, 385; > the assassination of a Prince, ii. 385 > > Knowledge, tree of, the pippala, ii. 412; > arcane, when sorcery and when wisdom, ii. 58 > > Koheleth, the summary, ii. 476 > > Koinobi or communists of Egypt, ii. 305 > > Kol-Arbas, the Tetrad or group of four mistaken for a Gnostic leader, > ii. 248 > > Korè-Persephonè, Zeus the Dragon, and their son, ii. 505 > > Kosmos, regarded as God or comprehending God, i. 154 > > Kounboum, mystery of, i. 289; > the Sacred Tree of Thibet, i. 302; > the wonderful Tree of Thibet with letters and symbols on its > leaves, i. 440; > Sanscrit characters on the leaves and bark, ii. 46 > > Kristophores, or the fourth degree, ii. 365 > > Kronos, i. 132 > > Krupte (crypt) the abode of a _teleiotes_, ii. 93 > > Kublai-Khan, ii. 608; > why he failed to adopt Christianity, ii. 581, 582; > reverences Christ, Mahomet, Moses, and Buddha all together, ii. 582; > his testimony concerning Christians, ii. 583 > > Kuklopes or Cyclopeans, shepherds, miners, builders, metal-workers, > and Anakim, i. 567 > > Kuklos Anangkes, or Circle of Necessity, i. 553 > > Kukushan, a medicinal plant of extraordinary virtue, ii. 608 > > Kumil-Mâdan, the undine, an elemental spirit, i. 496 > > Kurds, affirmed to be Indo-European, ii. 629; > are Mahometans, magicians, Yezids, and fire-worshippers, ii. 630; > scene with a sorcerer, ii. 631 > > Kutchi of Lha-Ssa, magically apprised by a Shaman of the author’s > helpless condition in the desert, ii. 628 > > Kutti-Satan, a Tamil spirit, i. 567 > > Labyrinth, the great, description by Herodotus, i. 522 > > Lactantius on calling up souls, i. 167; > declared the heliocentric system a heretical doctrine, i. 526; > rejected the doctrine of the antipodes, ii. 477 > > Læstrygonians of the _Odyssey_ cannibal races of Norway, i. 549 > > Laghana-Sastra, a secret sect in India, ii. 315; > their sacred groves, ii. 316 > > Lake, mysteries of, ii. 138; > of fire and brimstone, ii. 12; > the devil cast in it, with the beast and false prophet, _ib._; > place of purification of the wicked, ii. 238 > > Lakes and mountains in the Sanctuary of Karnak, i. 524 > > Lakshmi or Lakmi, the Damatri Venus or Great Mother, ii. 259, 598 > > Lama infant, or reincarnated Buddha, interview with him, ii. 598 > > Lamaic saints at a cave-temple, ii. 599; > exorcism, ii. 626 > > Lamaism, the purest Buddhism, ii. 608 > > Lamas, Thibetan, use the force known as Akâsa, i. 113 > > Lamps, ever-burning, one in the tomb of Cicero’s daughter, i. 224, > 228; > in crypts of India, Thibet, and Japan, i. 225; > in Travancore, _ib._; > in Egypt, i. 226; > at Athens, Carthage, Edessa, Antioch, i. 227; > in the Appian Way and the Mosaic Tabernacle, i. 128; > mode of preparing, i. 229 > > Lamp-wicks of stone, i. 231; > of asbestos, i. 231 > > Land-measuring, known by the Egyptians, i. 531 > > Lao-tsi, or Laotsen, his figure produced by magic, i. 600 > > Lares, i. 345 > > Larmenius, charter forged, ii. 385 > > Larva, the soul, i. 344, 345 > > Larvæ, shadows of men that have once lived, i. 310; > their reincarnation, i. 357 > > Last rite, not known by the highest epoptæ, ii. 563 > > Latin Church, nearly upset by modern research, ii. 6; > despoiled the kabalists and theurgists, ii. 85; > preserves the old pagan worship, even to the dress of the clergy, > ii. 92 > > Lausanne, declaration of the Supreme Masonic Councils, ii. 377; > denounced by Gen. Pike, _ib._ > > Leaping of the prophets of Baal, ii. 45 > > Leaves, impressions made on, i. 368, 369 > > Le Comte, Prof., comparison of living and dead organism, i. 466; > on vital force, i. 313 > > Lempriere accuses Pythagoras and Porphyry, i. 431 > > Lemure, i. 345 > > Lemuria, the last continent of the Indian Ocean, perhaps the same as > Atlantis, i. 591, 592; > the Indian legend, i. 594 > > Lens found at Nineveh, i. 239 > > Lentulus, his forged letter, ii. 151 > > Leopard-skin, a sacred appendage of the mysteries, i. 568; > found sculptured in basso-relievo in Central America, i. 569; > employed by the Brahmans, _ib._ > > Lesser mysteries, their meaning and object, ii. 111 > > Lesser and greater mysteries, accused of indecency, ii. 100 > > Letter of Father Raulica on magic, ii. 70; > of Mary Virgin to the Bishop and Church of Messina, ii. 83; > from a Druze brother to the author, ii. 313 > > Letters, ii. 83; > invented in Egypt, i. 532 > > Levi, a caste rather than a tribe, i. 568 > > Levi, Eliphas, exposition of the means to acquire magical power, i. > 137; > his remark on the ancient Christian malignity, ii. 250 > > Leviathan, the occult science, ii. 499 > > Law of compensation never swerves, ii. 545 > > Levitation discussed, i. 491, 492, 494-498; > under magnetic conditions practicable, ii. 589 > > Levitations, i. 100, 225; > declared impossible, i. 105; > of Iamblichus, i. 115; > occasioned by the attraction of the _perisprit_ or astral soul, i. > 197; > disapproved by Iamblichus, i. 219 > > Levites, or serpent-tribe, the seraphs or fiery serpents, ii. 481 > > Lewis, Sir G. C., opinion adverse to the culture of the ancients, i. > 525 > > Liberalia, or St. Patrick’s day, a festival of the Church, ii. 528 > > Libyan shepherds, Cyclopeans, i. 567 > > Lichen, produced, i. 302 > > Life, a phenomenon of matter, i. 115 > > Life-principle, speculations, i. 466 > > Life-transfer, ii. 564 > > Light, chemical relations, i. 136; > undulatory theory much doubted, i. 137; > mystical, the Divine Intelligence, i. 258; > same as electricity, _ib._; > both matter and a force, i. 281; > sympathy its offspring, i. 309; > an energy, not an emanation, the view of Aristotle, i. 510; > sublimated gold, i. 511 > > Lightning, conjured down by Prometheus, i. 526; > fate of Tullius, i. 527 > > Lightning-photographs, i. 394, 395 > > Lightning-rods on ancient temples, i. 527, 528; > used in India, i. 528 > > Lilith, Adam’s “first wife,” ii. 445 > > Linen of ancient Egypt, i. 536; > fire-proof, i. 230 > > Linga, same as the pillars of the patriarchs, ii. 235 > > Lingham, or emblem of Maha Deva, ii. 5; > and Yoni in churches, ii. 5 > > Lithos or phallus, reproduced in steeples, turrets, and domes, ii. 5 > > Littré on positive philosophy, i. 78 > > Living acari by chemical experiments, i. 465; > fire, i. 301 > > Local gods, ii. 451 > > Lodestone, its power to affect a whole audience, i. 265 > > Logia, or secret doctrines taught by Jesus, ii. 191 > > Logoi, all fail and are punished, i. 298 > > Logos, i. 131; > in every mythos, i. 162 > > Λόγος Αληθής, _True Doctrine_ of Celsus, story of the > book at a convent, ii. 52 > > Long-face, the Supreme God, ii. 247 > > Long hair, worn by John the Baptist and Jesus, and denounced by > Paul, ii. 140 > > Lord of the Genii, i. 300 > > Losing one’s soul possible, i. 317 > > Lost word, where to be sought, i. 580; > and its substitute, Mac Benac, ii. 349 > > Lotus, the sacred flower of Egyptians and Hindus, i. 91; > superseded by the lilies, i. 92 > > Loubère, M. de la, on Buddha and the Buddhists, ii. 576-579 > > Lourdes, shrine of, materializations of Virgin Mary, i. 119; > the madonna, her miracles, i. 614, ii. 6; > the moving of the statue, i. 618 > > Love, its magnetism the originator of created things, i. 210 > > Lucifer, i. 299 > > Luke, the evangelist, reputed an Essene, ii. 144 > > Lunar dynasties in India, the Chandra Vensa, ii. 438 > > Lundy, Rev. Dr., what he has proved, ii. 557 > > Luther and the demon, ii. 73; > the worst man in Europe, ii. 200; > his denunciation of the Catholics, ii. 208; > intolerant, and Calvin bloodthirsty, ii. 503 > > Lycanthropes, over 600 put to death in the Jura by sentence of a > judge, ii. 626 > > Lutherans burned as sorcerers, ii. 61 > > Luxor, unfading colors, i. 239; > brotherhood of, ii. 308 > > Macaulay, his criticism of scientists and philosophers, i. 424 > > Mac Benac, ii. 349 > > Machagistia, the magic taught in Persia and Babylonia, i. 251; > the testimony of Plato, ii. 306 > > Mackenzie, his description of the Jesuits, ii. 355 > > Macrocosm, i. 62 > > Macroprosopos or macrocosm, i. 580 > > Madonna of Barri, with crinoline, ii. 9; > of Rio de Janeiro, _décolletée_, with blonde hair and chignon, ii. > 10 > > Madras famine made worse by Catholic taxation, ii. 532 > > Maëlstrom, the Charybdis of the Odyssey, i. 545. > > Magendie, remedy for consumption, i. 89; > absents himself from experiments instituted by the French Academy > in 1826, i. 175, 176; > acknowledges that little is known of fœtal life, i. 386; > opinion of malformation, i. 388, 390; > asserts influence of imagination on the fœtus, i. 394 > > Magi established magic, i. 25; > taught the birth and decadence of worlds, i. 255; > Pythagoras, their associate, i. 284; > objected to the evocation of souls, i. 321; > three schools, ii. 361; > Chaldean, the masters of the Jews, _ib._; > two schools, ii. 128, 306 > > Magic, based on natural science, i. 17; > once universally taught, i. 18, 247; > a divine science, i. 25; > originally established by Magi, and not by priests, _ib._; > very ancient, _ib._; > Moses and Joseph proficients, _ib._; > two kinds, divine and evil, i. 26; > neglected by Masons, i. 30; > spiritualism, its modern form, i. 42; > profound knowledge of simples and minerals, i. 66; > likely to be rediscovered by scientists, i. 67; > esoteric in India, i. 90; > practised by Gymnosophists, i. 90; > the _divina sapientia_, i. 94; > Salverte’s Philosophy of Magic, i. 115; > mesmerism an important branch, i. 129; > theory of Eliphas Levi, i. 137; > modern forms, i. 138; > doctrine of Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Philalethes, i. 167; > included in the arcane doctrine of Wisdom, i. 205; > the power never possessed by those addicted to vicious indulgences, > i. 218; > its basis, the occult or spiritual principle, i. 244; > testimony of Du Potet, i. 279; > theurgical, i. 281; > a sacerdotal science, i. 262; > exemplified in eastern countries of Asia, i. 320; > adepts understand the akasa or astral fluid, i. 378; > synonymous with religion and science, i. 459; > belief of Demokritus; 800,000,000 believers in, i. 512; > Votan of Ancient America, i. 545; > cultivated by Aztecs and ancient Egyptians, i. 560; > studied by the people of Pashai or Peshawer, i. 599; > seance described by Hon. J. L. O’Sullivan, i. 608-611; > the church believes in it, ii. 76; > used to select the canonical books of Holy Scripture, ii. 251; > denounced, ii. 502; > the science of man and nature, and its applications in practice, > ii. 583; > its principles, ii. 587-590; > its cornerstone, ii. 589; > black, practised at the Vatican, ii. 6; > taught in the lamaseries, ii. 609; > magnetism its alphabet, ii. 610 > > Magic arcanum, i. 506; > crystal, i. 467; > lamp of Hermes, ii. 417 > > Magical anæsthetics of the Brahmans, used in the burning of widows, > i. 540; > exhibitions of Tartary and Thibet, testimony of Col. Yule, i. 600; > moon of Thibet, i. 441; > evocation a part of the sacerdotal office, ii. 118; > evocations must be pronounced in a particular dialect, ii. 46 > > Magician, how different from a witch, i. 366; > difference from a medium, i. 367; > can summon and dismiss spirits at will, _ib._ > > Magism flourished at the Ur of the Kasdeans, i. 549 > > Magnale magnum, i. 170, 213 > > Magus, Magh, Mahaji, i. 129 > > Magnes, i. 64; > rediscovered by Mesmer, i. 71; > the living fire or spirit of light, i. 129 > > Magret, rediscovered by Paracelsus, i. 71; > the stone, i. 129; > its concealed power, i. 168; > Kircher’s doctrine of one magnet in the universe, i. 208; > the same as the spiritual Sun, or God, i. 209; > the poles signified in the Mysteries by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the sun, i. 271 > > Magnetic currents develop into electricity, i. 395 > > Magnetization, two kinds, i. 178; > of minerals by animal magnetism, i. 209; > of a table or person, i. 322 > > Magnetism, i. 129; > animal, denied by modern science and then accepted, i. 130; > the magic power of man, i. 170; > taught by Des Cartes, i. 206; > by Naudé, Hufeland, Wirdig, and Kepler, i. 207; > and by Porta and Father Kircher, i. 209; > of love, the originator of every created thing, i. 210; > taught in the Mysteries, i. 234; > poles represented by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the universal law, i. 244; > the alphabet of magic, ii. 610; > being true, medicine absurd, _ib._ > > Mahâbhârata, antedated the age of Cyrus the great, ii. 428 > > Maha Deva or Siva, his lingham or emblem in pagodas, ii. 5; > worshipped by the dark races of Hindustan, ii. 434 > > Mahady of Elephanta, ii. 5 > > Mahat, or Prakriti, the external sense-life, ii. 565 > > Mahomet, his testimony concerning Jews, ii. 480 > > Mahometan, confession of Faith on the Chair of Peter, ii. 25 > > Mahometanism, the outgrowth of Christian cruelty, ii. 53, 54; > making more proselytes than Christians, ii. 239 > > Maimonides, i. 17 > > Malagrida, burned for sorcery in 1761, ii. 58 > > Malays, their island empire, i. 592 > > Males suckling their young, i. 412 > > Malformations, opinion of Magendie, i. 388; > theory of Prof. Armor, i. 392 > > _Malum in se_, no such principle, ii. 480 > > Man, once communed with unseen universes, i. 2; > belief of the Kalmucks, _ib._; > “as immortal as God,” i. 13; > how influenced, i. 39; > composed of like elements as the stars, i. 168; > magnetism his magic power, i. 170; > different electric condition of persons and sexes, i. 171; > possessed of three spirits, i. 212; > a little world inside the great, _ib._; > Van Helmont’s theory, i. 213; > Plato’s theory, i. 276, 297; > androgynous, i. 497; > created in the sixth millenium, i. 342; > possesses arcane powers, ii. 113; > how he should do, ii. 122; > the fall an evolution, ii. 277; > his spirit, if not his soul, preëxistent, ii. 280; > the object of the alchemic, Hermetic, and mystic explorations, i. > 308; > the philosopher’s stone and trinity in unity, i. 309; > a microcosm, i. 323; > never steps outside of universal life, ii. 343; > the six principles, ii. 367; > first appears as a stone, i. 389; > has power to shape matter, i. 394, 395; > ante-natal maternal impressions of this character, i. 395; > seven days on the pillar, ii. 447; > the story of the fall regarded as an allegory, ii. 546; > has a natural, a spiritual, and final birth, ii. 565; > triune, body, soul, and immortal spirit, ii. 588; > how he becomes an immortal entity, _ib._ > > Man-tree, i. 297 > > Mandrakes or Mandragora, a magical plant, i. 465 > > Manes, i. 37, 345; > his fate, ii. 208 > > Manifestations, subjective and objective, i. 68; > mediumistic, in Asia, i. 320 > > Mano, ii. 228, 229, 300 > > Mantheon, a title of Zoroaster, ii. 409 > > Mantic frenzy produced by exhalations from the earth, i. 531 > > Manu, laws the same as the doctrines of the sages and Kabala, i. 271; > doctrine of the universe, _ib._; > laws of, opinion of Sir William Jones, i. 585; > the basis of the code of Justinian, i. 581; > their age, i. 586-588; > widow-burning not mentioned in them, i. 588; > on life, evolution, and transformations, i. 620, 621; > predicts the advent of the Divine One, ii. 50; > knew nothing of deluge, ii. 427, 428 > > Manus, six, progenitors of six races of men, i. 590 > > Manu-Vina or Menes, colonizes Egypt from India, i. 627 > > Manwantara, i. 32 > > Marathos or Martu, ancient city and name of Phœnicia, means _The > West_, i. 579 > > Marathon, neighing of horses and shouts of men heard 400 years after > the battle, i. 70 > > Marcion distinguished between Judaism and Christianity, ii. 162; > his doctrines, ii. 103; > accepted Paul and denied the other apostles, ii. 168; > the great hæresiarch, his influence, ii. 159, 160; > brutally assailed by Tertullian and Epiphanius, _ib._ > > Marco Polo, on veins of salamander or asbestos, i. 504; > asserts that in Kashmere images are made to speak, i. 505; > brought movable types and blocks for printing, from China, i. 513; > describes Buddha as living like a Christian, ii. 581; > on the nature-spirits of the deserts, i. 603; > would not retract his “falsehoods,” _ib._; > declaration in regard to hearing spirits talk in the desert, i. 604 > > Marcosians, their sacrament, ii. 513 > > Marechale d’Ancre, her trial for sorcery, ii. 60 > > Mariana, Jesuit, explains the best way to kill a king, ii. 372, 373 > > Markland, a possible root of name America, i. 592 > > Marriage cured the convulsionaries, i. 375 > > Marrying the father’s wife, ii. 240 > > Marses in Italy, power over serpents, i. 381 > > Martu or Marathos, the west, i. 579 > > Mary, virgin, materializing at Lourdes, i. 119; > writes a letter from heaven declaring the pagans condemned to > eternal torments, ii. 8; > the anthropomorphized Isis, ii. 41; > writes letters, ii. 82, 83; > text of one, ii. 87; > without her consent, no redemption, ii. 172, 173; > overshadowed by Ilda-Baoth and not by Æbel Zivo or Gabriel, ii. 247; > like Dido, the Virgin of the Sea, ii. 446; > is visited by the Agathodaimon serpent, ii. 505 > > Mason, Osgood, on deity and nature, i. 426 > > Masonic ciphers, the keys, ii. 394; > fraternity, its unworthy members, ii. 376; > honors offered by M. de Nègre, a grand hierophant, refused, ii. 380; > institute, brought into disrepute by the Jesuits, ii. 385; > pagan in origin, _ib._; > Templars, a creation of the Jesuits, ii. 381 > > Masonry, neglect of magic and spiritualism, i. 30; > once a true secret organization, ii. 349; > who should be excluded, ii. 376; > esoteric, not known in American lodges, _ib._; > the time to remodel it has come, ii. 377; > no secrets left unpublished, _ib._; > whether Christian or pagan, _ib._; > departing from its original aims, ii. 380; > European and American, the Bible its great light, ii. 389 > > Masons, accusations against them half guess-work, ii. 372; > reject a personal God, ii. 375; > and the impostor Anderson, ii. 389 > > Masorets changed the immodest words in the Bible, ii. 430 > > Master-builder, epopt, adept, the Apostle Paul, ii. 91 > > Master’s word, communicated only at low breath, ii. 99 > > Mas’udi, on the ghûls in the desert, i. 604 > > Materialization, what spirits practice it, i. 319; > personal, i. 321 > > Materializations recorded in the Bible, i. 493 > > “Materialized spirits,” i. 67; > witnessed by the author, i. 69; > Virgin Mary to be expected at the Vatican, ii. 82; > often comes and lights a taper at Arras, _ib._ > > Mathematical error held by the Gnostics, ii. 194 > > Mathematicians, ancient, went to Egypt to be instructed, i. 531 > > Mathematics, Pythagorean and Platonic, i. 106 > > Matsya, the earliest avatar, ii. 427 > > Matter, how produced, i. 140; > proclaimed by modern physicists sole and autocratic sovereign of > the universe, i. 235; > its indestructibility, i. 243; > origin, i. 258; > the serpent that tempted man, i. 297; > not created by Divine thought, i. 310; > indestructible and eternal, i. 328; > fructified by the Divine idea or imagination, i. 396; > the remote effect of emanative energy, ii. 35 > > Matthew, gospel of, a secret book written in Hebrew, ii. 181, 182; > quotes the Egyptian Book of the Dead, ii. 548 > > Matwanlin, on voices in the deserts, i. 604 > > Maudsley, Prof., repudiates Comte, ii. 3; > rejects the positive philosophy, i. 82 > > Mauritania Tingitana, its columns, i. 545 > > Mauritius, his nauscopite, i. 240 > > Max Müller, scouts the idea of original human brutality, i. 4; > on the meaning of Veda, i. 354; > on Sanscrit literature, i. 442; > on the four ancestors, i. 559; > on Brahmanical literature, i. 580; > on the mutations of Christianity, ii. 10; > on the science of religion, ii. 26; > his retort upon Prof. Whitney, ii. 47; > assertion on the Hindu gods, ii. 413; > on the _Vedas_, ii. 414; > his understanding of Nirvana, ii. 432 > > Maxwell, his offer to cure diseases abandoned as incurable, i. 215; > his theory of the world-soul or life-spirit, i. 215, 216 > > Maya, or illusion, i. 289 > > Mayas of Yucatan, their mysterious city, i. 547 > > Mecassipa, an enchanter, i. 355 > > Medallions from the ashes of the dead, ii. 603 > > Mediatorship, how exercised, i. 487, 488 > > Medici family patrons of the black art, ii. 55 > > Medicine, classed by Bacon as a conjectural science, i. 405; > modern, what it has gained and lost, i. 20; > occult, suggested by Descartes, i. 214 > > Medium, a conductor, i. 201; > difference from a magician, i. 367; > a passive, the adept an active instrument, ii. 588; > needs a foreign intelligence, ii. 592 > > Medium-catcher of Prof. Faraday, i. 63 > > Medium-healers, charged with vampirism, i. 490, 491 > > Mediums, their visions more trustworthy than those of Catholic > priests, ii. 73; > burned, hanged, and otherwise murdered, i. 26, 353; > in Russia, i. 27; > generally utter commonplace ideas, i. 221; > their astral limbs, ii. 595; > are usually diseased, _ib._; > the Mosaic law contemplated killing them, i. 356; > passive, i. 488; > unregulated ones persecuted, i. 489; > how cured, i. 490; > generally disordered while the ancient thaumaturgists were not, > _ib._ > > Mediumistic diathesis, i. 117; > phenomena in Asia, i. 320 > > Mediumship, physical and spiritual, i. 367; > its phases seldom altered, _ib._; > depends upon a peculiar organization, i. 367; > psychographic, i. 368; > its conditions and circumstances, i. 487; > in holy men, mediatorship, _ib._; > in these days an undesirable gift, i. 488; > natural, ii. 118; > the opposite of adeptship, ii. 588 > > Megasthenes traces the Jews to the Kalani of India, i. 567 > > Melampus, his magical cures, i. 531 > > Melanephoris, the third degree, ii. 364 > > Mementos of a long bygone civilization, i. 349 > > Memory, views of Ammonius Sakkas, ii. 591; > of God, i. 178 > > Men produced by the giant Ymir, and also by the cow Audhumla, i. > 148; > denoted by the tree of life, Yggdrasill, Zampun, Aswatha, i. 151-4; > existed at a period extremely remote, i. 155; > of the Stone Age described by Mrs. Denton, i. 295; > revivified without souls, ii. 564; > races differ in their spiritual gifts, ii. 588; > soulless, ii. 369; > of science wear the cast-off garb of priests dyed to escape > detection, ii. 8 > > Mendeleyeff, Prof., declares spiritualism a mixture of superstition, > delusion, and fraud, i. 117; > protest by Butleroff, Aksakoff, and others, i. 118 > > Menes, turned the course of the Nile, i. 516 > > Menon, the inventor of letters, i. 532 > > Mensabulism, i. 322 > > Mental photography, i. 322 > > Mentuhept, Queen, inscription on her monument, ii. 92 > > Mercaba, ii. 348; > must be first known, ii. 349; > a hidden doctrine, _ib._ > > Mercurius vitæ of Paracelsus, ii. 620 > > Mercury, water of, symbol of the soul, i. 309; > or quicksilver, never used by Yogi or alchemist, only by > charlatans, and not by Paracelsus, ii. 620, 621; > never restored a man to health, _ib._ > > Meridian, known when the first pyramid was built, i. 536 > > Meru or Meruah, sound, etc., i. 592; > and its gods, ii. 233, 234 > > Mesmer, rediscovered animal magnetism, i. 165; > his 27 propositions, i. 172; > condemned by the French Committee of 1784 > > Mesmerism, i. 23; > a rediscovery of what Paracelsus taught, i. 72; > repudiated by positivists, i. 82; > used successfully by physicians, _ib._; > an important branch of magic, i. 129, 131; > condemned in France in 1784, i. 171; > prize offered for thesis by the Prussian Government, i. 173; > taught by Descartes, i. 206 > > Message delivered at Kounboum, ii. 604 > > Messages, writing by spirits, i. 367 > > Messiah, comes in the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, in the sign > Pisces, ii. 256; > the fifth emanation, ii. 259 > > Metallic springs found in ancient war-chariots, i. 530 > > Metalline, a compound overcoming friction, i. 502 > > Metallurgy among the Egyptians and Semitic races, i. 538 > > Metals not simple bodies, i. 509 > > Metatron, or angel of the Lord, transformed into Jesus the son of > Mary, ii. 33; > seventy names, ii. 245 > > Metempsychosis, i. 8; > believed by all philosophers, early fathers and Gnostics, i. 12; > doctrine of Plato, i. 276, 277; > an allegory, not to be literally understood, and relating to > experiences of the soul, i. 289, 550; > of Buddha, i. 291; > dreaded by Hindus, i. 348; > the separation of the _thumos_ and ridding the _nous_ of the > _phren_, ii. 286 > > Methuselah helps Enoch construct nine chambers underground in the > land of Canaan, i. 571; > receives from him certain secret learning, _ib._ > > Metis, the same as Sophia of the Gnostics, and Sephira, ii. 163 > > Mexican serpent-gods, i. 572 > > Mexicans, ancient, i. 313; > their theory of lunar eclipses similar to the Hindu, i. 548 > > Mexico, serpent-worship, i. 46, 551-558 > > Michael, the unknown angel, ii. 488; > a phial of his sweat preserved as a relic, ii. 71; > the archangel, the same as Ophiomorphos, ii. 206; > and the Devil, their dispute, ii. 482; > the Dragon-slayer, ii. 488 > > Michelet, testimony in regard to the Jesuits, ii. 358, 359 > > Microcosm, i. 212 > > Microcosmos, i. 28 > > Microprosopos (little face), the microcosm, i. 580; > the Adam primos, ii. 452 > > Microscope, its brothers in the Books of Moses, i. 240 > > Middle Asia, botany and mineralogy, i. 89; > ever-burning lamps, i. 227 > > Midgard snake, i. 151 > > Midianites regarded as wise men, ii. 449 > > Milk of the Celestial Virgin, i. 64 > > Milton, John, regarded _Paradise Lost_ as a book of fiction, ii. 501 > > Mimer, the deep well of wisdom, i. 151 > > Minarets of Islam, ii. 5 > > Minerals, magnetized by man, i. 209; > the basis of evolution of vegetable organisms, _ib._; > their occult properties, ii. 589 > > Miracles, those of the Bible surpassed by those of the Vedas, i. 90; > so-called, genuine, from Moses to Cagliostro, i. 128; > none in nature, ii. 587; > at the tomb of Abbé Paris, i. 372; > among the Convulsionaires, _ib._; > none in Protestant countries, ii. 17; > in spite of the Church, ii. 22, 23 > > Miraculous Conception, a legend of Buddhism, ii. 504; > fire at the Holy Sepulchre, ii. 404 > > Mirville, De, i. 99; > refutes Babinet’s denial of levitation, i. 105; > the nebulous Almighty, i. 129 > > Mithra, a triple god, ii. 41 > > Mithraic Mysteries, ii. 351; > initiation of Julian the Emperor, ii. 566 > > Mixture to out-stench devils, ii. 67 > > Mnizurin, i. 321 > > Mochtana or Mokomna, the Druze apostle, ii. 308 > > Morals, the Buddhistic code, ii. 608 > > Model of the Universe, i. 302 > > Modern philosophers, see only the physical form of Isis, i. 16; > devil, a heritage from Cybelè, ii. 501; > Savants know less than ancients, i. 15; > science denies a Supreme Being or Personal God, i. 16; > teaches the power of human thought to affect the matter of another > universe, i. 310; > scientists hate new truths, i. 409; > spiritualism, i. 40; > the modern form of magic, i. 42 > > Mœris, the artificial lake constructed in Egypt, i. 516 > > Moisasure, the Hindu Lucifer, i. 299 > > Moksha and the Nirvana, ii. 116; > the second spiritual birth, ii. 566 > > Moldenwaher, his documents concerning the prosecution of the > Knights-Templar, bought up by Free-masons, ii. 383 > > Moloch-Hercules, children immolated to him in the valley of the > Gehenna, ii. 11 > > Moloch-God of the inquisition, ii. 65 > > Moloch-like divinity of Roman church, i. 27 > > Monad, i. 212; > Buddha, i. 291 > > Monas, ii. 347 > > Mongolians, ought to have been called Scyths, i. 576 > > Monkey of God, now exorcised with holy water, ii. 96 > > Monkeys exhibiting human intellect, i. 326; > fabled to be progenitors of western people, i. 563; > in Egyptian temples, i. 564; > in all Buddhistic temples, _ib._ > > Monkish impostors expelled from convents in Southern Mongolia, ii. 609 > > Monks, their fury for exorcising and roasting the convulsionaires of > the Cevennes, i. 370, 372; > none in hell, ii. 75 > > Monoliths, for Egyptian monuments, i. 518; > how transported, _ib._ > > Monogenes, or only-begotten, a name of Proserpina, ii. 284 > > Montesquieu, on two witnesses, i. 87 > > Montezuma, his effigy worshipped in Mexico, i. 557 > > Montgeron, writes a book on Jansenist miracles, i. 373 > > Monuments, religious, the expression of the same thoughts, i. 561; > planned and built under supervision of priests, _ib._; > alike in Asia and America, _ib._ > > Moody, the revivalist, would see his son’s eyes dug out, ii. 250; > and Sankey, confounded by a Roman bishop with spiritualists, ii. 7 > > Moon, the same as Diana, Diktynna, Artemis, Juno, etc., i. 267; > her worship in Crete, _ib._; > influence on women, _ib._; > legends of her phases, i. 265, 266; > influence on tides, persons, and vegetation, i. 273; > in middle nature, and green the middle color, i. 514 > > Moon-god, Deus Lunus, worshipped by the Khaldi, ii. 48 > > Moon-kings, or lunar dynasty, reigned at Pruyag and Allahabad, ii. 48 > > Moor, his explanation of the Wittoba, ii. 557, 558 > > Moore, Rev. Dunlop, assertion of the age of the institutes of Manu, > i. 585 > > Moors, bearded, figures at the great temple of Angkor, or Nagkon-Wat, > i. 565, 567 > > Mora in Sweden, young children burned alive as witches, ii. 503 > > More, Henry, i. 54, 74; > his belief in Pythagorean doctrines, i. 204, 205; > adversary of Eugenius Philalethes, i. 308; > demonstration of witchcraft, i. 353; > theory of birth-marks, i. 384, 385 > > Morgan, “good enough till after the election,” ii. 372 > > Moigno, Abbé, his wretched success in writing down Huxley, Tyndall, > and Raymond, i. 336 > > Mormons, polytheists, ii. 2 > > Mortal soul, i. 276, 326 > > Mosaic books, regarded by well-educated Jews allegory, i. 554, 555; > religion a sun-and-serpent worship, ii. 129 > > Moses, the pupil of the mother of Pharaoh’s daughter, i. 25; > communicated secrets to the seventy elders, i. 26; > his code required two witnesses, i. 87; > placed a perpetual lamp in the tabernacle, i. 228; > described Jehovah the anthropomorphic deity as being the highest > God, i. 307; > could not obtain his other name, i. 309; > philosophized or spoke in allegory, i. 436; > said to have had knowledge of electricity, i. 528; > chief of the Sodales or priest-colleges, i. 555; > a hierophant of Heliopolis and priest of Osiris, _ib._; > initiated, _ib._; > became an Egyptian and a priest, i. 556; > denounced the spirit of Ob, not Od, i. 594; > disputes over his body, its allegorical interpretation, ii. 482; > an initiate, ii. 129; > and the Israelites, their story typical, ii. 493; > versed in occult sciences, ii. 59; > the law not more than two or three centuries older than > Christianity, ii. 526 > > Moslem arms blessed by the Pope, ii. 560 > > Mother and child, a very ancient sign and myth, ii. 491; > -trunk, the universal religion, ii. 123; > of God the most ancient, ii. 49, 50; > the Heaven itself, ii. 50; > lodge, the great, ii. 315 > > Mountain of light, its appearance to Hiouen-Thsang, i. 600 > > Mouse-mark, produced by alarm, i. 391 > > Mousseaux, Des, i. 99; > declares the devil the chief pillar of faith, i. 103 > > Movable printing types, in China before our Era, i. 513; > used in the earliest periods of lamaism in Thibet, _ib._ > > Moyst natures or elementary spirits, i. 342, 343 > > Mukti, or half-gods, ii. 566 > > Müller, Albrecht, testimony in regard to ancient skill, i. 539 > > Mummy, bandaging, i. 20; > a symbol, i. 297; > a finger-ring at the London Exhibition of 1851, i. 531 > > Mummy-bandaging, i. 539; > 1000 yards long _ib._ > > Mundane tree, i. 297 > > Mundane cross of heaven, ii. 454; > egg or universal womb, ii. 214; > snake creeps out of the primordial _ilus_, i. 298 > > Muratori, his felt cuirasse, copied from the ancients, i. 530 > > Murder, an obstacle to ancient, but not to Jesuit initiation, ii. 363 > > Murderous language of Jerome and Tertullian, ii. 250 > > Music, power over diseases, i. 215; > effect on persons, i. 275; > its influence on reptiles, i. 382; > employed in Egyptian temples for healing of nervous disorders, i. > 544 > > Musical instruments in Egypt, i. 544; > sand, i. 605; > tones influence vegetation, i. 514 > > Mutton-protoplasm, i. 251 > > Mysteries, i. 15; > little known, i. 24; > of the Israelites, i. 26; > theurgic, i. 130; > Samothracian, i. 132; > occult properties of magnetism and electricity taught, i. 234; > representation of Demeter with the electrified head, _ib._; > the Dioskuri, i. 234-243; > Pythagoras initiated, i. 284; > their gradation, ii. 101; > ennobling in their character, _ib._; > of the ancients identical with the Hindu and Buddhist initiations, > ii. 113, 114; > divine visions beheld in them, ii. 118; > of the Christians, ii. 119; > Jesuit, not revealed to all priests, ii. 350; > Mithraïc, twelve tortures, ii. 351; > taught to the Babylonians, ii. 457 > > Mysterious city of the Mayas of Yucatan, i. 547; > science existed apart from “mediumship,” ii. 118 > > Mystery of the celestial Virgin pursued by the Dragon, ii. 490; > and science, Mr. Felix’s book, i. 337 > > Mystery-God of the Ineffable Name, ii. 289 > > Mystic doctrines not properly understood, i. 429; > legends of the Middle Ages, ii. 38 > > Mystical words of power in old religions, ii. 99; > properties in plants, ii. 589 > > Myths, fables, when misunderstood, and truths as once understood, ii. > 431 > > Nabatheans in Lebanon, ii. 197 > > Nagal, the chief sorcerer of the Mexicans, i. 556 > > Nagas, or kingly snakes, i. 448; > or serpent-tribes of Kashmere, teachers of Apollonius, ii. 434; > or serpent-worshippers of Kashmere converted to the Buddhistic > faith, ii. 608 > > Nagkon-Wat, i. 239; > description of Frank Vincent, i. 561-563; > pictures represent scenes from the _Ramayava_, i. 573; > 100,000 separate figures, _ib._; > ascribed to the lost tribes of Israel, i. 565; > suggested to have been built for Buddhaghosa, _ib._; > contains representations of Oannes or Dagon, the Kabeiri, the > monkey or Vulcan, Egyptian and Assyrian figures, _ib._ > > Nagualism and voodoo-worship, i. 556, 557; > secret worships, i. 557; ii. 572; > perpetuated by Catholic persecution, ii. 573 > > Nails of a cherub preserved as relics, ii. 71 > > Name, Ineffable, not possessed by Masons, ii. 387 > > Nandi, the Vehan of Siva, ii. 235 > > Nara, the mundane egg or universal womb, ii. 214 > > Narayana, mover of the waters, Brahma, i. 91 > > Nation, its greatest curse, ii. 121 > > _National Quarterly_, on modern scientists, i. 240, 249 > > Natural magic, no relation to sleight of hand, i. 128; > “mediumship,” ii. 118 > > Nature, four kingdoms, i. 329; > a materialization of spirit, i. 428; > triune, the visible or objective, the vital or subjective principle > and the eternal spirit, ii. 587; > the servant of the magician, ii. 590; > reveals all arts, i. 424, 425 > > Nature-spirits or shedim, i. 313; > or elementary, i. 349 > > Naudé, a defender of occult magnetism and theosophy, i. 207 > > Naus-copite, an optical instrument, i. 240 > > Navel and less comely parts of Jesus for relics, ii. 71; > symbolized by the ark, ii. 444 > > Nazarene system explained, ii. 227-229; > diagram, ii. 295 > > Nazarenes, had a gospel inscribed to Peter, ii. 127; > an anti-Bacchus caste, ii. 129; > existed before Christ, ii. 139, 181; > some as Galileans, ii. 139; > their belief of a divine overshadowing, ii. 154 > > Nazaret or Zoroaster, ii. 140 > > Nazars, Joseph, Samuel, Samson, Zoroaster, and Zorobabel, ii. 128; > wore their hair long, but cut it off at initiation, ii. 90; > Jesus belonged to them, _ib._ > > Nazireates, inimical to the Israelites, ii. 131 > > Nebelheim, the matrix of the earth, i. 147 > > Nebular theory, the ancient docrine, i. 238 > > Necessity, circle of, i. 226, 296; > men its toy, i. 276; > circle of, when completed, i. 346 > > Necho, King of Egypt, wrote on astronomy, i. 406; > canal of, i. 517; > II., sent a fleet to circumnavigate Africa, i. 542 > > Necklace, imprinted by lightning on two ladies, i. 398 > > Necromancy, a science of remote antiquity, i. 205 > > ΝΕΚΡΟΚΗΔΕΙΑ _nekrokedeia_, i. 228 > > Neoconis, the second degree, ii. 364 > > Neo-Platonic Eclectic School, ii. 32 > > Neo-Platonists, i. 262; > their time of greatest glory, ii. 41; > their doctrines and practices copied, ii. 84; > not “spirit mediums,” ii. 118; > when they were doomed, ii. 252 > > Nero, his ring, i. 240; > dared not seek initiation, ii. 363 > > Neros I., i. 31; > the Great, i. 33 > > Nervous disorders, i. 117; > disorders a specialty in ancient Egypt, i. 529; > disorders treated with music in Egyptian temples, i. 544; > exhaustion at spiritual circles, i. 343 > > Neurological telegraphy proposed, i. 324 > > Never-embodied men, i. 301 > > Neville, Francis, twice resuscitated, i. 479 > > New birth and accompanying slaughter, ii. 42; > taught by Buddha and Jesus, ii. 566 > > New Jersey, negroes burned at the stake for witchcraft, ii. 18 > > New Testament, passages compared with sentences from the > philosophers, ii. 338 > > Newton Bishop, on the transformation of paganism into popery, ii. 29; > Dr. the American healer, i. 165, 217, 218; > Isaac, believer in magnetism, i. 177 > > Niccolini, his exposure of the profligacy of monks, ii. 365, 366 > > Nicodemus, Gospel taken from the pagan authors, ii. 518 > > Nicolaitans adhered to marriage, ii. 329 > > Nicolas, a man of honest report, ii. 333 > > Night of Brahma, ii. 272, 273 > > Nimbus and Tonsure solar emblems, ii. 94 > > Nimrod, or spotted, a name of Bacchus, the wearer of the spotted > skin, i. 568 > > Nimroud, convex lens found, i. 240 > > Nin or Imus of the Tzendales the same as Ninus, i. 551; > received homage in the form of a serpent, i. 522 > > Nineveh, 47 miles in circumference, i. 241 > > Nirvana, i. 241, 290; > the world of cause, i. 346; > not nihilism nor extinction, i. 430; > complete purification from matter, ii. 117; > subjective but not objective existence, ii. 286; > a personal immortality in spirit, but not in soul, ii. 320; > or Moksha, the second spiritual birth, ii. 566; > the ocean to which all religions tend, ii. 639 > > Nirvritti or rest, i. 243 > > No devil, no Christ, ii. 492 > > Noah, or Nuah, same as Swayambhuva, ii. 448; > the universal mother, ii. 444 > > Nonnus, his legend of Korè and her son, ii. 504 > > Norns, or Parcæ, watering the roots of the tree Yggdrasill, i. 151 > > Norse kingdom of the dead, ii. 11; > contained no blazing hell, _ib._ > > NOUS, i. 55, 131; > consecrated to Mary, Isis, and Nari, ii. 210; > or rational soul, everyman endowed, ii. 279; > the spirit or reasoning soul, doctrine of Aristotle, i. 317; > the first-born, or Christ, ii. 157 > > No-Zeruan, the ancient of days, ii. 142 > > Nout, the Egyptian name of the Divine Spirit, ii. 282; > same as Nous, _ib._ > > Nuah (Hea) king of the humid principle, ii. 429 > > Nubia, its rock-temples, i. 542 > > Nucleus of the embryo, i. 389 > > Numa, King of Rome, Books of, i. 527; > understood electricity, _ib._; > opposed the use of images in worship, _ib._ > > Numbers, Hermetic Book, on cosmic changes, i. 254; > book of secret, the great Kabala, i. 579 > > Numerals of Pythagoras, hieroglyphical symbols, i. 35; > the basis of all systems of mysticism, ii. 407 > > Nun, an Egyptian designation, ii. 95 > > Nysa, Nyssa, always found where Bacchus was worshipped, ii. 165; > same as Sinai, _ib._ > > Oak, sacred, i. 297, 298 > > Oannes, i. 133; > the man fish, i. 349; > the same as Vishnu, ii. 257; > name signifies a spirit, _ib._ > > Oath taken by initiates, i. 409 > > Ob, the astral light, i. 158 > > Obeah women in Guiana charm snakes, i. 383 > > Obelisks of Egypt, i. 518; > mode of transporting them, i. 519; > imputed to Hermes Trismegistus, i. 551 > > Object of this book, ii. 98, 99 > > Obscene relics at Embrum, ii. 332 > > Obscene bas-reliefs on the doors of St. Peter’s Cathedral, _ib._ > > Obscene statue of Christ and its miracles, _ib._ > > Obscenity of heathen rites, ii. 76 > > Obsession and possession, i. 487, 488; ii. 16; > all confined to Roman Catholic countries, ii. 17 > > Obsessions, irresistible, i. 276 > > Occult properties in minerals, ii. 589; > powers by inheritance, ii. 635, 636 > > Occultism, physical, i. 19 > > Oculists in ancient Egypt, i. 545 > > Od, an agent described by Baron Reichenbach, i. 146; > astral currents vivified, i. 158; > emanations identical with flames from magnets, etc., i. 169 > > Odic Force, i. 67 > > Odin, i. 19; > breathing in man and woman, the ash and the alder, the breath > of life, i. 151; > Alfadir, _ib._ > > Oersted, on laws of nature, i. 506, 507 > > Oetinger, experiment on ashes of plants, i. 476 > > O’Grady, Wm. L. D., his letter denouncing the influence of > missionaries in India, ii. 475; > on Hindu demoralization under British rule, ii. 574; > his account of a Christian saturnalia in India, ii. 532 > > Okhal or hierophant of the Druzes, ii. 309 > > Okhals or spiritualists of Syria, ii. 292 > > Old book, one original copy only in existence, i. 1; > gods of the heathen, the same as the ancient patriarchs, ii. 450; > man and his son, remarkable resuscitation, i. 484; > Testament, exiled by Colenso and recalled, ii. 4; > Testament, no real history in it, ii. 441; > universes evolved before the present, ii. 421 > > Olympic gods, their biographies relate to physics and chemistry, i. > 261; > women climbing perpendicular walls, i. 374 > > Onderah, the Hindu abyss of darkness, only an intermediate state, ii. > 11 > > One only good, ii. 238; > in three, i. 258 > > Only-begotten sons, ii. 191 > > Operative masons, ii. 392 > > Ophiomorphos and Ophis Christos, ii. 449 > > Ophion called also Dominus, ii. 512 > > Ophiozenes in Cyprus, power over venomous reptiles, i. 381 > > Ophis, the same as Chnuphis or Kneph, ii. 187; > or the agathodaimon, ii. 293, 295 > > Ophism and heliolatry imputed to Hermes, i. 55i > > Ophite Gnostics rejected the _Old Testament_, ii. 147; > Theogony correctly given, ii. 187; > worship transmuted into Christian symbolism, ii. 505; > or serpent-worshipping Christians, their scheme, ii. 292; > seven planetary genii, ii. 296; > rejected the Mosaic writings, ii. 168; > taught the doctrine of emanations, ii. 169; > and Nazarenes compared, ii. 174; > denounced by Peter and Jude, ii. 205; > accused of licentiousness, ii. 325 > > Optical instruments of ancient times, i. 240 > > Oracle of the bleeding head consulted by Queen Catherine of Medicis, > ii. 56 > > Oracles obtained during the sacred sleep, i. 357 > > Oracular head, made by Pope Sylvester II., ii. 56; > by Albertus Magnus destroyed by Thomas Aquinas, _ib._ > > Orcus, i. 298, 299 > > Oriental philosophy, fundamental propositions, ii. 587 > > Orientals, their senses more acute, i. 211; > ascribe a human figure to the soul, i. 214; > believe certain persons have made gold and lived for ages, _ib._ > > Orientalists have shown similarities between religions, ii. 49 > > Origen, believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > an Alexandrian Platonist, i. 25; > secret doctrines of Moses, i. 26; > believed the spirit preëxistent from eternity, i. 316; > deemed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > denied the perpetuity of hell-torments, ii. 13; > taught that devils would be pardoned, _ib._; > believed that the damned would receive pardon and bliss, ii. 238; > on the threefold partition of man, ii. 285 > > Ormazd, his worship restored, ii. 220; > his creations, ii. 221 > > Orobio exposes the inquisition, ii. 59 > > Orohippus, i. 411 > > Orpheus, alleged to be a disciple of Moses, i. 532; > on the virtues of the lodestone, i. 265 > > Orphic Mysteries not the popular Bacchic rites, ii. 129 > > Osiris, i. 93, 202; > brought up at Nysa and called Dionnysos, ii. 165; > his slaying denoted the period when his worship was under the ban > of the Hyk-sos government, ii. 487; > and Typhon, E. Pococke’s theory, ii. 435, 436 > > O’Sullivan, Hon. John L., description of a semi-magical seance, i. 608 > > Oulam does not mean infinite duration, ii. 12 > > Ovule ceases to be an integral part of the body of the mother, i. 401 > > Ovum, impregnated, its evolutionary history, i. 389 > > Oxus-tribes or bull-worshippers dominate Western Asia, ii. 439 > > Owen, Robert D., on worship of words, ii. 560 > > Pagan idols, their destruction commanded by the Roman emperor, ii. 40; > worship, the Latin church preserves its symbols, rites, > architecture and clerical dress, ii. 92 > > Paganism, true meaning of the word, ii. 179; > ancient wisdom replete with deity, ii. 639; > converted and applied to popery, ii. 29 > > Pagans condemned to the eternal torments of hell, ii. 8; > Virgin Mary writing this to a saint, _ib._ > > Palenque, keystone not found, i. 571; > the Tau and astronomical cross, i. 572 > > Pali, their manuscripts translated, i. 578; > have similar traditions as the Babylonians, _ib._; > shepherds, who emigrated west, _ib._ > > Pallium, or stole, a feminine sign, ii. 94; > that of Augustine bedecked with Buddhistic crosses, ii. 94 > > Panther, Grecian, contained Egyptian gods, i. 543; > panther, the sinful father of Jesus, ii. 386 > > Papacy, scientific, danger of, i. 403; > “and civil power,” Mr. Thompson’s book denounced, ii. 378 > > Papal tiara, the coiffure of the Assyrian gods, ii. 94; > discourses, catalogue of foul epithets on those who oppose the > pope, ii. 7 > > Paper, time-proof, i. 529 > > Papyrus, as old as Menes and the first dynasty, i. 530; > art of its preparation, _ib._ > > Parables or double-meanings in the discourses of Jesus, ii. 145 > > Parabrahma the Eternal, Bhaghavant, i. 91 > > Paracelsus, i. 20, 50; > his learning, i. 52; > discovered hydrogen, i. 52, 169; > his doctrine of faith and will, i. 57, 170; > rediscovery of the magnet, i. 71, 164, 167; > persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, i. 100; > his homunculi, i. 133, 465; > teacher of animal-magnetism and electro-magnetism, i. 164; > theory of a concealed power of the magnet, i. 168; > sidereal force, _ib._; > theory of dreams, i. 170; > on the alkahest, i. 191; > method of transposing letters in his terms, _ib._; > taught that three spirits actuate man, i. 212; > removed disease by contact of healthy persons, i. 217; > his preparation of mercury, ii. 620; > and chorœa, and was persecuted for it as a magician, ii. 565; > received the true initiation, ii. 349; > his assertion that magic was taught in the Bible, ii. 500; > Alsatians believe him not dead, _ib._ > > Paradigm of the universe, i. 212 > > Paradise Lost, the drama of Milton, ii. 501, 502; > the unformulated belief of the English, _ib._ > > Paradoxes, five, of adversaries of Spiritualism, i. 116 > > Paralysis of the soul during life, ii. 368 > > Parerga, i. 59 > > Pariahs, or Tchandales, the parents of the Jews, ii. 438 > > Paris carrying off Helen, and Ravana carrying off Sita, i. 566; > Abbé, the Jansenist, miracles at his tomb for 20 years, i. 372 > > Parker, Father, accuses the Protestants of the purpose to destroy the > Bible, ii. 200 > > Parodi, Maria Teresa, case of malformed child, i. 392 > > Parrot-headed squabs, i. 395, 396 > > Parsis deny any vicarious sacrifice, ii. 547 > > Pashai (Peshawer) or Udayna, classic land of sorcery, i. 599; > testimony of Hiouen-Thsang, _ib._ > > Pastaphoris, the first degree, ii. 364 > > Patriarchs, great gods, and pradjapatis represented signs of the > Zodiac, ii. 450 > > Paul, supposed to have been personified and assailed by Peter under > the name of Simon Magus, ii. 89; > and Plato, quoted, ii. 89, 90; > the real founder of Christianity, ii. 574; > a wise master-builder, or adept, ii. 90, 91; > why persecuted by Peter, James, and John, ii. 91; > supposed to be polluted by the Gnosis, _ib._; > the apostle, used language pertaining to initiations, ii. 90; > was initiated, _ib._; > confessed himself a Nazarene, ii. 137; > on the beatific vision, ii. 146; > his epistles alone acknowledged by Marcion, ii. 162; > differs from Peter, ii. 180; > is adopted by the Reformers, _ib._; > his reference to occult powers, ii. 206; > only worthy apostle of Jesus, ii. 241; > taught that man was a trine, ii. 281; > regarded Christianity and Judaism as entirely distinct, ii. 525; > the apostle, his descendants said to possess the power of braving > serpents, i. 381; > asserted the story of Moses and Abraham to be allegories, ii. 493 > > Pausanias on shadowy soldiers at Marathon, i. 70; > warned not to unveil the holy rites, i. 130 > > Perry Chand Mittra, his views on psychology of the Aryas, ii. 593 > > Pedactyl equus, i. 411 > > Peisse, Dr., on alchemy and making gold, i. 508, 509 > > Penalties of mutilation, ii. 99, 100 > > Pencil writing answers to questions, in Tartary, i. 600 > > Pentacle, Pythagorean, ii. 451, 452 > > Pentagram, can determine the countenance of unborn infants, i. 395 > > Pentateuch, constituted after the model of a purana, ii. 492; > not written by Moses, ii. 167; > compiled by Ezra and revised, i. 578; > revised by the Jews, ii. 526 > > Pepper, Prof., his apparatus to produce spiritual appearances, i. 359 > > Perfect circle decussated by the letter X, ii. 469 > > Perfect Passover of orthodox Christians, ii. 333 > > Periktione, mother of Plato, her miraculous conception, ii. 325 > > Perispirit, i. 197; > the astral soul, i. 289 > > Permutation, doctrine of, ii. 152 > > Perpetual motion, denied by science, i. 501; > illustrated by the universe and the atomic theory, i. 502; > proved by the telescope and microscope, _ib._ > > Persiphone or Proserpina, the same as Ceres or Demeter, ii. 505 > > Persepolis, wonders, i. 534; > the inscriptions older than any in Sanscrit, ii. 436 > > Persia, her wonders, i. 534 > > Persian Mirror, a robber detected by its use and punished, ii. 631 > > Persian colonists dominated in Judea, the Canaanites being the > proletaries, ii. 441 > > Personal devil not believed in by the ancients, ii. 483 > > Personality not to be applied to spiritual essence, i. 315 > > Persons cut to pieces and put again together good as new, i. 473, 474 > > Peru, net-work of subterranean passages, i. 595, 598; > treasures of the Incas, i. 596 > > Peruvians, still preserve their ancient traditions and sacerdotal > caste, i. 546; > magical ceremonies, _ib._ > > Peter, פתר, name taken from the Mysteries, ii. 29 > > PTR, its symbol an opened eye, ii. 92, 93; > the interpreter, ii. 392; > had nothing to do with the foundation of the Latin Church, ii. 91; > his name Petra or Kiffa, _ib._; > the whole story of his apostleship at Rome a play on the name > denoting the Hierophant or interpreter of the mysteries, ii. > 91, 92; > the pulpit of, declared to be the teachings of the spirit of God, > ii. 8; > had two chairs, ii. 23, 25; > was never at Rome, ii. 24; > his life at Babylon, ii. 127; > was a Nazarene, _ib._; > denounced Paul without naming him, ii. 179 > > Peter-ref-su, a mystery-word on a coffin, ii. 92; > Bunsen’s comments, ii. 92, 93 > > Peter the Great, stopped spurious miracles, ii. 17 > > Petra, the rock-temple of the Church, ii. 30 > > Petra, or rock, the logos, ii. 246 > > Petroma, the two tablets of stone, ii. 91 > > _Phœdrus_, i. 2 > > Phallic symbols in churches, ii. 5; > stone, batylos, or lingham, denounced by des Mousseaux, _ib._ > > Phallism, heathen, in Christian symbols, ii. 5; > in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the fetish-worship > of Isernia, _ib._ > > Phanes, the revealed god, i. 146 > > Phantasmal duplicate, i. 360 > > Phantasy, ii. 591 > > Phantom-hand, false as well as true, ii. 594; > statement of Dr. Fairfield, ii. 595; > what it really is, _ib._ > > Phantoms, the manifestations of bad demons, i. 333 > > Phases of modern Christianity, ii. 575 > > Pharisees, believed in transmigration of souls, i. 347 > > Phenomena, spiritual, discountenanced by the clergy, i. 26; > divine visions of Pius, IX., i. 27; > the Klikouchy and the Yourodevoy, i. 28; > absurd position assumed by scientists, i. 40; > Aksakof, i. 41; > Fisk, Crookes, and Wallace, i. 42; > the Dialectical Society, i. 44; > theories of Prof. Crookes, i. 47; > existed long before spiritualism, i. 53; > Prof. Faraday’s tests, i. 63; > materialization, i. 67; > a haunted house, i. 69; > physical displays seldom caused by disembodied spirits, i. 73; > opposition of the positivists, i. 75; > hostility of allopathists, i. 88; > laid at the door of Satan, i. 99; > testimony of de Gasparin, i. 101; > hostility of medical writers, i. 102; > Mr. Weekman the first investigator in America, i. 106; > reality acknowledged by Prof. Thury, i. 110; > his theory, i. 113; > E. Salverte, i. 115; > De Mirville’s five distractions or paradoxes, i. 116; > condemned by Commission of the Imperial University of St > Petersburgh, i. 117; > how produced, i. 199; > evidence adduced by Prof. Crookes overwhelming, i. 202; > given by an exterior intelligence, i. 203; > deceptions, i. 217-222; > Iamblichus forbids endeavors to procure them, i. 219 > > Pherecydes, taught that æther was heaven, i. 157 > > Philalethes, Eugenius (Thomas Vaughan), i. 51, 167; > not an adept, i. 306; > model of Swedenborg, _ib._; > anticipated modern doctrine of the earth’s beginning, i. 255 > > Phillips, Wendell, i. 211, 240 > > Philo Judæus, on spirits in the air, i. 2; > praise of magic, i. 25; > contradicted himself on purpose, ii. 39; > was the father of new platonism, ii. 144 > > Philonæa, visited her lover after death, i. 365 > > Philosophers, believed in metempsychosis, also that men have two > souls, i. 12; > their consignment to hell desired, ii. 250 > > Philosopher’s stone, sought by a king of Siam, i. 571 > > Philosophy, Oriental, its fundamental propositions, ii. 587 > > Phœnicians, circumnavigated the globe, i. 239; > the earliest navigators, i. 545; > their achievements, _ib._; > an Ethiopian race, i. 566, 567; > traced by Herodotus to the Persian Gulf, i. 567; > Phoinikes, or Ph’anakes, i. 569; > the same as the Hyk-sos or shepherds of Egypt, _ib._; > more or less identified with the Israelites, _ib._ > > Photographing in colors by will-power, i. 463 > > Photography, electrical, i. 395 > > Phtha, the active or male creative principle, i. 186 > > Physical body may be levitated, ii. 589 > > Physically spiritualized, the coming human race to be, i. 296 > > Physician declares Daguerre to be insane, ii. 619 > > Physicians wash their hands on leaving a patient, ii. 611; > problems, i. 277 > > Physicists divinify matter and overlook life, i. 235 > > Pia Metak, king of Siam, becomes able to walk in the air, ii. 618 > > Picture of a slain soldier, extraordinary phenomena, ii. 17 > > Pictures hidden from view, Prof. Draper’s description, i. 186 > > Picus, Francisco, testimony in regard to transmutation, i. 504 > > Pierart, explanation of catalepsy and vampirism, i. 449 > > Pigmies in Africa, i. 412 > > Pike, Gen. Albert, declaration against the creative principle > proclaimed at Lausanne, ii. 377 > > Pilate convokes an assembly of Jews, ii. 522 > > Pillars set up by the patriarchs, identical with the lingam of Siva, > ii. 235 > > Pimander, i. 93; > the same as the Logos Prometheus, etc., i. 298; > the nous, word, or Divine Light, ii. 50 > > Pippala, the sacred tree of knowledge, ii. 412 > > Pitar, its form seen at the moment of initiation, ii. 114 > > Pitris, the lunar ancestors of men, ii. 106, 117; > their worship fast becoming the worship of the spiritual portion of > mankind, ii. 639; > the doctrine of their existence revealed to initiates, ii. 114; > a sect in India, ii. 308 > > Pious assassins of the early church, ii. 304 > > Pius IX, excommunicates Czar Nicholas as a schismatic i. 27; > has divine visions, or rather epileptic fits, _ib._; > evil eye, i. 381; > pretends to be superior to St. Ambrose and the prophet Nathan, ii. > 14; > is the faithful echo of the Jesuits, ii. 359 > > Planchette, writing by, i. 199 > > Planet, i. 301 > > Plants are magnets, i. 281, 282 > > Plant-growing trick, i. 139, 141, 142 > > Plants, attracted by the sun, i. 209; > sympathies and antipathies, _ib._; > sympathy with human beings, i. 246; > possess mystical properties, ii. 589 > > Plato, not often read understandingly, i. 8; > echoed the teachings of Pythagoras, i. 9; > doctrine of the soul, will, or _nous_, i. 14, 55; > his symbology misunderstood, i. 37; > suggestion for physical improvement of the human race, i. 77; > doctrine of wisdom, i. 131; > on trance prophets, i. 201; > asserted to be ignorant of anatomy, i. 236; > his method, i. 237; > Prof. Jewett’s acknowledgment, _ib._; > on origin of the sun, i. 258; > taught correlation of forces, i. 261; > his doctrines the same as those of Manu, i. 271; > declares man the toy of necessity, i. 276; > doctrine of genius, i. 277; > theory of metempsychosis, i. 277; > attraction, i. 281; > his speculations on creation and cosmogony, to be taken > allegorically, i. 287; > veneration for the mysteries, _ib._; > would not admit poets into his commonwealth, i. 288; > dismisses Homer for his apparent antagonism to monotheism, _ib._; > accused of absurdities, etc., i. 307; > derived the soul from the world-soul, i. 316; > shows the deity geometrizing, i. 318; > on the future of the dead, i. 328; > learned secret science in Egypt, i. 406; > versed in the knowledge of the heliocentric system, i. 408, 409; > his “noble lie” concerning Atlantis, i. 413; > on human races, i. 428; > his esoteric doctrines the same as the Buddhistic, i. 430; > on prayer, i. 434; > on God geometrizing, i. 506; > on spiritual numerals, i. 514; > the Atlantis a possible cover of a story made arcane at initiation, > i. 591; > copies Djeminy and Vyasa, i. 621; > complains of unbelief, ii. 16; > his faculty of production, _ib._; > confessed that he derived his teachings from ancient and sacred > doctrines, ii. 39; > on divine mysteries, ii. 113; > not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > and other philosophers taught dual evolution, ii. 279; > on the trine of man, ii. 282; > definition of the soul, ii. 285; > his testimony concerning the Machagistia, ii. 306; > discourse concerning the creation, ii. 469; > taught that there was in matter a blind force, ii. 483; > on exaltation of the soul above sense, ii. 591 > > Platonic philosophy adopted into the church, ii. 33 > > Platonism introduced into Christianity, ii. 325 > > Platonists, their books burned, i. 405 > > Pleroma, three degrees, i. 302 > > Pleasanton on the Blue Ray, i. 137, 264; > denies gravitation, and the existence of centripetal and > centrifugal forces, i. 271; > his theory of light, i. 272 > > Pliny mentions phantoms on the deserts of Africa, i. 604 > > Plotinus, on the descent of the soul into generated existence, ii. > 112; > six times united to his god, ii. 115; i. 292; > on human knowledge, i. 434; > on prayer, _ib._; > on ecstasy, i. 486; > impulse in the soul to return to its centre, _ib._; > on public worship of the gods, i. 489; > a clairvoyant, seer, and more, ii. 591 > > Plutarch on the oracular vapors, i. 200; > on the nature of men, ii. 283; > on the dæmon of Socrates, ii. 284 > > Pococke, E., his theory of Osiris and Typhon, ii. 435, 436 > > Poland, what a Catholic miracle in that country means, ii. 18 > > Polykritus returned after dying, i. 364 > > Polygamy openly preached by certain Positivists, i. 78 > > Pompei, the room full of glass, i. 537 > > Pope seized the scepter of the Pagan pontiff, ii. 30; > now sympathising with the Turks against Christians, ii. 81; > Calvin and Luther, their doctrine one, ii. 479, 480; > his fulminations against science, ii. 559, 560; > Calixtus III. issues a bull against Halley’s Comet, ii. 509 > > Popes known as magicians, ii. 56 > > Popol-Vuh, a manuscript of Quiché, i. 2; > leaves the antiquarian in the dark, i. 548 > > Porphyry, upon Diakka, bad demons of sorcery, i. 219; > twice united with God, i. 292; > upon the passion of spirits for putrid substances and fresh blood, > i. 344; > on freshly-spilt blood in evocation, i. 493 > > Porta, Baptista, theory of magic, world-soul, astral light, i. 208 > > Poruthû-Madân, the wrestling demon, aiding in levitation, taming > animals, etc., i. 496 > > Positivism of Littré found in Vyasa, 10,400 B.C., i. 621 > > Positivists, i. 73; > their religion without a God, i. 76; > design to uproot Spiritualism, _ib._; > preach Polygamy, i. 78; > the climax of their system, i. 80; > neglect no means to overthrow Spiritualism, i. 83; > despised and hated, ii. 3 > > Possession, epidemic in Germany, i. 375 > > Poudot, the shoemaker, his house beset by an elemental demon, i. 364 > > Power of leaving the body temporarily, i. 476, 477; > power to disappear, and to be seen in other forms, ii. 583 > > Powers in nature, as recognized by exact science, and by kabalists, > i. 466 > > Pradjapatis, the ancestors of mankind, ten in number, ii. 427 > > Prakamya, the power to change old age to youth, ii. 583 > > Pralayas or dissolutions, two, ii. 424 > > Prakriti, or Mahat, the external life, ii. 565 > > Pranayama, ii. 590 > > Prapti, the faculty of divination, healing and predicting, ii. 593 > > Pratyahara, ii. 590 > > Pravritti or active existence, i. 243 > > Prayer and its sequences, i. 434 > > Prayers, kept secret from strangers, i. 581 > > Pre-Adamite, man described, i. 295; > earth, i. 505 > > Prediction of the Russo-Turkish war, i. 260 > > Preëminence of woman, ii. 299 > > Preëxistence, apparent, i. 179 > > Preëxistent, the spirit of man, i. 316, 317; ii. 280; > law of form, i. 420 > > Pregnant woman, highly impressible and receptive, i. 394; > odic emanation and its influence on fœtus, i. 395; > under the influence of the ether or astral light, _ib._; > might influence the features of children by pentagram, _ib._ > > Prehistoric races, i. 545 > > Premature burial, i. 456 > > Presbytere de Cideville, phenomenon of thunder and images of > fantastic animals as predicted by a sorcerer, i. 106 > > Preston, Rev. Dr., his doctrine of a Mother in the plan of > redemption, ii. 172 > > Preterhuman beings, their alliance indicated in every ancient > religion, ii. 299 > > Pre-Vedic religion of India, ii. 39 > > Priest, Assyrian, always bore the name of his god, i. 554 > > Priest-ridden nations always fall, ii. 121, 122 > > Priestesses of Germany, how they prophesied, ii. 592 > > Priestley, Dr. Joseph, discovered oxygen, i. 250; > anticipated the present-day philosophers, _ib._; > on the godhood of Jesus, ii. 239 > > Priests, their cast-off garb worn by men of science, ii. 8 > > Priest-sorcerers, ii. 57 > > Primal element obtained, i. 51; > like clear water, _ib._ > > Primitive Christianity, with grip, pass-words and degrees of > initiation, ii. 204; > Christians, a community of secret societies, ii. 335; > triads, ii. 454 > > Primordial substance, i. 133 > > Prince of Hohenlohe a medium, i. 28; > of Hell sides with the strongest, and treats Satan very badly, ii. > 517 > > _Principe Createur_ identical with the _Principe Generateur_ and not > Christian, ii. 377 > > Principes, i. 300 > > Probation of Jesus, ii. 484, 485; > the Devil or Diabolos no malignant principle, ii. 485 > > Proclus, on magic and emanation, i. 243; > theory of the gods or planetary spirits, i. 311, 312; > his remarkable statements of marvels acted by dead persons, i. 364; > on second dying and the luminous form, i. 432; > his idea of divine power, i. 489; > the mystic pass-word, _ib._; > his explanation of the gradation of the Mysteries, ii. 101; > upon apparitions beheld in the Mysteries, ii. 113 > > Proctor, R. A., i. 245; > accuses the ancients of ignorance, i. 253 > > Profanation to eat blood, ii. 567 > > Projecting of the astral or spiritual body, ii. 619, 620 > > Prometheus, the Logos or Adam Kadmon, i. 298; > revealed the art of bringing down lightning, i. 526; > prediction of Hermes, ii. 514, 515 > > Prophecies from Hindu books, ii. 556; > antedate Christianity, ii. 557 > > Prophecy determined in two ways, i. 200; > gift imparted by infection, i. 217; > a power possessed by the soul both in and apart from the body, > ii. 594 > > Prophetic star of the incarnation, ii. 454 > > Prophets of Baal danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > dominated in Israel, and priests in Judah, ii. 439; > of Israel never approved of sacrificial worship, ii. 525; > led a party against the priests, _ib._ > > Protection from vampires, etc., i. 460 > > Protest against ethnological distinction from the progeny of Noah, > ii. 434 > > Protestant world still under the imputation of magical commerce with > Satan, ii. 503 > > Protestantism has no rights, i. 27 > > Protestants in the United States, ii. 1; > their bloody statutes against witchcraft, ii. 503 > > Protevangelium, a parody of the Nicene creed, ii. 473 > > Protogonos, i. 341 > > Proto-hippus, i. 411 > > Protoplasm, i. 223; > taught by Seneca, etc., i. 249; > doctrine of the Swâbhâvikas, or Hindu pantheists, i. 250 > > Prunnikos, mother of Ilda-Baoth, the God of the Jews, ii. 187 > > Psyche, the animal soul, i. 317 > > Psychic embryos, i. 311; > force, i. 45-67; > same as ectenic force, i. 113; > same as the Akasa, _ib._; > known to the ancient philosophers, i. 131; > propositions of Sergeant Cox, i. 195; > a blind force, i. 199 > > Psychode force, i. 55, 113 > > Psychography, or writing of messages by spirits, i. 367 > > Psychological epidemics, ii. 625; > powers of certain nuns in Thibet, ii. 609 > > Psychology, heretofore almost unknown, i. 407; > the basis of physiology anciently, but now based by scholars upon > physiology, i. 424 > > Psychomatics of occultism, i. 344 > > Psychometry, i. 182; > Prof. Denton and wife, i. 183; i. 330; > practised by the ancients, i. 331 > > Psychophobia, i. 46 > > Psylli in Africa, serpent-charmers, i. 381 > > Pueblos of Mexico still worship the sun, moon, stars, and fire, i. 557 > > Pulpit of Peter the teaching of the Spirit of God, ii. 8 > > Punch-and-Judy boxes or Christian mysteries, ii. 119 > > Punjaub, population hybridized with Asiatic Æthiopians, i. 567 > > Purana, rules for writing one, ii. 492; > the model of the Pentateuch, _ib._ > > Purple, Tyrian, i. 239 > > Pûttâm, or imps, i. 447 > > Pyramids, their architecture and symbolism, i. 236; > of Egypt, i. 518; > their purpose, i. 519; > the baptismal font, _ib._; > the supposed manufacture of the material, _ib._; > built on the former sea-shore, i. 520 > > Pyrrho, how to be interpreted, ii. 530 > > Pythagoras, his philosophy derived from the Brahmans, i. 9; > taught the heliocentric system, i. 35, 532; > believed in an infinity of worlds, i. 96; > Bruno his disciple, i. 96, 98; > taught God as the Universal Mind, i. 131; > his esoteric system included in the arcane doctrines of wisdom, i. > 205; > Galileo a student, i. 238; > his maxim widely scattered, “Do not stir the fire with a sword,” i. > 247; > dual signification of his precepts, i. 248; > his trinity, i. 262; > regard for precious stones and their mystical virtues, i. 265; > his doctrine the same as the laws of Manu, i. 271; > alleged influence on birds and animals, i. 283; > testimony of Thomas Taylor, i. 284; > initiated in the Mysteries of Byblos, Tyre, Syria, Egypt and > Babylon, _ib._; > did not teach literal transmigration of the soul, i. 289; > taught the Buddhistic doctrines, i. 289-291; > held for a clever impostor, i. 307; > derived the soul from the world-soul, i. 316; > mathematical doctrine of the universe, i. 318; > taught the same as Buddha, i. 347; > explains imagination as memory, i. 396; > copied by Euclid, Archimedes, and Ptolemy, i. 512; > learned music in Egypt and taught it in Italy, i. 544; > placed the sphere of purification in the sun, ii. 12; > subdued wild animals, ii. 77; > persuaded a bull not to eat beans, ii. 78; > was not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > his system of numerals, ii. 300; > probably did not understand decimal notation, _ib._ > > Pythagorean pentacle, ii. 451, 452 > > Pythagorists were probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Pytho, or Ob, i. 355 > > Pythoness, her powers of seership, ii. 590 > > Quack, a false name imposed on Paracelsus, ii. 621 > > Queen of Heaven indebted to Pius IX., ii. 9; > the Virgin Mary, Isis, Ishtar, Astarté, Queen Dido, Anna, Anaitis, > etc., ii. 96, 446-450 > > Quetzo-Cohuatl, the serpent-god of Mexican legends, i. 546; > wonders wrought by him, ii. 558; > his wand, _ib._ > > Quiché cosmogony, i. 549 > > Quicksilver and sulphur, a magical preparation to give long life, ii. > 620 > > Quotation from _Psalms_ credited by Matthew to Isaiah, ii. 172 > > Rabbinical chronology, none before the twelfth century, ii. 443 > > Races, human, many died out before Adam, i. 2; > pre-Adamite, i. 305; > of men differ in gifts, ii. 588 > > Radzivil, Prince, detects the impostures of monks, ii. 72 > > Rahat, or perfect man, ii. 287, 288 > > Railroads in Upper Egypt, i. 528 > > Ram, or Aries, the symbol of creative power, i. 262 > > Ramayana the source and origin of Homer’s inspiration, ii. 278 > > Ramsay, Count, his story of the Templars, ii. 384 > > Raspberry-mark produced by longing, i. 391 > > Rasit, its meaning suppressed, ii. 34; > wisdom, ii. 35 > > Rational soul, every man endowed, ii. 279 > > Raulica, Father Ventura de, letter on magic, ii. 70 > > Ravan and Rama, ii. 436 > > Raven and St. Benedict, ii. 78 > > Rawho, the demon of Ceylon, ii. 509 > > Rawlinson, Sir H. C., brings home an engraved stone, i. 240; > declares that the Akkadians came from Armenia, i. 263; > conjectures respecting the Aryans, ii. 433 > > Rawson, Prof. A. L., a member of the Druze Brotherhood of Lebanon, > ii. 312; > account of his initiation, ii. 313 > > Rays of the Star of Bethlehem preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Razors, superior article in Africa, i. 538 > > Realm of Amita, legend of, i. 601 > > Reason, what it is, i. 425; > developed at the expense of instinct, i. 433; > and instinct, their source, i. 432 > > Reber, G., shows that there was no apostolic church at Rome, ii. 124 > > Rebold, Dr., statement concerning the ancient colleges of Egypt, i. > 520 > > Reciprocal influences, i. 314 > > Red dragon, the Assyrian military symbol, borrowed by Persia, > Byzantium, and Rome, ii. 484 > > Redeemer not promised in the book of Genesis, but by Manu, ii. 50 > > Red-haired man, repugnance to stepping over his shadow, ii. 610; > the magnetism dreaded, ii. 611 > > Reformation had Paul for leader, ii. 180 > > Reformers as bloodthirsty as Catholics, ii. 503 > > Regazzoni, remarkable experiments, i. 142; > the mesmerist, feats, i. 283 > > Regenerated heathendom in the Christian ranks, ii. 80 > > Regeneration or spiritual birth taught in India, ii. 565 > > Regulation wardrobe of the Madonna, ii. 9 > > Reichenbach, described the Od force, i. 146; > prepared the way to understand Paracelsus, i. 167; > on odic force of pregnant women, i. 394 > > Reincarnation, its cause, i. 346; > its possibility, and impossibility, i. 351 > > Religion without a God, i. 76; > of the future, _ib._; > of the ancients the religion of the future, i. 613; > private or national property, not to be shared with foreigners, i. > 581; > taught in the oldest Mysteries, i. 567; > which dreads the light must be false, ii. 121; > of Gautama, propagandism, ii. 608 > > Religions, ancient, based on indestructibility of matter and force, > i. 243; > anciently sabaistic, i. 261; > derived from one source and tend to one end, ii. 639; > Papacy and scientific, i. 403 > > Religious customs of the Mexicans and Peruvians like those of the > Phœnicians, Babylonians, and Egyptians, i. 551; > instinct productive of immorality, i. 83; > liberty considered as intolerance, ii. 503; > reform pure at the beginning, ii. 333; > myths have an historical foundation, ii. 431; > teachers, ii. 1 > > Renan, E., described Jesus as a Gallicized rabbi, ii. 562 > > Repentance possible even in Hades or Gehenna, i. 352 > > Repercussion, i. 360 > > Rephaim, i. 133 > > Resistance, extraordinary, to blows, sharp instruments, etc., i. 375, > 376 > > Resuscitated Buddha, a babe speaking with man’s voice, i. 437 > > Resuscitations, i. 478, 479, 480; > after actual death, impossible, i. 481 > > Report of French Parliament upon the Jesuits, ii. 353 > > Resplendent one, ii. 113; > the Augoeides, or self-shining vision, ii. 115 > > Retribution on the Roman Catholic Church, ii. 121 > > Reuchlin, John, a Kabalist, ii. 20 > > Revelation, or Apocalypse, its author a Kabalist, ii. 91; > his hatred of the Mysteries made him the enemy of Paul, _ib._ > > Revenge of Ilda-Baoth for the transgression of his command, ii. 185 > > Rib of the Word made flesh preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Rig-Veda, hymns written before Zoroaster, ii. 433 > > Rio Janeiro, her Madonna with bare limbs, blond hair and chignon, > ii. 9; > her Christ in dandy evening dress, ii. 10 > > Rishi Kutsa, i. 11 > > Rishis, or sages, i. 90 > > Rite of Swedenborg, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390 > > Rites and ceremonial dress of Christian clergy like that of > Babylonians, etc., ii. 94 > > Ritual of exorcism, ii. 69; > funeral, of the Egyptians, ii. 367 > > Rituals, Kabalistic and Catholic compared, ii. 85, 86 > > Rochester Cathedral, its originals, ii. 5; > rappings, i. 36 > > Rock-temples of Ipsambul, i. 542; > works of Phœnician cities, i. 570; > similar in Egypt and America, i. 571 > > Rod of Moses, the _crux ansata_, ii. 455 > > Roger Bacon, i. 64 > > Roma, Cambodian traditions, i. 566 > > Roman Catholic Clergy murdered mediums, i. 26; > Church burned sorcerers that were not priests, ii. 58; > Church has deprived herself of the key to her own religious > mysteries, ii. 121; > Church regards dissent, heresy, and witchcraft identical, ii. 503; > considers religious liberty as intolerance, _ib._ > > Roman Catholics in the United States, ii. 1; > frown at the spiritual phenomena as diabolical, ii. 4; > pontiffs arrogate dominion over Greek and Protestant Christians, i. > 27 > > Rome, Church of, put Bruno to death for his doctrines, i. 93; > regards the spiritual phenomena as genuine, i. 100; > Church of, cursing spiritualists, ii. 6; > excommunicating the Bulgarians, Servians, Russians, and Italian > liberals, ii. 7 > > Rosaries of Buddhistic origin, ii. 95 > > Roscoe, Professor, on iron in the sun, i. 513 > > Rose, impression of one on Mme. von N., i. 398 > > Rosicrucians, persecuted and burned, i. 64; > their doctrine of creation, i. 258; > still a mystery, ii. 380; > unknown to its cruelest enemy, the Church, _ib._; > the aim to support Catholicism, ii. 394; > their doctrine of fire, i. 423 > > Rosie Cross, brothers live only in name, i. 29; > mysterious body, i. 64; > burned without mercy by the Church, _ib._ > > Round Tower of Bhangulpore, ii. 5 > > Rousseau, the savant, encounter with a toad, i. 399 > > Royal Arch word, ii. 293; > cipher, ii. 396 > > Ruc, from New Zealand, i. 603 > > Rufus of Thessalonica returned to life after dying, i. 365 > > Rules imposed upon neophytes, ii. 365 > > Russia, no church-miracles, ii. 17 > > Russian conquest of Turkey predicted, i. 260 > > S. P. R. C., the cipher, ii. 395 > > Sabazian worship Sabbatic, ii. 45 > > Sabbath, adopted by the Jews from other peoples, ii. 417; > Christian, its origin, ii. 419 > > Sabbatical institution not mentioned in Job, ii. 494 > > Sabeanism, treated of in Job, ii. 494 > > Sacerdotal caste in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > office, magical evocation, ii. 118 > > Sacred sleep, i. 357; > produced by draughts of soma-juice, _ib._; > lake, ii. 364; > writings of India have a deeper meaning, ii. 430; > books of the Jews destroyed, 158 B.C., ii. 470; > tree of Kounboum renews its budding in the time of Son-Ka-po, ii. > 609 > > Sacrifice of the hierophant or victim, ii. 42; > of blood, ii. 566 > > Sacrificial worship never approved by the Israelitish prophets, ii. > 525 > > Sacrilege to seek to understand a mystery, ii. 249 > > Sahara, perhaps once a sea-bed, i. 592 > > St. Paul’s Cathedral, its double lithoi, ii. 5; > Medard, the fanatics, i. 375; > John, Knights of, not Masons, ii. 383; > persecuted by the Inquisition, _ib._ > > Saints rescued from hell, ii. 517; > Buddhistic and Lamaistic, their great sanctity, ii. 608; > never washing themselves, ii. 511 > > Sakti, the active energy of the gods, ii. 276; > employed as a vehan, _ib._ > > Sakti-trimurti, or female trinity, ii. 444 > > Salamander or asbestos, i. 504 > > Salem, Mass., obsessions occurring there, i. 71; > witchcraft, the obeah woman, i. 361; > witchcraft, ii. 18 > > Salsette, the Kanhari caves, the abode of St. Josaphat, ii. 580, 581 > > Salt regarded as the universal menstruum and one of the chief > formative principles, i. 147 > > Salverte, his philosophy of magic, i. 115; > imputes deception to Iamblichus and others, _ib._; > his account of a soldier protected by an amulet, i. 378; > on mechanics and invention in ancient times, i. 516; > on the use of electricity, etc., by Numa and Tullus, kings of > Rome, i. 527 > > Samâddi, an exalted spiritual condition, ii. 590 > > Samael or Satan, the simoon or wind of the desert, ii. 483 > > Samaritans recognized only the books of Moses and Joshua, ii. 470 > > Samothrace, a mystery enacted there once every seven years, i. 302; > worship of the Kabeiri brought thither by Dardanus, i. 570 > > Samothracian Mysteries and new life, i. 132; > magnetism and electricity, i. 234 > > Samson, the Hebrew Herakles, a mythical character, ii. 439; > represented by the Somona of Ceylon, i. 577 > > Samuel the prophet, a mythical hero, the doppel of Samson, ii. 439; > the Hebrew Ganesa, _ib._; > his school, i. 26 > > San Marco at Venice, the original of the Campanila column, ii. 5 > > Sanchoniathon, on chaos and creation, i. 342 > > Sanctity of the chair of Peter, its source, ii. 25 > > Sankhya, the eight faculties of the soul, ii. 592, 593 > > Sanctuary of the pagodas never entered by a European [except Mr. > Ellis--see Higgins’s _Apocalypsis_--very doubtful], ii. 623 > > Sannyâsi, a saint of the second degree, ii. 98 > > Sanscrit, endeavor to show its derivation from the Greek, i. 443; > inscriptions, none older than Chandragupta, ii. 436; > the vernacular of the Akkadians, ii. 46; > appears on the leaves of the magical Koumboum, _ib._; > books written in presence of a child-medium, i. 368; > impressions by a fakir or juggler on leaves, i. 368, 369; > manuscripts translated into every Asiatic language, i. 578; > language derived from the Rutas, i. 594 > > Sapphire, sacred to the moon, i. 264; > possesses a magical power and produces somnambulic phenomena, _ib._; > Hindu legend of its first production, i. 265 > > Sar or Saros, i. 30 > > Sara-isvati, wife of Brahma, goddess of sacred knowledge, ii. 409 > > Sarcophagus, porphyry, in the pyramids, i. 519 > > Sargent, Epes, on spiritual deceptions, i. 220; > his arraignment of Tyndall for coquetting with different beliefs, > i. 419 > > Sargon, the original of the story of Moses, ii. 442 > > Sarpa Rajni, the queen of the serpents, ii. 489 > > Sarles, Rev. John W., advocates the damnation of adult heathen, ii. > 474 > > Satan, his existence first made a dogma by Christians, ii. 13; > declared fundamental, ii. 14; > Ilda-Baoth, so called, ii. 186; > identical with Jehovah, ii. 451; > the mainstay of sacerdotism, ii. 480; > to be contemplated from their planes, ii. 481; > personified as a devil by the Asideans, ii. 481; > same as Ahriman or Anramanyas, _ib._; > the name applied to a serpent in the Hebrew Scriptures, ii. 481; > the same as Seth, god of the Hittites, _ib._; > of the book of Job, ii. 483; > counsels with the Lord, ii. 485; > a son of God, ii. 492; > makes a sortie into New England and other colonies, ii. 503; > the Biblical term for public accuser, ii. 494; > the same as Typhon, _ib._; > cast forth by the prince of hell, ii. 515, 516; > is made subject to Beelzebub, prince of hell, ii. 517; > and Beelzebub hold a conversation about Jesus, ii. 520, 521 > > Satanism defined by Father Ventura de Raulica, ii. 14 > > Sati, a burned widow, i. 541 > > Sattras, imitations of the course of the sun, i. 11 > > Saturation of the medium, i. 499, 500 > > Saturn, Chaldean discovery of his rings, i. 260, 263; > the father of Zeus, i. 263; > the same as Bel, Baal, and Siva, _ib._; > his image, ii. 235; > or Kronos, offers his only-begotten son to Ouranos and circumcises > himself and family, i. 578; > the myth original in the _Maha-Bharata_, _ib._ > > Saturnalia of monks at Christmas, ii. 366 > > Saul, evil spirit exorcised, i. 215 > > Saviour, would be lost if we lose our demons, ii. 476 > > Scandinavian tradition of trolls, ii. 624 > > Scepter of the Boddhisgat seen floating in the air, ii. 610 > > Scheme of the Ophites, ii. 292 > > Schlieman, the Hellenist, finds evidence of cycles of development, i. > 6; > at Mycenæ, i. 598 > > Schmidt, I. J., statement in regard to the steppes of Turan and > desert of Gobi, i. 603 > > Scholars, ancient, believed in arcane doctrines, i. 205 > > Scholastic science knows neither beginning nor end, i. 336 > > Schools of magic in the Lamaseries, ii. 609 > > Schopenhauer, i. 55, 59; > on nature as illusion, ii. 158 > > Science, formerly arcane and taught in the sanctuary, i. 7; > its progress, i. 40; > spiritualism, i. 83; > “has no belief,” i. 278; > knows no beginning or end, i. 336; > called anti-christianism, i. 337; > mystery fatal to it, i. 338; > its parent source, the unknown, i. 339; > its dilemma, i. 340; > will never distinguish the difference between human and animal > ovules, i. 397; > invading the domain of religion, i. 403; > surrounded by a large hypothetical domain, i. 404; > her domain within the limit of the changes of matter, i. 421; > gross conception of fire, i. 423; > its dogmas concerning perpetual motion, elixir of life, > transmutation of metals and universal solvent, i. 501; > stages of its growth, i. 533; > its three necessary elements, ii. 637; > spiritism does not prevent them, _ib._; > modern, fails to satisfy the aspirations of the race; makes the > future a void and bereaves man of life, ii. 639 > > Scientific knowledge confined to the temples, i. 25; > Association, or American Association for the Advancement of > Science, on spiritualism and roosters crowing in the night, i. > 245, 246; > attainments of ancient Hindu savants, i. 618, 620 > > Scientists bound in duty to investigate, i. 5; > afraid of spiritual phenomena, i. 41; > treatment of Prof. Crookes, i. 44; > likely to rediscover magic, i. 67; > not to be credited for the increase of knowledge, i. 84; > denied Buffon, Franklin, the steam-engine, railroad, etc., i. 85; > surpassed the clergy in hostility to discovery, _ib._; > as much given to persecution, _ib._; > know little certain, i. 224; > entrapping of Slade the medium, _ib._; > put forth no new doctrines, i. 248, 249; > anticipated by Liebig and Priestly, i. 250; > many of them inanimate corpses, i. 317; > their _ultima thule_, i. 340; > curious conjectures concerning the aurora, i. 417; > their incapacity to understand the spiritual side, i. 418 > > Scin-lecca, or double, ii. 104; > makes the principal manifestations, ii. 517 > > Scintilla, the Divine, produces a monad, i. 302; > of Abraham taken from Michael, ii. 452; > Isaac from Gabriel, and Jacob from Uriel, ii. 452 > > Scottish rite, its headquarters at a Jesuit college, ii. 381 > > Screw, invented by Archytas, the instructor of Plato, i. 543 > > Scyths, probably the same as Mongolians, i. 576 > > Sea, ancient inland sea north of the Himalayas, i. 589 > > Seal, Solomon’s of Hindu origin, i. 135 > > Seance in Bengal, i. 467 > > Second Emanation condenses matter and diffuses life, i. 302; > Adam created unisexual, i. 559; > spiritual birth, ii. 566; > advent, a fable invented for a precaution, ii. 535; > death, ii. 368; > sight, i. 211 > > Secret formulæ, i. 66; > sacerdotal castes in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > doctrine, its martyrs, i. 574; > of Moses, ii. 525; > volume, the real Hebrew Bible, ii. 471; > sects of the Christians, ii. 289; > are still in existence, ii. 290; > God of the Kabala, ii. 230; > of secrets, ii. 568 > > Secrets for prolonging life, ii. 563 > > Sectarian beliefs to disappear, i. 613 > > Sects existing before Christ, ii. 144 > > Sedecla, the Obeah woman of En-Dor, i. 494 > > Seer, receives impressions directly from his spirit, ii. 591 > > Seers or epoptæ, not spirit-mediums, ii. 118 > > Seer-adept, knows how to suspend the action of the brain, ii. 591 > > Seership natural with some people, ii. 588; > two kinds, of the soul and the spirit, ii. 590; > an elevation of the soul, ii. 591 > > Self of man, inner triune, ii. 114; > the future, ii. 115 > > Self-consciousness, attained on earth, i. 368 > > Self-printed records on the sacred tree, i. 302 > > Seir-Anpin, the Christos, ii. 230; > the third god, ii. 247 > > Semitic, the least spiritual branch of the human family, ii. 434; > its germs found in Khamism, ii. 435 > > Semi-monastics, ii. 608 > > Sensitive flame obeying a man’s order, ii. 607 > > Separation, temporary, of the spirit from the body, ii. 588 > > Sephira, i. 160; > the Divine Intelligence and mother of the Sephiroth, i. 258; > the same as Metis and Sophia, i. 263; > the first emanation, i. 270; > or Sacred Aged (Maha Lakshmi), ii. 421 > > Sephiroth, i. 258; > concealed wisdom, their father, _ib._; > or emanations, ii. 36; > ten, three classes in one unit, ii. 40; > the same as the ten Pradjapatis, ii. 215; > same as the ten patriarchs, _ib._ > > Sepulchres in Thibet, extraordinary arrangement of bodies and > decorations, ii. 604 > > Seraph, his snout preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Serapis, a name of Surya, ii. 438; > an accepted type of Christ, ii. 336; > his picture adopted by the Christians, _ib._; > represented by a serpent, ii. 490; > usurped the worship of Osiris, ii. 491; > the seven vowels chanted as a hymn in his honor, i. 514 > > Serpent of Genesis, des Mousseaux’s name for the devil, i. 15; > matter, i. 297; > dwelling in the branches of the tree of life, i. 298; > symbol of wisdom and immortality, i. 553; > of the book of _Genesis_, Ash-mogh or Asmodeus, ii. 188; > persuades man to eat of the tree of knowledge, ii. 185; > Christna crushing his head, ii. 446; > the divine symbol east and west, ii. 484; > most spirit-like of all reptiles, and hence a favorite symbol, ii. > 489; > how it became the emblem of eternity and of the world, ii. 489; > universally venerated, ii. 489; > a symbol of Serapis and Jesus, ii. 490; > and Eve, ii. 512 > > Serpent-charmers, cannot fascinate human beings, ii. 612; > their powers, ii. 628 > > Serpent-charming, i. 381, 382, 470 > > Serpent-monsters, i. 393 > > Serpent-god, sons of, the hierophants, i. 553 > > Serpent-gods, Mexican, 13 in number, i. 572 > > Serpent-trail round the unformed earth, ii. 489 > > Serpent-worship, its origin not known, ii. 489 > > Serpent-worshippers of Kashmere become Buddhists, ii. 608 > > Serpent’s catacombs in Egypt, i. 553; > mysteries of the unavoidable cycle or centre of necessity, _ib._ > > Serpents, the earth their queen, i. 10; > Kneph, Agathodaimon, Kakodaimon, i. 133, 157; > Eliphas Levi’s, symbol of astral fire, i. 137; > queen of, ii. 489; > used as plaything at Hindu festivals, ii. 622 > > Servius, on the ancient practice of employing celestial fire at the > altars, i. 526 > > Sesostris, instructed by the oracle in the Trinity, ii. 51 > > Seth, the reputed son of Adam, the same as Hermes, Thoth, and Sat-an, > i. 554; > the same as Typhon, ii. 482 > > Seth, his interview with Michael at the gate of Paradise, ii. 520; > worshipped by the Hittites, ii. 523; > same as El, ii. 524 > > Sethicnites, disbelieved that Jesus was God, ii. 176 > > Seven, a sacred Hindu number, ii. 407; > among the Chaldeans, ii. 408; > potentiality of the number, ii. 417; > steps, the descent, i. 353; > degrees, old English Templar Rite, ii. 377; > vowels chanted as a hymn, i. 514; > caverns, i. 552; > spirits, i. 300, 301; > spirits of the Apocalypse, i. 461; > impostor demons, ii. 296; > Æons, _ib._; > rishis, _ib._ > > Seven-headed, serpent, ii. 489 > > Seventh degree, ii. 365; > ray and seven vowel, i. 514; > rite, the life transfer, ii. 564 > > Severus, Alexander, pillaged Egyptian temples for books, i. 406 > > Sexual element in Christianity, ii. 80; > emblems and worship, ii. 445 > > Shaberon, summoning a lama by spirit-message, ii. 604; > his wonderful summons to rescue the author from peril in Mongolia, > ii. 628 > > Shaberons, or Khubilhans, reincarnations of Buddha, ii. 609 > > Shad-belly coat first worn by Babylonian priests, ii. 458 > > Shadow, repugnance to stepping across it, ii. 610; > magnetic exhalation, ii. 611 > > Shakers, spiritual phenomena, ii. 18 > > Shaman, prophesying, ii. 624, 625; > prediction of the Crimean war, ii. 625; > extraordinary scene with the talismanic stone, ii. 626, 628; > “dragged out of his skin,” ii. 628; > priests bound to perform their “true rites” but once a year, at the > solstice, ii. 624 > > Shamanism or spirit-worship, the oldest religion of Mongolia, an > offshoot of primitive theurgy, ii. 615 > > Shamans occasionally enjoy divine powers, i. 3, 211; > of Siberia, degenerate scions of ancient Shamanism, ii. 616; > sometimes only mediums, sometimes magicians, ii. 625; > power over psychical epidemics, ii. 626; > each one has a talisman, _ib._ > > Shampooing or tschamping, a magical manipulation, i. 445 > > Shark-charmers or Kadal-katti, i. 606; > paid by the British government, i. 607 > > Shebang, the Sabbath, ii., 418 > > Shedim, nature-spirits, or Afrites, i. 313 > > Shekinah, the veil of the most ancient, ii. 223 > > Shem, Ham and Japhet, the old gods Samas, Kham and Iapetos, ii. 487 > > Shemites, Assyrians, i. 576; > probably a hybrid of Hamite and Aryan, _ib._ > > Shien-Sien, a blissful state, power of those obtaining it to > transport themselves everywhere, ii. 618, 620 > > Shiloh, daughters, their dance, ii. 45 > > Shimeon and Patar, ii. 93 > > Shoëpffer, Prof., teaches that the earth does not revolve, i. 621 > > Shoel ob, or consulter with familiar spirits, i. 355 > > Shudâla-Mâdan, the ghoul or graveyard fiend, i. 495 > > Shu-King, i. 11 > > Shûla-Mâdan, the furnace-demon, i. 496; > helps the juggler with raising trees, _ib._ > > Shu-tukt, a collegiate monastery, having in it over 30,000 monks, ii. > 609 > > Siam, a king in 1670 who sought for the philosopher’s stone, i. 571 > > Siamese, the power of monks, i. 213, 214; > study of the philosopher’s stone, i. 214; > believe that some know how to render themselves immortal, _ib._ > > Sidereal force taught by Paracelsus, i. 168 > > Signature of the fœtus, i. 385 > > Silver, its aura, the quicksilver of the yogis or alchemists, ii. > 620, 621 > > Silver and green associated in hermetic symbolism, i. 513 > > Silvery spark in the brain, i. 329 > > Simeon, the existence of such a tribe denied, i. 368; > ben Iochai, compiler of the _Zohar_, ii. 548; > rabbi, author of the _Zohar_, i. 301, 302; > his sons arise and relate what they saw in hell, ii. 519; > his prototype in India, _ib._ > > Simon ben Iochai, i. 263; > Stylites, lived 36 years atop of a pillar, ii. 77; > cured a dragon of a sore eye, _ib._ > > Simon Magus, a personification of the apostle Paul, ii. 89; > powers attributed to him, i. 471; > his journey through the air, ii. 357; > and Peter, ii. 190, 191 > > Simoun, or the wind of the desert, called Diabolos, ii. 483 > > Simulacrum of a Roumanian lady conducted by a Shaman to the tent of > the author, ii. 627, 628 > > Sin the necessary cause of the greatest good, ii. 479 > > Sinai, Mount, metals smelted there, i. 542; > story of Moses and the brass seraph, _ib._ > > Singing sands, i. 605 > > Sins, the five which divide the offender from his associates, ii. 608 > > Siphra Dzeniouta, i. 1 > > Sister’s son inheriting a crown, ii. 437 > > Sistra at the Israelitish festival, ii. 45 > > Siva, the fire-god, same as Bel and Saturn or Kronos, i. 263; > vigil-night, i. 446; > represented as sacrificing a rhinoceros instead of his son, i. 577, > 578; > identical with Baal, Moloch, Saturn and Abraham, i. 578; > created Adhima and Heva, ancestors of the present race of mankind, > i. 590; > hurls fallen angels into Onderah, ii. 11; > his paradise, ii. 234; > hurls the devils into the bottomless pit, ii. 238; > Sabazios and Sabaoth the same divinity, ii. 487; > the same as the western chief gods, ii. 524; > most intellectual of the gods, _ib._ > > Six principles of man, ii. 367; > days of evolution and one of repose, ii. 422; > sacred syllables, “aum mani padma houm,” ii. 606; > races of men mentioned in laws of Manu, i. 590; > thousand years the term of creation, i. 342; > thousand infant skulls found in a fish-pond by a convent in Rome, > ii. 58 > > Sixteenth incarnation of Buddha at Urga, ii. 617 > > Sixth degree, ii. 365 > > Sixty thousand (60,428) paid religious teachers in the United States, > ii. 1 > > Skepticism a malady, i. 115 > > Skill displayed in embalming in Thibet, ii. 603, 604 > > Skulls of infants found at nunneries, ii. 58, 210 > > Slade, the medium, pretended exposure by Prof. Lankester, i. 118, 224 > > Slavonian Christians now assailed by the Catholics, ii. 81 > > Slavonians, the mystic word, ii. 42 > > Smaragdine, tablet of Hermes, found at Hebron, i. 507 > > Smith, George, his reading of the Assyrian tablets, ii. 422; > his reading of the story of Sargon, ii. 442 > > Snake-symbol of Phanes, the mundane serpent and mundane year, i. 146, > 151, 157 > > Smyth, Prof. Piazzi, on the corn-bin, i. 519; > mathematical description of the great pyramid, i. 520 > > Snake-skin considered magnetic, ii. 507 > > Snake’s Hole, the subterranean passage terminating at the root of the > heavens, i. 553 > > Snakes kept in Moslem mosques, ii. 490; > reared with children in India, _ib._ > > Snout of a seraph preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Society not certain but that all ends in annihilation, ii. 3 > > “Society,” British, in India, its supercilious contempt for the > Hindus and marvels in Hindustan, ii. 613 > > Socrates, his demoniac or divine faculty and its service, i. 131; > his demon, ii. 283; > same as the _nous_ or spirit, ii. 284; > opinion of Justin Martyr about his future fate criticised, ii. 8; > a medium, and therefore not initiated, ii. 117; > why put to death as an atheist, ii. 118 > > Sod, an arcanum of Mystery, i. 301, 555; > the Mysteries of Baal, Adonis and Bacchus, _ib._; > the _secret_ of Simeon and Levi, _ib._; > great, of the Kadeshim, ii. 131 > > Sodales, or priest-colleges, Moses their chief, i. 555 > > Sodalian oath, i. 409 > > Sodom and Gomorrah, suffering eternal fire, ii. 12 > > Sohar, its compilation, ii. 348; > its theories like the Hindu, ii. 276 > > Solar trinity, red, blue and yellow, ii. 417; > dynasty in India, the Surga Vansa, ii. 437 > > Solemn ceremony of the Druzes, ii. 312 > > Solidarities of Greece and Rome, ii. 389 > > Solitary Copts, students of ancient lore, ii. 306 > > Solomon, or Sol-Om-On, ii. 389; i. 19; > obtained secret learning, i. 135; > seal of Hindu origin, _ib._; > ships to Ophir or India, i. 136; > his seven abominations, ii. 67; > learned from Votan the particulars of the products of the occident, > i. 546; > the builder of temples, ii. 439; > revolts against him, _ib._; > his temple never visited by the prophets, ii. 525; > and his temple only allegorical, ii. 391; > temple, the brazen columns and bowls to aid in entheastic power, > ii. 542 > > Soma, juice of, produces trance, i. 357 > > Somona, the Singalese Samson, i. 577 > > “Son of Man,” ii. 232 > > Son of God at one with man, ii. 635 > > Sons of the Serpent-God, i. 553 > > Son-Ka-po, the Shaberon, or avatar and great reformer, immaculately > conceived, and translated without dying into heaven, ii. 609 > > Sophia or wisdom, ii. 41; > the Holy Ghost as a female principle, i. 130; > the Gnostic principle of wisdom, the same as Sephira and Metis, i. > 263 > > Sorcerer in Africa, impervious to bullets, i. 379 > > Sorcerers, burned when not priests, ii. 58 > > Sorcery, i. 279; > misapplied arcane knowledge, ii. 581; > few facts better established, i. 366; > with blood, ii. 567, 568; > practised at the Vatican, ii. 620; > approved by Augustine, ii. 20; > employed for crime, ii. 633 > > Sortes Sanctorum, ii. 20, 21 > > Sortie of Satan into New England, ii. 503 > > Sortilegium or sorcery, practised by clergy and monks, ii. 6; > Gregory of Tours, ii. 20 > > Sosigenes, reformed the calendar for Cæsar, i. 11 > > Sosiosh, the tenth avatar and fifth Buddha, ii. 236; > a permutation of Vishnu, ii. 237 > > Sotheran, Charles, letter on Freemasonry, ii. 388 > > Soul, displays power when the body is asleep, i. 199; > the two named by Plato, i. 276; > marvellous power, i. 280; > passage through the seven planetary chambers, i. 297; > spirit wholly distinct, i. 315; > dissolves into ether, _ib._; > possible loss of its distinct being, i. 316, 317; > the garment of the spirit, i. 309; > exists as preexisting matter, i. 317; > doctrine of the Greek and Roman philosophers, i. 429; > of Aristotle, Homer, the Jains and Brahmans, _ib._; > the camera in which facts are fixed, i. 486; > escaping temporarily from the body, ii. 105; > may dwell in paradise while the body lives in this world, i. 602; > punished by union with the body, ii. 112; > the Vedic doctrine, ii. 263; > universal, when it sleeps, ii. 274; > its transmigration does not relate to man’s condition after death, > ii. 280; > its feminine, ii. 281; > a part of it mortal, ii. 283; > the doctrine of Pythagoras, ii. 283; > Plato’s definition, ii. 285, 286; > its paralysis during life, ii. 368; > not knit to flesh, ii. 565; > sentient, the Ego, inseparable from the brain, ii. 590; > raised above inferior good, ii. 591; > power to liberate itself and behold things subjectively, ii. 591; > its eight faculties, ii. 592; > its teachings authoritative, ii. 593; > possesses a power of prescience even when in the body, ii. 594; > disembodied, meets itself at the gate of Paradise, ii. 635; > of the world the archeal universal, “mind,” Sophia the Holy Ghost > as a female principle, i. 130; > doctrine of Baptista Porta, i. 208; > external, i. 276; > higher mortal, _ib._; > the great universal, union with it does not involve loss of > individuality, ii. 116 > > Soul-blind like color-blind, i. 387 > > Soul-electricity, i. 322 > > Soul-deaths, ii. 369 > > Soulless men yet living, ii. 369 > > Souls, or immortal gods emanate from the triad, i. 348; > come to souls and impart to them information, ii. 594 > > Source of the religious faiths of mankind, ii. 639; > double, of every religion, _ib._ > > South Carolina, statutes in force in 1865, imposing the death-penalty > for witchcraft, ii. 18 > > Sparks or old worlds that perished, ii. 421 > > Speaking images, i. 505 > > Specialties in medical practice in Egypt, i. 545 > > Speculative Masons, ii. 392 > > Spectre of a herdsman in Bavaria, i. 451 > > Spectroscope, confirmed doctrines of Paracelsus, i. 168, 169 > > Spell of the evil eye, ii. 633 > > Spheres, music of, i. 275 > > Spinoza, his philosophy, i. 93; > furnishes a key to the unwritten secret, i. 308 > > Spirit, its origin, i. 258; > not existing, but immortal, i. 291; > or spiritus, the soul or _anima mundi_, the mother, i. 299, 300; > progeny of, i. 301; > human, an emanation of the eternal spirit, i. 305; > never entered wholly into the body, i. 306; > is masculine, ii. 281; > of man preëxistent, ii. 280; > distinct from soul, i. 315; > individualization depends upon it, _ib._; > becomes an angel, i. 316; > its preëxistence believed, _ib._; > alone immortal, ii. 362; > leaving an old for a young body, ii. 563; > by its vision all things can be known, ii. 588; > may abandon the body for specific periods, ii. 589; > the sole original unity, ii. 607; > the interpreter of God to man, ii. 635; > its Protean powers little known by spiritualists, ii. 638 > > Spirit-ancestor, a serpent, 45, 46 > > Spirit-form, i. 197 > > Spirit-voices not articulate, i. 68; > audible, i. 220 > > Spirit-intercourse, 446,000,000 believers, i. 117 > > Spirit-flowers produced by a Bikshuni, ii. 609 > > Spiritists of France attacked by the Roman church, ii. 6 > > Spirits that control mediums, generally human, i. 67; > cannot “materialize,” _ib._; > not attracted by every body alike, i. 69; > produce few of the “physical phenomena,” i. 73; > the seven, i. 300, 301; > not possessed of the same attractions, i. 344; > or ghosts, hurt by weapons, i. 363; > heard talking in the desert of Lop, and elsewhere, i. 604; > three categories of communication, ii. 115; > may take possession of bodies in the absence of the soul, ii. 589; > bad, compelled Garma-Khian to appear and render an account, ii. 616; > city of, _ib._ > > Spiritual phenomena among the Shakers, ii. 18; > discountenanced by the clergy, i. 26; > chase the scientists, i. 41; > Iamblichus forbids the endeavor to procure them, i. 219; > sun, i. 29, 32; > the magnet of Kircher, i. 208, 209; > Gama, Ormazd, the soul of things, God, i. 270; > invisible and in the centre of space, i. 302; > the supreme deity, ii. 13; > death, its cause, i. 318; > eyes, i. 145; > sight, scientists without it, i. 318; > photography, i. 486 > > Spiritual entity, in man, an ancient doctrine, ii. 593; > transferred, ii. 563; > limbs, can be made visible, ii. 596; > world in proximity to us, ii. 593; > state, as unfolded in the Sankhya, a philosophy, ii. 593; > numerals, i. 514; > crisis of the Shaman, ii. 625; > or magical powers exist in every man, ii. 635; > circles are constructed on no principle, ii. 638; > Self the sole and Supreme God, ii. 566 > > Spiritualism, drifting, i. 53; > efforts of Positivists to uproot, i. 76, 83; > pretends only to be a science, i. 83; > pronounced a delusion in Russia, i. 118; > universally diffused from remote antiquity, i. 205; > why it must continue to vegetate, ii. 636; > is iconoclastic, not constructed, ii. 637; > not scientific, ii. 637, 638; > exoteric, too much directed to personal matters, _ib._; > esoteric, very rare, _ib._ > > Spiritualists, the majority remain in the religious denominations, > ii. 2; > take no active part in the formation of a system of philosophy, ii. > 637; > start with a fallacy, ii. 638 > > Splendor, mighty Lord of, i. 301 > > Spurious passage in the First Epistle of John, ii. 177 > > Square hat of the Hierophant, ii. 392 > > Squirrel materialized, i. 329 > > Sri-Iantara, or Solomon’s seal, ii. 265 > > Stainton, Moses, his criticisms of popular spiritualism, ii. 638 > > Stan-gyour, a work on magic, i. 580 > > Stanhope, Lady Esther, faints at a Yezidi orgy, ii. 572 > > Star of Bethlehem, rays carried home by a monk as relics, ii. 71 > > Starry heaven, worship proposed under Christian names, ii. 450 > > Stars, ignition, i. 254; > influence on fates of men, i. 259; > and man have direct affinity, i. 168, 169 > > Statues, restorative of health, i. 283; > possible to animate them, i. 485; > endowed with reason, i. 613 > > Steam-engine, invented by Hero of Alexandria, i. 241 > > Stedingers, accused and exterminated, ii. 331 > > Steel, rusts in India and Egypt, i. 211; > superior article in India, i. 538; > in Egypt, _ib._ > > Steeples, turrets, and domes, phallic symbols, ii. 5 > > Stephens, believes the key to American hieroglyphs will yet be > obtained, i. 546; > story of the unknown city of the Mayas, i. 547 > > Stewart, Prof. Balfour, his tribute to Herakleitus, i. 422; > warning to scientists, i. 424; > denies perpetual light, i. 510 > > Stigmata, or birth-marks, i. 384; > produced by sorcery of a Jesuit priest, ii. 633 > > Stone of Memphis, its potency to prevent pain, i. 540; > two tables, masculine and feminine, ii. 5; > a Shaman’s talisman, “spoke” saving the author’s life, ii. 626 > > Stonehenge, its gods recognized as the divinities of Delphos and > Babylon, i. 550; > remarkable statement of Dr. Stukely, i. 572; > Hamitic in plan, _ib._ > > Stoics, belief concerning God, i. 317 > > Stones, their secret virtues, i. 265 > > Strangers, never admitted into a caste, nor to religion, i. 581 > > Stukely, Dr., remarks concerning Stonehenge, i. 572 > > Subjective mediums, i. 311; > communication with human god-like spirits, ii. 115 > > Subsidy paid by the East India Company to maintain worship at the > pagodas, ii. 624 > > Subterranean passages in Peru, i. 595, 597 > > Subtile influence emanated from every man’s body, ii. 610 > > Suetonius knew nothing of Christians, ii. 535, 536 > > Suez Canal, i. 516, 517; > that of Necho, i. 517 > > Sufis, their idea of one universal creed, ii. 306 > > Suicide and insanity caused by Elementaries, ii. 7 > > Suicides and murderers, i. 344 > > Sulanuth, i. 325 > > Sulphur, the secret fire or spirit of the alchemists, i. 309; > and quicksilver, a preparation to promote longevity, ii. 620, 621 > > Summary of Koheleth, ii. 476 > > Sun, an emblem of the sun-god, i. 270; > only a magnet or reflector, i. 271; > has no more heat in it than the moon, _ib._; > represented under the image of a dragon, i. 552; > made the location of hell, ii. 12; > view of Pythagoras, _ib._; > increases the magnetic exhalations, ii. 611; > and serpent-worship, the religion of the Phœnicians and Mosaic > Israelites, i. 555 > > Sun-worship once contemplated by Catholics, ii. 450 > > Sun-worshippers always regarded the sun as an emblem of the spiritual > sun, i. 270 > > Sunrise and sunset as taught by the Shastras, i. 10 > > Supersentient soul, ii. 590 > > “Superstitions” in regard to drowned persons, ii. 611 > > Supreme Being denied by modern science, i. 16; > by the positivists, i. 71; > never rejected by Buddhistical philosophy, i. 292; > Essence, ii. 213, 214; > the Swayambhuva and En-Soph, ii. 218; > mystery of the holy syllable, ii. 114 > > Surgery of Yogis and Talapoins, ii. 621 > > Surnden, Rev. T., on locality of hell, ii. 12 > > Sutrantika, the sect having secret Buddhistic religion, ii. 607 > > Suttee, or burning of widows, not practised when the Code of Manu was > compiled, i. 588 > > Swâbhâvikas, Hindu pantheists, the teachers of protoplasm, i. 250; > their views of Essence, ii. 262 > > Swayambhuva, the unrevealed Deity, ii. 39; > the unity of three trinities, making with himself two prajapatis, > ii. 39, 40; > the Supreme Essence the same as En-Soph, ii. 214 > > Swearing forbidden by Jesus, ii. 273 > > Sweat of St. Michael, a phial of it preserved, ii. 71 > > Swedenborg personated by a Diakka, i. 219; > on speech of spirits, i. 220; > _Heavenly Arcana_, i. 306; > a natural-born magician, but not an adept, _ib._; > made Thomas Vaughan his model, _ib._; > doctrine of correspondences, or hermetic symbolism, _ib._; > believed in possibility of losing individual existence, i. 317; > miraculous cures by his father, i. 464; > indicates _the lost word_, i. 580; > rite of, a Jesuitical product, ii. 390 > > Swedenborgians believe in possible obliteration of the human > personality, i. 317; > believe that the soul may abandon the body for specific periods, > ii. 319 > > Swedish system of Freemasonry, ii. 381 > > Syllabus and Koran, a great affinity acknowledged, ii. 82 > > Sylvester II., Pope, a sorcerer, ii. 56; > his “oracular head,” ii. 56 > > Symbol, its use, ii. 93 > > Symbols, i. 21; > Christian, and phallism, ii. 5 > > Sympathy, mysterious, between plants and human beings, i. 246; > the offspring of light, i. 309 > > Synagogue, “deposited its inheritance in the hands of Christ,” ii. > 477; > has not expired, _ib._ > > Synesius, belief in metempsychosis, i. 12; > his quotation from the book of stone at Memphis, i. 257; > believed the spirit preëxisted from eternity as a distinct being, > i. 316; > bishop of Cyrene, his letter to Hypatia, ii. 53; > adhered to the Platonic doctrines, ii. 198 > > Systems, Indian, Chaldean and Ophite compared, ii. 170 > > Tabernacles or ingatherings, feast of, ii. 44; > regarded as Bacchic rites, _ib._ > > Table, no demons enclosed, i. 322 > > Table-turning, i. 99, 105 > > Tainting of Souls, i. 321 > > Talapoins, of Siam, power over wild beasts, i. 213; > have incombustible cloth, i. 231; > have the _Kabala_, _Bible_, and other allegories in their > manuscripts, i. 577; > Jesuits disguised as, ii. 371; > their secrets of medicine, ii. 621 > > Tale of the Two Brothers of Central America, i. 550 > > Talisman, i. 462; ii. 636 > > Talismans of Apollonius, testimony of Justin Martyr, ii. 97 > > Talmage, Rev. Dr., description of Martha, ii. 102 > > Talmud, i. 17 > > Tamil-Hindus worship Kutti-Satan, perhaps Seth or Satan, i. 567 > > Tamti, the same as Belita, ii. 444; > the sea, ii. 445 > > Tanaim, the four who entered the garden, ii. 119; > the Kabalistic, ii. 470 > > Tarchon, an Etruscan priest and his bryony-hedge, i. 527 > > Tartar robber detected by a Koordian sorcerer, ii. 631 > > Tartary, magic, i. 599; > spiritualism, i. 600; > planchette-writing, _ib._; > happy and heathen, ii. 240 > > Tau and astronomical cross of Egypt found at the palace of > Palenque, i. 572; > the handled cross, a symbol of Eternal life, ii. 254; > the signet or name of God, _ib._; > the hierophantic investiture, ii. 365 > > Taylor, Thomas, his testimony concerning Pythagoras, i. 284; > is unceremonious with the Mosaic God, i. 288 > > Taylor, Robert, his amended Credo, ii. 522 > > Tcharaka, a Hindu physician of 5,000 years ago, i. 560 > > Tcherno-Bog, or Bogy, the ancient deity of the Russians, ii. 572 > > Teaching of the soul, the highest method of knowledge, ii. 595 > > Tear of Brahma, the hottest, becoming a sapphire, i. 265 > > Telegraphy, neurological, i. 324 > > Telephone, i. 126; > some such mode of communication possessed by the Egyptian priests, > i. 127 > > Telescope in the light-house of Alexandria, i. 528 > > Templar rite, old English, of seven degrees, ii. 377 > > Templarism is Jesuitism, ii. 390 > > Templars, the founding of the ancient order, ii. 381, 382; > did not believe in Christ, ii. 382; > succeeded by the Jesuits, ii. 383; > the pseudo-order invented to obviate the imputation of Jesuitism, > ii. 384 > > Temple of the Holy Molecule, i. 413; > had possession of Eastern mysteries, ii. 380; > of the perpetual fire, ii. 632; > at Jerusalem, not so ancient as was pretended, ii. 389; > of Solomon, not esteemed by any Hebrew prophet, ii. 525 > > Temples, anciently the repositories of science, i. 25 > > Ten, the Pythagorean, ii. 171; > virtues of initiation, ii. 98 > > Teraphim, Kabeiri-gods, i. 570; > identical with Seraphim, _ib._; > serpent-images, _ib._; > received by Dardanus as a dowry and carried to Samothrace and Troy, > _ib._ > > Teratology, named by Geoffroi St. Hilaire, i. 390 > > Terrestrial elementary spirits, i. 319; > circulation, i. 503; > immortality, ii. 620 > > Tertullian, i. 46; > on devils, i. 159; > believed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > desires to see all philosophers in the Gehenna-fire, ii. 250; > his intolerance, ii. 329 > > Tetractys, i. 9; > the One, the Chaos, wisdom and reason, ii. 36; i. 507 > > Tetragram, i. 506, 507 > > Thales, believed water the primordial substance, i. 134, 189; > said to have discovered the electric properties of amber, i. 234; > his belief concerning water and the Divine Mind, ii. 458 > > Thaumaturgist, his power of becoming invisible, or appearing in two > or more forms, ii. 588 > > Thaumaturgists, use the force known as Akasa, i. 113; > declared by Salverte to be knaves, i. 115 > > Thebes, or Th-aba, ii. 448; > ancient, i. 523; > its prodigious ruins, i. 523, 524; > the Twelve Tortures, ii. 364 > > Themura, ii. 298 > > Theocletus, Grand Pontiff of the Order of the Temple, initiated the > original Knight Templars, ii. 382 > > Theology, comparative, and two-edged weapon, ii. 531; > Christian, subversive rather than promotive of spirituality and > good morals, ii. 634 > > Theologies, ancient, all agree, ii. 39 > > Theon of Smyrna, his explanation of the five grades in the Mysteries, > ii. 101 > > Theomania of the Cevennois imputed to hysteria and epilepsy, i. 371 > > Theophrastus, legatee of Aristotle, i. 320 > > Theopœa, the art of endowing figures with life, i. 615, 616; > testimony of Jacolliot, i. 616, 617 > > Theosophists, their confederations in Germany, ii. 20 > > Theosophy, disfigured by theology, i. 13 > > Therapeutæ, a branch of the Essenes, ii. 144 > > Therapeutists probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Thermuthis, the name of Pharaoh’s daughter and of the sacred asp, i. > 556 > > Thespesius, apparently dead for three days, i. 484 > > Thessalian sorceresses evoked shadows with blood, ii. 568 > > Theurgic Mystery, ii. 563-575 > > Theurgists, i. 205-219; > knew occult properties of magnetism and electricity, i. 234; > not “spirit-mediums,” ii. 118; > persecuted by the Christians, ii. 34 > > Theurgy, its phenomena produced by magnetic powers, i. 23; > the devil at its head, i. 161 > > Thevetat, the “Dragon” of the Atlantis, i. 593; > his seduction of the people, _ib._ > > Thing, the one, of the Smaragdine Tablet, i. 507, 508; > named by Hermetic philosophy, i. 508 > > Third emanation produces the universe of physical matter, and, > finally, “Darkness and the Bad,” i. 302; > race of men in Hesiod, i. 558; > in Popul-Vuh, _ib._; > race of men, the Nephilim, i. 559 > > Thirteen Mexican Serpent-Gods, i. 572 > > This book, its object, ii. 98, 99 > > Thomas, St., in Malabar, ii. 534; > Aquinas, ii. 20; > Taylor, an expositor of Plato’s meaning, ii. 108, 109 > > Thomson, Sir William, declares science bound to face every problem, > i. 223 > > Thompson, Hon. R. W., denounced by a Catholic priest, ii. 378 > > Thor, his electric hammer, i. 160 > > Thought affects the matter of another universe, i. 310 > > Thought-communication effected by a Shaman with his stone, ii. 627 > > Thoughts guided by spiritual being, i. 366; > human, projected upon the universal ether, i. 395; ii. 636 > > Thrætaona, the Persian Michael, contending with Zohak, ii. 486 > > Three degrees of the pleroma, i. 302; > tricks exhibited, i. 73; > degrees of communication with spirits, ii. 115; > emanations, i. 302; > kabalistic forces, _ib._; > Gods, or archial principles, First Cause, Logos, and World-soul, > ii. 33; > Saviours, ii. 536; > legends concerning them, ii. 537-539; > enumeration of their followers, ii. 539; > births of man, ii. 568; > three hundred million Buddhists seeking Nirvana, ii. 533; > mothers, i. 257 > > Three-sided prism of man’s nature, ii. 634 > > Throwing spells by aid of the wind, ii. 632 > > Thrum-stone, i. 231 > > Thummim, i. 536, 537 > > Θυμος, _thumos_, the astral soul, i. 429 > > Thury, Prof., on levitation, cited by de Gasparin, i. 99, 109; > his theory of spiritual phenomena, i. 110; > imputes them to the action of wills not human, i. 112; > psychode and ectenic force, i. 113 > > Tiara, papal, the coiffure of the Assyrian gods, ii. 94 > > Tickets to Heaven, ii. 243 > > Tiffereau, Theodore, assertion that he had made gold, i. 509 > > Tiger mesmerized, i. 467 > > Tigress, bereft of her cubs, mesmerized by a fakir, ii. 623 > > Tikkun, the first born, the Heavenly Man, ii. 276 > > Tillemont, declares all illustrious pagans condemned to the eternal > torments of hell, ii. 8 > > _Timæus_, cannot be understood except by an initiate, ii. 39 > > Time and space no obstacles to the inner man, ii. 588 > > Tir-thankara, the preceptor of Gautama, ii. 322 > > Tissu, the spiritual teacher of Kublai-Khan, his great holiness, ii. > 608; > reforms religion, ii. 609 > > To Ον, of Plato, ii. 38 > > Tobo, liberator of the soul of Adam, ii. 517 > > Todas, a strange people discovered in Southern Hindustan fifty years > ago, ii. 613; > revered and maintained by the Badagas, ii. 614; > an order and not a race, _ib._ > > Tolticas, said to be descended from the house of Israel, i. 552 > > Tooth, Navel and less comely relics of Jesus, ii. 71 > > Tophet, a place in the valley of Gehenna, where a fire was kept and > children immolated, ii. 11; > not a place of endless woe, ii. 502 > > Torquemeda, Tomas de, his prodigious cruelty, ii. 59; > burned Hebrew Bibles, ii. 430 > > Torralva and his demon Zequiel, ii. 60 > > Torturing people by means of Simulacra, ii. 55 > > Toulouse, the Bishop of, his falsehoods about Protestants and > Spiritualists of America, ii. 7 > > Townshend, Colonel, remarkable power of suspending animation, i. 483 > > Traditions, ancient, belong to India, ii. 259 > > Tragedy of Human Life, its plot ever the same, ii. 640 > > Trance-life, i. 181 > > Transformation of the ancient ideas, ii. 491 > > Transmigration, dreaded by the Hindu, i. 346; > of the soul, does not relate to man’s condition after death, ii. > 280 > > Transmural Vision, i. 145 > > Transmutation of metal, the actual fact asserted, i. 503, 504; > Dr. Wilder’s opinion, i. 505; > salt, sulpher, and mercury thrice combined in azoth, _ib._ > > Transubstantiation, an arcane utterance perverted, ii. 560 > > Travancore, perpetual lamp, i. 225 > > Tree, Yggdrasill, i. 133, 151; > Zampun, i. 152; > Aswatha, _ib._; > symbol of universal life, _ib._; > the pyramid, i. 154; > Gogard, i. 297; > serpent dwells in its branches, i. 298; > the microcosmic and macrocosmic, i. 297; > tziti, the third race of men, i. 558; > of knowledge, ii. 184; > or pippala, ii. 412 > > Triad, the Intelligible, i. 212; > from the duad, i. 348 > > Triads, or trinities, Babylonian, Phœnician and Hindu, ii. 48; > Persian and Egyptian, ii. 49 > > Tribes of Israel, what evidence before Ezra, i. 508; > no tribe of Simeon, _ib._ > > Trigonocephali, their bite kills like a flash of lighting, ii. 622 > > Trimurti, i. 92; > their habitation, ii. 234 > > Trinities, three, in one unity, making ten Sephiroth or Prajâpatis, > ii. 39, 40; > Hindu, Egyptian and Christian, ii. 227 > > Trinity, the first, i. 341; > of Egyptians, i. 160; > three Sephiroth or emanations, ii. 36; > the doctrine revealed to Sesostris, ii. 51; > the word first found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, ii. 522; > listening for the answer of Mary, ii. 173; > kabalistic, ii. 222; > of workers in the cosmogony, ii. 420; > of nature the lock of magic, ii. 635 > > Triple Trimurti, ii. 39 > > Trithemius, ii. 20 > > Trizna or feast of the dead in Moldavia, ii. 569, 570 > > Trojan war a counterpart of that of the _Ramâyana_, i. 566 > > Troy, worship of the Kabeiri brought by Dardanus, i. 570 > > True Adamic Earth, i. 51; > doctrine Λόγος Αληθής of Celsus, a copy still in > existence, ii. 52; > faith the embodiment of divine charity, ii. 640 > > Truth, religions but vari-colored fragments of its beam, ii. 639 > > Tschuddi, Dr., his story of the train of llama, and treasure, i. 546 > > Tullia, daughter of Cicero, lamp found burning in her tomb, i. 224 > > Tullus Hostilius, King of Rome, struck by lightning, i. 527 > > Tum, devotees of, ii. 387 > > Tunnel from Cusco to Lima and Bolivia, i. 597; > entrance, _ib._; > dangers of its exploration, i. 598 > > Turkey, wars with Russia and final conquest, i. 261 > > Turanian, should have been applied to the Assyrians, i. 576; > evidently applied to the nomadic Caucasian, progenitor of the > Hamite or Æthiopian, _ib._ > > Turner, his account of an interview with a young lama or reincarnated > Buddha, ii. 598 > > Turrets, the reproduction of the lithos, ii. 5 > > Tutelar genius who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, etc., ii. 639 > > Twelve houses, the fable, i. 267; > tables, a compilation, i. 588; > labors of Hercules depicted on the chair of Peter, ii. 25; > disciples sent by Jehosaphat to preach, ii. 517; > great gods, ii. 448; > minor gods, Dii minores, ii. 451; > tortures, ii. 351; > of Theban initiation, ii. 364; > thousand years employed in creation, i. 342 > > Twenty-nine witch-burnings, ii. 62 > > Two souls taught by the philosophers, i. 12, 317; > idols of monotheistic Christianity, ii. 9; > primeval principles, i. 341; > principles, the Jews brought the doctrine from Persia, ii. 500, 501; > diagrams explained, ii. 266, 271; > “old ones,” ii. 350; > brothers of the Bible, the good and evil principles, ii. 489; > religions in each old faith, ii. 607 > > Two-headed serpents, i. 393 > > Tycho-Brahe, vision of the star, i. 441, 442 > > Tyndall confesses science powerless, i. 14; > views of consciousness, i. 86; > displays forms as of living plants and animals in an experimental > tube, i. 127; > his avoidance to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 176; > his Belfast Address, i. 314; > his judgment of cowards, i. 418; > declares spiritualism a degrading belief, _ib._; > confesses that the evolution hypothesis does not solve the last > mystery, i. 419; > his experiments on sound, ii. 606; > his definition of science, ii. 637 > > Typhon once worshipped in Egypt, and then changed to an evil demon, > ii. 487; > Plutarch’s explanation, ii. 483; > father of Ierosolumos and Ioudaios, ii. 484; > separated from his androgyne, ii. 524 > > Tyrian worship introduced into Israel by Ahab, ii. 525 > > Tyrrhenian cosmogony, i. 342 > > Udayna or Pashai (Peshawer) the classic land of sorcery, i. 599; > statement of Hiouen-Thsang, _ib._ > > Ultramontanes accused in France of siding with the Mahometans, ii. 82 > > Ulysses frightens phantoms with his sword, i. 362 > > Umbilical cord ruptured and healed, i. 386 > > Umbilicus, represented by the ark, ii. 444 > > Umbra, or shade, i. 37 > > Unavoidable cycle, Mysteries, i. 553 > > Unconscious cerebration, i. 55, 232; > ventriloquism, i. 101 > > Urdar, the fountain of life, i. 151, 162 > > Underworld, i. 37 > > Undines, i. 67 > > Union to the Deity, ii. 591 > > Unity of three trinities, ii. 39; > the Sephiroth or prajapatis, _ib._ > > Universal soul, or mind, i. 56; > the doctrine underlying all philosophies, Buddhism, Brahmanism, and > Christianity, i. 289; > relation to the reasoning and the animal soul, i. 316; > solvent, i. 50, 137, 189 > > Universals to particulars, i. 288 > > Universe, or Kosmos, the body of the invisible sun, i. 302; > doubt, i. 324; > how came it, i. 341; > the concrete image of the ideal abstraction, i. 342; > existed from eternity, _ib._; > passes through four ages, ii. 421; > a musical instrument, i. 514 > > Unknown presence, when witnessed, ii. 164; > the future self of man, ii. 165 > > Unregulated mediums punished, i. 489 > > Unrevealed God, i. 160 > > Unseen Universe, or all things there recorded, ii. 588; > spiritual universe, its existence demonstrated, ii. 15 > > Untrained mediumship illustrated by Socrates and his daimonion, ii. > 117 > > Untenable dogmas of science, i. 501 > > Upasakes and Upasakis, Buddhistic semi-monastics, ii. 608 > > Uper-Ouranoi, i. 312 > > Vach, or sacred speech, ii. 409 > > Vaivaswata, the Hindu Noah, ii. 425 > > Valachian lady, her simulacrum brought to the author in her tent in > Mongolia, ii. 627, 628 > > Vampirism, a terrible case in Russia, i. 454 > > Vampire-governor, and his widow, i. 454, 455 > > Vampires, i. 319; > shedim, etc., i. 449; > magnetic, i. 462; > ghouls and, wandering about, ii. 564 > > Van Helmont, i. 50, 57; > on magnetism and will, i. 170; > on transmutation of earth into water, i. 190; > testimony of Deleuze, i. 194; > a Pythagorean, i. 205; > theory of man, i. 213; > remarkable account of a child born headless immediately after an > execution, i. 386; > on the power of woman’s imagination, i. 399; > testimony of Dr. Fournier, i. 400; > ridiculed for his directions for production of animals, i. 414 > > Vari-colored fragments of the beam of Divine Truth, ii. 639 > > Vasitva, power of mesmerizing, also of restraining the passions, i. > 393 > > Vasaki, the great dragon, ii. 490 > > Vast inland sea of middle Asia, and its island, i. 589 > > Vatican, black magic practised there, ii. 6; > secret libraries, ii. 16, 19; > clergy, how an access, ii. 18 > > Vatou, or candidate, for initiation, ii. 98; > sensitive to spiritual influences, ii. 118 > > Vaughan, Thomas, anecdote of his attempted sale of gold, i. 504 > > Vedas, antedate the Bible, i. 91; > contain no such immodesty as the Bible, ii. 80; > older than the flood, ii. 427 > > Vedic words, the controversies of Sanscrit scholars, ii. 47; > peoples not all Aryans, ii. 413 > > Vedic Pitris, their worship fast becoming the worship of the > spiritual portion of mankind, ii. 639 > > Vegetation, influence of the moon, i. 273; > influenced by musical tones, i. 514 > > Vehicle of life, ii. 418 > > Venerable “Mah,” ii. 388 > > Ventriloquists or pythiæ, i. 355 > > Ventura de Raulica, his letter asserting the existence of Satan as a > fundamental dogma of the Church, ii. 14 > > Vesica Piscis, a Zodiacal sign, ii. 255 > > Vicarious atonement, a ridiculous idea, i. 316 > > Vicarious atonement, ii. 542; > obliterates no wrong, ii. 545; > not known by Peter, ii. 546 > > Vigil-night of Siva, i. 446 > > Vincent, Frank, his description of the ruins of Nagkon-Wat, i. 562, > 565 > > Vine, the symbol of blood and life, ii. 244; > Jesus, ii. 561; > his “Father” not God, but the hierophant, _ib._ > > Viracocha, the Peruvian deity, ii. 259 > > Viradji, the Son of God, his origin, ii. 111 > > Virgin, celestial, milk of, i. 64; > of the sea, crushes the dragon under her feet, ii. 446; > of the Zodiac, rises above the horizon, Dec. 25th, ii. 490; > Blessed, thrashing a demoniac, ii. 76; > Mary, declaring all pagans condemned to eternal torments, over her > own signature, ii. 8; > succeeded to the titles, symbols and rites of Isis, ii. 95; > on the crescent moon, like pagan goddesses, ii. 96; > queen of heaven, ii. _ib._; > mother without a husband, positivist, i. 81; > of the Avatar, Son-Ka-po, ii. 589 > > Virgin-mothers, Hindu, Egyptian, and Catholic, their epithets, ii. 209 > > Vishnu, takes the form of a fish, ii. 257; > same as Oannes, _ib._; > the Adam Kadmon of the kabalists, ii. 259; > his ten avatars, ii. 274; > symbolize evolution, ii. 275; > the expression of the whole universe, ii. 277 > > Vishnu-flower, ii. 467 > > Visible universe from Brahma-Prajapati, i. 348 > > Visions witnessed by initiates, ii. 113; > produced by sorcery, ii. 633 > > Visit to the Ladakh in Thibet, ii. 598 > > Visiting and leaving the body at home, ii. 604, 605 > > Vistaspa, a king of Bactriana, ii. 141 > > Visvamitra, his escape in the ark, ii. 257; > Egypt colonized in his reign, i. 627 > > Vital force, speculations of men of science, i. 466 > > Viti, Sancti, Chorœa, or St. Vitus’ Dance, ii. 625 > > Voices of spirits and goblins heard in the desert, i. 604 > > Volatile salts obnoxious to devils, i. 356 > > Volney, mistook ancient worship, i. 24; > his doctrine of God, i. 268 > > Voltaire, on the being of God, i. 268 > > Voluntary withdrawal of the spirit from the body, ii. 588 > > Votan, his admission to the snake’s hole as a son of the snakes, i. > 553; > supposed by de Bourbourg to be descended from Ham and Canaan, i. > 554; > the hero of the Mexicans, i. 545; > probably identical with Quetzel-coatl, _ib._; > intercourse with King Solomon, _ib._; > the navigating serpent, _ib._ > > Voodo orgy in Cuba, ii. 573 > > Vourdalak or vampires of Servia, i. 451, ii. 368 > > Vowels, the seven, chanted as a hymn to Serapis, i. 514 > > Vridda Manava, or laws of Manu, i. 585 > > Vril, Bulwer-Lytton’s designation of the one primal force, i. 64, 125 > > Vril-ya, the coming race, i. 296 > > Vulcan, Phta, or Hephaistos, represented at Nakyon-Wat, i. 565, 566 > > Vulgar magic in India, ii. 20 > > Vyasa, a positivist, i. 621; > denied a First Cause, ii. 261 > > Vyse, Col., found a piece of iron in the pyramid of Cheops, i. 542 > > Wagner, Prof. Nicholas, on heat and psychical force, i. 497; > on mediumistic phenomena, i. 499 > > Walking above the ground, i. 472; > the faculty sought by devotees, and attained by a King of Siam, ii. > 618 > > Wallace, A. R., on cycles, i. 155; > belief in spiritualism and mesmerism, i. 177; > theory of human development, i. 294 > > War of Michael and the dragon, an old myth, ii. 486 > > Warrior, slain and resuscitated, but without a soul, ii. 564 > > War-chariots, ancient, lighter than modern artillery-wagons, i. 530; > had metallic springs, _ib._ > > Water, of Phtha, i. 64; > the first principle of things, i. 133; > an universal solvent, i. 133, 189; > of mercury, the soul or psychical substance, i. 309; > the first-created element, ii. 458 > > Waters turned to blood, i. 413, 415 > > Washing of images, ii. 138 > > Wave-theory of light not accepted by Prof. Cooke, i. 137 > > Weapons, dæmons afraid of, i. 362 > > Weekman, reputed the first investigator of spirit-phenomena in > America, i. 105 > > Weeks of seven days used in the East, ii. 418 > > Weird cries of the Gobi, i. 604 > > Weninger, Father F. X., a Jesuit priest, his denunciation of > Secretary Thompson, ii. 378, 379 > > Wesermann, power to influence the dreams of others, and to appear > double, i. 477 > > White-skinned people not often able to acquire magical powers, ii. 635 > > White stone of initiation, ii. 351 > > Whitney, Prof. W. D., his criticism of Max Müller, ii. 47; > denunciation of Jacolliot, _ib._; > his translation of a Vedic hymn, ii. 534 > > Widow-burning, or _suttee_, practised 2,500 years, but not when the > Code of Manu was compiled, i. 588; > sustained by the Brahmans from a forged verse of the _Rig-Veda_, i. > 589 > > Widows burned without pain by the Brahmans, i. 540 > > Wild beasts will not attack Buddhistic nuns, ii. 609 > > Wilder, A., on possibility of transmutation, i. 505; > suggestion of another classification of the Assyrians and Mongols, > i. 575; > notes in regard to America, the Atlantic continent, Lemuria, and > the deserts of Africa and Asia, i. 592; > on skeptics, and respect for earnest convictions, i. 437; > on Paul and Plato, ii. 90; > on the designation Peter and the pretension of the Pope to be his > successor, ii. 92; > opinion of Zeruana, Turan, and Zohak, ii. 142; > description of Paul, ii. 574-6 > > Wilkinson, Sir Gardner, his testimony in regard to ancient Egyptian > civilization, i. 526; > J. J. G., declares truth temperamental, i. 234 > > Will, i. 56-61; > its potency in a state of ecstasy, i. 170; > produces force, i. 285; > an emanation of deity, _ib._; > power of, ii. 21; > enables one to wound or injure another, i. 360, 361; > generates force, and force generates matter, ii. 320 > > Will-force of the Yogis, ii. 565 > > Will-power, killing birds by it, i. 380; > photographing by, i. 463; > the most powerful of magnets, i. 472; > its exercise the highest form of prayer, ii. 592 > > Wine first sacred in the Bacchic Mysteries, ii. 514 > > Winged men of the _Phædrus_, i. 2 > > Wirdig taught that nature is ensouled, i. 207 > > Wisdom, the arcane doctrine of the ancients, i. 205, 436; > or the principle, ii. 35; > the chief, ii. 36; > first emanation of the En-Soph, ii. 37; > origin, ii. 218; > the ethnic parent of every religion, ii. 639, 640 > > Wisdom-doctrine underlay every ancient religion, ii. 99 > > Wisdom-religion, to be found in the pre-Vedic religion of India, ii. > 39; > its articles of faith, ii. 116; > explained in Code of Manu, _ib._; > the parent cult, ii. 216 > > Wise women, ii. 525 > > Witch, a knowing woman, i. 354; > or kangalin, lawful for a Hindu to kill her, ii. 612 > > Witch-burnings in Germany, ii. 61; > twenty-nine, ii. 62, 63 > > Witchcraft, execution in Salem, and other American provinces, ii. 18; > laws in force in South Carolina in 1865, _ib._; > an offence among the ancients, ii. 98; > those guilty of it not initiates, ii. 117, 118 > > Witches, pretended, dozens of thousands burned, i. 353; > of the middle ages, the votaries of the former religion, ii. 502 > > Witches’ Sabbath, the orgies of Bacchus, ii. 528 > > Withdrawal of the inner from the outer man, ii. 583 > > Withdrawing of the inner from the outer, i. 476 > > Wittoba, the crucified image of Christna anterior to Christianity, > ii. 557 > > Wizard, a wise man, i. 354 > > Wolf, converted by St. Francis, ii. 77 > > Wolsey, Cardinal, accused of sorcery, ii. 57 > > Woman, of the future, i. 77; > fecundated artificially, i. 77, 81; > must cease to be the female of the men, i. 78; > ridding her of every maternal function, _ib._; > applying a latent force, _ib._; > offered to the encubi, _ib._; > impossible, i. 81; > evolved out of men, i. 297; > highly impressible when pregnant, i. 394; > exudes akasa as an odic emanation, i. 395; > how this is projected into the astral light or ether, and > repercussing, impresses itself upon the fœtus, _ib._; > evolved out of the lusts of matter, i. 433; > clothed with the sun, the goddess Isis, ii. 489 > > Women, magnetically influenced by the moon, i. 264 > > Women-colleges, to superintend worship, ii. 524, 525 > > Wong-Ching-Fu, his explanation of Nepang or Nirvana, ii. 319, 320 > > Wonder-working fakirs seldom to be seen, ii. 612, 613 > > Word, magical, i. 445; > ineffable, and performance of miracles, ii. 370; > lost by the Christians, _ib._; > where to be sought, ii. 371, ii. 418; > “long lost but now found,” ii. 393 > > World, how called into existence, i. 341; > how all will go well with it, ii. 122; > soul of, i. 129, 208, 215, 342; > religions, startled by utterances of scientists, i. 248, 249 > > World-religions, conflict between, i. 307; > identical at their starting-point, ii. 215; > the devil their founder, ii. 479 > > World-mountains, allegorical expressions of cosmogony, i. 157 > > World-soul, the source of all souls, and ether, i. 316 > > World-tree of knowledge, i. 574 > > Worlds, an incalculable number before the present one, ii. 424 > > Worship of the sun and serpent by Phœnicians and Mosaic Israelites, > i. 555; > of words, denounced, ii. 560; > of the spiritual portion of mankind, ii. 639 > > Wounds, mortal, self-inflicted and healed, i. 224 > > Wreaths of green leaves for oracles, ii. 612 > > Wren, Sir Christopher, simply the Master of the London operative > masons, ii. 390 > > Wright, Thomas, on sorcery and magic, i. 356 > > Writings under the ban, ii. 8 > > X, decussation of the perfect circle, ii. 469 > > X., Dr. extraordinary scenes at a seance, i. 608-611 > > Xenophanes, his satire on the representations of God, ii. 242 > > Ximenes, cardinal, burned 80,000 Arabic manuscripts, i. 511 > > Xisuthrus or Hasisadra, sailed with the ark to Armenia, ii. 217; > translated to the gods, ii. 424; > Oannes and Vishnu in the first avatar, ii. 457 > > Yaho, an old Shemitic mystic name of the Supreme Being, ii. 297 > > Yadus migrating from India to Egypt, i. 444 > > Yang-kie and Mahu, dwellers in both worlds, i. 601, 602 > > Yakuts and their worship, ii. 568 > > Yarker, John jr., account of the dervishes, ii. 316; > his testimony in regard to Free-masonry, ii. 376 > > Year of blood, 1876, i. 439 > > Yezidis, or devil-worshippers genuine sorcerers, ii. 571; > their worship, ii. 572 > > Yggdrasill, i. 133; > universe springing up beneath its branches, i. 151 > > Ymir, the Norse giant, i. 147; > generates a race of depraved men, i. 148; > is slain by the sons of Bur, i. 150 > > Yogas or cycles, i. 293 > > Yogis of India, ii. 346; > their extraordinary powers, ii. 565; > regarded as demi-gods, ii. 612; > a peculiar medicine used by them composed of sulphur and juice of > a plant, ii. 621; > their longevity, ii. 620; > their medicinal preparation of sulphur and quicksilver, ii. 620 > > Yörmungand, the midgard or earth-serpent, i. 151 > > Yourodevoy, i. 28 > > Youth, the means of regaining, ii. 618 > > Yowahous, ii. 313 > > Yugas, i. 31 > > Yule, Colonel, on movable type, i. 515; > on spiritualism in Tartary, i. 600; > testimony in regard to spiritual flowers drawn by a medium in Bond > street, London, i. 601 > > Zacharias, saw an apparition in the temple, ass-formed, ii. 523 > > Zadokites, or Sadducees, made a priest-caste by David, ii. 297 > > Zampun, the Thibetan tree of life, i. 152 > > Zamzummim, the Cyclopeans, i. 567 > > Zarathustra-Spitoma, his untold antiquity, i. 12 > > Zarevna Militrissa and the serpent, i. 550 > > Zeller, criticism of the Fathers in regard to Plato, i. 288 > > Zequiel, a demon presented to Torralva, ii. 60 > > Zeno taught two eternal qualities in nature, i. 12 > > Zeru-Ishtar, a Chaldean or Magian high-priest, ii. 129 > > Zeruan, Saturn or Abraham, the legend of the Titans, ii. 217 > > Zeus, the æther, i. 187, 188 > > Zeus-Dionysus, i. 262 > > Zmeij Gorenetch, the dragon, i. 550 > > Znachar, the Russian sorcerer, ii. 571 > > Zodiac, its symbolism, ii. 456; > its origin, 16,984 years ago, _ib._ > > Zohak and Gemshid, their struggle that of the Persians and Assyrians, > i. 576; > and Feridun, the legend explained, ii. 486; > or Azhi-Dahaka, the serpent of the Avesta, ii. 486; > a personification of Assyria, _ib._ > > Zonarus traces knowledge from Chaldea to Egypt, thence to the Greeks, > i. 543 > > Zoömagnetism, or animal magnetism, i. 206; > can magnetize minerals, _ib._ > > Zoroaster, Zarathustra, Zuruastara, Zuryaster, a spiritual teacher, > ii. 141; > a reformer of Chaldean Magic, i. 191; > when he lived, ii. 141; > Baron Bunsen’s opinion, ii. 432 > > Zoroastrian religion, its affinity with Judaism and Christianity, ii. > 486 > > Zoroastrianism, no schism, ii. 142 > > Zoroastrians, migrated from India, ii. 143 > > Zoro-Babel or prince of Babylon, ii. 441 > > Zuinglius, the first reformer, his cosmopolitan doctrine of the Holy > Ghost, i. 132 > > List of Main Corrections Implemented > > Greek > > Page 56 > φυχη replaced by ψυχη > > Page 242 > Τό Ὁν replaced by Τὸ Ὀν > > Page 257 > Πολυμήχὰνος replaced by Πολυμήχανος > μα̈τηρ replaced by μάτηρ > > Page 317 > μὰγος replaced by μάγος > μὰγνης replaced by μάγνης > > Page 355 > πὺθωνος replaced by πύθωνος > > Footnote 425 > Αρχῆν [ρεῦ replaced by μὲν] εῖναι [ῦλην possibly replaced by ὕλην] > > πὰντα replaced by πάντα > > Hebrew > > Page xxxvi > > כבדים replaced by גברים > > Page 181 > > ווח replaced by רוח > > Footnote 847 > > Unclear, but thought to be דוד , דידו . > > Page 575 > > כתנות צור replaced by כתנות עור > > — *Isis Unveiled, Volume 1 - Science (Public Domain (Project Gutenberg))*