1430. “All the prodigies of the mesmeric subjects of clairvoyants, the sorcery, haunting spirits, apparitions, visions, &c., owe their origin, according to M. de Gasparin, to nervous excitement, fluidic action, and sometimes are hallucinations. As I do not design here to make a critical analysis of M. de Gasparin’s work, not considering myself capable, and leaving this honour to those who are in some scientific line, I design merely occupying myself with some facts which refer personally to me, and which appear to me to oppose some points in the doctrine of M. de Gasparin in his table-turning, or Supernatural in General, as already noticed in the introduction to the monograph, and I commence with the subject of ecstasy.
1431. “Speaking of ecstatics, M. de Gasparin explains himself as follows: ‘As to their intellectual faculties, they are capable in those cases of prodigious development. The ecstatics declare themselves that they have two souls; that a voice foreign to their own causes them to speak; that they suddenly receive ideas entirely unknown to them, and terms of expression entirely strange to them. It happens even that the peasant accustomed to patois, speaks French, and that illiterate men express themselves in Latin. Now, have we something here that is supernatural? Certainly not; it is a physiological state, or often the treasures of reminiscence, which the subject possessed, though in fact not aware of it. The peasant may have known how to speak French; she may not have known it, and still it may all have been engraved on the deep recesses of the memory, where nothing is ever really effaced. Exalted or sick, she finds herself in possession of the French language. A merchant, who has scarcely passed the first classes, and who never knew Latin, finds himself the possessor of the Latin language, and embarrasses his doctor, whom he addresses in that tongue.’
1432. “According to this ecstatic theory of M. de Gasparin, it follows that the ideas expressed by the subjects, and which were unknown to them in their normal state, are nothing more than reminiscences. I admit, with M. de Gasparin, that reminiscence is only the return of the soul to the recollection of a thing or an idea, which, though engraven on the memory, was forgotten. This return, however, does not happen without some remarks, which, from the recollection of some ideas or incidents, conduct the mind to the recollection of what was forgotten.
1433. “I am a medium: according to the received opinion, a medium is a waking magnetic subject. Now, every magnetic subject is in a degree ecstatic; therefore I, being a medium, am ecstatic. Well, I being ecstatic, take a pencil, and concentrating myself in that state, request the occult power that moves my hand without my volition to cause it to write, if it is possible, something on the creation. The last word is scarcely pronounced when my hand proceeds to write, without interruption, something true or false, on the creation, which surprises me.
1434. “This interview terminates, and desiring to know if these ideas on the creation come from reminiscences, I seek to discover if they could have been engraven on my memory, either from reading or hearing them related. With this view I commenced by reading religious and philosophic books that would be likely to discuss the question, but could find nothing like what I had written. I consulted the public libraries, and they contained nothing on the creation similar to what my hand had communicated. Not a professor, philosopher, naturalist, physiologist, theologian, or historian, with whom I had ever had any intercourse, could recollect any thing of the kind.
1435. “After this, I reason as follows: having examined all the means by which what was written by my hand on the creation could have been impressed on my memory, nothing appears to warrant that belief; therefore, these notions on the creation cannot be regarded as reminiscences.
1436. “But it is not enough, we have said, that in reminiscence, are necessary, which, by the recollection of an object, idea, or notion, we are led to the further recollection of something forgotten. That this should take place, some time is required, however little it may be. However, in the case related, not a moment was required, and this breaks up the required process, in order to respond to the theory of M. de Gasparin.
1437. “Now, if these ideas on the creation are not reminiscences—if they do not emanate from the devil, who, agreeably to our author, is an entire stranger to these phenomena—if it is not the soul of a deceased person that controlled my hand, as M. de Gasparin, being a Protestant, does not believe in returning spirits nor in communion with the dead, who then caused to be written by my hand such strange things, without my knowledge or assistance? And I beg M. de Gasparin to be so good as to explain this phenomenon, which appears to be in opposition with his theory on the prodigies of ecstatic subjects. Should M. de Gasparin desire to see what I have written, he can be gratified. But what will he say, when having requested my spirit to reply in writing on some subject familiar to my mind, he is unable to do it, or replies contrary to my thoughts and convictions? Can this be called reminiscence? I pass now to consider mesmerism.
1438. “In speaking on this subject, the Supernatural of M. de Gasparin says, ‘The clairvoyance of mesmerism appears in general to have only the character of an echo. Its wonders are those of reminiscence or perception of images and thoughts, which occupy the intelligence of the person with whom the clairvoyant is in rapport. This appears to be the balance-sheet of animal magnetism, and it has changed but little since its origin.’ (Tome ii. page 311.)
1439. “According to what M. de Gasparin has just told us, it follows, that when a clairvoyant tells us in his sleep that he sees the spirit of a deceased person, and gives us an exact description of his person, we are not to regard it as the deceased person that the clairvoyant sees, but his image impressed on the memory of that clairvoyant from acquaintance with the defunct when living, or in the memory of the consulting visitor in rapport; so that the clairvoyant, in these apparitions of the dead, is governed only by reminiscence or the reflection of images or of thoughts. Now, having allowed M. de Gasparin to speak, I desire in my turn to speak also.