366. “How changed are the times! Two years ago, the whole Academy of Sciences revolted against the Baron de Humboldt for supposing that at a distance he caused a deviation of the magnetic needle—an experiment, too, which could never be renewed at Paris; and, behold! in place of needles, all at once heavy tables are seen waltzing about the room, and obedient to the will; and all this is easily explained! It is quite plausible! Yes, but this time, gentlemen Savans, we will not allow you to distort the facts. Since the commencement of this volume, we have done nothing but establish, on good evidence, all those which your colleagues arrange agreeably to their fancy, after having absolutely denied them. But now the half of France rises with us to convict them, and to say to you: No, your nervous branches will never explain it; neither the physical phenomena which you would refer to them, nor the intelligence of our tables which respond to our own questions, nor the super-intelligence of those which probably to-morrow will reveal to us what we are ignorant of ourselves.
367. “Attending on the morrow, then! It is truly sorrowful to see a man of the highest merit, like M. Chevreul, expose himself in this way to the weakest scholar who, cue in hand, might fairly undertake to answer him. Those may hereafter believe in physics who wish. It is most horribly compromised. A science, capable of thus forswearing all its principles, loses, in our estimation, much of its authority.
368. “La Revue Medicale, cited by La Patrie of May 20th, declares in its turn ‘the explanation either by imagination or muscular vibrations, as represented by MM. Corvisart and De Castelnan, entirely nullified by the fact of the simple change in the relations of the little fingers.’
369. “As for the Medical, they see in it animal magnetism, and exclaim: ‘No one is able to foresee the application of which this discovery is susceptible. It is an entire world for explanation. Who knows if there is not at the end of this hint the means of illustrating a whole generation!’
370. “Lucky Magnetism—what a reparation you have a right to demand! what incense will be bestowed on you to-morrow, by those who yesterday so cruelly tore you to pieces! But La Presse and L’Union Medicale may do what they please, no one will hereafter believe them on their word.
371. “A just reward, gentlemen, for things here below. You would not believe and you are not believed now! We read afresh in La Patrie of May 21st, the recital of ‘tables promenading and upsetting without contact by pure efforts of volition, or even by a simple magnetic pass—a very superfluous precaution of the experimenter.’ Very superfluous, indeed! It could not have been better expressed.
372. “In the presence of such a fact, will the magnetizers still maintain that the magnetic rapport results from the mixture of the two nervous atmospheres? The nervous system of tables, (disgueridons,) to use the language of Reichenbach, must be very sensitive; and in this new dance without contact—what becomes of the explanation by muscular vibration, and especially by the humidity of the hands?
373. “We have some very important communications, on the 23d of May, from M. Bonjean, member of the Royal Academy of Savoy, at Chambéry, respecting several experiments made at the academy itself, and establishing the perfect intelligence of the agent in question. M. Bonjean, however, always refers this intelligence to one uniform process. ‘These responses,’ he says, ‘are not, and cannot be but the reflection of the thoughts of the person who causes the phenomena, and the movables are only able to satisfy those questions whose answers are known, without ever being able to supply an answer that is not known.’
374. “The idea that the furniture is unable to give satisfaction is charming! but up to this point it was not understood to be super-intelligence. Patience, however, for it is bound to happen!
375. “Besides, M. Bonjean does full justice to the muscular movements of M. Chevreul, by means of that single exception of the table of Strasbourg turning with all its operators, or certain tables at Lyons moved without immediate contact. Next, he passes from the physical to the moral question, which, if to be believed, is certainly not very encouraging. ‘Fathers and mothers,’ he exclaims, ‘if you do not desire to develope premature feelings in your daughters, husbands who regard the peace of your wives, be mistrustful of the magnetic chain in general, and of the dancing of tables in particular.’