HPB-SB-14-55: Difference between revisions

}}

{{HPB-SB-item

{{Style P-Title|NOTES BY THE WAY.}}

<center>'''Contributed by “M.A. (Oxon.)”'''</center>

Mr. Alfred R. Wallace puts in his striking letter considerations that have for a long time past so presented themselves to my mind as to make me hesitate in pronouncing any opinion about so difficult a subject as materialisation. They have apparently led him to believe that what is called fraud is not properly so called. It may be so: we cannot tell; but assuredly it will be taken as such. And when the paraphernalia of premeditated imposture are discovered on the person of the medium, it is impossible not to arrive at the conclusion that fraud has been planned and perpetrated. Considerations such as these have induced me to insist so strongly on the injustice and iniquity of placing a medium under conditions that are so suspicious. What has apparently led Mr. Wallace to the conclusion that materialisation phenomena are usually genuine, (I think he makes no place at all for imposture) has led me to desire conditions which, first of all, shall make imposture impossible: secondly, shall relieve the observer from the necessity for speculating whether what he is looking at is a materialised form, or a transfigured medium, or an elaborate fraud; and, lastly, shall prevent these recurrent exposures which discredit honest mediums, and make Spiritualism a byword.

It is a hopeful sign that experienced Spiritualists are beginning to see what Mr. Wallace so well puts, that “catching a Spirit” proves nothing of logical necessity. It is probable, nay almost certain, that any such seizure would place the medium in the hands of the seizer of the form, if that form were as substantial and solid as they usually are. If it were one of the less solid bodies, the shadowy forms such as appear with some medium, the attempt at seizure would fail. Probably the form would be re-absorbed into the medium, who would be found in his place suffering from a shock to his nervous system. For what takes place is probably what has been often speculatively pointed out before, and what Mr. Wallace suggests. The body of the medium is depleted of some of its material, and out of this, {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|i}}n<ref name="editor-restoration-55">The covered beginnings of seven words have been restored from Light, Vol. II, No. 93, 14 October 1882, p. 453.</ref> combination perhaps with other substance, the temporary {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|f}}orm is made up. It is intimately connected with the body of {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|t}}he medium, and is, in the case of these solid forms, probably heavier than he. It is in a state of fluctuation, never weighing {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|t}}he same amount for two minutes together, so far as we can {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|d}}iscover. If it were seized at a time when its weight was in excess of that of the medium, I should expect to find the less weighty body attracted to it, and the medium would be united with the form outside the cabinet, and we should have the ordinary exposure. If, on the contrary, the form were less solid, it would be re-united with the medium in the cabinet, and the attempt to detain it would be vain.

As to bonds Mr. Wallace is undoubtedly right. A woman, tied as he suggests, could not get out of the bonds by normal means without leaving traces of what had been done. But these traces ''are'' left, as some observers testify, in certain cases, and I had before my mind what I did not sufficiently clearly express, that I was writing of “a practised trickster” who would not permit any such effective test any more than Mr. Maskelyne will allow a keen observer to spoil his exposure of Spiritualism by going on {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|t}}he stage and exposing his methods to the audience. My grave {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|o}}bjection to all these tyings is that they do not serve their purpose. They leave us in doubt whether the form we see is or is not the medium, and, if he is found not to be in the state we expect to find him—if, for instance, the tape used is rumpled—they predispose hasty observers to a possibly false conclusion. Mr. Wallace, I see, lays it down that “it is known to all investigators that mediums can be loosed from any bonds or from clothing, and ''re-introduced into them.''” Is that so? I have no doubt as to the truth of the former statement, but of the one which I have italicized I do not recall any proof.

Dr. Andrew Clark, writing to excuse his absence from the Church Congress, where he was to have read a paper, made some very suggestive observations which should interest thoughtful Spiritualists. We have long since seen decisive proof that some, at least, of the fundamental principles and laws of science are by no means invariable in their action; and have strongly suspected that some of them are founded on misconception or on imperfect generalisation from insufficient observation. Our “methods of spiritual verification” are admirably enforced in the following words:—

{{Style P-Quote|“I take advantage of this note to express the hope that in dealing with the relation of science to religion some one will point out what I have not myself seen pointed out—First, that there is nothing absolute in the whole objective world, no absolute standard of mass, quality, or duration; that the knowledge of an absolute primitive weight of atoms is impossible; and that what we call the ordinary weight of a body is not a thing of itself alone but a product of the body by which it is attracted, the distance between them, and the disturbance occasioned by other invisible but active forces; secondly, that the assumption constituting the fundamental axiom of modern physics, that all true explanations of natural phenomena are mechanical, is incompatible with demonstrable facts; thirdly, the progress of chemistry is becoming more and more irreconcileable with the theory of the atomic constitution of matter; fourthly, that there is no law of physics, not even the law of gravitation, without great and growing exceptions, and no theory of physical phenomena, not even the undulatory theory of light, which is not becoming more and more inadequate to explain the facts discovered within its area of comprehension; fifthly, that therefore the boasted accuracy and permanency of so-called physical laws and theories is unfounded, that very probably the greater part of the so-called axioms of modern physics will be swept away as untenable, and that the theories of natural phenomena apparently the most comprehensive and conclusive are merely provisional, that at present finality in this region is neither visibly attainable nor clearly conceivable, and that after all there may be methods of spiritual verification which within their condition, scope, and use may compare not unfavourably with the method so confidently depended upon in physical research.”}}

The paper on “Thought-reading” in ''Macmillan'', which I mentioned last week, is by a lady who had been present at some of the experiments of the Committee of the S.P.R. She confirms the results arrived at with Mr. Creery’s children, and supplements them with some experiments which she made with two Eton boys of thirteen and sixteen, friends of her own. These trials were made ''without contact'', and were eminently successful. One set of experiments was made with a dozen billiard balls arranged in a pyramid. “The boys stood one on each side of the table, about half way down, while I stood at the end near the balls, perfectly still, taking care not even to turn my head, and covering my eyes.” More than half the guesses at the ball fixed on were right the first or second time. ''The blue ball was the favourite; the younger boy never failed to guess it, but both failed always with the black'': and though some months after the black was guessed more easily, the blue maintained its reputation. What is the meaning of that? I confess I see no explanation, but I do not fancy it is due to a mere chance.

Both boys were very successful in putting up ivory letters into words unknown to them. The letters were promiscuously put on a book lying on the lady’s lap, while the boys kneeled {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-56}}