Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 4.djvu/96

86 numbers of them could be proved to be such. Remember the Davenport scandal! For me, the first "manifestations" are entitled to as little consideration as the latter, and I selected the best authenticated of them when I communicated Crookes's experiments as a characteristic example of "spiritual" literature to the well-known English savant, the deserving scholar, our great chemist Hoffman, of Berlin, formerly of London. And has any one of the gentlemen who are "investigators" in this department said any thing to the credit of the deceased American chemist and "spiritualist," Dr. Hare? Does not one find in the literature which they have the assurance to refer us to, accompanied by brainless chattering and fanciful effusions, nothing, nothing at all, but childish or idiotic arrangements, supposed to represent a psychological apparatus, and more or less creditable reports as to the reality of "events viewed unequally?"

In the mean while, you may properly ask if these events, which have been witnessed by hundreds of worthy people, are needful of scientific examination and proof, and whether they are worth it? Oh, yes; but not all, and not in a very high degree. Science and its followers have the right to consult their own time and opportunity. They have something more to do than to occupy themselves in answering every question put to them. You all know the old saying relating to the fool and the seven wise men. That which is worthy of no earnest investigation, and which, nevertheless, can awaken esteem and confidence, in spite of all singularity, should raise no claim to consideration on the part of science. In this case, however, the moving tables, flying guitars, mysterious rappings, of course take no part.

The clamors of hundreds and thousands of eye and ear witnesses who triumphantly hint at "scientific investigations," but who are incapable of giving any proof of the experiments, do not change the matter in the least. Whether one or another investigator may consider these things, is entirely dependent on his personal opinion, and on casual circumstances. Whoever has no opinion on the matter, and holds aloof from it, cannot meet with the slightest reproach. My highly-esteemed friend Prof. Sharpey, who formerly was secretary for many years of the Royal Society of London, was perfectly right when he refused Mr. Crookes's invitation to be present at his experiments with Mr. Home; indeed, he acted with great wisdom, for spiritualists and fanatics are very much inclined to trumpet forth men of science as important witnesses on such occasions. The letter of the celebrated astronomer Huggins, written on the 9th of June, 1871, to Mr. Crookes, is nothing but a polite though decided denial of his opinion relative to different phenomena which had taken place in Crookes's house in Huggins's presence. And yet, this letter is triumphantly, and Huggins, probably much against his will, is considered, from all sides, as one of the "scientific authorities" who