SCIENCE AND THE " SPIRITS." 341 
tnenced repeating the alphabet, and when he reached the 
letter " P" a knock was heard. He began again, and the 
spirits knocked at the letter " 0." 1 was puzzled, but 
waited for the end. The next letter knocked down was 
" E." I laughed, and remarked that the spirits were going 
to make a poet of rne. Admonished for my levity, I was 
informed that the frame of mind proper for the occasion 
ought to have been superinduced by a perusal of the Bible 
immediately before the seance. The spelling, however, 
went on, and sure enough I came out a poet. But matters 
did not end here. Our host continued his repetition of the 
alphabet, and the next letter of the name proved to be 
" 0." Here was manifestly an unfinished word, and the 
spirits were apparently in their most communicative mood. 
The knocks came from under the table, but no person 
present evinced the slightest desire to look under it. I 
asked whether I might go underneath; the permission was 
granted; so I crept under the table. Some tittered; but the 
candid old A. exclaimed, " He has a right to look into 
the very dregs of it, to convince himself." Having pretty 
well assured myself that no sound could be produced under 
the table without its origin being revealed, I requested 
our host to continue his questions. He did so, but in vain. 
He adopted a tone of tender en treaty; but the "dear spirits" 
had become dumb dogs, and refused to be entreated. I 
continued under that table for at least a quarter of an hour, 
after which, with a feeling of despair as regards the prospects 
of humanity never before experienced, I regained my chair. 
Once there, the spirits resumed their loquacity, and dubbed 
me "Poet of Science." 
This, then, is the result of an attempt made by a scien- 
tific man to look into these spiritual phenomena. It is 
not encouraging; and for this reason. The present pro- 
moters of spiritual phenomena divide themselves into two 
classes, one of which needs no demonstration, while the 
other is beyond the reach of proof. The victims like to 
believe, and they do not like to be undeceived. Science 
is perfectly powerless in the presence of this frame of mind. 
It is, moreover, a state perfectly compatible with extreme 
intellectual subtlety and a capacity for devising hypotheses 
which only require the hardihood engendered by strong 
conviction, or by callous mendacity, to render them 
impregnable. The logical feebleness of science is uot suffi- 
