HYPNOTISM IN ANIMALS. 85 



slightest belief nor the smallest amount of consideration. This asser- 

 tion does not deserve the latter, simply because it concerns an " event 

 viewed unequally " (for there are many events in this category which 

 deserve the highest esteem), but because the admissible part of 

 Crookes's statement is in itself worthy of no notice, and because not 

 the slightest proof is furnished that the motions only proceeded from 

 the so-called medium, and that they could partake of no heretofore 

 well-known natural cause ! 



Had such a proof been undertaken in an exact manner, Crookes's 

 assertions would probably have deserved some notice, which would 

 have led to a repetition of his experiment, in order to test more thor- 

 oughly his " event viewed unequally ; " if this proof had been strictly 

 enforced, Crookes would have discovered one of the most remarkable 

 known events, and his assertions would have at once commanded the 

 utmost respect and consideration from all natural investigators ; as, 

 perhaps, with Volta, when he built his pile, which presented no less 

 incredible appearances ! But, as the events stand, Crookes's state- 

 ments, as with hundreds and thousands of " events viewed unequally," 

 concerning moving tables, flying guitars, self-playing pianos, etc., 

 have been regarded with exactly the same claim to science as the best 

 and most astonishing sleight-of-hand performances, which no one can 

 admit to be real natural investigations, although in a psychological re- 

 spect the real cause of the deception may be very interesting. 



Little as it may affect a reasonable man, not to be able to inves- 

 tigate some pretty and striking conjuring trick, so also no one ought 

 to disquiet himself on account of events which hundreds of people 

 have testified to, even when the slightest proof is unproduced, so that 

 every thought relating to the possibility of such an interesting natural 

 phenomenon is removed. 



Only through* the idea that the phenomena are not visible do these 

 latter present a most remarkable significance in the eyes of the un- 

 learned. But, in this significance, they make no difference between it 

 and conjuring, which is often much more interesting and not less in- 

 explicable. But do they make a distinction in any other respect ? 

 As to that we will ask, at first, a little information from the " spirit- 

 ualists," " natural investigators," and " savants" such as Yarley, Wal- 

 lace, Crookes, Butterow, and others, before we allow them the right to 

 make the slightest reproof concerning science, and the dependence of 

 these things upon it. 



These gentlemen have not the shadow of a right to complain of 

 any thing save their own incapability, nor have they the right to make 

 a reproach to any one except themselves, that they did not succeed 

 in establishing their " spiritual manifestations." 



I will expressly emphasize the fact that I did not say that one 

 must regard all phenomena, which occur daily, and which are of the 

 greatest significance and importance, as mere conjuring-tricks, al- 



