86 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



though 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 experi- 

 ments as a characteristic example of " spiritual " literature to the 

 well-known English savant, the deserving scholar, our great chem- 

 ist 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 as- 

 surance to refer us to, accompanied by brainless chattering and fan- 

 ciful effusions, nothing, nothing at all, but childish or idiotic ar- 

 rangements, supposed to represent a psychological apparatus, and more 

 or less creditable reports as to the reality of " events viewed un- 

 equally ? " 



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 answer- 

 ing 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 con- 

 fidence, in spite of all singularity, should raise no claim to considera- 

 tion 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 in- 

 capable of giving any proof of the experiments, do not change the mat- 

 ter 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 experi- 

 ments 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 quoted 

 triumphantly, and Huggins, probably much against his will, is con- 

 sidered, from all sides, as one of the " scientific authorities " who 



