Spiritualism IV. My Reply to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Spiritualism IV. My Reply to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is an article written by E. J. D. published in The Freethinker on 29 february 1920.
Spiritualism IV.
My Reply to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
In the Freethinker of February 8 and 15, Sir A. C. Doyle contributed a couple of letters in which he attempted to meet my objections to certain evidence upon which he has relied in his support of the practice and doctrine of Spiritualism. In the first letter he notices my remarks upon the Zollner seances, and in the second he accuses me of making "imperfect and garbled statements" in reference to the sitting at which he avers he heard his son's voice speaking to him. As both these letters are now before readers of this journal, and as they supply an invaluable example of the methods used by Spiritualists in argument, I propose devoting my fourth article to a detailed consideration of them.
Firstly, then, my readers will remember, that in an examination of the Zollner seances, I pointed out that the investigators were hardly suitable for the task allotted to them. Sir A. C. Doyle says that I asserted that Zollner was ill, Fechner was blind, and that Weber and Scheibner were imbeciles. I never asserted anything of the sort. What I did say, and say again, is that at the time the seances took place Zollner was considered by his friends to be "somewhat abnormal," and it is known that he became mentally unsound shortly afterwards. With regard to Fechner, I merely stated that he had cataract (not that he was blind), and as to Weber and Scheibner, I am quite unable to discover from whence Sir Arthur has got his information as to my statement that they were imbeciles. It is certainly not in my article, and I can only assume that Sir A. C. Doyle has invented it to suit his own purpose.
The next point touched on by my critic is much more interesting. He makes the startling announcement that the opponents of Spiritualism "invariably affix some bodily affliction upon everyone who believes the evidence in favour of psychic force," evidently hinting at the possibility that I am doing so in the case before us. But surely this is very dangerous ground on which to tread. If a man has cataract or is shortsighted, it can very easily be shown whether this is so or not, quite apart from any opinion that he may hold. I, therefore, ask Sir Conan Doyle the direct question : Does he or does he not deny that Zollner was abnormal during the seances; that Fechner was suffering from cataract, and that Scheibner was extremely shortsighted? If he does, I am perfectly willing to retract my statements if sufficient evidence is produced to justify it; and if not, does he think that such persons were suitable for investigating the phenomena of a man, who, on his own showing, "wanted very careful watching"?
In his next point Sir Arthur emphasizes a belief widely held by Spiritualists, and one almost entirely fallacious. He regards Slade, he says, as one of those mediums who were morally weak if they were psychic ally strong, "as they might be tempted where psychic power fails, and it is notoriously intermittent, to substitute fraud." Now, this is very often said of mediums, and, in some cases, especially that of Eusapia, there may he some justification for it. But, unfortunately, the case of Slade is the worst possible one that could have been chosen. Slade was an expert at feats which represent the very cream of magical achievement. When I was performing somewhat similar experiments a few years ago, I found that owing to their extreme difficulty and the amount of practice necessary, I was unable to continue giving my sittings, my time being fully occupied with other work. Does Sir A. C. Doyle really imagine that a genuine medium if "tempted" could perform these tricks without endless practice and a detailed knowledge of misdirection? Supposing that suddenly I became possessed of psychic power, and began to give tests at the present time, it would be absolutely impossible for me to do the things that Slade was seen doing, however much I was "tempted." In order to produce tests similar to Slade's, I should want six months' hard practice. But that is not all. Many of Slade's experiments were produced, as witnessed by the Seybert Commission, by special apparatus and prepared slates; so evidently Slade often expected to be tempted, and when he succumbed, he managed to do so exceedingly adroitly and skilfully! Yet in the face of the most Conclusive evidence that Slade was a trickster, and a most accomplished one at that, Sir Arthur insists "that he had psychic power in a very high degree," and that this "is evident to anyone who reads the evidence." I now ask for that evidence, and also whether Sir A. C. Doyle includes Zollner's testimony within its scope?
We now come to the case of Bellachini, the German court conjurer. So far as I know, Bellachini was not suffering from cataract, or congenital idiocy, and I cannot conceive why Sir A. C. Doyle speaks of these unfortunate complaints unless he has a suspicion lurking at the back of his mind that Profs. Zollner, Fechner, and Scheibner were really excellent observers, and that the two last were possessed of splendid eyesight. But let that pass. There is some evidence which goes to show that at the time Bellachini's oath was taken he was quite ignorant of the methods employed by fraudulent mediums. It must be remembered that at that time conjuring was on a very different plane from what it is now. Some of the most beautiful subtleties now employed by magicians were scarcely known, and it is also highly improbable that Bellachini would have gone against learned opinion of the time, which, in Germany at least, was inclined to the opinion that the phenomena were genuine. Unfortunately, little appears to be known of Bellachini, but if Sir Arthur has special information, I hope he will bring it forward, as, personally, I should much like to know more of him and his work, although amongst conjurers generally I am not aware that he is held in any great esteem at the present day.
As a matter of sober fact, the case against Slade is almost unanswerable. Hyslop has at last recognized it, and in his latest book he says "no one can defend any of his claims or those of his supporters. He is almost totally forgotten. Even Zollner's experiments with him have become discredited......" (Contact With the Other World; New York, 1919; p. 424). Would it not be far better for Sir Arthur to confess frankly that the evidence is not satisfactory, and allow Slade to go the way of the many others who have fooled scientists in the past?
Now as to the second letter. Sir Arthur starts off by accusing me of making "imperfect and garbled statements," saying that if I had seen the Two Worlds of December 19, I should have realized how incomplete was my account. As a matter of fact, the passage I quoted is taken direct from the verbatim account as published in the Two Worlds. But Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has utterly misunderstood my motive in quoting this extract. The facts which I omitted have absolutely nothing to do with the case. I did not even deal with the seance as if I thought that it was fraudulent, my argument being quite untouched even if the whole thing was perfectly genuine and above-board. It is true that I might have informed my readers that Sir Arthur had bound the medium with stout twine, but then I should have been also forced to remind them, in the words of D. D. Home, that "such tyings are simply useless." But I preferred to treat the subject as a serious case of what Sir Arthur believes to be a genuine example of spirit manifestation, and, indeed, could hardly do otherwise, since I have no evidence beyond Sir Arthur's words either one way or the other. The position I adopt, however, rests on very different grounds. Surely it is almost inconceivable that a dozen whispered words in the dark could bring conviction as to the identity of the speaker. Even if all the conditions were perfect, and fraud was quite out of the question, it seems to me to be the height of imprudence to be satisfied with such an experience. The point that I insisted on, and still emphasize, was not the lack of opportunity for fraud which the seance exhibited, but the absolute lack of any satisfactory evidence for survival, even if there was actually no fraud at all. As to Sir Arthur's question as to who spoke to him, that is one which must be left unanswered. All I can hope to show is that the evidence is not sufficient to justify us in assuming that lit was his son.
We must now rapidly pass on to the case of the Codex Alexandrinus. Here, again, Sir Arthur has misunder stood me, fixing on a point which he considers "paltry," and ignoring altogether my main contention. Firstly, as to the source. In my article I said that the letter occurred in the Daily Express, the date being, I believe, somewhere about December 27, 1919. I chose this account rather than that contained in the Vital Message because I wished to demonstrate to the readers of the Freethinker exactly how miracles grow. I also selected the newspaper account for the simple reason that it reaches many more people than Sir Arthur's book, and therefore strict accuracy was all the more essential. Let us compare the two accounts.
| The "Vital Message." | The "Daily Express." | |
|---|---|---|
| Upon this plate being developed there was found in it a copy of a passage from the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum. | In the same way Professor Henslow has shown that he obtained a reproduction of a page of the Codex Alexandrinus, a document which never left the British Museum. |
See how it grows! I am sorry that the criticism is paltry, but I cannot help noticing that the passage did not become a line, but a page. A mere slip, I have no doubt, but what a significant one. Then there is the
document "which never left the British Museum." How well it sounds! Fraud quite out of the question, as all the time the document was safe under its glass shade, and no one could tamper with it in any way. All this and more does this sentence imply, and yet it is utterly and hopelessly misleading. But it is of the greatest importance to the psychologist, for here we see the mechanism of miracle-making in full operation. Yet Sir Arthur has not so much as attempted to meet my objections to that fatal sentence — "a document which never left the British Museum." I now ask him to explain it away, if he can.
Finally, the case of Mrs. Spencer. With regard to this, there is little to say. I cannot tell Sir Arthur why he was asked to see the picture. Presumably because Lady Churchill thought that he would appreciate a good piece of work. And from what we know, it seems that she was not far wrong. With more than that I have no concern.
E. J. D.
