My judgment will convince no one. In such matters we must see for ourselves in order to be convinced. Mr. Hodgson himself knows this to-day. My testimony contradicts formally and explicitly the conclusions of the Cambridge investigators. Eusapia does not always defraud; with us, she rarely defrauded.
Let me terminate this discussion with Richet’s words: ‘Malgré les apparences qui sont en effet souvent contre Eusapia, je ne suis fixé en aucune manière sur ce que j’ai appelé jusqu’ici fraude.... Il est possible, que dans l‘état de trance, ou dans les états voisins, la psychologie d’un médium soit très différente de la nôtre.’
APPENDIX B
I have criticised somewhat lengthily M. Janet’s opinions: will the reader kindly allow me to make yet another incursion into scientific ground. For it is perhaps necessary to reply to some objections which are advanced—doubtless in all sincerity—by certain savants who are either ill informed, or lacking in adequate knowledge of the subject. Professor Grasset of the university of Montpellier, for whose talent and earnestness I have the greatest respect, has just published a long article entitled Le Spiritisme et la Science in the last volume of his Leçons de clinique médicale (t. iv., 1903, p. 374). He begins by stating that he is going to take Janet as his guide, because the latter’s ‘luminous ideas are and remain for him the sole scientific basis now existing of these questions.’ Though we see it in print, this assertion is so extraordinary, that we wonder if we be not dreaming when reading it. Professor Grasset, then, is going to take Janet as a guide, Janet who has never seen anything! It makes one think of the fable, only, this time, it is the blind man who climbs on the paralytic’s back. Grasset is going to deal with matters of such importance, so prolific probably in new and unexpected consequences, without consulting the writers who have described the phenomena he is going to study! The authors from whose works he quotes—Jules Bois, Papus, Péladan, Mme. de Thébes, Léo Taxil!—have more to do with the charms of fancy than with the gravity of science. The task of refuting their assertions is far too easy a one, and the learned professor ought to have chosen other and better representatives of psychical research. His argumentation falls short of the mark.
Professor Grasset’s case is, however, instructive. I consider him as one of our best-informed scientists, and he seems to look upon psychical research without prejudice. Nobody can doubt his earnestness, his learning, his talent; but, in spite of these qualities, he shows himself to be unfamiliar with the serious work which has been done, and which is being done in psychical matters. When he quotes Myers, he misquotes him. When he discusses the Piper case, he sums up the account given of the case by M. Mangin in the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, and does not say a word of the careful reports drawn up by Hodgson and Hyslop. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if the professor’s statements do not agree with the facts. He does not appear to have studied either the original reports or M. Sage’s remarkable summary of these reports.
Professor Grasset simply says: ‘Four months after the death of Mr. Robinson (George Pelham), Mrs. Piper gave a seance in the house of one of Mr. Robinson’s friends and fell into a trance.’ [A slight mistake, the seance took place at Mrs. Piper’s.] ‘P., the secondary personality, said that George Robinson was ready to communicate; and henceforth this spirit took part in Mrs. Piper’s seances as another familiar spirit. Such an example shows how polygonal incarnations are formed during the medium’s trance.’
And no more! Professor Grasset does not see the real problem: did the medium show any knowledge of facts known only to the deceased? This is the problem. The mode of formation of the secondary personality is but an accessory question.
This kind of reasoning is common to savants. They keep aloof from the real psychological problem, and only discuss its side issues. I am sorry to see a man of Professor Grasset’s worth fall into the usual errors, and pronounce a judgment upon facts before thoroughly acquainting himself with those facts.
Professor Grasset speaks of spiritisme scientifique as belonging to the realm of biology, and demanding the serious attention of scientists. But why speak of spiritism? Spiritism is a religion, it is not a science; it is the systematic explanation of the ensemble of certain facts, so far very ill understood, but it is not the assertion of those facts. Are the alleged facts true? That is the question which biology has to examine. Spiritism, on the contrary, that is to say, the ensemble of metaphysical doctrines founded upon the revelations of spirits, cannot be considered, at least for the present, as belonging to biology. I beg Professor Grasset not to confound the impartial, unbiased research for scientific truth with spiritism.