P.9: Phenomena on Trial
In spite of the
Hodgson/SPR report showing the "Mahatma Letters" did not just appear
on paper, or that H.P. Blavatsky could not materialize cups, saucers and vases
as is claimed today, Dr. James Santucci, Professor at the University of
California, writes in the current, Spring 2003 "Theosophical History"
Journal, published by the same University, that the Hodgson/S.P.R. report
claiming the above is wrong. (1)
In 1882 Spiritualism
and Theosophy in London had jointly given birth to a new kind of spiritual
group, the Society for Psychical Research, or S. P R. Most were members
of the spiritualist Church, and the SPR just as the Societe
Espirite Parissienne before
that, where hoping to proof the spiritualist phenomena with scientific means.
Members of the Church
of Spiritualism (like later Vernon Harrison, who wrote J'Accuse: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885), in
fact complained that the Journal of the Society, contained work antipathetic to
beliefs of the Church.
And SPR members
began resigning after Eleanor Sidgwick pronounced (in the Journal only) that
the celebrated medium William Eglinton was only a conjuror. Light, as organ of
the London Spiritualist Alliance, produced a huge dossier of evidential support
for Eglinton, and ended with the view that unless her accusation of fraudulence
was withdrawn, it "will have the effect of forcing a crisis, and causing a
schism in the Society which would, not improbably, split it to the core."
(Light, 24 July 1886, p., 329.)
Because of his
semi-skepticism, Richard Hodgson was disliked by a considerable segment
of the SPR. But by today’s (April 2003) standards Hodgson cannot be
considered extremely skeptic, and his report should be seen as the best
possible at the time.
For example following
the report about Blavatsky, Hodgson restricted Mrs. Piper’s sensitivity
to telepathic gleanings, but next removed any agency from his object, referring
to Mrs. Piper as "a delicate protoplasmic machine." ( Richard
Hodgson, "A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of
Trance," PSPR 13, 1897-8, p.357.)
As has been shown in
a number of well researched books, the SPR convened itself around an
intellectual aristocracy based in Cambridge, which remained the enemy of the
dissenting scientific naturalists, and the intellectual home of natural
theology. (See: Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical
Research, 1968; Janet Oppenheim, The Other World: Spiritualism and Psychical
Research in England, 1983); Ruth Brandon, The Spiritualists, 1983;John Cerullo, The Secularisation of
the Soul, 1982. J. P. Williams's thesis, The Making of Victorian Psychical Research:
An Intellectual Elite's Approach to the Spiritual World, remains unpublished,
Cambridge, 1984)
Today most religious
scholars tend to avoid all discussions whether the claims of a religious
tradition are true or false in matters of historical and scientific record.
To defend there position academic scholars often will fall back
on the scholastic pronouncement used by Thomas Aquinas, that since
we can neither proof or disprove that God (“materializations, the Great White
Brotherhood,” and so on) truly exist, we should therefore hold off any
judgments and remain “agnostic” meaning open for all, not disproved
"possibilities." (2)
Scholars of the
Spiritualist Church and Theosophy today, in spite of the non-availability of
scientific evidence for materializations, therefore can continue to claim the
phenomena in question are factual. Dr. James Santucci who now deconstructs the
Hodgson report, plus infamous Theosophical apologetic Daniel H.
Caldwell will indeed produce numerous eyewitness reports, to "proof"
that the spiritist phenomena of Blavatsky contrary to
Hodgson’s claims, in fact should be considered real.
Non-scholastic
Voltaire on the other hand remarked already that many "excellent
persons think they have seen what they have not seen and heard what was never
said to them.
In fact the following
is quoted form the fifth edition of E. Roy Calvert's Capital Punishment:
Adolf Beek was
sentenced in 1896 to seven years penal servitude for a series of robberies from
women, and in 1904 was again convicted for similar offenses. On the first
occasion he was identified by no less than ten women, and the second trial by
five women, each of whom swore to his identity as the man who had swindled her;
a handwriting expert testified on oath that the letters written by the real
culprit were in Beek's handwriting; two prison officials wrongly identified
Beck as a previously convicted man-Smith-who was afterwards proved to be the
real perpetrator of the crimes for which Beek was found guilty. Rarely has evidence
been so overwhelming as it was in this case, yet Beck was subsequently
discovered to be absolutely innocent.
There is no shadow of
foundation: stated the official report, "for any of the charges made
against Beck," and the Home Office awarded him 5,000 pound
compensation. Yet it took Adolf Beck nine years to establish his innocence.
Maybe that is also
why a few hundred years ago Voltaire wrote that were witnesses are trying
to back up a cherished religious belief, their "eye witness" reports,
are "worth nothing."
Before H.P. Blavatsky
could be served with the papers for the trial where she would have to provide
evidence for her claims, Blavatsky (on advice from the TS board of directors)
immediately flew the country and left the Asian continent forever. Had the courtcase against Blavatsky and the Theosophical society in
regards to claims surrounding the “Mahatma Letters” had proceeded as planned,
it would have given us probably more evidence, then the Hodgson
report the only investigations (there were two) we have. Yet it is of
interest to see how even in case of a a
“precipitation-trial” some years earlier in France, apologetics would still
deny all evidence.
Some of the leading Spiritists were tried on June 16-17, 1875, before the
seventh chamber of the Tribunal Correctionnel de la
Seine. The courtroom was packed with spectators.
For contemporary
observers, a striking moment of the trial was the Comtede
Bullet's interroatoire.
Bullet's first
sitting with Buguet had yielded a spirit image of the
Comte's sister, who lived in Baltimore. When the Prisident
questioned him about the authenticity of the picture, Bullet refused to admit
that it might be false:
Q. Nevertheless you
have the box of portraits here; do you not think that two women's faces could
resemble one another?
A. Oh! Everyone
recognized my sister, it was certainly she.
Q. Well,
monsieur, you have been duped.
A. No.
Q. You now know Buguet's procedure? Here, look, do you not think it
possible that two pictures of women could resemble one another... In any event,
Buguet’s procedure has been demonstrated.
A. I certainly saw a
mannequin ... that was shown to me; but that proves nothing: he is a medium.
Q. Yes, this doll; and
beside it, you see the collection from which he look your sister's portrait.
A. M. le juge showed me these heads; a mannequin; but what does that
prove? He could have used them once, twice; but in my case, I summoned my
sister's spirit, which appeared I am convinced.
Bullet believed so
completely in the reality of spirit phenomena that he was willing to explain
away even the most overwhelming evidence of fraud, and even to endure being
called a "dupe" in a public trial. Bullet, however, did not see his
conviction in these terms. Indeed, he viewed himself as a
scientifically-sophisticated researcher of spirit phenomena, and held that his
beliefs were the product of systematic empirical study.
The power of
this basis for belief became increasingly clear as the testimony of Leymarc's witnesses continued. Over and over again, the Prisident would present the box of cut-out heads and the
doll; over and over, convinced Spiritists would
refuse to accept this evidence as proof that their particular photographs had
been faked. All of these witnesses - many, of whom were technical trained,
either as army officers or engineers - viewed the-or belief in scientific
terms, and attempted to present It to the court in a similar manner.
The Spiritists were deeply discouraged by the Prisident's refusal to accept what they saw as clear
evidence that at least a few of Buguet's photographs
had been authentic.
The President, for
his part was frustrated by the obstinacy of the Spiritist
witnesses, who refused to draw "rational " conclusions from the
irrefutable evidence of fraud the prosecutor presented.
Leymarie contested the police assumption that he had been Buguet's knowing accomplice. The editor insisted he had
believed in the authenticity of Buguet's powers as
completely as any of the photographer's satisfied clients; he was therefore as
much a victim of fraud as they. Despite this abundant testimony and Ia chaud's exhaustive,
sentimental plaidoirie, the outcome of the trial was
as unfavorable for Leymarie: as it was for the others
accused.
Buguet
and Leymaric however were both sentence to one year
in prison and fined 500 francs, in addition to court costs; Firman
was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 300 francs. All three appealed
the court's decision, but the Cour d'Appel, after hearing essentially the same arguments,
upheld the judgment.
Both the Spiritists' justifications for their belief and the court's
reactions to them provide telling insights into the complex relationship
between believers, and the skeptical mainstream.
The Spiritists tailored their "experiments" to what
they believed to be the elusive nature of spirit phenomena. These
manifestations, they argued, were not simple, repeatable processes like
chemical reactions; instead, spirit phenomena were dependant
on a wide variety of conditions, including the observer's emotional state, the
presence of a medium, and the will of the spirits themselves. As a result, Spiritists tended to stress the importance of eyewitness
accounts, and above all the quantity of evidence. A phenomenon may have been
impossible to produce reliably in an experimental context, but if it could be
shown to have occurred frequently nevertheless, Spiritists
believed, its existence could be considered "pro."
The Spiritist effort to take what they saw as the fundamental
unpredictability of spirit phenomena into account, while nevertheless retaining
an essentially "scientific" approach, made their ideas seem utterly
bizarre to outsiders. Spiritist science, however,
appeared perfectly rational when viewed in the context of Spiritist
assumptions about the nature of the beyond.
Leymarie provided a particularly revealing example of the
dissonance between "court science - and -Spiritist
science." The President, in the process of asking Leymarie
why he had published so many testimonials from Buguet's
customers, argued that he had printed these letters in order to manipulate his
audience. Leymarie took a different tack, asserting
instead that the testimonials, constituted a form of scientific proof in their
own right, particularly since he had only included them in the Revue after
experimentally. verifying the authenticity of Buguet's
photographs. The sheer number of letters proved the truth of these experimental
findings: "only a crowd of testimonials makes it possible to recognize
that a fact is true, that there is a strict and severe criterium, " Leymarie told the Judge.
Any phenomenon
supported by such an impressive number of eyewitness accounts, Spiritists argued, had to be real, even if it could not
always be replicated in the laboratory." The unpredictability of spirit
phenomena also served to explain those instances in which Buguet
failed to produce the likeness the sitter requested. In the Revue, Leymarie noted, “we ceaselessly repeated that M. Buguet could not always obtain a complete result."
Mediumism was a temperamental faculty, and no human being could
presume to have the spirits at his beck and call. Hence, for Spiritists, the very inconsistency, of Buguet's
results was proof of their authenticity. If Buguet
were a fraud, would he not he have made sure every picture turned out properly?
Other Spiritist witnesses attempted to explain their
point of view more fully. When the President questioned the reality of spirit
photography in scientific terms, for example, arguing that invisible entitles
cannot be photographed, the Spiritist Colonel Carrd offered a rebuttal:
A. Because you have
mentioned science, allow me to mention that when you pass light through a
prism, it yields the solar spectrum; at each end of it, you have invisible
rays; some are perceptible because of the heat they produce, others are
chemical rays; they exist, even if you do not see them The rays of the sun
breakdown in a manner that covers the spectrum, and on one end of it, vou have calorific rays, which are something you cannot
sec, that can only be perceived with a thermometer or extremely sensitive
instruments...
Q. This does not
disprove what I have said. We cannot, in any case, have scientific discussions here.
A. If ultraviolet and
infrared light had been proved to exist, then why not spirits? Perhaps the soul
is made of a substance that man had simply not yet developed the instruments to
detect. Perhaps the medium, working in conjunction with a camera, was the
necessary instrument.
(1) hodgsonr.html
(2) soc.html
See also:
Crossing Over P.1: The Making of Spiritism
Crossing Over P.2: Christian Spiritist
Conversion
Crossing Over P.3: Taming the Wild Spirits
Crossing Over P.4: Revelation of the Revelation
Crossing Over P.6: Theosophists a Galore
Crossing Over P.7: The Esoteric
Crossing Over P.8: The Never Ending Story?
For updates
click homepage here