it was impossible to report accurately the entire dialogue. The conversation was brought about by some protestations of the boy against church services and the popular use of the term God. He at length admitted that we could not escape a belief in some power back of life and the whole physical world, but he said: "I don't believe in saying 'God,' because people who use that word almost always have an anthropomorphic idea of God. They seem to think that in personifying this power (that is, thinking of it as a kind of big, exalted man), they exalt compliment-the power. But I don't think so." He went on to say, in almost the following words:

"This earth and man are but a very small fraction of the whole of space, and for man to personify this great power to me seems unfit-belittling. Why, suppose the mountains of the moon to be conscious, they could just as well give this power some name, for instance 'Thyke,' supposing that to mean something like themselves, only bigger and more exalted. Or the sun, if it were conscious, could personify this power and think of it as a great exalted sun, etc. I don't think this power is conscious; but supposing it were, I don't believe it would like this personifying of itself. And then I don't believe in worship. I don't believe in worshipping any thing. I don't see any good in it. And if this power were conscious (I don't believe it is), I believe it would rather we would just go along and attend to our own business instead of wasting time and money and strength in this worshipping. Then, as nearly as I can understand, almost every race seems to have had some one, a sort of 'go-between,' as the Japanese 'would say, or interpreter, between this great power they call God, and man,-Jesus, and Buddha, and Mahomet, and Confucius, etc. These they call sons of God, and I see no sense in this. But when you ask me to give you my idea of this power, it is very hard to do, for I don't believe, you see, in personifying it, and probably all my ancestors for generations and generations have done so and so. When I try to think of it, there looms up before me a great beneficent, exalted kind of man. I don't believe in this, and it's very unfortunate, but I can't help it, and it may take all my life to get rid of this notion, which is very foolish, but which I can't help."

CAMILLE FLAMMARION AS AN OBSERVER OF

IN

OCCULT PHENOMENA.

BY WILLIAM R. FISHER, M. D.

IN THE December number of THE ARENA the well-known French astronomer, M. Camille Flammarion, has put forth a series of extraordinary statements under the title of "A Séance with Eusapia Paladino." He gives an account of his observations of this medium and of the manifestations which took place at a sitting held on July 27, 1897, and from the data which he obtained on this single occasion he proceeds to formulate most startling conclusions. He does not stop at hypothetical suggestions. He asserts sundry opinions as facts which do not admit of question, and affirms that, in the case of this Italian woman, "there exists an invisible force, drawn from the medium's organism, which can leave her and act outside of her."

If such assertions were made by an ordinary person they might reasonably be received with respect as the opinions of the promulgator, to be accepted or rejected by the reader as his temperament, his training, and his inclinations might lead him. But here we have the unconditioned dictum of one of the best-known scientists of Europe. His name is sufficient to arrest the attention of every thinking person to whom he addresses himself, and to challenge the closest investigation into the reasons which have given rise to the radical positiveness of his statements. For M. Flammarion has stepped outside the boundaries of his chosen calling and presumes to speak with authority upon a subject wherein great differences of opinion and belief are known to exist, among scientists as well as ordinary people. So astounding are some of his statements as to make an unbiassed reader question whether they have been put forth seriously by their author; whether he is not attempting to perpetrate a grim piece of satirical joking; or whether, like many of his countrymen, he holds us who live on this side of the Atlantic in such contempt that he thinks any ill-con

sidered paper that he may scratch off in a hurry to be quite good enough for Americans.

M. Flammarion tells us that he has had unusual opportunities for the study of what are known as mediumistic phenomena. At different times, during many years, he has seen most of the noted mediums of this country and of Europe, and he says that up to the twenty-seventh day of last July he "had been completely disappointed" in them. He refers to them in a general way as "impudent, dishonest, and lying." He does not tell us why, after having had these disheartening experiences in the past, he undertook the investigation of Eusapia Paladino, whom he regarded "with scepticism, doubt, and suspicion." But so he did on this memorable day in July. And the result of a single interview with her has completely overturned all the unfavorable experiences of former years and made M. Flammarion an ardent believer in the "undoubted existence of unknown forces, capable of moving matter and of counteracting the action of gravity." He emphasizes the fact that his conclusions are based entirely upon the phenomena which were presented to him at the single séance of July 27, untested by subsequent experiment. "It is this séance alone which is in question here." Former investigations are not to be taken into account.

What were these phenomena which produced so sudden and complete a change in the mind of this prominent scientist, trained as an observer in one of the most exact of modern studies? He is careful to tell us that Eusapia Paladino is an illiterate woman, forty years of age and by no means prepossessing in appearance; so it is not reasonable to suppose that feminine fascination could in this instance have entered in as a disturbing influence. He gives a minute description of the room in which the séance took place, but he does not tell us anything about the people who took part in it. The meeting occurred at the house of a family named Bleck. Out of seven observers, four (perhaps five) were members of this family. With the characteristic politeness of his nation, M. Flammarion says "it was hardly permissible to suspect the good faith of the respectable Bleck family." Why not, M. Flammarion? Assuredly, in an investigation of this kind, having

as its object the determination of questions of grave import, no person and no thing should be exempt from suspicion. Interrogation should be as searching here as in any other piece of scientific study.

M. Flammarion looked carefully about the room and satisfied himself that the doors and windows were securely fastened. He could find no "trace of any arrangements whatsoever, such as electric wires or batteries, either in the floor o in the walls." There was, however, one arrangement which awakened a passing suggestion of doubt; but this he complacently overlooked, because "the medium declared that it was necessary to the production of the phenomena." "Across one corner of the room, to the left of the outside door, were hung two bright-colored curtains, which came together at the middle and thus formed a small triangular cabinet." M. Flammarion asks: "Why this cabinet?" and every unbiassed reader will repeat his question. Why is there always a cabinet? Sometimes it is a cabinet of wood; sometimes an ordinary screen; sometimes a mere curtain. But always, when manifestations take place at a séance, there is present some contrivance which painfully suggests concealment as its object. Behind these bright curtains there were a sofa, a chair, musical instruments, a bell, and some putty.

The usual manifestations took place, some in the bright light, most of them in more or less obscurity. The table round which the observers sat swayed to and fro and was raised in the air; a small tripod stand moved towards the table and fell down; raps and sounds of a mallet were heard, musical instruments were played, various sensations of being touched were felt by different observers, opaque objects passed before a small red lantern, the putty bore the imprint of a hand and a face, and so on. There was nothing new; nothing that has not been done over and over again; nothing that has not been explained over and over again. And, in this connection, it is well to remember that M. Flammarion himself admits (p. 745) "that all the observed phenomena can be perfectly well imitated, and indeed have been imitated."

M. Flammarion says that he "took all needful precautions to eliminate" the possibility of fraud and deception during

this séance, which he professes to have conducted under the "strictest test conditions." He may have used certain precautions which he has failed to describe, but, judging from his published statement, the evidence seems to show that his observations, far from being accurate, were carried out in a very careless and unscientific manner. This is all the more to be wondered at when we recall that in the opening of his article he bitterly denounces the deceptions of all the predecessors of Eusapia. But he is "certain that throughout the exhibition Eusapia was not able to effect any trickery." She was very closely watched by his companion M. de Fontenay and himself. Her hands and feet were controlled so that they could not be moved without detection, and during the experiment with the putty she rested her head upon M. de Fontenay's shoulder. But the thought does not seem to have entered M. Flammarion's mind that some one else might have been the active agent in producing the phemomena which seem to have affected him so deeply. And, above all, he fails to appreciate the fact that, while his attention was so much given to close observation of the medium, he was unable to watch the manifestations, as they took place, with critical coolness. Granted the presence of an accomplice at this séance, either in the circle or behind the curtains, the mystery can be speedily explained.

M. Flammarion lays much stress upon the use of photography in his investigation of this Italian medium, and yet practically he did nothing with it. He gives us two illustrations, one, a table standing on its four legs; the other, the same table in the act of "levitation." A critical study of the latter picture does not show more than three legs of the table to be clear of the floor. But it is useless to waste time about this. "Levitation" is performed by every medium, and M. Flammarion must have witnessed it many times before as the work of some of those "dishonest and lying" mediums to whom he has referred. The attempt to photograph a materialized hand by flashlight was a complete failure, although the invisible force, now materialized, obligingly "snapped its fingers thrice" as a signal to set off the magnesium light. Now, if M. Flammarion was really intent upon a searching investigation into