Á CAT'S PAW: MARGERY AND THE RHINES, 1926
BY JAMES G. MATLOCK
ABSTRACT: J.B. and L.E. Rhine had a single sitting with the medium Margery in July 1926. Their skeptical report of this experience was published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Historians have assumed that this report was first rejected by the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Moreover, it has generally been assumed that J.B. Rhine made contact with critics of Margery only after the seance. Documents in the ASPR archives show these assumptions to be wrong. Rhine met with both William McDougall and W.F. Prince before the seance, and the paper he submitted to the ASPR Journal was accepted for publication several days before he withdrew it. Rhine's actions may have heightened tensions between the ASPR and the Boston Society for Psychic Research and helped delay the merger of these societies, with important historical consequences for parapsychology.
__________________________________________________________________
The formative years of B.J. Rhine are of special
interest
because those same years were the formative years
of modern
parapsychology. The course of events is well known.
Rhine
originally intended a career in botany but became
sidetracked by
psychical research. In the summer of 1926, he and
L.E. Rhine left
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Cambridge, Massachusetts,
where they
became associated with Walter Franklin Prince of
Boston Society for
Psychic Research. In 1927, they followed William
McDougall to
Durham, and soon thereafter Rhine and McDougall established
the
Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University. (For
fuller accounts
of this period, see Brian, 1982; Mauskopf & McVaugh,
1980; and L.E.
Rhine, 1983.)
Rhine initially intended to study mediumship (Brian,
1982;
Mauskopf & McVaugh, 1980; L.E. Rhine, 1983),
and an understanding
of the factors that led him to explore the workings
of psi in the
laboratory instead is crucial to our understanding
of the history
of our field. Perhaps the chief reason for the change
of direction
was the sitting with Margery(1) in July 1926. Mauskopf
and
McVaugh, Brian, and L.E. Rhine all discuss this episode
in some
detail, as does Tietze (1973). These accounts are
mutually
consistent; however, documents in the ASPR archives
show them to be
deficient in important respects.
In particular, the paper about Margery sitting
(Rhine & Rhine,
1927) that Rhine published in the Journal of Abnormal
and Social
Psychology was not first rejected by the Journal
of the American
Society for Psychical Research as earlier writers
(e.g., L.E.
Rhine, 1983; Tietze, 1973, 1985) have held. In fact,
it was accepted unanimously by the ASPR Board of Trustees, to
whom Rhine
had submitted it. Earlier writers (e.g., Brian,
1982; L.E. Rhine,
1983) are also wrong in maintaining that Rhine had
no direct
contact with McDougall and W. F. Prince, both critics
of Margery
before the seance.
The period 1925 to 1940, during which Rhine's experimental
paradigm was becoming established (Mauskopf &
McVaugh, 1980),
coincided with a major rift in American psychical
research. The
Boston Society for Psychic Research broke away from
the American
Society for Psychical Research in 1925 and was not
reunited with it
until 1941. A key reason for the tensions between
the two
societies was the ASPR's advocacy of Margery. At
the beginning of
1926, however, it seemed possible that the conflict
could be
resolved and that amalgamation could be brought about.
I shall
argue that Rhine's actions with his Margery report
hardened
positions on both sides and helped to delay the amalgamation
for
more than a decade.
EVENTS PRECEDING THE SEANCE WITH MARGERY
THE MARGERY CONTROVERSY UP TO JULY 1926
The Margery mediumship began in May of 1923 as
a 'home-circle'
activity of the Crandons. The first of several investigations
it
provoked (conducted by William McDougall and his
graduate student
Harry Helson) ended inconclusively, with McDougall
trying in vain
to get Margery to confess to fraud (Tietze, 1973).
In the spring of 1925, Margery was investigated
by a group of
Harvard under-instructors, one of whom was Hudson
Hoagland. This
second Harvard group began its sittings with a favorable
point of
view but came to the conclusion that at least some
unconscious
fraud was involved. Hoagland published an account
of the
investigation in the Atlantic (Hoagland, 1925) and
then submitted
a slightly fuller report to the ASPR Journal. The
paper was
rejected on the ground that most of its contents
had already
appeared in the Atlantic.
Meanwhile, Margery had managed to garner the support
of some influential members of the ASPR. The Margery inner circle
responded to the Hoagland investigation in a privately
printed
pamphlet (Richardson et al., 1925). Bird, who joined
the ASPR
staff in January of 1925, published a book on the
case (Bird,
1925b). Under Bird's editorship, the ASPR Journal
began to run
many papers sympathetic to Margery (e.g., Edwards,
1925;
Richardson, 1925), while critical articles were disposed
of with
his comment (e.g., see Bird, 1925a).
Prince reviewed this publishing history in a paper
he
submitted to the ASPR Journal in January of 1926.
Because the ASPR
Journal had reprinted and summarized many articles
that had
appeared elsewhere, the rejection of Hoagland's paper
appeared to
Prince to be an attempt to suppress negative commentary
on the case
(Tietze, 1973). Unfortunately, the ASPR just at
this time called
a moratorium on articles on Margery, pending the
outcome of its own
committee investigation, and George Hyslop (who alone
might have
assured the publication of Prince's review) advised
against its
acceptance at that time (in a letter to Chairman
of the Publication
Committee, J.R. Gordon; see Hyslop, 1926b).(3)
Prince did not take the rejection well. "A
dark chapter in
the history of the American Society for Psychical
Research is being
written," he remarked in a letter to Hyslop
(Prince, 1926a), "and
it will be long in retrieving its former reputation."
Subsequently, he published a revised version in the
American
Journal of Psychology (Prince, 1926e).
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ASPR AND THE BOSTON SOCIETY
By the time he wrote the letter just cited, Prince
had left
the ASPR for the Boston Society of Psychic Research.
From 1906 to 1920, the ASPR had been led by James
Hyslop, who
strove to uphold the scientific principles with which
the ASPR had
been created in 1885 (see Anderson, 1985; Berger,
1985). James
Hyslop had been succeeded by William McDougall, for
whom the
Society's scientific reputation was also important.
Following the
election of the Spiritualist Frederick Edwards to
replace McDougall
as President in 1923, however, the ASPR had followed
a populist
course that Prince had found less and less congenial
(Tietze,
1976).
Prince was pressured by McDougall and others to
accept the
position of the Principle Research Officer of a new
society,
dedicated to the ASPR's original principles. With
the appointment
of Bird to be a research officer on the same level
as he was, in
January 1925, Prince took them up on their proposal
(Tietze,
1976).(4) In his correspondence during this period,
Prince
frequently maintained that the ASPR's support for
Margery was not
the reason for the break, which would have come anyway.
However,
the Margery controversy was symptomatic of the problems
that had caused the break.
The Boston Society attracted many of the ASPR's
more
scientifically oriented members, although George
Hyslop, James
Hyslop's son, remained on the Board in an effort
to influence its
direction from within. Hyslop hoped that the breach
could be
crossed and that a reunion of the two societies could
be effected.
He told Prince (Hyslop, 1926a) in a letter of January
6, 1926, that
at the recent annual meeting of the Board, J.I.D.
Bristol "was
elected President with the understanding that if
we should find a
better man during this current year he would yield
his place."
Moreover, "Dr. Frederick Peterson has accepted
a place on the Board
and we have one other very good man in mind. If
he accepts, one of
the present members of the Board in New York will
resign to
provide a vacancy."
Hyslop (1926c) was equally sanguine in a January
21 letter to
Prince. "I am sure that within six months (the
Margery case) will
be settled as far as we are concerned. I also feel
hopeful that
those of the A.S.P.R. who in the past have adopted
a partisan
attitude, will not have occasion for continuing to
be partisan."
J.B. RHINE'S EARLY ASSOCIATION WITH THE ASPR
By June 1923, Rhine was intent on a career in psychical
research. At that time, he wrote for advice to three
persons ©©
Joseph Jastrow, Frederick Edwards, and McDougall.
Jastrow, a
skeptic, tried to discourage him, while Edwards took
him under his
wing, and introduced him to members of the ASPR's
New York Section
(Mauskopf & McVaugh, 1980). (I will deal with
McDougall's response
below.) Rhine joined the ASPR the next year.
Rhine had been following Bird's (1924a, 1924b,
1924c) stories
about Margery in the Scientific American, and when
Bird joined the
ASPR staff at the beginning of 1925, Rhine wrote
to congratulate
him and to offer his services as a reviewer and investigator
(Rhine, 1925c). By that summer, Rhine was abstracting
foreign
periodicals for the ASPR Journal (e.g., Rhine, 1925a,
1925b) and he
and Bird had entered into a steady correspondence.
Bird filled his
letters with glowing testimonials to Margery, all
of which Rhine
apparently accepted uncritically. (see Brian, 1982;
Mauskopf &
McVaugh, 1980; L.E. Rhine, 1983; Tietze, 1973).
However, Rhine did notice that the ASPR appeared
to be going
through something of an upheaval. He questioned
Bird about this
development (Rhine, 1925d), and Bird (1925c) replied
that the
upheaval had begun with the Scientific American investigations.
The situation at the ASPR he blamed on Prince, who
he said was
cantankerous and deaf, and moreover, prejudiced against
the
possibility of physical phenomena. Bird (1925d)
suggested that
Rhine write to Prince to see if he could obtain a
copy of a
pamphlet Prince had written on the formation of the
Boston Society.
He did not want to write himself because he feared
Prince would not
be forthcoming with him. Rhine (1925d) wrote to
Prince as requested, and Prince (1925b) replied promptly, enclosing
the pamphlet, which Rhine then passed on to Bird (see
also Brian, 1982; L.E. Rhine, 1983).
Prince (1925b) closed his letter to Rhine with
a caution about
Bird. However, Rhine appears to have ignored this
warning, and I
have found no indication that Rhine and Prince corresponded
again
before Rhine moved to Cambridge in the summer of
1926. Rhine did
keep up his correspondence with Bird, though, and
when Bird heard
about Rhine's plans, he asked Rhine to acquaint himself
with Prince
and McDougall and to pass on to him what he could
of the goings©on
in their camp (Bird, 1926a).
THE RHINE'S MOVE TO CAMBRIDGE
In 1923, Gardner Murphy was the beneficiary of Harvard's Hodgson Memorial Fund, and McDougall (1923) wrote Rhine that Murphy would retain it for another two years at least. Consequently, in May 1926, as he was preparing to leave Morgantown, Rhine wrote to McDougall again. May 18 letter from McDougall (1925a) brought the news that the Hodgson "fellowship" was to be vacated in September and that "there is every prospect that it may be awarded to you." Rhine (1926b) wrote on June 3 to ask whether McDougall would be in Cambridge during the summer, and McDougall (1926b) answered on June 7 that he would be leaving on sabbatical at the end of the month. Later in June he added (McDougall, n.d.), "I regret that I shall be out of town from June 25 to 30 and then back only just for a day before sailing." Now it is clear why McDougall kept his taxis waiting (for 20 minutes,(5) say Mauskopf & McVaugh , 1980, p. 76) when Rhine showed up at his house unannounced. ll sources agree that there was such a meeting between Rhine and McDougall, but there is disagreement over whether it occurred before or after the sitting with Margery. Mauskopf & McVaugh (1980, p. 76) place it before, Brian (1982, p. 48) and L.E. Rhine (1983, p. 103) place it after. In his introduction to Extra-Sensory Perception (Rhine, 1934), McDougall says the meeting occurred "one morning in June, 1926" (p. vi). If this is so, then it must have been at the very end of June, and I think it was most probably the morning of June 30.
The talk with McDougall appears to have been confined to the subject of the Hodgson Fund. More important to our discussion than the date of the meeting with McDougall, therefore, is the date of the meeting with Prince. L.E. Rhine (1983, p. 103) tells us that she and Rhine called on Prince later in the same day Rhine met McDougall, but she places these events on the day after the seance, rather than the day before. Quite possibly Rhine did meet with both McDougall and Prince on the same day, although I know of no information that allows us to be definite about this. What is clear, though, is that Rhine met with Prince ©© and discussed Margery with him before the seance.
In a letter to Hyslop two weeks after the seance,
Prince)(1926b) said: He saw me and I told him some things to be
on his guard about, but expressly and impressively said, "Do
not let anything I have said prejudice you. And to be assured
that if there is anything genuine about this case, I want to know."
I also warned him, when he told me of some control requests he
thought of making, to wait for some sittings before he made them
lest his first sitting be his last.
As it proved, his first sitting was indeed
his last.(6) According to L.E. Rhine (1983, p. 98), it was the
THE SEANCE AND ITS AFTERMATH
Who arranged the Rhine's sitting with Margery?
Tietze (1973,
p. 107), Brian (1982, p. 34), and L.E. Rhine (1983,
p. 101) state
that it was Bird, whereas Mauskopf and McVaugh (1980,
p. 75) say
(without citation) that it was J.B. Rhine himself.
It was not Bird, because Rhine (1926f) wrote on
July 16 to
tell him, "Naturally we lost no time in arranging
a sitting....."
A letter from Crandon (1926b) to Bird on July 6 confirms
that Bird
had no part in the arrangements: "A person
named Rhine and his
wife... sat here last week...." If not Bird,
then it could have
been Prince. Among the peculiar features of the
Margery
controversy is Prince's influence with the Crandons.
Although he
was persona non grata in the Crandon home, his recommendations
of
sitters continued to be honored.(7) However, if
he had introduced
Rhine to the Crandons, I feel sure that he would
have broadcast
this information loudly in his correspondence, and
he says nothing
on this subject.
I think that Mauskopf and McVaugh (1980) are almost
certainly
right that Rhine made the contact himself.(8) This,
again,
suggests that Rhine was more independent of Bird
than other writers
have portrayed him as being. It is clear from Crandon's
(1926b)
letter to Bird that Rhine did not use Bird's name
in making the arrangements. One may suppose it unlikely that he
used Prince's name either, and so we may read Rhine's actions as
an effort to distance himself from both sides.) The sitting was
described in detail by Rhine (Rhine & Rhine, 1927). Because
other writers (Brian, 1982; Tietze, 1973) have summarized their
report, I shall not take the space to do so here. Briefly, Rhine
observed some outright fraud and he presents reasons for believing
fraud to have been committed at several other points.
Rhine was not the first person to be suspicious
of the Crandons, nor was he the last. He was able to describe
the Crandons' apparent techniques more clearly than others were,
but he had an advantage in that the sitting he attended was a
"`standard' one for beginners," and not "`scientific'"
(Rhine & Rhine, 1927, p. 401). Moreover, it incorporated
a novel feature: a glass cabinet in which Margery sat. "It
must have been wide open," Prince (1926b) told Hyslop, "for
there were never given me opportunities to see so many betraying
signs....What they saw in relation to the glass cabinet fully
supported the theory [of fraud] that some of us had entertained,
though we had not been allowed to see it in operation."
It is difficult to read the published report (Rhine
& Rhine, 1927) without agreeing with Rhine that the seance
was an act from beginning to end. However, it is worth noting that
L.E. Rhine did not observe the same things. Some writers (e.g.,
Tietze, 1973) have assumed that because both names were signed
to the paper the Rhines must jointly have detected the fraud, but
L.E. Rhine (1983) makes clear in "Something Hidden" that
this was not the case. She was caught up in the seance until they had left the
Crandon residence, when Rhine explained to her how it had
all been done.
L.E. Rhine was not the only one who did not see
what Rhine saw that night. As Daniel Walton (1926) informed Rhine,
"None of the other six sitters corroborate you in any particular."
My purpose in bringing out this fact is not to question the
accuracy of Rhine's description I think it was probably accurate
enough (9) ©© but to show how difficult it was to
appraise the Margery mediumship.
The Margery controversy would not have
dragged on so long had the Crandons been easy to catch out.
There is also the possibility that genuine phenomena
were involved on some occasions (see Inglis, 1984; Tietze,
1973). If we understand this, we will have an easier time understanding
the attitude toward Rhine of Margery's supporters at
the ASPR. Rhine was fairly inexperienced in psychical research, and
he claimed to have seen it all during a single sitting. "I
think you might in all modesty distrust your own alleged observations
and the inferences you draw therefrom," suggested Walton
(1926). Others were less polite. Joseph DeWyckoff (1926), who with
Walton had been present at the Rhines' sitting, called Rhine
"a knave or a fool or possibly both." "Perhaps, however,"
DeWyckoff went on, "it would be more charitable to assign you to the specie
of homo with the Spanish speaking people designate as 'completamente
loco'."
THE PUBLICATION OF RHINE'S PAPER
In considering the publication of Rhine's report,
Mauskopf and) McVaugh (1980) say: "Rhine wrote an account
of his sitting with Margery, intending it for the ASPR Journal; but when
Bird and the Crandons began to accuse him of prejudice and treachery,
the likelihood of its ever appearing there seemed remote.
At the suggestion of Hudson Hoagland .... Rhine submitted
it instead to the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology"
(pp. 76©77). Brian (1982, p.47) and Tietze (1973, p. 113; 1985, p. 361)
state that the paper was rejected by the ASPR Journal.
In preparing to submit his report, Rhine sent (on
July 15) a circular letter to each of the ASPR Trustees to describe
his observations at the seance and his disillusionment
with Margery, and to say that he would send his paper "first
to the Journal if I have assurance that it will not be followed by a
damaging counter article to which I have no opportunity to reply"
(Rhine, 1926e). Receipt of the letter was acknowledged by several
Trustees, including Peterson and Hyslop. Peterson (1926) wrote
Rhine on July 22 to say: "I think the Journal ought to publish
a report from you, and I am strongly in favor of their reprinting
if it is allowable the whole of Prince's review in the Am.
Journ. of Psychology." On July 20, Hyslop (1926e) wrote to thank Rhine
for his letter and said, "I feel that you should prepare and
submit for publication in the Journal, a detailed and careful
report of your experiences." Hyslop then made some suggestions
for the paper. Also on July 20, Hyslop (1926d) wrote to Prince,
enclosing a copy of the letter to Rhine. He said further, "I
think that [Rhine] should by all means prepare a detailed and carefully
written report of his experiences and submit it to us for publication.
I believe it should be published by us if he submits it, and
shall do what I can to make my attitude understood."
On July 22 the ASPR Board of Trustees passed the
following resolution: "Resolved: That the Secretary
be instructed to write to Mr. [sic] Rhine and inform him that any article
which he might care to submit to the Society for publication in
its Journal would be considered on its merits." (Pierson, 1926a).
This sentiment was officially conveyed to Rhine by the Secretary,
T.H. Pierson, in a letter dated July 30 (Pierson, 1926b).
Rhine (1926g) wrote to Peterson on August 2 to
thank him for his support, saying, "but I must confess that
I do not have much hope of any success." On August 5, Rhine submitted
his article to the Board of Trustees with a covering letter that
began, "Attached, please find Margery article. I do not expect you
will publish it, but if you do, there must be no changes or notes
without my consent" (Rhine, 1926h). Rhine (1926i) does
not express the same pessimism in an August 5 letter to Hyslop, but it
comes up in nearly every other communication of this period.
Yet, the publication process seems to have moved
smoothly (although in an unorthodox way because Rhine sent
his paper to the Board of Trustees rather than to the Publication
Committee), and Rhine was given every reason to believe it would
be accepted.
Secretary Pierson (1926c) wrote on August 13 to tell
Rhine that the manuscript had been referred to the Publication Committee.
Hyslop (1926f) wrote on August 14 to Prince to tell him
that Rhine's paper had been received and that "it is my impression
that his article will be accepted for publication." Hyslop (1926j)
submitted an additional footnote, whose receipt was acknowledged
by Pierson (1926d) on August 26.
On August 31, Bird (1926b) wrote to say, "I
anticipate that in the case of your contribution acceptance will follow."
In this letter, Bird also put forward the suggestion that
he and Rhine "get together and try to agree upon a statement of the
two sides that will permit the whole matter to be dismissed with
its appearance in one issue." Hyslop (1926h) took the step of
telling Prince, in a letter of September 9, that Bird had written to Rhine
with the suggestion that they get together to work out a joint
statement, and that, "I do not know what the Board will
decide, but my impression that [the paper] will be accepted for
publication holds."
On September 20, Rhine (1926k) wrote to the Board
threatening to withdraw the paper if he did not receive a reply
from them "without further delay." On September
23, the paper was accepted by a unanimous vote of the Board (see Pierson, 1926e),
and Bird was directed to so inform Rhine. Unfortunately, Bird
was called out of town for several days and ©© a weekend
intervening ©© was unable to write to Rhine until September 28 (Bird 1926c). (10)
The news did not reach Rhine in time. In a letter dated September
29 (but actually mailed by Special Delivery on the 28th),
Rhine (1926l) wrote to the Board to ask that the manuscript be
returned. "You have had our report on the Crandon case eight weeks
and have given me no official notice of action on it." He
also resigned his membership in the ASPR.
On September 30, Pierson (1926f) wrote to explain
that the delay of which Rhine complained was due to his having
sent the report to the entire Board rather than directly to
the Publication Committee. He acknowledged receipt of Rhine's letter
requesting return of the manuscript and announcing his resignation,
and asked for confirmation, in light of the Board's decision
to accept the paper. Rhine, however, would not change his mind.
He explained his position in an October 4 letter to the Board
(Rhine, 1926m), which he signed, "Sincere mourners":
Your evident hesitation to accept the report, the
blazing antagonism it aroused in some of you, the manifest
design on your part to have it properly countered by Bird,
led me to think that it was an extremely embarrassing
thing in your hands. I felt that the seven to eight weeks possession
of the manuscript by you satisfied my
feelings of duty as a member of the Society, and therefore
immediately upon writing to you on the 28th, I accepted one of the
other avenues of publication available.
That step was already taken when I received Mr. Bird's and Mr.Pierson's
letters.
The chosen avenue of publication was, of course,
the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Clearly the paper
had been under consideration by both journals simultaneously,
something which (as Hyslop, 1926g, pointed out to Rhine) was
hardly appropriate under the circumstances. Privately,
Hyslop had heard from Prince about the dual submission in a letter
of September 4. "I don't know that I do right to tell you this,"
Prince (1926d) had added, "but will risk it."
According to Rhine (1926n), writing to the ASPR
Trustees on October 13, the paper had been offered to the Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology by "friends though not
officially so." One of these friends must have been Hudson Hoagland.
On
September 18, Hoagland had sent a copy of Rhine's paper to Morton
Prince, (11) the editor. "I am enclosing the manuscript
on the Margery case that I spoke to you about," he began the accompanying
letter (Hoagland, 1926), suggesting that the process of
submission was already in progress at this time. (Indeed, as I
have noted, W.F. Prince had told Hyslop two weeks earlier that such
plans were afoot.)
On October 20, the ASPR Board of Trustees accepted
the withdrawal of Rhine's manuscript and passed a resolution
"that the Committee on Publication be requested to consider
the advisability of publishing a suitable article adverse to the genuineness
of the Margery mediumship" (Pierson, 1926g). However,
such an article was not to appear for some years. (12)
THE EFFECT OF RHINE'S ACTIONS
The ASPR leadership has been characterized (e.g.,
by Brian, 1982) as united in a pro-Margery stance. This, however,
was far from the case, at least in 1925 and 1926. Hyslop
and Peterson clearly were not Margery partisans, nor evidently
were others. In his letter of January 21, 1926, Hyslop (1926c) reminded
Prince that "some of the Board [were] opposed to the articles
which appeared in the Journal as far back as last June." (13)
Margery's major support came from Malcolm Bird
and from members of the ASPR's New York Section, who, during
this period, controlled several seats on the Board (DeWyckoff
and Walton were both New York Section members). If the influence
of the New York Section on the Board could have been reduced, it
might have been possible for the Board to have exercised greater
control of Bird's editorship of the Journal. Here is the significance
of Hyslop's reference (in his January 6 letter to Prince [Hyslop,
1926a]) to
"one of the present members of the Board in
New York" resigning in favor of the "very good man" he had in
mind.
In the same letter, Hyslop (1926a) had said that
President Bristol had agreed to resign should "a better
man" be found. This may have been a reference to Prince himself. The
possibility of electing Prince had been raised once before, at the
end of 1924, but Edwards had won a second term and Prince had
left the ASPR soon after.
This last speculation is perhaps reading too much
into the record. Nevertheless, it is clear that in 1926 both
sides were looking toward a time when the ASPR and the Boston
Society could be united. Hyslop (1926a, 1926c) expressed his hopes
in his January letters to Prince. On July 14, in the aftermath
of the Rhines' sitting, Prince (1926b) wrote to Hyslop and said,
"I would like to see the two Societies amalgamated, but that can never
be until the principles of James H. Hyslop are again triumphant."
Even Rhine (1926f) wrote (to Peterson) in these terms.
The acceptance of Rhine's paper by the ASPR Board
of Trustees by a unanimous vote, no less represented something
of a triumph for George Hyslop. He had worked hard to return
the ASPR to that state of scientific respectability that would
have made amalgamation possible. Although the publication of
Rhine's paper by the ASPR Journal would not have accomplished
this by itself, it would have been an important step in that direction.
The appearance of the paper in the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology instead invited all the invective from Bird and others
(see Tietze, 1973) that Rhine had claimed to want to avoid, and
only made matters worse.
The Rhines' paper quickly became the rallying cry
for both sides. For Prince, McDougall, and influential members
of the Boston Society generally, the ASPR's perceived stonewalling
was but the latest in a series of efforts to block negative views
of the Margery case from appearance in the ASPR Journal. For
Hyslop, and especially for DeWyckoff, Walton, and other Margery
backers, Rhine's insistence upon his exposure after a single sitting
and his rather peremptory withdrawal of his manuscript showed
how much he was under Prince's thumb. "You have unwittingly
been made a cats-paw for others." Walton (1926) had warned
Rhine soon after the seance. (14)
Any lingering hopes for rapprochement would appear
to have been extinguished by the beginning of 1928, when
the Chairman of the Publication Committee, Mary Derieux, was unable
to speak of "starting a new era." After James Hyslop's
death, it was inevitable that the ASPR would pass through "a
period of adjustment," Derieux (1928, p. 1) said, but this
was now over.
George Hyslop eventually (in 1933) resigned from
the ASPR Board and joined the Boston Society. (15) The controversy
dragged on until 1941, following L.R.G. Crandon's death and
shortly before that of Margery herself, when the amalgamation of
the two societies was finally brought about (see Tietze, 1973).
The Margery controversy divided the international
parapsychological community and crippled traditional psychical
research in the United States; and while I do not want to minimize
the importance of Rhine's experimental paradigm, I think that
had the Parapsychology Laboratory existed side by side with a
stronger and more unified psychical research, we would have a
more pluralistic and less polarized parapsychology today. (16)
THE SEANCE OF JULY 1, 1926