|
by William McDougall
Professor of Psychology to Harvard University
DURING the past year the "Margery mediumship" has excited a considerable amount of interest in the Boston area; and owing largely to the activities of Mr. Houdini, Mr. Malcolm Bird and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the fame of the case has been carried far beyond the frontiers of New England. I understand that Mr. Bird will shortly publish a book devoted to the description of this strange case; and if one may judge from a brief report in the Transcript of an address recently made at Chicago by Mr. Bird, it would seem probable that his book will imply a very favorable verdict on it. Mr. E. G. Dingwall, the expert investigator of the English Society of Psychical Research, recently devoted the chief part of a lecture before a large and select audience at Jordan Hall to the description of the phenomena presented by "Margery"; and the honor of presiding over that meeting fell to me. In view of the circumstances related above, I feel it necessary to supplement the two statements mentioned and, therefore, write the present article with two purposes: First to say a few words in vindication of the Scientific American's committee. Secondly, to explain my own position in the matter and to justify, as far as it may be done in a few sentences. my adverse verdict of "not proven."
The members of the Scientific American committee, or most of them, have labored without reward in the tedious and trying tasks of investigation, believing that, in so doing, they were rendering a public service of some slight importance. They have been covered with abuse from many quarters. Mr. Dingwall, in a most gratuitous and unjustifiable attack upon them, has described their work with "Margery" as a vaudeville sideshow. Dr. Morton Price has rushed in to pronounce their work a fiasco (see Boston Herald, Feb. 8). Dr. Crandon described them as dishonest mountebanks. Mr. Bird says that we have refused to risk our "scientific reputations" by giving a favorable verdict. From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and from other quarters come denouncements of the committee on the ground that it has not defended "Margery" against the outspoken criticisms of one of its members, Mr. Houdini. In regard to the last charge, I will only point out that, in respect of the principle accusation made by and against Mr. Houdini, the other members of the committee, if they were to take sides in the matter, would have to accept the word of one party against the other, and that they would have no sufficient ground for preferring the word of the "medium" to that of their colleague, Mr. Houdini. I will not dwell on the extreme difficulties of this particular investigation, difficulties much greater than in the case of a professional medium or one for whom the money-prize is a strong attraction. I will point out only that in such a case all the cards in the game are stacked in favor of the "medium", especially in that the investigator works under the perpetual veiled threat of exclusion from further sittings. If he should break in the slightest degree the rules laid down by the "medium", or the "control", or is otherwise indiscreetly critical.
In spite of these difficulties, vastly increased by the unfortunate degree of publicity given to the case by Mr. Bird's articles about it in the Scientific American (articles for which the committee had no responsibility and which unfortunately it was powerless to control or inhibit) and by Mr. Houdini's many public statements about it. Those members of the committee who have been permitted to have sittings with "Margery" since the Houdini explosion last August have continued to work upon it and have been able to reach a verdict and then discharge their task. It should be noted that the committee was not asked, and did not undertake, to explain how alleged supernormal phenomena were produced: It undertook only to say, in the case of each "medium" competing for the prize, whether the medium had or had not, after being given ample opportunity, succeeded in convincing them of the supernormal character of some one or more of the phenomena presented. In September of last year on my return to Cambridge, I intimated that I was prepared to take part in three or four sittings a week until such time as I might be able to reach a conclusion, truthfully alleging that my mind was open to a favorable view of the phenomena. Since that date I have been allowed to take part in about a score of sittings. All of these were held in the "medium's" home: for I have tried in vain to secure a few sittings in the Harvard laboratory. I have throughout followed the policy of conforming strictly to the conditions demanded by the "control," believing that in this way I should best be conducive to the occurrence of phenomena, and that if only phenomena would occur, I should by close observation be able to arrive at an opinion about them. In spite of this docile attitude on my part, some of the score of sittings were blanks and in others of them phenomena were very scanty. Nevertheless, I have been able to arrive at an opinion which I am prepared to defend against all of the many believers in the supernormal character of "Margery's" phenomena, or to modify radically if good cause can be shown. That opinion is that very many of the phenomena have been produced by normal means and that in all probability the same is true of all of them. As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is, in the nature of the case, impossible to prove a negative, to prove that "Margery" never did, never can, or never will produce any supernormal phenomena. A verdict is necessarily given n terms of probability. Some things have happened the means of production of which I am unable to describe. But, as these happened under conditions very unfavorable to accurate observation, to attach great weight to them would imply undue credulity. The reader will notice that I do not assert and the committee does not assert (as has been incorrectly stated in the press) that "Margery" has failed to produce any evidence of supernormal phenomena. She has produced a very considerable quantity of such evidence. The defect is in respect of the quality rather than the quantity. What I do assert (and with this I think most of the members of the committee would agree) is that the evidence of the opposite tendency far outweighs the evidence of supernormality. Let us try to indicate very summarily the nature of this large mass of alleged evidence, promising that a fair-sized volume would be required for any complete statement of it. First, some of the more striking phenomena have been produced in such a way that one is compelled to assume that, if they were supernormally produced by the "control," Walter, then it follows that Walter goes out of his way to deprive them of all evidential value and simulate their production by normal means. I give the example, the production of a paraffin glove claimed to have been molded on an "ectoplasmic" hand during a sitting, in the fashion alleged by Drs. Richet and Geley to have occurred in another case.
The occurrence was as follows: In the midst of a sitting at which we had been lead to expect the occurrence, upon the table in the midst of the circle, of a phenomena of a very different type. Walter called for the bucket of paraffin, which had been prepared some days previously; it was warmed and placed close to the medium. After we had waited in darkness for some little time, Walter directed one of the sitters to search for the promised paraffin glove in a corner of the dimly-lighted room. On following Walter's directions, the glove was found, cold and solid, wrapped in a piece of dark cloth at a distance some ten feet from the "medium." As the room had not been searched before the sitting, it is obvious that this find was devoid of evidential value; whereas; if Walter had adopted the simple and straightforward course of having the glove upon the table, instead of in a remote corner of the room (in a dark cloth), the evidential value of the phenomena would have been very great. Further, in spite of the astonishing support claimed for this first attempt, no further endeavor in this direction has been undertaken. I believe; a fact which would be proper, if it were not invidious, to comply with the further fact that it was openly proposed by some of the sitters to add to the paraffin during the darkness of the next experiment in this line the contents of a packet of coloring matter, chosen at random from several such packets of various colors.
Secondly, there has been throughout the whole
period of my observations, a most disturbing inconsistency in
the phenomena. For example, Walter claims to have produced a perfectly
formed ectoplasmic hand at the first attempt, in the instance
cited above. Yet many months later when, under the persuasive
guidance of Mr. Dingwall, he again produced an "ectoplasmic
hand" on several occasions, the hand presented on each of
these occasions had only a very rough and remote resemblance to
a human hand. Or again, Walter professes to have freely and repeatedly
moved a table, a stool, and a heavy screen, sometimes at distances
of many feet from the medium and sometimes in fair red light.
Yet in ringing the bell-box, which required only a minimal pressure
applied to any part of a large surface exposed in the immediate
neighborhood of the medium. Walter seems to have found the upmost
difficulty, except when operating in complete darkness.
Thirdly, in general it is true to say that, the better the conditions of control, the scantier and slighter have been the phenomena produced. Thus, the "ectoplasmic hand" exhibited abundant and most intriguing movements upon the table, so long as the "medium's" right hand was controlled only by her husband and by one of Mr. Dingwall's luminous bands sewn upon the cuff of the loose sleeve enclosing her otherwise bare arm. But, as soon as adequate control of both hands was established, no such movements occurred. Further, the levitation of the megaphone above the medium's head as been reported again and again in darkness and in red light during loose mixed sittings. But, although I've asked frequently for the repetition under good conditions of control, nothing of the sort has occurred within my observation. Yet again, the whispered voice has been reported by various observers to have come from all sorts of places and directions remote from the medium, yet in all my long and careful attempts to verify this, I have never been able to observe any indications that the voice came from any other source than the "medium's" mouth, and on the contrary I have observed many indications that it does come from that source. Fourthly, I emphasize the general evasiveness of the "control"; the avoidance of crucial conditions; the leading off with promises of wonderful new phenomena; the perpetual insistence upon the continued accompaniment of a gramophone and of conversation, which grossly interferes with accurate observation, etc. etc.
In a recent letter to the press, Dr. Crandon complains that I seem to have made unduly rapid progress towards my adverse verdict in the last few weeks. Perhaps in the letter from which he cites I stated my openness of mind towards the phenomena too strongly. Such self-estimates are a delicate matter, and still greater is the difficulty of expressing them accurately. However that may be, three things have happened to clinch my opinion since the writing of that letter. First, the letter in question was written to invite Dr. Crandon to a very frank conference. In the course of which I laid before him all my grounds for refusing to give a favorable verdict (with the exception of one very strong piece of adverse evidence) and urged him to cooperate to the upmost in attempting to secure some one clear-cut supernormal phenomena, however simple, under good conditions of control. The large prize offered was that in the case of success, Mr. Dingwall would be able in his lecture at Jordan Hall, to make a statement favorable to the mediumship. The only result of this conference was that in the course of ensuing week I was given a single sitting, my last. In which, for the first time during the Dingwall series, I was allowed continuously to control the "medium's" right hand, while Mr. Dingwall controlled her left hand - and nothing happened, the sitting was completely blank. Secondly, on the Friday afternoon before Mr. Dingwall's lecture, I had, for the first time, an opportunity to examine the series of photographs of "Margery's ectoplasm" (taken by Dr. Crandon with magnesium flashlight). Some of these had been taken during sittings which I took part; but the most interesting were taken at private sittings given to Mr. Dingwall at which I was not allowed to be present. But since Mr. Dingwall showed all these photos on the screen at his lecture, I hardy be expected to abstain from all reference to them. On the afternoon mentioned, examining the photos with a lens, I was able to point out to Mr. Dingwall that some of the photos of "ectoplasm" presented all the appearances of the lung of some animal surgically manipulated to resemble roughly in shape a human hand. Thirdly, I have not been able to obtain the gift or loan of any copies of these photos for the purpose of submitting them to the judgment of experts. I have no doubt that Dr. Crandon, if he will carefully examine the photos with a good lens, will recognize the appearances I refer to. I hereby invite Dr. Crandon to submit the complete series of photos (especially the one showing the "ectoplasm" lying across Mr. Dingwall's hand) to three independent experts, one of whom shall be the professor of physiology in the Harvard Medical School, and a second the director of the Zoological laboratory at Harvard University. If two of the experts do not endorse the judgment of my inexpert eye, I will retract the foregoing statement concerning the ectoplasm. If they should confirm it, Dr. Crandon will no doubt argue that when Walter molds the ectoplasm into the particular form that he necessarily or naturally gives it the texture of one kind of animal tissue or another, and that, in producing an "ectoplasmic" formation that resembles both a hand and a lung, he has furnished the best possible proof of the supernormal origin of the formation. This reasoning cannot be refuted. But it remains probable that men of science, being notoriously hard-headed and skeptical of marvels, will prefer to believe that the lung-like tissue took shape in some more usual fashion. Especially will they be difficult to persuade that Walter in molding the mass to the semblance of a hand, would use a knife upon it.
One more word upon the mystifying "ectoplasm". It is reported in the press that in a recent lecture Mr. Bird took exception to the verdict rendered by the committee, approved "Margery's ectoplasm," and said that the "ectoplasm" "issues from openings in the anatomy." The last statement is correct. There is good evidence that "ectoplasm" issue, or did issue on some , and, probably all occasions one particular "opening in the anatomy' (i.e. the vagina). The more interesting question is - How did it come to be within "the anatomy? There was nothing to show that it's position there and its extrusion from that place were achieved by other than normal means. I have reason to believe that some of those who attended Mr. Dingwall's lecture feel that some apology or explanation is due to them, for my appearance as presiding officer on that occasion, at a time when my opinion was already very adverse to the phenomena. I humbly submit the following. Mr. Dingwall, a fellow-countryman and an officer of the English Society for Psychical Research (of whose council I have been a member for many years) was a stranger in Boston. When, therefor, a few days after his arrival, he told me that he had consented to address the Boston members of the American S.P.R., and asked me to preside at the gathering (as I have usually done at other meetings of the group) it would have been churlish to refuse. When some days later, I found that Mr. Dingwall was inclined to take a very favorable view of "Margery's" phenomena, and that her friends were expecting the lecture to take the form of a complete vindication of her mediumship, and when, to my dismay, I found that invitations had been sent out rashly announcing a lecture on the "Margery" case, I took steps to put before Mr. Dingwall my grounds for maintaining a most rigid reserve as to the supernormality of the phenomena, pointing out to him that even his own sittings afforded an abundance of such grounds. e thereupon agreed to speak of the phenomena in an entirely non-committal shape. The lecture was given in that form. I hope that no harm was done beyond still further forcing me towards a premature announcement of my opinion.
In conclusion I would say that I am prepared
to consider the hypothesis that "Margery" is an extreme
case of double personality, and that the secondary personality,
going by the name of Walter, has been the prime mover and agent
in the production of all the phenomena of this remarkable case.
If that hypothesis is the correct one, then the case is one that
falls within the field of abnormal psychology rather than in that
of supernormal physical phenomena.
|