Cock Lane and Common-Sense | Page 6

do not
occasionally succeed, apart from fraud, in these performances, the

'spontaneous' phenomena are attested by a mass and quality of evidence,
ancient, mediaeval and modern, which would compel attention in any
other matter. Living, sane, and scientifically trained men now,--not to
speak of ingenious, and intelligent, if superstitious observers in the
past,--and Catholic gleaners of contemporary evidence for saintly
miracle, and witnesses, judges, and juries in trials for witchcraft, are
undeniably all 'in the same tale'.
Now we can easily devise an explanation of the stories told by savages,
by fanatics, by peasants, by persons under ecclesiastical influence, by
witches, and victims of witches. That is simple, but why are sane,
scientific, modern observers, and even disgusted modern sceptics, in a
tale, and that just the old savage tale? What makes them repeat the
stories they do repeat? We do not so much ask: 'Are these stories true?'
as, 'Why are these stories told?' Professor Ray Lankester puts the
question thus, and we are still at a loss for an answer.
Meanwhile modern science has actually accepted as real, some strange
psychological phenomena which both science and common-sense
rejected, between 1720 and 1840, roughly speaking. The accepted
phenomena are always reported, historically, as attendant on the still
more strange, and still rejected occurrences. We are thus face to face
with a curious question of evidence: To what extent are some educated
modern observers under the same illusions as Red Men, Kaffirs,
Eskimo, Samoyeds, Australians, and Maoris? To what extent does the
coincidence of their testimony with that of races so differently situated
and trained, justify curiosity, interest, and perhaps suspense of
judgment?
The question of the value of the facts is one to be determined by
physiologists, physicians, physicists, and psychologists. It is clear that
the alleged phenomena, both those now accepted and those still rejected,
attend, or are said to attend, persons of singular physical constitution. It
is not for nothing that Iamblichus, describing the constitution of his
diviner, or seer, and the phenomena which he displays, should exactly
delineate such a man as St. Joseph of Cupertino, with his miracles as
recounted in the Acta Sanctorum {9} (1603-1663). Now certain

scientific, and (as a layman might suppose), qualified persons, aver that
they have seen and even tested, in modern instances, the phenomena
insisted on by Iamblichus, by the Bollandists, and by a great company
of ordinary witnesses in all climes, ages, and degrees of culture. But
these few scientific observers are scouted in this matter, by the vast
majority of physicists and psychologists. It is with this majority, if they
choose to find time, and can muster inclination for the task of
prolonged and patient experiment, that the ultimate decision as to the
portee and significance of the facts must rest. The problem cannot be
solved and settled by amateurs, nor by 'common-sense,' that
Delivers brawling judgments all day long, On all things, unashamed.
Ignorance, however respectable, and however contemptuous, is
certainly no infallible oracle on any subject. Meanwhile most
representatives of physical science, perhaps all official representatives,
hold aloof,--not merely from such performances or pretences as can
only be criticised by professional conjurers,--but from the whole mass
of reported abnormal events. As the occurrences are admitted, even by
believers, to depend on fluctuating and unascertained personal
conditions, the reluctance of physicists to examine them is very natural
and intelligible.
Whether the determination to taboo research into them, and to
denounce their examination as of perilous moral consequence, is
scientific, or is obscurantist, every one may decide for himself. The
quest for truth is usually supposed to be regardless of consequences,
meanwhile, till science utters an opinion, till Roma locuta est, and does
not, after a scrambling and hasty inquiry, or no inquiry at all, assert a
prejudice; mere literary and historical students cannot be expected to
pronounce a verdict.
Spiritualists, and even less convinced persons, have frequently
denounced official men of science for not making more careful and
prolonged investigations in this dusky region. It is not enough, they say,
to unmask one imposture, or to sit in the dark four or five times with a
'medium'. This affair demands the close scrutiny of years, and the most
patient and persevering experiment.

This sounds very plausible, but the few official men of science, whose
names the public has heard,--and it is astonishing how famous among
his peers a scientific character may be, while the public has never heard
of him--can very easily answer their accusers: 'What,' they may cry, 'are
we to investigate? It is absurd to ask us to leave our special studies, and
sit for many hours, through many years, probably in the dark, with an
epileptic person, and a few hysterical believers. We are not conjurers or
judges of conjuring.' Again, is a man like Professor