Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

DR. ENDLICHER, Professor of Botany and Director of the

Botanic Garden of Vienna. DR. NIED, a physician at Vienna, in extensive practice,

very active and healthy. M. WILHELM, HOCHSTETTER, son of Professor Hochstetter

of Esslingen. "M. THEODORE KOTSCHY, a clergyman, botanist, and well

known traveller in Africa and Persia; a powerful,

vigorous, perfectly healthy man. DR. Huss, Professor of Clinical Medicine, Stockholm,

and Physician to the King of Sweden. DR. RAGSKY, Professor of Chemistry in the Medical and

Surgical Josephakademie in Vienna. M. CONSTANTIN DELHEZ, a French philologist, residing

in Vienna. M. ERNST PAUER, Consistorial Councillor, Vienna. M. GUSTAV AUSCHNETZ, Artist, Vienna. BARON VON OBERLAENDER, Forest Superintendent in

Moravia. All these saw the lights and flames on magnets, and described the various details of their comparative size, form, and colour, their relative magnitude on the positive and negative poles, and their appearance under various conditions, such as combinations of several magnets, images formed by lenses, &c.; and their evidence exactly confirmed the descriptions already given by the “sensitive” patients of a lower class, whose testimony had been objected to, when the observations were first published.

In addition to these, Dr. Diesing, Curator in the Imperial Academy of Natural History at Vienna, and the Chevalier Hubert von Rainer, Barrister of Klagenfurt, did not see the luminous phenomena, but were highly sensitive to the various sensations excited by magnets and crystals. About fifty other persons in all conditions of life, of all ages, and

of both sexes, saw and felt the same phenomena. In an elaborate review of Reichenbach's work in the British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review," the evidence of these twelve gentlemen, men of position and science, and three of them medical men, is completely ignored, and it is again and again asserted that the phenomena are subjective, or purely imaginary. The only particle of argument to support this view is, that, a mesmeric patient was by suggestion inade to see “lights” as well without as with a magnet It appears to me, that it would be as reasonable to tell Gordon Cumming or Dr. Livingstone that they had never seen a real lion, because, by suggestion, a score of mesmeric patients can be made to believe they see lions in a lecture room. Unless it can be proved that Reichenbach and these twelve gentlemen, have none of them sense enough to apply simple tests (which, however, the details of the experiments show, were again and again applied), I do not see how the general objections made in the above-mentioned article, that Reichenbach is not a physiologist, and that he did not apply sufficient tests, can have the slightest weight against the mass of evidence he adduces. It is certainly not creditable to modern science, that these elaborate investigations should be rejected without a particle of disproof; and we can only impute it to the distasteful character of some of the higher phenomena produced, and which it is still the fashion of professors of the physical sciences to ignore without ex. amination. I have seen it stated also, that Reichenbach's theory has been disproved by the use of an electro-magnet, and that a patient could not tell whether the current was on or off. But where is the detail of this experiment published, and how often has it been confirmed, and under what conditions ? And if true in one case, how does it affect the question, when similar tests were applied to Reichenbach's patients; and how does it apply to facts like this, which Reichenbach gives literally by the hundred ? “ Prof. D. Endlicher saw on the poles of an electro-magnet, flames forty inches high, unsteady, exhibiting a rich play of colours, and ending in a luminous smoke, which rose to the ceiling and illuminated it.” (Gregory's Trans. p. 342.) The least the deniers of the facts can do is to request these well-known individuals who gave their evidence to Reichenbach, to repeat the experiments again under exactly similar conditions, as no doubt in the interests of science they would be willing to do. If then, by suggestion, they can all be led to describe equally well defined and varied appearances when only sham magnets are used, the odylic flames and other phenomena will have been fairly shown to be very doubtful. But as long as negative statements only are made, and the whole body of facts testified to by men at least equal in scientific attainments to their opponents, are left untouched, no unprejudiced individual can fail to acknowledge that the researches of Reichenbach have established the existence of a vast and connected series of new and important natural phenomena. Doctors Gregory and Ashburner in England, state that they have repeated several of Reichenbach's experiments, under test conditions, and have found them quite accurate.

Mr Rutter, of Brighton, has made, quite independently, a number of curious experiments, which he has detailed in his little work on “ Magnetised Currents and the Magnetoscope,” and which were witnessed by hundreds of medical and scientific men. He showed that the various metals and other substances, the contact of a male or female hand, or even of a letter written by a male or female, each produced distinct effects on the magnetoscope. And a single drop of water from a glass in which a homæopathic globule had been dissolved, caused a characteristic motion of the instrument when dropped upon the hand of the operator, even when he did not know the substance employed. Dr. King corroborates these experiments, and states that he has seen a decillionth of a grain of silex, and a billionth of a grain of quinine cause motion by means of this apparatus. Every caution was taken in conducting the experiments, which were equally successful when a third party was placed between Mr. R. and the magnetoссоре. Magnets and crystals also produced powerful effects, as indicated by Reichenbach. Yet Mr. Rutter's experiments, like Reichenbach's, are ignored by our scientific men, although during several years he offered facility for their investigation. *

The case of Jacques Aymar, whose powers were imputed by himself and others to the divining rod, but which were evidently personal, is one of the best attested on record, and one which indisputably proves the possession by him of a new sense in some degree resembling that of many other clairvoyants. Mr. Baring-Gould, in his “Curious Myths of the Middle Ages," gives a full account of the case with a reference to the original authorities. These are, M. Chauvin, a Doctor of Medicine, who was an eye-witness who publishes his narrative; the Sieur Pauthot, Dean of the College of Medicine at Lyons; and the Procès-verbal of the Procureur du Roi. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. On the 5th of July, 1692, a wine-seller and his wife were murdered and the bodies found in their cellar in Lyons, their money having been carried off. A bloody hedging bill was found by the side of the bodies, but no trace of the murderers was discovered. The officers of justice were completely at fault, when they were told of a man named Jacques Aymar, who, four years before had discovered a thief at Grenoble who was quite unsuspected of the crime. The man was sent for and taken to the cellar, where his divining rod became violently agitated, and his pulse rose as though he were in a fever. He then went out of the house, and walked along the streets like a hound following a scent. He crossed the court of the Archbishop's palace and down to the gate of the Rhone, when, it being night, the quest was relinquished. The next day, accompanied by three officers, he followed the track down the bank of the river to a gardener's cottage. He had declared that so far he had followed three murderers, but here two only entered the cottage, where he declared they had seated themselves at a table and had drunk wine from a particular bottle. The owner declared positively no one had been there, but Aymar, on testing each individual in the house, found two children who had been in contact with the murderers, and these reluctantly confessed that on Sunday morning when they were alone, two men

* Dr. Carpenter (“Mental Physiology," p. 287) states that Mr. Rutter's experiments were shown to be fallacies by Dr. Madden, who found that unless he knew the substance operated on, no definite indications were given. But this only proves that different operators have different degrees of power. And Dr. Carpenter very unfairly omits to notice three very important classes of test experiments made by Mr. Rutter. In one a crystal is placed on a stand altogether detached from the instrument or the table on which it stands. Yet when this is touched, it sets the pendulum in motion; and the direction of the motion changes as the direction of the axis of the crystal is changed. — (Rutter's “Human Electricity,” p. 151). Again, when the pendulum has acquired its full momentum, either rotary or oscillatory, it takes from 7 to 10 minutes to come to a state of rest. But if any piece of bone or other dead animal matter is placed in the operator's hand, the pendulum comes to a dead stop in from 5 to 20 seconds; a feat which cannot be performed voluntarily or by any amount of “expectant attention” (Op. cit. p. 147 and app. p. lv.) Again, knowledge of the substance operated on is not necessary with all operators, to produce definite and correct results (1. c. app. p. lvi.) What are we to think of a writer who comes forward as a master to teach the public, and sets before them such a partial and one-sided account of the evidence as this?

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »