his is nothing but hallucination. Then, too, we all saw the
phenomenon at the same instant, invariably; and if one of us failed to
do so, it was always because there was a physical cause for it: the
curtain intervened, or something of a similar nature occurred. I need
hardly point out that this, in itself--looked at from one point of
view--is exceedingly strong evidence that the manifestation was not
hallucinatory, but objective. The unexpected nature of the majority of
the phenomena--when Eusapia was in deep trance, and we were doing all
the talking--renders the hypothesis of hallucination quite untenable, it
seems to me; at least, if any one chooses to defend it, he must give
some analogies and somewhat similar instances of the power of
suggestion--a task that will never be satisfactorily undertaken; of that
I am sure.

No; whatever be the interpretation of these phenomena, they are
certainly not hallucinatory. And if they were objective, it is almost
certain that the Home phenomena were objective also--since the parallel
between the two cases is often extremely close.

And this, it appears to me, is the only way of approaching this problem
that is liable to prove conclusive or trustworthy. Discussions of
historical phenomena will never settle anything one way or the other:
nothing is _proved_ thereby, one way or the other. The only conclusive
method, as Count Solovovo pointed out--and I heartily agree with him--is
the accumulation of _new facts_; and these new facts, when obtained,
have, it appears to me (and to my colleagues also), proved beyond all
question that the phenomena were genuine in at least some instances;
and, that once admitted, the _a priori_ doubts are removed, and the
historic phenomena raised to a standard of probability which amounts to
certitude. Some of the physical phenomena of spiritualism are
objective--real, external facts; and I am assured that they are not due
to fraud or trickery. Whatever their ultimate explanation, however, they
can no longer be said to be due to any form of hallucination in the
sitters.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] The chapter which follows originally appeared in the _Journal_ of
the American S.P.R. (December 1909), and was critical of the articles of
Miss Alice Johnson and Count Solovovo, which had previously appeared in
the English _Proceedings_. While the chapter is self-explanatory, it may
be well to say that Count Solovovo, in his original paper, considered
the "hallucin