Carpenter could only have denied the facts,
or alleged that the witnesses, including observers outside the
chaine, or circle, were all self-hypnotised, all under the influence
of self-suggestion, and all honestly asserting the occurrence of
events which did not occur. His essay touched but lightly on this
particular marvel. He remarked that 'the turning of tables, and the
supposed communications of spirits through their agency' are due 'to
the mental state of the performers themselves'. Now M. de Gasparin,
in his via media, repudiated 'spirits' energetically. Dr. Carpenter
then explained witchcraft, and the vagaries of 'camp-meetings' by
the 'dominant idea'. But M. de Gasparin could reply that persons
whose 'dominant idea' was incredulity attested many singular
occurrences. At the end of his article, Dr. Carpenter decides that
table-turners push unconsciously, as they assuredly do, but they
cannot push when not in contact with the object. The doctor did not
allege that table-turners are 'biologised' as he calls it, and under
a glamour. But M. de Gasparin averred that no single example of
trance, rigidity, loss of ordinary consciousness, or other morbid
symptoms, had ever occurred in his experiments. There is thus, as
it were, no common ground on which he and Dr. Carpenter can meet and
fight. He dissected the doctor's rather inconsequent argument with
a good deal of acuteness and wit.

M. de Gasparin then exhibited some of the besetting sins of all who
indulge in argument. He accepted all his own private phenomena, but
none of those, such as 'raps' and so forth, for which other people
were vouching. Things must occur as he had seen them, and not
otherwise. What he had seen was a chaine of people surrounding a
table, all in contact with the table, and with each other. The
table had moved, and had answered questions by knocking the floor
with its foot. It had also moved, when the hands were held close to
it, but not in contact with it. Nothing beyond that was orthodox,
as nothing beyond hypnotism and unconscious cerebration was orthodox
with Dr. Carpenter. Moreover M. de Gasparin had his own physical
explanation of the phenomena. There is, in man's constitution, a
'fluid' which can be concentrated by his will, and which then, given
a table and a chaine, will produce M. de Gasparin's phenomena: but
no more. He knows that 'fluids' are going out of fashion in
science, and he is ready to call the 'fluid'