You are in:
Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1866 > March > Bibliographic News > Unknown Natural Forces, by Hèrmes
Unknown Natural Forces, by Hèrmes
This one is not a novel; it is a refutation, from a scientific point of view, of the criticism addressed to the Spiritist phenomena, regarding the Davenport brothers and the similarity that some pretend to exist between those phenomena and the trickery of prestidigitation. The author presents charlatanism, that slips everywhere, and the unfavorable conditions in which the Davenports present themselves, conditions that he does not seek to justify. He examines the phenomena themselves, abstraction made of the persons, and speaks with the authority of a scientist. He vigorously raises the glove thrown by part of the press and stigmatize their eccentricities of language, that he translates under the light of common sense, showing how far it has gone beyond a fair discussion. We may not share the feeling of the author about all points, but we must say that his book is a difficult refutation to refute. Thus, the hostile press in general kept quiet about the subject. The Événement of February 1st brought the following about the matter:
“I have in my hands a book that should have been published in the last Fall. It deals with the Davenports. The book, signed by the pseudonym Hermes, has the title Unknown Natural Forces, and pretends that we should accept the closet and the Davenport brothers, because our senses are weak, and we cannot explain everything in nature. Useless to say that the book was published by the Didier bookstore. I would not speak of these leaves that mistaken the season if they did not contain a violent repository against the Parisian press. Mr. Hèrmes clearly narrates his doings with the Opinion, Temps, France, Fígaro, The Petit Journal, etc. They were cruel and disrespectful, and their ill-faith can only be compared to their foolishness. They did not understand, hence they could not speak. Ignorance, falsehood, and rudeness, those journalists committed all crimes. Mr. Hèrmes is too tough. Louis Ulbach is called “the man in glasses”, an extremely offensive expression. Edmond About, that had asked about the difference between the mediums and Dr. Lapommerais, got plenty of his own back. Mr. Hèrmes declares that “he is not surprised hat certain amateurs of puns had thrown the name of his gracious contradictor in the mud”. Do you feel the subtleness of this wordplay? Mr. Hèrmes finally confesses that he lives in a remote garden and that his only concern is the truth. It would be preferable that he lived in the streets and that he had the whole calm and the whole Christian charity of solitude.”
Isn’t that curious to see these gentlemen give theoretical lessons of calmness and Christian charity to those that they wantonly harm, and not agree that they respond? They will not criticize Mr. Hèrmes, however, for lack of moderation since he does not cite any given name, for excess of consideration. It is true that the citations, grouped in such a way, form an awkward bouquet. Whose fault is this if that bouquet does not exhale a perfume of urbanity and good taste? To have the right to complain about a few somewhat tough appreciations it would be necessary not to provoke them.
“I have in my hands a book that should have been published in the last Fall. It deals with the Davenports. The book, signed by the pseudonym Hermes, has the title Unknown Natural Forces, and pretends that we should accept the closet and the Davenport brothers, because our senses are weak, and we cannot explain everything in nature. Useless to say that the book was published by the Didier bookstore. I would not speak of these leaves that mistaken the season if they did not contain a violent repository against the Parisian press. Mr. Hèrmes clearly narrates his doings with the Opinion, Temps, France, Fígaro, The Petit Journal, etc. They were cruel and disrespectful, and their ill-faith can only be compared to their foolishness. They did not understand, hence they could not speak. Ignorance, falsehood, and rudeness, those journalists committed all crimes. Mr. Hèrmes is too tough. Louis Ulbach is called “the man in glasses”, an extremely offensive expression. Edmond About, that had asked about the difference between the mediums and Dr. Lapommerais, got plenty of his own back. Mr. Hèrmes declares that “he is not surprised hat certain amateurs of puns had thrown the name of his gracious contradictor in the mud”. Do you feel the subtleness of this wordplay? Mr. Hèrmes finally confesses that he lives in a remote garden and that his only concern is the truth. It would be preferable that he lived in the streets and that he had the whole calm and the whole Christian charity of solitude.”
Isn’t that curious to see these gentlemen give theoretical lessons of calmness and Christian charity to those that they wantonly harm, and not agree that they respond? They will not criticize Mr. Hèrmes, however, for lack of moderation since he does not cite any given name, for excess of consideration. It is true that the citations, grouped in such a way, form an awkward bouquet. Whose fault is this if that bouquet does not exhale a perfume of urbanity and good taste? To have the right to complain about a few somewhat tough appreciations it would be necessary not to provoke them.