Magician Among the Spirits — Chapter 9 Part I - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
Spiritualism has claimed among its followers numbers of brilliant minds--scientists, philosophers, professionals and authors.
Whether these great minds have been misdirected, whether they have followed the subject because they were convinced fully of its truth, or whether they have been successfully hoodwinked by some fraudulent medium, are matters of conjecture and opinion; nevertheless they have been the means of bringing into the ranks of Spiritualism numbers of those who allow themselves to be led by minds greater and more powerful than their own.
Such a one is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
His name comes automatically to the mind of the average human being to-day at the mention of Spiritualism.
No statistician could fathom the influence he has exerted through his lectures and his writings or number the endless chain he guides into a belief in communication with the Realm Beyond.
His faith and belief and confidence in the movement have been one of the greatest assets of present-day believers and whatever one’s views on the subject, it is impossible not to respect the belief of this great author who has wholeheartedly and unflinchingly thrown his life and soul into the conversion of unbelievers.
Sir Arthur _believes_.
In his great mind there is _no_ doubt.
He is a brilliant man, a deep thinker, well versed in every respect, and comes of a gifted family.
His grandfather, John Doyle, was born in Dublin in 1797. He won popularity and fame in London with his caricatures of prominent people.
Many of his original drawings are now preserved in the museum under the title “H. B.
Caricatures.
” He died in 1868. An uncle of Sir Arthur’s was the famous “Dicky Doyle,” the well-known cartoonist of _Punch_ and designer of the familiar cover of that magazine.
In his later years he became prominent as an illustrator, making drawings for _The Newcomes_ in 1853, and becoming especially successful in illustrating such fairy stories as Hunt’s “Jar of Honey,” Ruskin’s “King of the Golden River,” and Montelbas’ “Fairy Tales of all Nations.
” The fact that he leaned toward Spiritualism is not generally known.
Sir Arthur’s father, Charles A. Doyle, was also an artist of great talent though not in a commercial way.
His home life is beautiful and Lady Doyle has told me on numerous occasions that he never loses his temper and that his nature is at all times sunshiny and sweet.
His children are one hundred per cent children in every way and it is beautiful to note the affection between the father, mother and the children.
He is a great reader who absorbs what he reads but he believes what he sees in print _only_ if it is favorable to Spiritualism.
The friendship of Sir Arthur and myself dates back to the time when I was playing the Brighton Hippodrome, Brighton, England.
We had been corresponding and had discussed through the medium of the mail, questions regarding Spiritualism.
He invited Mrs. Houdini and myself to the Doyle home in Crowborough, England, and in that way an acquaintanceship was begun which has continued ever since.
Honest friendship is one of life’s most precious treasures and I pride myself in thinking that we have held that treasure sacred in every respect.
During all these years we have exchanged clippings which we thought might be of mutual interest and on a number of occasions have had an opportunity to discuss them in person.
Our degree of friendship may be judged best from the following letter of Sir Arthur’s. “15 Buckingham Palace Mansion, S.
W.
1 “March 8, 1923. “My dear Houdini:-- For goodness’ sake take care of those dangerous stunts of yours.
You have done enough of them.
I speak because I have just read of the death of the “Human Fly.
”[77] Is it worth it?
“Yours very sincerely, (Signed) A. CONAN DOYLE.
” It would be difficult to determine just when Sir Arthur and I first discussed Spiritualism, but from that talk to the present we have never agreed upon it.
Our viewpoints differ; we do not believe the same thing.
I know that he treats Spiritualism as a religion.
He believes that it is possible and that he can communicate with the dead.
According to his marvellous analytical brain he has had proof positive of this.
There is no doubt that Sir Arthur is sincere in his belief and it is this sincerity which has been one of the fundamentals of our friendship.
I have respected everything he has said and _I have always been unbiased_, because at no time have I refused to follow the subject with an open mind.
I cannot say the same for him for he has refused to discuss the matter in any other voice except that of Spiritualism and in all our talks quoted only those who favored it in every way, and if one does not follow him sheep-like during his investigations then he is blotted out forever so far as Sir Arthur is concerned.
Unfortunately he uses the reasoning, so common among Spiritualists, that no matter how often mediums are caught cheating he believes the only reason for it is that they have overstepped their bounds and resorted to trickery in an effort to convince.
I wonder if some day Sir Arthur will forget that he is a Spiritualist and argue a case of trickery with the sound logic of an outsider.
I firmly believe that if he ever does he will see and acknowledge some of his errors.
I am ready to believe in Sir Arthur’s teachings if he can convince me beyond the shadow of a doubt that his demonstrations are genuine.
There is no doubt in my mind, Sir Arthur believes implicitly in the mediums with whom he has convened and he knows positively, in his own mind, they are all genuine.
Even if they are caught cheating he always has some sort of an alibi which excuses the medium and the deed.
He insists that the Fox Sisters were genuine, even though both Margaret and Katie confessed to fraud and explained how and why they became mediums and the methods used by them to produce the raps.
“Like Cæsar’s wife--always above suspicion,” Hope and Mrs. Dean pass in his category as genuine mediums.
He has often told me that Palladino[78] and Home some day would be canonized for the great work they did in the interest of Spiritualism, even though they were both exposed time and time again.
In all gravity he would say to me, “Look what they did to Joan of Arc.
” To Sir Arthur it is a matter of most sacred moment.
It is his religion, and he would invariably tell me what a cool observer he was and how hard it would be to fool him, or in any way deceive him.
[79] He told me that he did not believe any of “the nice old lady mediums” would do anything wrong and it was just as unlikely for some old gentleman, innocent as a child unborn, to resort to trickery.
But there comes to my mind the notorious Mrs. Catherine Nicol and her two daughters who were continuously getting in and out of the law’s net, usually breaking the heads of a few detectives in the process.
Among the “nice old lady” mediums might be mentioned a prominent medium of Boston who was accused of taking unlawfully from one of her believers over eight thousand dollars in cash.
Another case was that of a medium who received ,000 from a man in Baltimore for the privilege of a few minutes’ chat with the Spirit of his dead wife.
He later sued her for fraud.
Later she was exposed while giving a seance in Paris, but after a few years she appeared in New York City.
At this time Asst.
District Attorney Krotel asked that she be brought into court to answer to a charge of selling California mining stock to her followers through the advice of certain disembodied Spirits.
The stock was found to be worthless.
There was also a woman, who was arrested and convicted for vagrancy in Seattle and numerous other cases, such as that of Katie King of Philadelphia in 1875; however, no matter how many cases I cited, it did not seem to make any impression on Sir Arthur.
I had known for some time that a number of people wanted to draw Doyle into a controversy.
When I saw Sir Arthur I told him to be careful of his statements and explained a number of pitfalls he could avoid.
Nevertheless, despite my warnings, he would say: “That’s all right, Houdini, don’t worry about me, I am well able to take care of myself.
They cannot fool me.
” To which I would reply he had no idea of the subtleness of some of the people who were trying to draw his fire.
When I called Sir Arthur’s attention to the number of people who have gone crazy on the subject because of persistent reading, continuous attendance at seances and trying automatic writing, his answer would be: “People have been going mad[80] for years, and you will find on investigation that many go mad on other subjects besides Spiritualism.
” On being reminded that most of these people hear voices and see visions, he denied that they were hallucinations, and insisted that he had spoken to different members of his family.
[81] I recall several flagrant instances in which Sir Arthur’s faith has, I think, misguided him.
One particular time was when he attended a public seance by a lady known as “The Medium in the Mask.
” Among those present at the time was Lady Glenconner, Sir Henry Lunn and Mr. Sidney A.
Mosley, a special representative of a newspaper.
According to reports, the medium wore a veil like a “yashmak.
” She appeared very nervous.
A number of articles, including a ring that had belonged to Sir Arthur’s deceased son, were put in a box, and the medium correctly gave the initials on the ring, although Sir Arthur said that they could hardly be discerned, even in a good light, they were so worn off.
[82] Later in describing another article, the medium said the words, “Murphy” and “button” and it was afterwards explained that “Murphy’s button” was a surgical operation term.
She said that the person described would die as a result of the operation.
Unfortunately, for the medium, no one present knew of such a case and yet, _Sir Arthur described this seance as very clever_.
[83] The “Masked Lady” was sponsored by a theatrical agent and illusionist and all proceedings of the seances were brought to light in a suit against Mr. George Grossman and Mr. Edward Laurillard, theatrical producers, to recover damages for breach of agreement to place a West End theatre at his disposal.
Accounts of mediums by the name of “Thompson” have misled several people.
There is a Thompson of New York and a Thomson of Chicago.
Sir Arthur had a seance with the Thompsons of New York and according to all the news clippings I have had they claimed to have brought back his mother.
In fact it was stated that he asked permission to kiss his mother’s hand.
The Thomsons got into trouble in Chicago and New Orleans also.
[84] As a matter of fact I was in Chicago when their trial took place.
I
had been present at two of their seances.
The first was in New York at the Morosco Theatre and I had all I could do to keep J. F.
Rinns from breaking up the performance.
The second was in Chicago.
It was a special seance given after my performance at the Palace Theatre.
I
was accompanied by H. H.
Windsor, Publisher and Editor of _Popular Mechanics_; Oliver R. Barrett, a prominent member of the bar; Mr. Husband Manning, author; and Leonard Hicks, a well-known hotel proprietor.
Among others present at the seance were Cyrus McCormick, Jr. , Muriel McCormick, and Mrs. McCormick McClintock.
We witnessed a number of unsatisfactory phenomena and afterwards adjourned to the home of Cyrus McCormick and discussed the seance, being unanimously of the opinion that it was a glaring fraud just as I had believed the one in New York to be.
At the Morosco Theatre, New York City, the Thomsons made the broad statement that they had been tested by Stead and Sir Oliver Lodge and at a special seance he had come out and publicly endorsed Mrs. Thomson as being genuine.
The following letter not only disproves this but explains the feeling of an active Spiritualist toward the Thomsons.
“Normanton, “Lake, “Salisbury.
“7th January 1921. “Dear Mr. Houdini:-- “It is a pleasure to hear from you, and I thank you for asking the question about the Thomsons.
I have replied to one or two other queries of the same kind, but I would be grateful if you would make it known that any statement that I have vouched for their genuineness, is absolutely false.
“I only saw them once, at a time when they called themselves Tomson.
It was at Mr. Stead’s house, at his urgent request.
I considered the performance fraudulent, but the proof was not absolutely complete because the concluding search was not allowed, and the gathering dispersed in disorder, or at least with some heat.
“I felt sorry at this termination, and it is just possible that Thomson genuinely thought I was favourably impressed.
That is the charitable view to take, but it is not the true view, and Mr. Stead was annoyed with me because of my skeptical attitude.
(He has since admitted to me, from the other side, that he was wrong and I was right; bringing the subject up spontaneously.
This latter statement, however, is not evidence.
) “What I should like the public to be assured of, is that I was _not_ favourably impressed, and never vouched for them in any way.
“I am afraid I must assume that Thomson is aware of that, and therefore is not acting in good faith, because once in England the same sort of statement was made, either at Leicester or at Nottingham I think, and I wrote to a paper to contradict it.
“With all good wishes believe me,
