e presence of D. D.
Home and W. Stainton Moses demand special reference. It is difficult to
imagine two men differing more widely in almost every respect. Mr. Myers
describes the even tenour of Mr. Stainton Moses' "straightforward and
reputable life" as "inwoven with a chain of mysteries, which ... make
that life one of the most extraordinary which our century has seen."[66]
He was a scholar, a literary man, and a clergyman of the Church of
England. He had no worldly ambition or fondness for what is called
"Society." Mr. D. D. Home, on the contrary, does not appear to have been
a man who could have been termed a religious character, or
spiritually-minded, nor did he give evidence of intellectual talent. But
he had gained access to some of the highest society in Europe. And yet
both men were "mediums" for these curious phenomena, to a wonderful
extent, both as regards the amount and the variety of the
manifestations. Although the two men were so different, there is a
parallelism in the phenomena in so many respects, that a similar origin
or source seems inevitably suggested. There were peculiarities special
to each, but untouched movements of heavy articles, "levitations,"
lights, and sounds, were phenomena common to both. From whence does this
"chain of mysteries" come? Is the source to be sought for in
undiscovered powers and faculties of the men themselves, or in the
action of other intelligences? That is a problem which must be left. It
is outside the scope of this inquiry, which deals solely with the
establishment of physical facts. But where can any other field be found
of equal interest? Difficulties and perplexities meet the explorer in
abundance. But they exist in order to be overcome by the same steady
persistence which has attained its reward in many another direction.

With regard to two other chapters I desire also to make a special
remark--those on "Materialisations" and "Spirit Photography." Both are
physical phenomena. But I desire to make it plain that no claim is made
of being able to present evidence with regard to either of these
subjects which should satisfy the reasonable demands of science. It may
be asked--Why then introduce them at all? For two reasons: (1) Because
the evidence in favour of both is only just outside the boundary of
scientific demonstration. (2) Because of the extreme interest of the
phenomena themselves.

As to "Materialisations." Out of an immense mass of testimony, most of
it