the theory sinks
into its proper place--oblivion.

Then there is the theory of a floating, ambient mentality. This theory
is held by many, and it is contended by them that this mentality is
clothed, by some mysterious process, with a force similar to that which
it possessed in the living organism; and that, in its expression of the
combined intelligence of the circle, it generally follows the strongest
mind, or the mind that is best qualified or conditioned to give
correctly the thought. This theory found its champion in the person of
Dr. Joseph Maxwell (see his _Metapsychical Phenomena_), and must be
taken into account seriously. But an objection, and to my mind a fatal
objection, to this theory is the fact that the intelligence seems to
possess, not a collective but a decidedly personal character--one which
is sufficiently stable and individual to argue back and to maintain its
own opinions and beliefs in the face of great opposition from all the
members of the circle. Is there anything in all this that suggests a
floating, compound mentality; or does it not rather bear the marks of
being a theory made up for the occasion, in order to evade some
alternative explanation, objectionable, perhaps, to the sitters or
critics?

All that has been said above also applies to the theory of a _spiritus
mundi_, or spirit of the universe, which formed so large a part in the
cosmological theories of many ancient philosophers. It is supposed to be
a sort of all-pervading nervous principle, having, however, a mind of
its own, when occasion demands--for otherwise how are the results to be
accounted for? I think this and the preceding theory can best be met,
perhaps, by asking its supporters to produce one iota of evidence in its
behalf. When this has been forthcoming it will be time enough to
consider it seriously.

Then there is the theory that the unconscious muscular action of the
sitters is the cause of the movement and writing. This has been
considered before, and it was pointed out that, even granting for the
sake of argument that the board was actually moved by this means, the
question still remains: How are we to account for the mentality behind
the movement--especially when facts are given unknown to all the members
of the circle? (For an example of this see _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol.
ix. pp. 93-8.)

The question thus arises: _What_ did the writing? The theory of
unconscious muscular action has been considered, and foun