[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
tosses about in bed, and the bed rushes, consequently, round the room. This experiment may be attempted by
any philosopher. Let him lie in a bed with castors, and try how far he can make it run, while he kicks about in
it. This explanation, dear to common-sense, is based on a physical impossibility, as any one may ascertain
for himself. Then the servants tried in vain to hold back the excited couch, well, these servants may have lied,
and, at most, could not examine 'les ressorts secrets qui causaient ce mouvement'. Now, M. Poupart deserts
the theory that we can make a bed run about, by lying kicking on it, and he falls back on hidden machinery.
The independent witness is said to have said that he was sorry he spoke, but this evidence proves nothing.
What happened in the room when the door was bolted, is not evidence, of course, and we may imagine that S.
himself made the noises on walls and windows, when his friend and mother were present. Thus M. S. was
both melancholy, and anxious se donner un divertissement, by frightening his servants, to which end he
supplied his bed with machinery that made it jump, and drew the curtains. What kind of secret springs would
perform these feats, M. Poupart does not explain. It would have been wiser in him to say that he did not
believe a word of it, than to give such silly reasons for a disbelief that made no exact inquiry into the
circumstances. The frivolities of the bed are reported in the case of Home and others, nor can we do much
more than remark the conservatism of the phenomena; the knocks, and the animated furniture.
The Amiens case (1746) is reported and attested by Father Charles Louis Richard, Professor in Theology, a
Dominican friar. The haunted house was in the Rue de l'Aventure, parish of St. Jacques. The tenant was a M.
Leleu, aged thirty-six. The troubles had lasted for fourteen years, and there was evidence for their occurrence
earlier, before Leleu occupied the house. The disturbances were of the usual kind, a sound of heavy planks
being tossed about, as in the experience of Scott at Abbotsford, raps, the fastening of doors so that they could
not be opened for long, and then suddenly gave way (this, also, is frequent in modern tales), a sound of
sweeping the floor, as in the Epworth case, in the Wesleys' parsonage, heavy knocks and thumps, the dragging
of heavy bodies, steps on the stairs, lights, the dancing of all the furniture in the room of Mlle. Marie de Lâtre,
rattling of crockery, a noise of whirring in the air, a jingling as of coins (familiar at Epworth), and, briefly, all
the usually reported tintamarre. Twenty persons, priests, women, girls, men of all sorts, attest those
phenomena which are simply the ordinary occurrences still alleged to be prevalent.
The narrator believes in diabolical agency, but he gives the explanations of common-sense. 1. M. Leleu is a
visionary. But, as no one says that all the other witnesses are visionaries, this helps us little. 2. M. Leleu
makes all the noise himself. That is, he climbs to the roof with a heavy sack of grain on his shoulder, and lets
it fall; he runs up and down the chimneys with his heavy sack on his shoulder, he frolics with weighty planks
all over the house, thumps the walls, makes furniture dance, and how? What is his motive? His tenants leave
him, he is called a fool, a devil, a possessed person: his business is threatened, they talk of putting him in jail,
and that is all he has got by his partiality for making a racket. 3. The neighbours make the noises, and again
the narrator asks 'how?' and 'why?' 4. Some priests slept in the house once and heard nothing. But nobody
COCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE 61
Cock Lane and Common-Sense
pretends that there is always something to hear. The Bishop of Amiens licenses the publication 'with the more
confidence, as we have ourselves received the depositions of ten witnesses, a number more than sufficient to
attest a fact which nobody has any interest in feigning'.
In a tale like this, which is only one out of a vast number, exactly analogous, Common-sense is ill-advised in
simply alleging imposture, so long maintained, so motiveless, and, on the whole, so very difficult to execute.
M. Leleu brought in the Church, with its exorcisms, but our Dominican authority does not say whether or not
the noises ceased after the rites had been performed. Dufresnoy, in whose Dissertations {178} these
documents are republished, mentions that Bouchel, in his Bibliothéque du Droit François, d. v. 'Louage,'
treats of the legal aspect of haunted houses. Thus the profession has not wholly disdained the inquiry.
Of all common sensible explanations, the most sporting and good-humoured is that given by the
step-daughter of Alexander Dingwall, a tenant in Inverinsh, in 1761. Poor Dingwall in his cornyard 'heard [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl akte20.pev.pl
tosses about in bed, and the bed rushes, consequently, round the room. This experiment may be attempted by
any philosopher. Let him lie in a bed with castors, and try how far he can make it run, while he kicks about in
it. This explanation, dear to common-sense, is based on a physical impossibility, as any one may ascertain
for himself. Then the servants tried in vain to hold back the excited couch, well, these servants may have lied,
and, at most, could not examine 'les ressorts secrets qui causaient ce mouvement'. Now, M. Poupart deserts
the theory that we can make a bed run about, by lying kicking on it, and he falls back on hidden machinery.
The independent witness is said to have said that he was sorry he spoke, but this evidence proves nothing.
What happened in the room when the door was bolted, is not evidence, of course, and we may imagine that S.
himself made the noises on walls and windows, when his friend and mother were present. Thus M. S. was
both melancholy, and anxious se donner un divertissement, by frightening his servants, to which end he
supplied his bed with machinery that made it jump, and drew the curtains. What kind of secret springs would
perform these feats, M. Poupart does not explain. It would have been wiser in him to say that he did not
believe a word of it, than to give such silly reasons for a disbelief that made no exact inquiry into the
circumstances. The frivolities of the bed are reported in the case of Home and others, nor can we do much
more than remark the conservatism of the phenomena; the knocks, and the animated furniture.
The Amiens case (1746) is reported and attested by Father Charles Louis Richard, Professor in Theology, a
Dominican friar. The haunted house was in the Rue de l'Aventure, parish of St. Jacques. The tenant was a M.
Leleu, aged thirty-six. The troubles had lasted for fourteen years, and there was evidence for their occurrence
earlier, before Leleu occupied the house. The disturbances were of the usual kind, a sound of heavy planks
being tossed about, as in the experience of Scott at Abbotsford, raps, the fastening of doors so that they could
not be opened for long, and then suddenly gave way (this, also, is frequent in modern tales), a sound of
sweeping the floor, as in the Epworth case, in the Wesleys' parsonage, heavy knocks and thumps, the dragging
of heavy bodies, steps on the stairs, lights, the dancing of all the furniture in the room of Mlle. Marie de Lâtre,
rattling of crockery, a noise of whirring in the air, a jingling as of coins (familiar at Epworth), and, briefly, all
the usually reported tintamarre. Twenty persons, priests, women, girls, men of all sorts, attest those
phenomena which are simply the ordinary occurrences still alleged to be prevalent.
The narrator believes in diabolical agency, but he gives the explanations of common-sense. 1. M. Leleu is a
visionary. But, as no one says that all the other witnesses are visionaries, this helps us little. 2. M. Leleu
makes all the noise himself. That is, he climbs to the roof with a heavy sack of grain on his shoulder, and lets
it fall; he runs up and down the chimneys with his heavy sack on his shoulder, he frolics with weighty planks
all over the house, thumps the walls, makes furniture dance, and how? What is his motive? His tenants leave
him, he is called a fool, a devil, a possessed person: his business is threatened, they talk of putting him in jail,
and that is all he has got by his partiality for making a racket. 3. The neighbours make the noises, and again
the narrator asks 'how?' and 'why?' 4. Some priests slept in the house once and heard nothing. But nobody
COCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE 61
Cock Lane and Common-Sense
pretends that there is always something to hear. The Bishop of Amiens licenses the publication 'with the more
confidence, as we have ourselves received the depositions of ten witnesses, a number more than sufficient to
attest a fact which nobody has any interest in feigning'.
In a tale like this, which is only one out of a vast number, exactly analogous, Common-sense is ill-advised in
simply alleging imposture, so long maintained, so motiveless, and, on the whole, so very difficult to execute.
M. Leleu brought in the Church, with its exorcisms, but our Dominican authority does not say whether or not
the noises ceased after the rites had been performed. Dufresnoy, in whose Dissertations {178} these
documents are republished, mentions that Bouchel, in his Bibliothéque du Droit François, d. v. 'Louage,'
treats of the legal aspect of haunted houses. Thus the profession has not wholly disdained the inquiry.
Of all common sensible explanations, the most sporting and good-humoured is that given by the
step-daughter of Alexander Dingwall, a tenant in Inverinsh, in 1761. Poor Dingwall in his cornyard 'heard [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]