I was surprised to read this in the New York Times Magazine article about Susan Gerbic's plan to debunk fraudulent mediums:
"The poet Robert Browning once exposed the mid-19th century Scottish psychic, Daniel Home, who claimed to conjure the spirit of Browning’s infant son, who died young. Except Browning hadn’t lost a son. Worse, the poet lunged at the apparition to unmask it and found himself clutching Home’s bare foot."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/magaz...ebook.html
This does seem to reflect received sceptical opinion, as embodied in the Wikipedia article on Daniel Dunglas Home:
After attending a séance of Home's, Browning wrote in a letter to The Times that: 'the whole display of hands, spirit utterances etc., was a cheat and imposture'.[50] ...
The poet Robert Browning and his wife Elizabeth attended a séance on 23, July 1855 in Ealing with the Rymers.[75] During the séance a "spirit face" materialized which Home claimed was the son of Browning who had died in infancy. Browning seized the "materialization" and discovered it to be the bare foot of Home. To make the deception worse, Browning had never lost a son in infancy. Browning's son Robert in a letter to the London Times, December 5, 1902 referred to the incident: "Home was detected in a vulgar fraud."[80][81] The Browning allegation of fraud was supported by the magician Harry Houdini.[80] However, Andrew Lang disputed the allegation, stating there was contradictory information about the séance from Browning and his wife.[82]
[50] Podmore, Frank (2003). Newer Spiritualism. Kessinger Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7661-6336-2.
[75] Donald Serrell Thomas. (1989). Robert Browning: A Life Within Life. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 157-158. ISBN 978-0297796398
[80] Harry Houdini. (2011 reprint edition). Originally published in 1924. A Magician Among the Spirits. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-1108027489
[81] John Casey. (2009). After Lives: A Guide to Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Oxford. p. 373. ISBN 978-0199975037 "The poet attended one of Home's seances where a face was materialized, which, Home's spirit guide announced, was that of Browning's dead son. Browning seized the supposed materialized head, and it turned out to be the bare foot of Home. The deception was not helped by the fact that Browning never had lost a son in infancy."
[82] "The Strange Case of Daniel Dunglas Home". Andrew Lang, Chapter 8 of [Historical Mysteries] (1904).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home
Whether the story is true or not is a different matter.
John Casey's book is available as a Google preview. The part quoted is on p. 373, and no source is cited. But it occurs in a section entitled "A Magician among the Sprits," so presumably the source was Houdini's book of that name. I don't have access to the book by Donald Serrell Thomas.
But there's a detailed discussion of the claim in the book by Andrew Lang, which is available here:
http://www.online-literature.com/andrew_...steries/8/
Lang identified two sources:
(1) The more pertinent one is, unfortunately, described only as "an eminent writer, whom I need not name," writing in a newspaper several years before:
"Mr. Browning had told him, he said, that, sitting with Home and Mrs. Browning (apparently alone, these three) in a darkened room, he saw a white object rise above the table. This Home represented as the phantasm of a child of Mr. and Mrs. Browning, which died in infancy. Mr. Browning seized the phantasm, which was Home's naked foot."
Presumably this is the source of the version in Harry Houdini's 1924 book, "A Magician among the Spirits" (pp. 41, 42). Unfortunately the great escapologist didn't believe in citing his sources either:
"On one occasion Robert Browning, the poet, attended one of Home's seances. He had become somewhat alarmed by his wife's interest in Spiritualism, and when a face was materialized and said to be that of a son who had died in infancy, Browning seized the supposed materialized head and discovered it to be the bare foot of Mr. Home. Incidentally, Browning had never lost an infant son."
http://www.gkc.org.uk/A-Magician-Among-t...rits-1.pdf
(2) Browning's son, Robert Barrett Browning, wrote to the Times Literary Supplement on 5 December 1902 (47 years after the event) after the matter was referred to in a review of Frank Podmore's book, "Modern Spiritualism," and subsequent correspondence. He wrote:
"Mr. Hume, who subsequently changed his name to Home, was detected "in a vulgar fraud," for I have heard my father repeatedly described how he caught hold of his foot under the table."
Daniel Dunglas Home's own version of these events can be found here, in his book "Incidents in my Life" (Second Series, 1872):
https://archive.org/details/incidentsinm...t/page/104
He says that eight other people apart from the Brownings were present, and that Browning had declared several times during the evening that "anything like imposture was out of the question." But of course we have only Home's word for that.
However, we do have other evidence, which makes it seem very doubtful whether Browning really caught Home out in trickery on this occasion.
First, there is the evidence of two letters, written by Mr and Mrs Browning the month after the seance, and later published in the Times Literary Supplement on 28 November 1902. Browning's letter leaves no doubt that he was convinced that Home's phenomena were "a cheat and imposture," but says nothing to suggest he had actually exposed any cheating and doesn't refer to any incident like the one later claimed. In contrast, Mrs Browning, though she was distrustful of what the "supposed spirits" might say, and was aware that imposture sometimes occurred, didn't believe that had been the case with Home's seance: "if you ask me (as you do) whether I would rank the phenomena witnessed at Ealing among the counterfeits, I sincerely answer that I may be much mistaken, of course, but for my own part, and in my own conscience, I find no reason for considering the medium in question responsible for anything seen or heard on that occasion." Obviously, it's difficult to see how that could be written by a woman who had witnessed the exposure of the medium as a fraud only a few weeks earlier.
Second, when William Barrett and Frederic Myers were seeking evidence about Home's phenomena several decades later, they communicated with Browning:
"Robert Browning has told to one of us the circumstances which mainly led to that opinion of Home which was expressed in Mr. Sludge the Medium. It appears that a lady (since dead) repeated to Mr. Browning a statement made to her by a lady and gentleman (since dead), as to their finding Home in the act of experimenting with phosphorus on the production of "spirit-lights," which (so far as Mr. Browning remembers) were to be rubbed round the walls of the room, near the ceiling, so as to appear when the room was darkened. This piece of evidence powerfully impressed Mr. Browning; but it comes to us at third-hand, without written record, and at a distance of nearly 40 years."
[Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. 4, p. 102 (July 1889)]
So Browning himself, when asked why he thought Home was a fraud, said nothing about having personally exposed him as a fraud during a seance, but only mentioned an allegation which had come to him second-hand. Obviously, that's just as hard to reconcile with the claims that were made (apparently) after Browning was dead.
"The poet Robert Browning once exposed the mid-19th century Scottish psychic, Daniel Home, who claimed to conjure the spirit of Browning’s infant son, who died young. Except Browning hadn’t lost a son. Worse, the poet lunged at the apparition to unmask it and found himself clutching Home’s bare foot."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/magaz...ebook.html
This does seem to reflect received sceptical opinion, as embodied in the Wikipedia article on Daniel Dunglas Home:
After attending a séance of Home's, Browning wrote in a letter to The Times that: 'the whole display of hands, spirit utterances etc., was a cheat and imposture'.[50] ...
The poet Robert Browning and his wife Elizabeth attended a séance on 23, July 1855 in Ealing with the Rymers.[75] During the séance a "spirit face" materialized which Home claimed was the son of Browning who had died in infancy. Browning seized the "materialization" and discovered it to be the bare foot of Home. To make the deception worse, Browning had never lost a son in infancy. Browning's son Robert in a letter to the London Times, December 5, 1902 referred to the incident: "Home was detected in a vulgar fraud."[80][81] The Browning allegation of fraud was supported by the magician Harry Houdini.[80] However, Andrew Lang disputed the allegation, stating there was contradictory information about the séance from Browning and his wife.[82]
[50] Podmore, Frank (2003). Newer Spiritualism. Kessinger Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7661-6336-2.
[75] Donald Serrell Thomas. (1989). Robert Browning: A Life Within Life. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 157-158. ISBN 978-0297796398
[80] Harry Houdini. (2011 reprint edition). Originally published in 1924. A Magician Among the Spirits. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-1108027489
[81] John Casey. (2009). After Lives: A Guide to Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Oxford. p. 373. ISBN 978-0199975037 "The poet attended one of Home's seances where a face was materialized, which, Home's spirit guide announced, was that of Browning's dead son. Browning seized the supposed materialized head, and it turned out to be the bare foot of Home. The deception was not helped by the fact that Browning never had lost a son in infancy."
[82] "The Strange Case of Daniel Dunglas Home". Andrew Lang, Chapter 8 of [Historical Mysteries] (1904).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home
Whether the story is true or not is a different matter.
John Casey's book is available as a Google preview. The part quoted is on p. 373, and no source is cited. But it occurs in a section entitled "A Magician among the Sprits," so presumably the source was Houdini's book of that name. I don't have access to the book by Donald Serrell Thomas.
But there's a detailed discussion of the claim in the book by Andrew Lang, which is available here:
http://www.online-literature.com/andrew_...steries/8/
Lang identified two sources:
(1) The more pertinent one is, unfortunately, described only as "an eminent writer, whom I need not name," writing in a newspaper several years before:
"Mr. Browning had told him, he said, that, sitting with Home and Mrs. Browning (apparently alone, these three) in a darkened room, he saw a white object rise above the table. This Home represented as the phantasm of a child of Mr. and Mrs. Browning, which died in infancy. Mr. Browning seized the phantasm, which was Home's naked foot."
Presumably this is the source of the version in Harry Houdini's 1924 book, "A Magician among the Spirits" (pp. 41, 42). Unfortunately the great escapologist didn't believe in citing his sources either:
"On one occasion Robert Browning, the poet, attended one of Home's seances. He had become somewhat alarmed by his wife's interest in Spiritualism, and when a face was materialized and said to be that of a son who had died in infancy, Browning seized the supposed materialized head and discovered it to be the bare foot of Mr. Home. Incidentally, Browning had never lost an infant son."
http://www.gkc.org.uk/A-Magician-Among-t...rits-1.pdf
(2) Browning's son, Robert Barrett Browning, wrote to the Times Literary Supplement on 5 December 1902 (47 years after the event) after the matter was referred to in a review of Frank Podmore's book, "Modern Spiritualism," and subsequent correspondence. He wrote:
"Mr. Hume, who subsequently changed his name to Home, was detected "in a vulgar fraud," for I have heard my father repeatedly described how he caught hold of his foot under the table."
Daniel Dunglas Home's own version of these events can be found here, in his book "Incidents in my Life" (Second Series, 1872):
https://archive.org/details/incidentsinm...t/page/104
He says that eight other people apart from the Brownings were present, and that Browning had declared several times during the evening that "anything like imposture was out of the question." But of course we have only Home's word for that.
However, we do have other evidence, which makes it seem very doubtful whether Browning really caught Home out in trickery on this occasion.
First, there is the evidence of two letters, written by Mr and Mrs Browning the month after the seance, and later published in the Times Literary Supplement on 28 November 1902. Browning's letter leaves no doubt that he was convinced that Home's phenomena were "a cheat and imposture," but says nothing to suggest he had actually exposed any cheating and doesn't refer to any incident like the one later claimed. In contrast, Mrs Browning, though she was distrustful of what the "supposed spirits" might say, and was aware that imposture sometimes occurred, didn't believe that had been the case with Home's seance: "if you ask me (as you do) whether I would rank the phenomena witnessed at Ealing among the counterfeits, I sincerely answer that I may be much mistaken, of course, but for my own part, and in my own conscience, I find no reason for considering the medium in question responsible for anything seen or heard on that occasion." Obviously, it's difficult to see how that could be written by a woman who had witnessed the exposure of the medium as a fraud only a few weeks earlier.
Second, when William Barrett and Frederic Myers were seeking evidence about Home's phenomena several decades later, they communicated with Browning:
"Robert Browning has told to one of us the circumstances which mainly led to that opinion of Home which was expressed in Mr. Sludge the Medium. It appears that a lady (since dead) repeated to Mr. Browning a statement made to her by a lady and gentleman (since dead), as to their finding Home in the act of experimenting with phosphorus on the production of "spirit-lights," which (so far as Mr. Browning remembers) were to be rubbed round the walls of the room, near the ceiling, so as to appear when the room was darkened. This piece of evidence powerfully impressed Mr. Browning; but it comes to us at third-hand, without written record, and at a distance of nearly 40 years."
[Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. 4, p. 102 (July 1889)]
So Browning himself, when asked why he thought Home was a fraud, said nothing about having personally exposed him as a fraud during a seance, but only mentioned an allegation which had come to him second-hand. Obviously, that's just as hard to reconcile with the claims that were made (apparently) after Browning was dead.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
