HALLUCINATION AND THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA OF SPIRITUALISM[25]
The discussion begun by Count Solovovo, and continued by Miss
Johnson,[26] is assuredly of supreme importance to psychical research.
Whether or no many of the alleged "physical phenomena" are genuine, or
whether they are merely hallucinatory in character, is a question which
involves--not only the phenomena themselves, but psychology and human
life in general, and even influences strongly science and scientific
experiments in other fields.... The senses are to be relied upon in
every science other than psychic research; that seems to be the _dictum_
of the world, and strange and even absurd as it may seem, it is, as we
know, more or less founded upon fact. In no other science is fraud
practised as it is in this; in practically no other line of research are
the mental and physical powers so strained out of their usual or normal
relations and perceptions as they are in this. It is only right, then,
that Caution should be the password, and should be most rigidly employed
in all such investigations as these.
While admitting all this, however, one must also admit that it is easy
to go too far in the opposite direction, and reject evidence which
depends upon the senses simply _because_ they depend upon them. This, I
think, is invalid reasoning. No one would be more willing than I to
admit their fallibility and untrustworthiness--especially when we are
dealing with conditions and phenomena where mal-observation is possible;
but I do not think that any negative conclusion can be drawn from this.
The case is still an open one; nothing is _proved_, one way or the
other, and, in such work as ours, proof--and not mere conjecture--must
be forthcoming. Very true it is that proof of the sort desired is often
impossible; but it is obtained sometimes. If a medium be caught
masquerading in a white muslin "robe" and a mask, we are doubtless
within our rights in saying that the medium has been _proved_ a fraud.
But failure to detect such trickery does not prove the phenomena
genuine. That would depend upon other considerations, and would only
raise a _presumption_ in favour of their authenticity. In such a case,
"proof" is largely a question of relative probability, and can be
obtained only by making the probability in favour of the reality of the
phenomena so strong that the negative aspect is rendered logically
unsound by the sheer weight of evidence against it.
These trite remarks were nevertheless rendered necessary because of the
enormous amount of misunderstanding which exists in connection with
these phenomena, and of the general methods and objects of psychic
research. The papers that have already been published on the question of
hallucination in relation to the physical phenomena should do much to
clear away many of these misconceptions, for in them we find (i) a
willingness to treat the phenomena seriously; (ii) an admission that the
witnesses described what they thought they saw; and (iii) a certain
amount of evidence advanced to show that the alleged phenomena were in
reality hallucinatory in character, while appearing to be external
physical realities to the onlookers. Let us now examine the evidence
advanced, and see in how far it is conclusive of the theory
entertained--the hypothesis of hallucination.
As both Count Solovovo and Miss Johnson have concentrated their
attention upon the phenomena occurring in the presence of D. D. Home, I
shall do so likewise in the first part of this chapter. As briefly as
possible, I shall review their papers, before passing on to more general
remarks--remarks which it is the object of this paper to bring into
prominence.
Count Solovovo thinks that it is evidence in favour of the
hallucination theory that: "A flower or other small object is seen to
move; one person present will see a luminous cloud hovering over it,
another will detect a nebulous-looking hand, whilst others will see
nothing but the moving flower."[27]
Miss Johnson agrees with this, and in fact goes so far as to say: "If
these hands had been completely invisible to some person with normal
sight looking directly at them in a good light, we should then have good
evidence that they were hallucinatory."[28]
To this I cannot agree. I find myself completely differing from Miss
Johnson in my interpretation of such an incident as this. For, while
hallucination is one possible theory to account for the phenomena,
another equally plausible theory is that the hands were in fact
objective and real, but were only perceptible to various individuals in
varying degrees. This aspect of the problem is hardly touched upon by
Count Solovovo, but is discussed at some length by Miss Johnson. In this
connection she says:
"Here [in the hand, i.e.] is a kind of matter which is not only
temporary in character--a fact in itself extraordinary enough--but
exhibits another quite unprecedented characteristic in the
arbitrary selectiveness of its effects on other matter. In order to
be visible at all, it must reflect light. How does it manage to
reflect light that affects the retina of one person and not the
retina of another? We may reply that the difference must lie in the
retinae, one being more sensitive than the other. But we do not
find the same difference of sensitivity in regard to the light
reflected from ordinary objects. It seems to follow then that the
light reflected from the spirit-hand is a peculiar kind of light,
lying outside the limits of the ordinary visible spectrum. But in
that case, why is not the person with the more sensitive retina
affected by it? For of course all ordinary objects are constantly
giving off radiations outside the limits of the visible spectrum;
but our supposed sensitive apparently does not perceive them."[29]
First, as to the matters of fact. Where is the evidence that those with
the most sensitive retinae were not the very ones who perceived, most
perfectly, the spirit-hand? Were a series of experiments conducted to
show which of the onlookers possessed the most sensitive eyes? If so,
where are these experiments recorded? It is quite possible that the body
is constantly giving off a kind of _aura_--perceptible to some,
invisible to others; and the fact that some do not see it is no proof
that it is not there. If the experiments of Reichenbach and others go
for anything, indeed, there is very good evidence that such emanations
do take place--and I venture to think (however rank heresy this may
appear) that these experiments have never been completely refuted, and
the results obtained shown to be traceable _in toto_ to suggestion. The
eyes of certain individuals might be attuned to receive vibrations or
impressions quite imperceptible to others, no matter how sensitive their
retinae to normal perceptions or sensations.
But, quite apart from such purely "physical" speculations, I can quite
conceive that these hands were not "seen" in the ordinary sense of the
word at all. The physical eyes may have played some part in their
perception, but only a small part. It is quite possible that "hands" of
the character here seen were active and functioning upon another plane
altogether than the sense plane, and were perceived at the time by a
species of _clairvoyance_. What "clairvoyance" is I do not pretend to
know (unless spiritism be true, in which case I can quite easily
conceive its _modus operandi_), but the mass of evidence in its favour
seems to place it quite beyond the pale of doubt. But even if this be
not granted, I can quite see how a certain _rapport_ between the sitter
and the hand--or the intelligence behind the hand--might easily enable
one sitter to perceive it, and not another. Analogies from trance
phenomena and even from experimental thought-transference might be drawn
here, in favour of such a theory. The whole theory of apparitions at the
moment of death depends upon this established _rapport_, since, if it
did not exist, and affect the results, the apparition might just as well
appear to Tom, Dick, and Harry as to the percipient--and the percipient
is such (supposedly) simply by reason of this pre-established _rapport_.
There might be, then, a certain _rapport_ between some sitters and a
plane of activity upon which such hands manifest, enabling these
individuals to see the hands, while prohibiting others from seeing them.
The receptivity or capacity might indicate a greater or lesser degree of
psychic capacity--they would be "more mediumistic." That is, the more
mediumistic the sitter, the more likely would he be to perceive such
hands. And of course we all know in this connection that mediums or
psychics in a circle will perceive hands and faces and other forms quite
invisible to the ordinary observer. The usual recourse in such cases is
to assume that the mediums are fraudulently in league with one another;
but when unprofessional psychics experience the same sensations (or
perceptions) there is good ground for calling a halt, and asking whether
or not the sensations were not possibly genuine in the case of the
professional medium also.
In other words, and to summarize this part of the discussion, I can only
say that there seems to me no valid reason for thinking that the
spirit-hands in Home's seances were probably hallucinatory in character
because only some of the sitters saw them. They might just as well be
explained by supposing that certain of the sitters were more psychic or
mediumistic than the others, and these saw--clairvoyantly or by some
similar mode of psychic perception--hands and forms invisible to those
less sensitive. It need hardly be said that the carrying about of
objects by these hands renders their objective nature and existence far
more probable than if such movements had never taken place. These
physical phenomena remain, no matter what view we take of the visible
(or invisible) hands.
In speaking next of Home's "full-form phantasms," Miss Johnson draws
attention to the fact, so often pointed out by Mr. Podmore, that the
various witnesses in subsequent accounts do not describe the phenomena
in the same terms or in precisely the same manner. The narrative differs
in the various accounts, and the phenomena appear far more remarkable
in some than in others. The inference is that none of them is
right--certainly not the more remarkable ones--and that the inaccuracy
of the reports invalidates the records.
Now I have nothing to say against this method _as_ a method. But I think
it can be pushed too far and wrong deductions drawn therefrom. It is
right to discount the value of the evidence, but that is a different
thing from discrediting it altogether. If individual records differ when
describing any particular phenomenon it is right that the less
marvellous be accepted as the more probable; but this is not saying that
the phenomenon did not take place at all! Any two accounts of a given
phenomenon must necessarily differ--more or less, according to
circumstances. But if all the accounts obviously concern a given
phenomenon, and if they agree, even in the essential outlines, it is
probable that the event resembled the description more or less; and if
in all these accounts there is no evidence of fraud forthcoming, and no
indications that it existed, we must take it for granted that no
suspicious circumstances were noted and no fraud detected--for otherwise
it would have found its way into the records. And the fact that it never
did find its way into any of them (with one doubtful exception,
_Journal, S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 120-21, and Jan. and May 1903) seems to
indicate, not that the phenomena were necessarily genuine, but that the
central theme of the account, so to speak--the phenomenon--was seen
alike by all, and was variously described by the witnesses afterward in
the subsequent reports. The minor discrepancies do not suffice to
explain away the phenomenon altogether. They serve merely to render it
less marvellous. Many psychic researchers, however, seem to imagine that
because the various accounts do not agree, the fact recorded probably
did not occur at all. That is surely an entirely unwarranted
supposition, and were this carried to its logical conclusion, would
suffice to disprove the whole of the past history of the human race.
Miss Johnson's discussion of Home's famous levitation out of one window
and in at another is surely masterly, and is precisely the kind of
criticism which psychic research needs. After reading her account, I can
only say that were this case an isolated incident, unsupported by any
similar eases of a like nature, it would be so far "explained away" as
to lose all evidential value. At the same time I think that Count
Solovovo sums the whole argument up when he says that none of Home's
phenomena were ever _proved_ to be hallucinatory; all that has been done
by the discussion is to show that some of them _might possibly_ have
been so. And there is a great difference between the two. There is a
natural tendency in many minds to assume and take for granted that
because a given phenomenon might possibly have been produced by fraud,
it was unquestionably produced in that manner. That is quite an
unwarranted supposition, and fraud should be clearly _proved_ in every
given instance before a medium be charged with trickery. This is a rule
far too seldom observed by sceptical investigators, but an important one
nevertheless.
Leaving aside this particular case of Home's levitation, however, it may
be said that there are others on record far more conclusive in
character, and against which many of Miss Johnson's criticisms could
not be levelled. Taken singly, it is probable that no single case of any
class of phenomena would prove convincing to a sceptic; sufficient
objections could be raised, and sufficient discrepancies in the records
pointed out, to invalidate any evidence whatever. Quite apart from any
_a priori_ objections, any single incident can almost invariably be
"explained away." It is the weight of a great _mass_ of cumulative
evidence which tells the tale. The most expert and exact description of
the fall of a meteor would not have forced an acceptance from the
scientific world; the relative improbability of the whole of the past
experience of the human race would have been so much greater than the
fact that the latter would have been discredited. Gradually it would
have receded in the mind, and even the original witness might ultimately
be persuaded that he had not in reality seen a meteor at all!
And so it is with psychic research; and so it is with the theory under
discussion. No single incident, taken by itself, can be said to prove
anything; only the great mass of facts, taken together, and all pointing
in the same direction, can be said to do so. One can quite see how this
would be the case, e.g. in Mrs. Piper's automatic utterances or
writings. No matter how conclusive any individual "test" might be, it
would prove nothing by itself. No matter how well attested an apparition
at the moment of death, singly it would indicate no telepathic
communication nor other supernormal factor at work. But together these
cases form a strand[30] which becomes too strong to be broken, and
which, taken together, practically prove telepathic communication at the
moment of death--at least so thought Professor Sidgwick's Committee, of
which Miss Johnson was one member. (See _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. x.
p. 394.)
In Home's case, then, the evidence for his levitation phenomena rests,
not on any one case taken by itself, but on the mass of cumulative
testimony offered by scores of witnesses. However completely one case
might be explained away, the other cases still remain to us--each case
standing on its own merits, and many of them excellently observed, if
not so well recorded. For example, the cases mentioned by Sir. William
Crookes (_Journal, S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 342) are certainly far superior,
in point of observation, to the famous case so severely criticized by
Miss Johnson. And I think that if one is going to offer any hypothesis
at all, it must be one that covers _all_ the facts, and not merely one
which explains only some of them. The hallucinatory nature of Home's
phenomena is certainly not inclusive--it does not include many of the
more striking incidents to say nothing of the lesser phenomena. For this
reason, it does not appear to me to be conclusive either.
After a brief discussion of Home's fire-tests, which Miss Johnson
practically admits are inexplicable by any process either of fraud or of
hallucination known to her (p. 498), she passes on to what are called
"quasi-hypnotic" effects. To many of the incidents classed by Miss
Johnson as due to suggestion, I should be inclined to give an entirely
different interpretation. Some of them doubtless resemble hallucinations
in a striking degree, but what evidence is there that, e.g., passes made
over the heads of the sitters can induce identical hallucinations in all
of them; or that, because one of the circle becomes hysterical, the
others are thereby rendered susceptible to suggestion? However, I shall
defer this question until we come to discuss hallucination in general.
After some wholesome criticisms devoted to the "recognition" of
materialized forms, and the very true statement (p. 509) that "a very
small error in perception may sometimes lead to a very large error of
inference," Miss Johnson ends her remarkably interesting paper with two
illustrations--one a hallucination (?)[31] induced by false association
of ideas; the other an incident in her own experience, occurring at a
seance with Eusapia Palladino. Both of these are of importance, and
should be studied carefully.
Count Solovovo on the contrary considers it somewhat in favour of the
hallucination theory that hands were found to melt in the sitters'
grasp, when they were forcibly retained (p. 441). I cannot agree with
this. It is a different thing to say that hallucination might account
for the facts, and saying that the facts tell in favour of
hallucination. Chance might account for an experimental apparition, but
the fact that the apparition occurred does not prove it to be chance.
One must be careful to distinguish facts and inferences, in a case of
this character. Whether or not the hands were hallucinatory will depend,
not upon _a priori_ probability, or the fact they were visible to some,
invisible to others, (for all this might just as well be accounted for
on the opposing theory), but upon the fact that, so far as we know,
there is no analogy whatever between this oft-recorded event and any of
the phenomena of suggestion known to us. If we offer a theory to explain
certain facts, it must not only explain them in a rational manner, but
must dovetail into what we know--into _the known_. That is the whole
method of science. If, therefore, a man advances "hallucination" as an
explanation of such facts as those under discussion, he must show how it
is that hallucination might be supposed to work: he must bring forward
some analogies and examples of somewhat similar instances in order to
have a case at all. In science, we cannot speculate _in vacuo_, but must
connect with what is already known, if we wish to be scientific at all.
What analogies, then, have we that spirit-hands, similar to those
described, can be created by suggestion; and that suggestion can cause a
number of investigators, at various times, in various places, to believe
that these hands melted in theirs while they were trying to retain them?
I venture to think we have no analogies whatever. It is quite possible
that a subject in a hypnotic trance might be induced to believe that he
was holding a hand while in fact no hand was there, and, further, that
this hand melted away in his grasp while he was holding fast on to it.
But I can see practically no resemblance whatever between the two cases.
For, in the case we have supposed (i) the hand did not move any material
object; (ii) no one but the hypnotized subject saw the hand; and (iii)
the illusion was only induced by repeated verbal suggestion to a subject
already hypnotized. Where is the analogy in the two cases? Home's hands
moved objects; they were seen by several people at once; and, so far as
the records prove anything, they prove that constant verbal suggestions
of the sort necessary were certainly _not_ given, while there is no
evidence whatever that the subjects were hypnotized! On this very
subject, speaking of Home's seances, Sir William Crookes has said:
"General conversation was going on all the time, and on many
occasions something on the table had moved some time before Home
was aware of it. We had to draw his attention to such things far
oftener than he drew our attention to them. Indeed, he sometimes
used to annoy me by his indifference to what was going on...."[32]
Does this look like suggestion? Is there any similarity between the two
cases? Their differences are too obvious to dwell upon. And, apart from
the performances of the Hindu fakirs (which I have discussed
elsewhere,[33] and which Count Solovovo himself thinks too few and too
weak evidentially to require serious consideration), there is no
similarity between an hallucination induced in a hypnotized subject by
constant verbal suggestion, and one supposedly induced instantaneously
in a large number of persons, not hypnotized, without any suggestion.
The cases cannot be considered similar, or even as resembling one
another in the slightest degree; while the improbability is heightened a
thousandfold by the fact that these hands apparently performed physical
actions and moved physical objects at the same time. The coincidence
would have to be explained as well as the hallucination, in that case.
Both Count Solovovo and Miss Johnson lay particular stress upon the fact
that the Master of Lindsay seems to have been extremely suggestible.
Assuredly, that is an important point in so far as his own experiences
are concerned, but the fact in nowise affects the experiences of
_others_. In order to prove that suggestibility played an important part
in the phenomena, it would be necessary to show that _all_ witnesses of
the phenomena were suggestible--for the phenomena were seen by all in a
slightly varying degree. Yet there is no evidence that many of the
witnesses were suggestible at all: they did not see things Home
suggested they should see, while, on the other hand, they saw things
quite on their own account, when Home was busily engaged in conversation
with some one else. The whole case must be made to hang together, and if
"suggestion" be the key to the puzzle, it certainly fits the lock
remarkably ill.[34]
In summing-up his paper and the evidence contained therein, Count
Solovovo concludes:
"For my own part I lay it down as a general proposition ... that
the testimony of several sane, honest and intelligent eye-witnesses
is, broadly speaking, proof of the objectivity of any phenomenon.
If there are people who maintain an opposite view, let them make
experiments themselves" (p. 477).
That is precisely the position I should assume: I do not believe that
collective hallucinations of the kind supposed exist at spiritistic
seances, except perhaps very rarely, and to special gatherings of
individuals. Let me now adduce the evidence in favour of my position,
and the reasons for my taking this stand so strongly.
First, then, let us distinguish between _illusions_ and
_hallucinations_, as this is of the very greatest importance in a
discussion such as this. An illusion is a false sensory perception, the
basis of which is, nevertheless, real. Thus, if an old coat in a corner
of the room be mistaken for a dog, that would be an illusion. A _point
de repere_ is there--a peg, upon which the mind hangs its false
inferences or perceptions. An hallucination, on the other hand, is
entirely a creation of the mind, and there is, in this case, no _point
de repere_, which exists externally, and serves as the basis of the
hallucination. Roughly speaking, this may be said to be the difference
between the two. Now, let us apply this to Home's seances, and to
spiritistic seances in general.
During the course of my twenty years' constant investigation, I have had
many score seances with various mediums--slate-writing mediums,
materializing mediums, physical mediums, clairvoyant mediums, _et hoc
genus omne_. Speaking now of materialization seances only--of which I
have seen many--I may say that in all my investigations _I have never
seen one single instance of suggested or spontaneous hallucination_.
Plenty of _illusions_ were observed, but never the trace of a full-blown
hallucination.[35] And I venture to think that, if we examine the
evidence in the case of D. D. Home, we find very few cases which could
have been illusions--the vast majority of them seem to have been "pure
hallucinations"--if they were psychological processes (as opposed to
physical) at all. So that we should have to suppose that we find in
these seances--not mere illusions, commonly seen at spiritualistic
seances, but full-blown hallucinations of a type rarely or never seen
elsewhere. In other words, these seances present evidences of
psychological processes for which we can find no analogy in any other
series of seances, or in hypnotic or any other phenomena with which we
are familiar. I venture to think that this entirely _new_ order of
things cannot be accepted upon such evidence: that the hypothesis of
hallucination cannot be said to explain anything whatever, inasmuch as
it is entirely unsupported by facts, and finds no analogies whatever in
any other psychological processes known to us.
At the very conclusion of his paper, Count Solovovo places his finger
upon the vulnerable spot: he there points out the only way to solve the
difficulty. It is by the accumulation and study of _new facts_.
Discussions as to the historical phenomena might go on for ever and the
question still remain unsolved. The only way out of the difficulty is to
establish, if possible, the objective or the hallucinatory character of
these newer phenomena--if such are obtained--and from them draw
conclusions concerning the older manifestations. If these newer
phenomena turn out to be hallucinatory--in spite of all the testimony in
favour of their being objective--then it is highly probable that many of
the older phenomena were hallucinatory also. If, on the other hand, the
newer phenomena turn out to be physical and objective, then the
improbability of the older manifestations having been hallucinatory is
proportionately increased--until it becomes almost a certainty that they
were not so. For, if physical phenomena of a genuine character ever do
occur, the _a priori_ improbability is at once removed, and
thenceforward there is but little ground for objecting to the phenomena
in Home's case; and not only those, but the phenomena in the case of
Stainton Moses, and scores of others less well attested. The props would
have been knocked from beneath all logical scepticism of the historical
phenomena, once newer manifestations of the same type be proved true.
The whole case hinges upon the fact of whether or not such new facts as
may be forthcoming tend to prove either the one theory or the other.
Let us therefore turn to this newer evidence, and see which alternative
is rendered more probable by the phenomena in question.
This newer evidence is, of course, supplied by the case of Eusapia
Palladino. Here we find phenomena of a physical character recorded by
many men and women--including numerous eminent scientists--not one of
whom tolerates for a moment the idea that these phenomena are
hallucinatory. Indeed, the photographs of table levitations, of hands
and heads,[36] of instruments flying through the air,[37] and the
impressions left in cakes of plaster,[38] leave no doubt whatever that,
in this case, the phenomena--no matter how produced--are objective. This
conclusion is further supported by the fact that registering apparatus
has been employed, and has successfully recorded the results of physical
movements. From this, it is certain that real, objective facts have been
observed.[39] Whether the phenomena were due to fraud or were the
results of the operation of some supernormal force, or whatever their
explanation, they were certainly not due to hallucination.
Our own sittings, it seems to me, abundantly confirm this conclusion.
During the greater part of the time, when phenomena were in progress,
Eusapia was passive and silent: when she did speak, she did not suggest
anything to us directly, and even if she had done so, it would have been
in Italian--a language I do not understand. And yet I saw the
phenomena--the movements of objects, the hands and the heads, and felt
the touches--just as the others did: in fact, I think I may say _more_
frequently than either of my colleagues did. How was this? Eusapia only
"suggested" anything to us on three occasions, and on two of these we
failed to perceive what she wished us to see! On the other hand, we
frequently perceived what she did not "suggest" to us, and which came as
a complete surprise to us all. The expression "Oh!" occurring, as it
does, at several places in the notes, shows how unexpected the
manifestation was. When one's hair is suddenly and forcibly pulled by
living fingers, and when one is banged over the head by a closed fist,
and when one is grasped by a hand and pulled so forcibly as to almost
upset one into the cabinet--it requires a strong imagination to believe
that this is nothing but hallucination. Then, too, we all saw the
phenomenon at the same instant, invariably; and if one of us failed to
do so, it was always because there was a physical cause for it: the
curtain intervened, or something of a similar nature occurred. I need
hardly point out that this, in itself--looked at from one point of
view--is exceedingly strong evidence that the manifestation was not
hallucinatory, but objective. The unexpected nature of the majority of
the phenomena--when Eusapia was in deep trance, and we were doing all
the talking--renders the hypothesis of hallucination quite untenable, it
seems to me; at least, if any one chooses to defend it, he must give
some analogies and somewhat similar instances of the power of
suggestion--a task that will never be satisfactorily undertaken; of that
I am sure.
No; whatever be the interpretation of these phenomena, they are
certainly not hallucinatory. And if they were objective, it is almost
certain that the Home phenomena were objective also--since the parallel
between the two cases is often extremely close.
And this, it appears to me, is the only way of approaching this problem
that is liable to prove conclusive or trustworthy. Discussions of
historical phenomena will never settle anything one way or the other:
nothing is _proved_ thereby, one way or the other. The only conclusive
method, as Count Solovovo pointed out--and I heartily agree with him--is
the accumulation of _new facts_; and these new facts, when obtained,
have, it appears to me (and to my colleagues also), proved beyond all
question that the phenomena were genuine in at least some instances;
and, that once admitted, the _a priori_ doubts are removed, and the
historic phenomena raised to a standard of probability which amounts to
certitude. Some of the physical phenomena of spiritualism are
objective--real, external facts; and I am assured that they are not due
to fraud or trickery. Whatever their ultimate explanation, however, they
can no longer be said to be due to any form of hallucination in the
sitters.
FOOTNOTES:
[25] The chapter which follows originally appeared in the _Journal_ of
the American S.P.R. (December 1909), and was critical of the articles of
Miss Alice Johnson and Count Solovovo, which had previously appeared in
the English _Proceedings_. While the chapter is self-explanatory, it may
be well to say that Count Solovovo, in his original paper, considered
the "hallucination theory" as a possible explanation of certain physical
phenomena--such as those of D. D. Home--and, after a lengthy discussion,
came to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult to believe
that hallucination could account for all the observed facts. Miss
Johnson, in her reply, inclined rather more to the hallucination
theory--at least in some cases--and endeavoured to show how it might
have occurred on several occasions. My paper is critical of these
articles--chiefly Miss Johnson's; and I have here endeavoured to combat
the hallucination theory,--which I do not believe to have nearly so wide
a range as Miss Johnson supposes. The interested reader is referred to
the original papers, as well as to the discussion which follows; after
which he may decide for himself which seems to him the more rational
explanation of the facts.
[26] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. pp. 436-515.
[27] _Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism_, p. 92.
[28] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. p. 488.
[29] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. p. 487.
[30] Critics are apt to compare psychic phenomena to the links of a
chain--each phenomenon being a separate link. As the chain is only as
strong as its separate links, it has been pointed out, and as each case,
taken by itself, can be shown to be inconclusive, it is obvious that the
whole of psychic research comes to naught. This objection is met, it
seems to me, by the following consideration. Each separate case
represents, not the link of a chain, but the thread of a woven rope,
which, taken by itself, is extremely weak, but which, when placed beside
hundreds of others, becomes so strong as to be practically unbreakable.
[31] This appears to me to be rather an illusion than a pure
hallucination. Miss Johnson's own case appears to me to be an illusion
also. See the discussion of this point later on, however.
[32] _Journal_, vol. vi. p. 343.
[33] See _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_, pp. 386-93, and my
pamphlet _Hindu Magic_, for a discussion of these performances, and of
the theory of hallucination in connection therewith.
[34] See, e.g., Count Solovovo's position which he was driven to
accept--that the chair-threading witnessed by him was due to unconscious
telepathic suggestion! (p. 469). The position appears to me to be
absolutely untenable, in face of the evidence he himself adduces.
[35] An excellent example of an illusion generated by the conditions of
a spiritualistic seance is the following, which occurred to myself at
Lily Dale, N. Y., during my investigations there in the summer of 1907,
and which I reported in the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._, as
follows:--
"My sister 'Eva' materialized for me. I suggested 'Eva' and she 'came.'
I never had a sister Eva, so she was a little out of place. However, she
'came' as a little girl about ten years old, with a hooked nose, bright
black eyes, and a fringe of false hair over her forehead. Her doll-like
appearance was very manifest. After she de-materialized, I was on the
point of walking back to my chair, but was told to wait. I returned to
the curtains of the cabinet, and my mother announced herself present,
'who had died from consumption.' The curtains were pulled aside, and I
put my face close to the opening, since it was so dark I could see
nothing. And there, in the dim twilight of that seance room, I beheld
one of the most ghastly, most truly terrifying faces I have ever seen.
It was white and drawn, and almost shiny in its glossy, ashen hue. The
eyes were wide open and staring--fixed. The head and face were encircled
in white; and altogether the face was one of the most appalling I have
ever beheld, and it would have required a great deal of fortitude, for
the moment, to look steadfastly at that terrifying face--in that quiet,
still room, in response to the spirit's demand: 'Look at me!' The
distance between our faces was not more than six inches; and after the
first shock, I regarded the face intently. I was spurred by curiosity
and excitement, and prompted yet further by the spirit form, who grasped
my wrist, through the curtain, and drew me yet closer--until I was
nearly in the cabinet itself. I remembered that my mother had not died
from consumption, and that the present face in nowise resembled hers,
and my feeling of terror lasted but an instant; but it was there at the
time, I confess. I regarded the face intently, and it was gradually
withdrawn into the shadow of the cabinet, and the curtains pulled over
it. _I am certain that, had I been in an excited and unbalanced frame of
mind at that instant, I should have sworn that the face melted away as I
looked at it._ But my mental balance was by that time regained, and I
could analyse what was before me. I can quite easily see how it is that
persons can swear to the melting away of a face before their eyes, after
my own experience. The appearances clearly indicated that, and it was
only my alertness to the possibility of deception in this direction,
which prevented my testifying to the same effect." (See my _Personal
Experiences in Spiritualism_, pp. 31-32.)
[36] _Annals of Psychical Science_, April 1908, pp. 181-91.
[37] _Ibid._, April-June 1909, pp. 285-305.
[38] Flammarion: _Mysterious Psychic Forces_; Morselli: _Psicologia e
Spiritismo_; De Fontenay: _A Propos d'Eusapia Paladino_; De Rochas:
_L'Exteriorization de la Motricite_, etc.
[39] Why were Sir William Crookes' experiments with the spring balance
not discussed, by the way, in this connection? Here we have indubitable
proof of the objectivity of the phenomena; even Mr. Podmore being driven
to grant this, and suppose that the manifestations were the result of
some trick.--_Modern Spiritualism_, vol. ii. p. 242.