MEDIUMS
Inequality is the rule of the universe. It is particularly observable
in the characters and capacities of human beings. Many persons are
musicians; others are incapable of playing the simplest musical
instrument. A few individuals, here and there, are mathematicians; the
great majority of mankind are not even good arithmeticians. Artists
exist in considerable numbers; but they are sparse compared with the
duller souls. Chess-players are rarities. Really good, unselfish,
high-principled souls, steadfast in the practice of righteousness and
unswayed by prejudice, convention and dogma, are seldom met with.
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the possession of minds
and brains capable of being affected by external psychical influences
is not found to be a common characteristic of people in general. In
past ages, magicians, seers, wizards, witches and the like, have
been the exception, not the rule; and in modern times, when these
singularly-constituted beings are called “mediums,” their numbers still
remain very restricted. That real mediums do, in point of fact, exist
to some extent is certain. Thus, Sir Oliver Lodge says, in “Raymond”--
“Do we understand how a mind [= soul] can with difficulty and
imperfectly operate another body submitted to its temporary guidance
and control? No. _Do we know for a fact that it does?_ Aye, that is
the question--a question of evidence. I myself answer the question
affirmatively; not on theoretical grounds--far from that--_but on
a basis of straight forward experience_. Others, if they allow
themselves to take the trouble to get the experience, will come to
the same conclusions.... Let us be as cautious and critical, aye, and
as sceptical as we like, but let us also be patient and persevering
and fair; do not let us start with a preconceived notion of what is
possible and what is impossible in this almost unexplored universe;
let us only be willing to learn and be guided by facts, and not
dogmas: and gradually the truth will permeate our understanding and
make for itself a place in our minds as secure as in any other branch
of observational science.”
He says, moreover, when alluding to speaking with the dead--
“Communication is not easy, _but it occurs_; and humanity has reason
to be grateful to those few individuals who, finding themselves
possessed of the faculty of mediumship, and therefore able to act as
intermediaries, allow themselves to be used for this purpose.”
The nature of the peculiarities--anatomical, physiological or
psychical, or perhaps all three combined--that distinguish a medium
from other human beings is not yet known, and no means of inspection
as yet exist by which to be certain that any particular person is or
is not a medium. Actual experience is the only guide. This, of course,
leaves the door open to the fraudulent assumption of mediumship. But
the occurrence of fraud and imposture does not affect the existence of
genuine mediums. In every profession are to be found similar examples
of deceit. Have not all educated persons heard of “pious frauds”
perpetrated by the holders of high religious office? Are there not
many instances of ignorant, venal and deliberately unjust judges? Do
statesmen and politicians always reject bribes and act solely for
the good of their countries? Does a physician invariably admit his
inability to understand a complaint; and do general practitioners in
every case administer real medicines instead of the proverbial “bread
pills” and “coloured water”? Do manufacturers and traders deal solely
in unadulterated goods? When these questions can be satisfactorily
answered it will be time enough to put the entire profession of mediums
in the pillory; and until then all reasonable men and women will be
content to recognise that in mediumship, as in other pursuits, we must
expect to meet with both the worthy and the unworthy.
What, perhaps, is not yet fully recognised is that mediums are
much more numerous than would appear to be the case if regard be
had solely to the professional class, that is, to the persons who
practise mediumship as a means of livelihood. There are many amateur
“mediums”; and there are also many other individuals who are conscious
of possessing what are spoken of as “psychic powers,” and yet either
do not allow the fact to become known or confine the exercise of their
powers to the development of communications in their own private
surroundings. Hence, if every professional medium without exception
were shown to be a fraud--which is not the case now, and never has
been the case at any time--there would still remain an abundance of
trustworthy experiential and experimental evidence establishing the
reality of speaking with the dead. For instance, the Mrs. Kennedy
who plays such an important part in the story of “Raymond” is not a
professional medium at all; she is the wife of a London physician,
leads the life of an ordinary private English lady moving in good
society, and is not paid for any aid she may render to friends who are
desirous of “communicating.” So, too, the medium, Miss Goligher, who
assists Dr. Crawford is a young lady of private social position, who
gives her services with the approval and aid of her family and without
fee or reward, except, of course, such moral satisfaction as may arise
from the consciousness of being engaged in a work likely to benefit
mankind.
It often happens that mediums are ignorant and illiterate; and
there is not any case on record where a medium, whether educated or
uneducated, has been able to give an intelligible account of the way
in which communications with disembodied souls become possible. As a
general rule real mediums do not claim a greater knowledge of psychical
phenomena than is possessed by the sitters themselves. They are aware
that communications take place, and they find by actual experience that
they themselves serve as intermediaries. Beyond this they do not seek
to enquire; and they refrain from attempting in any way to control the
proceedings. They are passive instruments in the hands of the powers
from “the other side”; much as was the case, we read, with those
persons who gave voice to the oracles of old. In view of these facts
it seems to follow that the common practice of “testing” the mediums
and putting constraint upon them is a mere waste of time and attention.
If they be genuine they are, virtually, mere pieces of mechanism; and
all that can be done usefully is to observe the working. If they be
fraudulent this will quickly enough become self-evident. All that the
sitter need do is to bring a little common sense to bear.
It is a vexed question whether professional mediums are or are
not banded together in a secret craft or guild for the purpose of
collecting and interchanging information with regard to sitters and
their families. The suggestion of such a combination apparently implies
a doubt as to the good faith of mediums in general; but another
interpretation is possible. It must be remembered that old laws are
still in existence which forbid any exploitation of asserted psychical
powers. These laws have produced a long series of “common informers,”
who under various pretences arrange sittings with mediums for the
purpose of entrapping them into breaches of the law, irrespective
of whether the phenomena observed are or are not genuine. It would
therefore be a very natural proceeding for mediums to co-operate for
the object of self-protection. But as regards any attempts to “arrange”
the communications the futility of such proceedings is obvious. Sitters
turn up unexpectedly from all localities. They may or they may not
give their right names and addresses. Where the _séance_ takes place
at once there is not any opportunity of instituting any enquiry. And
it is perfectly clear that a medium in any particular locality cannot
keep in stock a mass of information with regard to private individuals
in the rest of the country. The “sceptic,” or critic, therefore, who
indulges in the belief that communications can be explained away by the
theory that all mediums are dishonest, and have been at every sitting
in previous possession of the information conveyed in the alleged
utterances of the spirits, is very much more credulous than the most
gullible sitter.
Although it is correct to regard the medium as a mechanism by means
of which the spirits are able to communicate with living persons, it
would be a mistake to overlook the fact that the mechanism possesses
an individuality which to some extent qualifies the communications.
Every man knows that his handwriting varies with every change of
pen. Delicate embroidery is not practicable with darning-needles. A
discarnate soul that finds itself compelled to use a medium’s hand
for writing or a medium’s vocal apparatus for speaking has to actuate
these organs by means of the medium’s brain, which may be, so to speak,
either coarse or fine, and in every case is attuned by the experiences
of its normal life. The medium’s habits of thought and expression thus
become intermingled with and sometimes quite override those of the
communicating spirit; and this “sophistication,” as it is termed, leads
frequently to much confusion and many errors of statement. It also
serves to accentuate in appearance the change of character, already
mentioned in these pages, that is often observed in disembodied
spirits when compared with their demeanour during life. Great care is
necessary, therefore, in judging how far communications through mediums
are to be taken at their face values. It is not a question of good
or bad faith. The point involved is whether any, and what, allowance
should be made for the imperfection of the instruments employed.
Many mediums--the great majority, in fact--assert, and are genuinely
convinced, that they work under the control of certain individual
spirits. This has always been claimed in magical circles; and a good
deal of evidence exists to support a belief in the reality of “familiar
spirits.” At the same time it is difficult for unprejudiced observers
to accept the idea of there being any spirits who are content to
dance attendance day and night and year after year upon human beings
of a very ordinary type and undistinguished by any great qualities
of soul. This difficulty is increased when consideration is given to
what is said with respect to the “controls” themselves. They adopt
names that are fantastic and arbitrarily assumed; they never give any
confirmable information as to their identities and abodes when in
life; their professed individualities--little Indian girls, Indian
_yogis_, Indian chiefs, unknown “doctors,” etc.--are constantly in
palpable contradiction with their own utterances and doings; and
they remain in evidence only so long as their respective mediums
continue in professional work. The theory is sometimes advanced that a
“control” is a “second personality” of the medium--a supposition that
meets the difficulties to which allusion has been made. But a “second
personality” is, in effect, a second soul, no matter what attempts may
be made to whittle down its meaning by talk of “sub-consciousness,”
“subliminal individuality” and the like. A person who has a second soul
is a person who is “possessed” by a spirit entering into the body from
the outside and sharing the habitat with its original tenant. It is
not necessary to infer that the brain and other bodily organs are used
simultaneously by the two souls: the trend of the available evidence
is, on the contrary, to show that the normal soul is commonly in sole
control and that it is only occasionally that the supernormal occupant
takes the reins. But the theory in question does undoubtedly compel a
modification of the view usually entertained with regard to mediums.
Not only must they all be looked upon as human beings of exceptional
physical and psychical characteristics, but in the majority of cases
they must be classed in the category of persons who are “possessed.”
Fortunately the “controls” are rarely, if ever, of a completely evil
nature; but there is reason to think that they are occasionally of a
type lower than souls in general. Idiocy and insanity are not always
accompanied by any clearly-defined disease or malformation of the
brain, and in such cases may possibly result from what may be termed
the clumsy intermeddling of two distinct souls--both being of an
inferior order--in the same bodily environment.
The subject here discussed is not a light and negligible matter where
speaking with the dead is concerned. Very many persons find it both
convenient and desirable to employ mediums as intermediaries, and in
almost every instance this means the additional intervention of some
“control.” Here, again, it will be useful to make a quotation from
“Raymond,” the most satisfactory work yet published on “survival” and
“communication,” and a well-filled storehouse of fact and reasoning.
“But however much,” says Sir Oliver Lodge, “can be and has been
written on this subject, and whatever different opinions may be
held, it is universally admitted that the _dramatic semblance_ of
the control is undoubtedly that of a separate person [_i.e._ a soul
distinct from the normal soul of the medium]--a person asserted to
be permanently existing on the other side and to be occupied on that
side in much the same functions as the medium is on this. The duty
of controlling and transmitting messages seems to be laid upon such
a one--it is his special work. The dramatic character of most of the
controls is so vivid and self-consistent, that whatever any given
sitter or experimenter may feel is the probable truth concerning
their real nature, the simplest way is to humour them by taking them
at their face value and treating them as separate and responsible
and real individuals. It is true that in the case of some mediums,
especially when overdone or tired, there are evanescent and absurd
intrusions every now and then, which cannot be seriously regarded.
Those have to be eliminated; and for anyone to treat them as real
people would be ludicrous; but undoubtedly the serious controls show
a character and personality and memory of their own, and they appear
to carry on as continuous an existence as anyone else whom one only
meets occasionally for a conversation.”
There is not anything in this weighty expression of opinion that really
clashes with the “possession” theory, except, indeed, the suggestion
that the controls are persons “permanently existing on the other
side”--a suggestion which is in obvious conflict with the admission
that controls are in constant attendance on mediums in this world. What
Sir Oliver means by “evanescent and absurd intrusions” that “cannot
be seriously regarded” or treated as “real people” is also not clear,
but probably refers to some form of “sophistication” resulting from a
derangement of the transmitting mechanism. In any case the conclusion
remains that the transmission takes place through a combination of
medium-_cum_-control; and this may in great measure explain the
apparent psychical sensitiveness of mediums. That is to say, the reason
why mediums are particularly subject to spiritual influence from the
outside may be due to the fact of their possessing, or being possessed
by, a secondary semi-attached soul which is comparatively free to
perceive and attend to the efforts made by external spirits to open up
communication.