We have been pursuing the rigorous rule of estimating a percipient
drawing by its correspondence or lack of correspondence with the agent
drawing then in hand. Only when Mrs. Sinclair announced in advance that
a described drawing would come in a series, and it actually came, have
we given weight to an anticipation. Such an instance was that of the
snow and sled drawing of February 8th. This is not by any means to say
that other “anticipations” have not had weight, as a matter of fact. In
some of the instances exhibited in _Mental Radio_ the original drawings
represented objects of such character that it was extremely unlikely
that there should be a near correspondence among the half dozen or dozen
reproductions constituting the whole series, or in fifty guesses.
Again, there could be a series with so many of these correspondences out
of order that one is mathematically[24] and logically compelled to
acknowledge that there was anticipation. Such a series is that of
February 11, 1929.
1. _Agt._, a molar tooth; _Per._, an ellipse containing 19 tiny circles.
This is emphatically a failure compared with the contemporaneous
original drawing. However, see No. 12. Before the drawing was made, the
percipient wrote “First see rooster. Then elephant.”
2. And now _Agt.’s_ drawing _was_ an elephant, as far back as but
lacking hind legs. And _Per._ wrote “Elephant comes again. I try to
suppress it, and see lines, and a spike sticking some way into
something.” And she draws two vertical lines, related to each other in
ribbon fashion, what looks like a pin with circle for head, crossing the
band through a slit indicated by two short vertical lines, and below the
“spike” two widely separated vertical lines. The “spike” crosses what I
have called a ribbon exactly as the elephant’s tusk crosses his trunk,
the round eye of the elephant has moved slightly to form the head of the
“spike,” and the vertical lines below may stand for a feeling that
_something_ (really the front legs) should be below. We have some
warrant for our interpretation from the words “Elephant comes again. I
try to suppress it.” Had she not tried to suppress it (because of the
erroneous notion that it is but a memory of the elephant impression of
Experiment 1), it is fair to assume that she would have tried to draw an
elephant. She “tried to suppress” the animal, but his eye and “spike,”
which was really “sticking into something,” but not in the manner drawn,
seem to have persisted. (See Figs. 66, 66a.)
3. And now _Agt._ _did_ draw a rooster. Both elephant and rooster, with
which she was impressed at Experiment 1, had come by the time Experiment
3 had been reached. This is rather too much for “chance coincidence,”
especially as the Sinclairs do not have an elephant among their domestic
pets. But this is not all. As _Per._ not only announced an elephant in
advance but got details of the elephant when that animal actually was in
hand as the original, so not only was a rooster announced in advance but
when the original is a rooster, _Per._ gets correspondences. She writes
“I don’t know what, see a bunch, or tuft clearly. Also a crooked arm on
a body. But don’t feel that I’m right.” What she drew was remarkably
like the rear three-quarters of the rooster, the “tuft” representing its
tail, “the crooked arm” its two legs in conjunction. (See Figs. 67,
67a.)
4. _Agt._, a table; _Per._, “Flower. This is a very vivid one.
Green-spine-leaves like century plant,” and a corresponding drawing with
tall flowering spike in the center. (See Fig. 68a.) A flat failure, but
wait for Experiments 7 and 11.
5. _Agt._, a fishhook; _Per._, no drawing but script: “Dog wagging
tail—see tail in air busy wagging—jolly doggie—tail curled in the air.”
Well, a fishhook _is_ somewhat like a tail curled in the air. But script
followed: “Now I see a cow. I fear the elephant and chicken got me too
sure of animals. But I see these.” A tail curled in the air—a dog or a
cow! Wait for No. 7.
6. _Agt._, a sun represented by a large circle surrounded by rays;
_Per._, “Setting sun and bird in the sky. Big bird on wing—sea gull or
wild goose.” Obviously this is a partial success.
7. _Agt._, what was intended for the rear half of a cow, with tail
curled almost exactly like a fishhook. Remember that in No. 5 _Per._ had
an impression of a dog with “tail curled in the air” and a later
impression of a cow. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sinclair’s cow does not
have a cow’s tail but one made in the fashion of a hound’s tail. _Per._
in this No. 7 experiment makes a drawing like that of No. 4, except that
the central spike is not so long, and writes “This is a _real_ flower.
I’ve seen it before. It’s vivid and returns. Century plant. Now it turns
into a candlestick. See a candle.” And she drew what she probably meant
for a five-armed candlestick, with one candle in the center. But it is
much like the plant called “cat-tail,” except that the leaves diverge
too widely. (See Fig. 69a.)
8. _Agt._, a long line with seven short evenly-spaced lines running from
it at right angles—probably meant for a rake-head; _Per._, what is
probably intended for two sticks of wood, fire proceeding from one of
them, and smoke above. Script: “Fire and smoke—flame.” Also, “Must be
campfire as I now see an Indian warrior near it in a war dress—feathered
headpiece, etc.” There is a certain amount of resemblance between the
rake-head and the stick of wood with the more or less straight lines
springing from one side of it. (See Fig. 43a.) And one remembers that an
Indian headdress, of the type which hangs down the back, consists of
feathers on one side and directed outwardly from the band to which they
are attached. But these are only suggested possibilities of connection,
and are doubtful. There is even another possible connection, for it may
be that “Fire and smoke” was influenced by the cannon of the following
original.
9. _Agt._, the forward part of an old-style cannon, a double-line
ellipse marking its mouth seen in perspective; _Per._, the half of a
double-line ellipse with a curving tangle as of smoke, labeled “Fire,”
and outside the script: “Half circle, double lines—light inside—light is
fire busy whirling or flaming.” Partly right and very suggestive. (See
Fig. 44a.)
10. _Agt._, three concentric triangles; _Per._, two wheels and over them
the suggestion of some vehicle-body—only a line and two angles. Failure.
11. _Agt._, a “cat-tail,” its leaves by no means correctly drawn, but
there is no doubt of its identity; _Per._, a drawing doubtfully marked
“Dog’s head,” its ears, if such they are, also its muzzle, long and
pointed, much resembling the upper halves of Mr. Sinclair’s cat-tail
leaves. But remember Mrs. Sinclair’s “century plant” of No. 2 with its
somewhat similar leaves and its central spike; remember especially the
“candlestick” of No. 7, which so much resembles a cat-tail. (See Figs.
69a, 70, 70a.)
12. _Agt._, ten small circles arranged in rows, pyramidal fashion;
_Per._ wrote only “Nothing except all the preceding ones come—too many
at once—all past ones crowding in memory.” I wish she had stated which
past one, if any, crowded most, and which came first. For it happens
that her drawing for No. 2, so different from the impressions “a
rooster” and “an elephant,” set down at the same time, also consisted of
little circles, also in rows, but more in number and enclosed within an
elliptical line.
13. _Agt._, a drinking-glass with double elliptic line at the top and
small ellipse indicating the bottom; _Per._, double elliptic line above,
same below with indefinite lines rising from the latter. The script is
more significant: “Think of a saucer, then of a cup. It’s something in
the kitchen. Too tired to see.” Pretty close. (See Figs. 72, 72a.)
The occurrence of so many correspondences, direct and oblique, among
thirteen consecutive experiments constituting the entire series
performed at one time, and these by mere accidental coincidence, is
practically unthinkable.