CHAPTER VII

FRAUD AND ERROR

This work would be incomplete, if I did not carefully examine fraud

and errors of observation. The first should always be considered as

possible. Errors of observation are even more numerous than fraud, and

their sources are manifold. We should study them, learn their causes,

and suspect them until the contrary has been proved.

I. FRAUD

Fraud can be conscious, unconscious, or mixed. I have no need to say

how frequent the first is, especially with paid mediums. Spiritistic

reviews, notably the Revue Spirite, Revue Morale et Scientifique du

Spiritisme, Light, Psychische Studien, give many examples of fraud

discovered by spiritists themselves. Unconscious fraud is no less

common than conscious fraud; as for the third, mixed fraud, this is

also very often observed.

_Conscious fraud._—(_a_) _Raps._ Nothing is easier to imitate. I have

indicated the diverse ways of reproducing them artificially: gliding

the finger or nail along the top of the table, with or without the help

of resin; rapping with the feet; gliding the foot or dress—especially

silk dresses—against the legs of table, etc. These diverse movements

imitate feeble raps to perfection, if they be slowly made. For that

reason I have always refused to consider raps as convincing when

produced with any contact whatever. Consequently I exclude raps

produced on the floor from those phenomena which have determined my

conviction. Certain persons seem to be able to move their tendons at

will, even making a considerable noise in that way. I observed this

with a medical student who, by resting his elbow on the table, produced

very sonorous raps; but the movement of his arm was easily seen. I know

another person who could crack his joints at will.

The play of the knee-joint has been especially incriminated by Mrs.

Sidgwick in her article ‘The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism’

(_Proceedings of the S.P.R._ xiii. 45). She recalls to mind the

interpretations given by Drs. Lee, Flint, and Coventry, who observed

Mrs. Kane and Mrs. Underhill, two of the famous Fox sisters. Mrs.

Sidgwick experimented with the third sister, Mrs. Jencken, and accepted

the explanation of the American doctors. For them, the double raps

were produced by a rapid movement of dislocation and readjustment of

the knee. By placing in such a position as to render that voluntary

dislocation impossible, _e.g._ by making the medium sit down with

outstretched legs and heels resting on a soft cushion, no raps were

forthcoming. It is possible that the explanation of the American

doctors may be true concerning the case examined by them. In those

which I have studied, it is certainly not acceptable. I have obtained

raps on a table without any kind of contact whatsoever. I have obtained

them on the floor, by placing the medium in positions which excluded

the play of articulation. The kind of fraud in question was not

therefore in operation. I have even made some mediums sit on my knees

when raps were forthcoming; I then made sure the raps were produced on

the table, and that the latter was not touched. My conclusion as to the

reality of the phenomenon of raps is the result of nearly two hundred

observations.

In obscurity, the means of cheating are unimaginable. I saw a young

medium, who had succeeded in concealing a stick, simulate raps on

the ceiling with it. I have known two others hit the table with

their fists, kick it with their feet, etc. Everything is possible in

darkness, and with certain confiding observers.

(_b_) _Parakinesis_, or abnormal movements of objects with contact.

I have often said that all movements with contact—except certain

levitations which are, however, difficult to observe with precision—are

worthless. I have indicated the chief ways of simulating levitations,

either by the hands, the feet or the knees. I will not revert to this.

These methods are difficult in full light, but when the experimenters

are placed in such a position as to be unable to keep a reciprocal

watch over the feet, the second method is still easily brought into

play.

(_c_) _Telekinesis._—Fraud is more difficult to perpetrate here. A

connecting link of some kind or other would be required to move objects

possessing a certain weight and bulk. I look upon this phenomenon as

most convincing, when it is obtained in full light; in obscurity, it is

to a certain extent unverifiable.

(_d_) _Luminous phenomena_ are easily simulated; phosphorescent oil

and certain sulphides give excellent imitations of hands and forms.

I have seen a photograph taken by magnesian light in a seance for

materialisation. The medium, by way of imitating a materialised garment

of some kind, had wound a white cloth around his neck, and moreover

wore a false beard. Those present at this seance will not admit they

were cheated. One of the sitters, a friend of mine, one familiar with

psychical matters, but too honest himself to suspect fraud in others,

did not think my judgment in this case was correct. It was necessary to

have it confirmed by the celebrated Papus!

As for the phenomenon of _attouchements_, this is of all phenomena the

most easily simulated in obscurity.

Every one knows the rôle played by dolls, disguises and confederates

in seances for materialisation. The trickster’s imagination is of

inconceivable fertility. The recent Rothe trial gives us a fresh

example of this.

(_e_) _Motor and sensory automatisms_ can be imitated with extreme

facility, and their efficacious control is impossible. A careful

analysis of the messages is necessary in order to appreciate their

value. On the other hand, well-observed premonitions are of immense

importance.

From the preceding, we see that all psychical phenomena can be

simulated; this does not mean that every psychical phenomenon is

simulated. Those who wish to explain away everything by fraud make as

great a mistake, as those who trustingly accept everything without

control.

There is an important general observation to be made concerning the

phenomena I am treating in this book. It is of historical order, but

nevertheless it gives a much wider signification to these facts than

is usually accorded them. Many writers, Janet among them, imagine that

_spiritistic_ phenomena, as they call them, date from the celebrated

events of Rochester, about the year 1847, where the Fox sisters were

the objects of diverse manifestations. But in reality these facts date

much further back. One of the best observed cases is the one spoken

of by Dr. Kerner in his book _Die Seherin von Prevorst_, which has

been translated by Dr. Dusart into French, probably from Mrs. Crowe’s

English translation. Kerner observed raps and movements without contact

from the year 1827, when he had Madame Hauff staying in his house.

Phenomena of the same kind are to be met with in accounts of haunted

houses. There are stories of this kind dating from remote epochs, and

diverse decrees of parliament exist cancelling leases for this cause.

These phenomena were criticised at the end of the eighteenth century.

It is only the metaphysical system founded upon these facts which is

new. It is in that, and in that only, that spiritism or spiritualism

consists. It is undeniable that the doctrine embodying the essence of

these teachings has attained a considerable extension. I pointed out

the radical differences existing between the beliefs of Anglo-Saxon

spiritists and those of spiritists of other nationalities, particularly

in that which concerns reincarnation. I will not go back to this;

but in order to specify the point in question, I will recall to mind

that the only new phenomena which spiritistic forms of contemporary

mysticism offer, are their constitution into a body of religious

doctrines and their rapid extension. These phenomena are of

sociological, not biological order. The facts upon which they are based

belong, on the contrary, to biology.

Further, it is not absolutely true to say, that the metaphysical

theories established upon the revelations of spirits are new. The

life of some of the ‘saints’ in the Roman Church offers us several

examples, one of the most celebrated being the devotion to the _Sacrè

Cœur de Jésus_,’ a special kind of worship based upon revelations

claimed to have been accorded to a nun named Marie Alacoque, who

lived in the eighteenth century. Monastic life has not the monopoly

of such experiences. Commerce with spirits appears to be likewise one

of the elements of the religious ceremonies of the Shakers; even the

Mormons seem to indulge in practices similar to those of spiritism;

Jérôme Cardan, John Dee, Martinez de Pasqually pass for having held

intercourse with immaterial beings; members of the order of the Red

Cross have also been looked upon as holding frequent intercourse with

diverse genii. If we study the history of human thought, we see that

nothing is really new, nothing save perhaps the contemporary extension

of spiritism. From many points of view, spiritism appears to play a

rôle in the civilised, sceptical, material society of to-day, analogous

to the simple rôle which Christianity played in the second and third

centuries of our era.

But this is a sociological problem; its examination, however

interesting it may be, would lead me beyond the limits I have traced

for myself. I will confine myself, therefore, to drawing from the

brief historical account I have just given, the conclusion it admits

of. The facts studied by Janet and others are anterior to spiritism,

and cannot be legitimately designated by this name. I have already

indicated that this word expresses an _ensemble_ of metaphysical and

religious doctrines explaining psychical phenomena by the intervention

of spirits, and drawing their teachings from the revelations attributed

to these same spirits. It is terminologically incorrect to designate

these facts by a word which has a wider signification, since it

expresses an explanatory hypothesis of these same facts.

Custom has consecrated the word ‘psychical’ facts or phenomena: this

term is also imperfect, and it seems to me preferable to adopt the new

term _Metapsychical_ which Richet recommends.

Therefore, in the actual state of research, the scientific problem, it

seems to me, is not whether spiritism be true or false, but whether

metapsychical phenomena be real or imaginary.

As Richet and Ochorowicz have said, every medium may defraud, and the

analysis of fraud is one of the most complicated problems which the

study of psychical phenomena presents. It is also one of the most

interesting. The Cambridge[37] experiments with Eusapia Paladino put

clearly before us the question of fraud and its signification.

[37] See Appendix B.

Before entering upon the psychological examination of fraud, it appears

to me necessary to explain the signification of the terms I am going to

use, and after that to classify medianic phenomena.

It is of primary importance to determine the correct signification

of the expression _consciousness_.[38] There are few words in

philosophical language which have such diverse acceptations. As my

conception of consciousness is somewhat special without at the same

time being peculiar to me, I owe it to my readers to say what I mean to

designate by this term.

[38] The French have but one word to express what is meant in

English by the word _Conscience_ (_i.e._ the principle which

decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions or

desires), and the word _Consciousness_ (_i.e._ the being aware,

the knowing of one’s own thoughts). Nevertheless we consider

this chapter could ill spare this masterly synthesis.—_Note of

Translator._

I conceive consciousness, _lato sensu_, as a function of living matter.

It is the particular state which determines in organised and living

matter another state of the centre where this matter lives. It is,

if you like, a kind of reaction of the living matter in harmony with

external phenomena. This mode of reaction, like every other mode of

reaction, allows of two conditions: some sort of sensibility to the

action of the ambient, permitting variations thereof to be felt; some

sort of activity which permits of realising an adaptation to the

ambient, and of producing internal modifications corresponding, in

some measure, to the perceived external modifications. In order that

the internal modifications may realise this equilibrium, they must not

go beyond a certain amplitude, whence the theoretic necessity for the

_sensibility_ to be always apprised of the internal modifications of

the living substance, as it perceives the external modifications of the

ambient.

Experience proves that in reality things do happen in this way.

In fact, we are able in the animal kingdom to prove the existence

of special organs, some of them destined to the perception of the

successive states of the ambient and of the individual, the others to

the active realisation of the latter to the former. The different

modifications provoked in the _receptive_ system by the variations of

the ambient, determine in their turn the intervention of the _active_

system which realises the internal variations. This is the principle of

the nervous and muscular systems, the latter being only put into play

by the former; natural history shows us the progressive specialisation

of these nervous and muscular elements. At first non-differentiated

in appearance, the animal cell presents in more complicated animals a

sensitive pole and an active pole, the one nervous, the other muscular.

The myo-epithelial or neuro-muscular cells offer us a classical example

in the hydra.

The examination of the development of the nervous system and of

the muscular system in the vertebrata shows us their growing

specialisation. The nervous cells are associated in systems more

or less dependent the one upon the other; the muscular cells are

accumulated into masses. This is the application of that law of the

division of labour, the constant operation of which we observe in all

the phenomena of life. The nervous cells are grouped together in a

heap, in a nucleus, and send their prolongations to the periphery or

to the organs. These prolongations are of two kinds: some transmit

impressions towards the cell (dendrites prolongations), others transmit

excitations proceeding from the cell (cylindraxes prolongations).[39]

The centres themselves are hierarchised, so to speak, and are divided

into two wide categories: the first destined to the functions of

organic life, circulation, secretions, digestion, etc.; the second

to those of the life of relation. These two categories include the

sensitive cells and the motor cells; the one transmits to the other

the stimulus born of excitations provoked by the internal or external

centres.

[39] _Dendrites_, nerves conducting the influx towards the

centre of the cell.

_Cylindraxes_, nerves conducting from the cell towards the

periphery or towards another cell.

In superior animals, at any rate in man, we observe that the activity

of certain nervous centres is accompanied by a particular phenomenon,

which is designated under the name of _personal_ consciousness. It is

the notion we have that the phenomenon is perceived by us, that the

movement executed is executed by us.

Personal consciousness does not accompany all perceived phenomena, nor

all executed movements. Certain given conditions of diverse orders

appear necessary, for the consciousness to become aware of these

phenomena. This conscious consciousness is translated by the connection

of the impression or of the movement with a personality.

This personality looks to us as though it were continuous. It is around

it that our past impressions are grouped in the form of souvenirs. It

is that which continues the ‘self.’

The consciousness I have just described is what I call the _personal

consciousness_. The notion of personality which characterises it is not

invariable, and is not necessary.

It is not invariable, because the study of morbid psychology reveals

to us that different personalities can succeed one another in the same

individual, or even appear to be concomitant. This is notably the case

with secondary personalities in hysteria or in epilepsy.

It is not necessary, for diverse phenomena can be perceived and stored

up in the memory without the personal consciousness being conscious

thereof; in the same way, movements adapted to a certain purpose may

be executed without the personal consciousness being warned thereof:

such are notably the reflex and complicated movements, which custom has

rendered automatic.

The result of these facts is that the personal consciousness is

manifested as a limitation of the general consciousness, of what I

will simply call _the consciousness_. The study of the alterations of

memory notably—diverse amnesiæ, hypermnesiæ, paramnesiæ—shows us that

those souvenirs of which the general and impersonal consciousness has

the free disposition are incomparably more numerous than those at the

disposal of the personal consciousness. This is incontestable as far

as memory is concerned; is it so with intelligence? It is hard to say;

there are, however, numerous examples of problems solved and of work

accomplished without the knowledge of the personal consciousness.

Anatomy and physiology inform us, that personal consciousness is

manifested in phenomena, which appear to have their seat in certain

regions on the surface of the cerebral hemispheres. The cortical

region seems to be appropriated, at least in part, by psychological

phenomena, of which personality is the centre, active memory,

attention, judgment, abstraction, will. It is for this reason that

this region is called ‘the superior centres.’ Underneath this region

the cerebral sub-cortical ganglions, the bulbous and medullary nuclei,

the sympathetic ganglions, and the plexus constitute the inferior

centres which preside over certain functions foreign to the personal

consciousness.

However, it must not be thought that the activity of the cortical

centres is always perceived by the personal consciousness. That of

the motor centres, for example, may exist unknown to the personal

consciousness. I have already given the indication of certain

complicated movements which can be voluntary and personally conscious

in the beginning, and become, in the end, unconscious and yet

voluntary; _e.g._ the playing of a musical instrument. Likewise,

certain involuntary movements can sometimes be perceived by the

personal consciousness; _e.g._ the rapid movement we make in chasing

away a fly which is worrying us. If the centre motors of the arm which

drives away the fly be sub-cortical or medullary, it is none the less

true that the movements executed, even when they appear to be pure

reflex movements, can sometimes be perceived.

Movements executed without the participation of the personal

consciousness and will are called _automatic_. This expression

signifies for me, that the voluntary activity of the personality

remains foreign to the movement executed.

Therefore, in the motor sphere, that is to say in movements, we

may have different relations between the movement executed and the

personal consciousness. We have, first of all, conscious and voluntary

movements; then involuntary or impulsive movements, perceived or

unperceived by the personal consciousness.

These diverse movements are normal: that is to say, they are executed

according to the recognised rules of muscular activity; they do not go

beyond the peripheral limit of the body; the nervous influx is diffused

along the nerves in the ordinary manner.

If the nervous influx, or more correctly speaking, the mode of

energy which constitutes it, goes beyond the material limits of

the body, we have phenomena designated by de Rochas under the name

of _extériorisation de la motricité_. These are again automatic

phenomena for me, since the personal consciousness and the will do not

participate in them. But they present a feature which distinguishes

them from normal automatisms: they are _exosomatic_, if I may use that

expression, while the others are _endosomatic_. These two expressions

signify for me, the one exosomatic, that the movements are produced

beyond the limits of the body; the other endosomatic, that they are

produced within the limits of the body, that is to say by muscular

activity acting physiologically. The first, which are apparently

contrary to the ordinary data of experience, are paranormal phenomena,

that is to say, outside the usual rule; the second, on the contrary,

are normal. Parakinesis is a paranormal movement with contact;

telekinesis is a paranormal movement without contact.

Sensibility presents the same categories of facts. Properly speaking

there is no veritable automatism in phenomena of sensitivity; but

we can nevertheless distinguish therein, first, normal sensitive

phenomena—that is to say, phenomena produced under physiological

conditions, more or less well-known, but frequent, such as

hallucinations, hypermnesiæ; and second, paranormal phenomena, that is

to say, phenomena which imply the existence of modes of perception to

which the normal personality is foreign—clairvoyance, clairaudience,

tele-æsthesia, telepathy (Myers, Gurney, Podmore), exteriorisation of

motor power (de Rochas).

I have already indicated that these perceptions appear to depend upon

the _impersonal_ consciousness, and that the impressions thus perceived

are transmitted to the personal consciousness in a given form analogous

to that of dream perceptions—that is to say, in a dramatic form,

with a concrete and symbolical setting. The impersonal consciousness

seems, therefore, to be affected in a vague, general manner: the

perceptions only assume an appearance of precision in those strata of

the consciousness, where the notion of personality is determined. Hence

the following conclusions, which I only give as probabilities: (1) that

the notion of personality is susceptible of diverse degrees; (2) that

the impressions perceived by the general consciousness are agreeable or

disagreeable—that is to say, only impart to the personal consciousness

a very vague message, moral comfort or indefinable discomfort; that,

in rarer cases, the transmitted message is more precise, and takes the

form of a detailed hallucination; (3) that, if telepathy exists, the

general consciousness is capable of being affected by channels other

than those of the ordinary senses, which have only a value in ratio to

the personal consciousness of which they are, perhaps, the condition.

This last consideration brings us back to the definition which I gave

a little while ago of consciousness, which is, for me, the common

property of all living matter: its sensuality is limited and specified

by the _senses_, is limited and specified by the personality and the

will.

I beg the reader to excuse me for having entered into these

explanations. I wished, as I said before, to state as clearly as

possible the meanings I attach to the terms I use; I have still another

task to accomplish somewhat similar to the last: which is to classify

medianic phenomena before studying their relations with fraud. In the

first place I divide them into two wide categories, each capable of

penetrating into the other, for, with the exception of luminosities,

physical phenomena are rarely devoid of all meaning, and intellectual

phenomena have always some fact of a physical nature as substratum.

Therefore, these two categories are two _different aspects_ of the same

phenomena rather than two distinct categories.

If we consider the purely physical side, we have the following

approximate series:—

PHYSICAL PHENOMENA

_Sonorous._—Raps; diverse noises.

_Motor._—Normal; paranormal; parakinesis; telekinesis.

_Luminous._—Amorphous; definite forms; psychic (?) photography.

If we consider the form of communications, in appearance intelligent,

by adhering to the mode of expression of the _intellectual_ sense of

the phenomena, we have the following classification:—

INTELLECTUAL PHENOMENA: ENDOSOMATIC AUTOMATISM

_Muscular._—Typtology; grammatology; automatic script; automatic

speaking.

_Sensorial._—Visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory phenomena.

_Vaso-Motor._—Secretory phenomena; vascular phenomena; perspirations,

etc.

EXOSOMATIC AUTOMATISM

(_Exteriorisations_): _Motor._—Telekinesis; psychography (direct

writing); psychophony (direct voice).

—— _Sensitive-Sensorial._—Telepathy; telæsthesia.

—— _Plastic._—Materialisations; apports, etc.

On the other hand, if we examine fraud in a general manner, we

will notice the following correspondences: the words conscious and

unconscious are taken in the sense of the personal consciousness:—

_Motricity: normal._ 1. Conscious and Conscious voluntary

voluntary fraud. Simulation;

movements. responsibility.

—— —— 2. Conscious but Conscious impulsive

involuntary fraud. Simulation;

movements. irresponsibility.

—— —— 3. Unconscious and Impulsive and

involuntary unconscious fraud;

movements. irresponsibility.

—— _paranormal._ 4. Exteriorisation of No fraud.

motricity and

plasticity;

telekinesis;

materialisations.

_Sensibility: normal._ 5. Voluntary Voluntary and

falsehood. conscious fraud.

Simulation;

responsibility.

_Sensibility: normal._ 6. Illusions; No fraud; no real

hallucinations; phenomenon.

hypermnesiæ;

paramnesiæ.

—— _paranormal._ 7. Exteriorisation of No fraud; real

the sensibility; phenomena.

clairaudience;

telepathy;

clairvoyance.

As for true exosomatic automatism, there can be no question of fraud

as far as it is concerned. This classification, which I only give as

an experiment, appears to me more complete than that of Ochorowicz’s

(_Annales de Sciences Psychiques_, vi. 97). The latter distinguishes—

(_a_) Conscious fraud.

(_b_) Unconscious fraud:

in the waking state } Medianity of an

in the trance state } inferior order.

(_c_) Partial, automatic fraud } Medianity of a

(_d_) The pure phenomenon } superior order.

If we compare Ochorowicz’s table with mine we will notice that his

conscious fraud corresponds to Nos. 1 and 5 of my classification.

His unconscious fraud to No. 3.

I divide his partial, automatic fraud into the classes 2, 3, and 6.

The pure phenomenon into the classes 4 and 7.

His superior medianity includes all exosomatic automatisms (Nos. 4 and

7); his inferior medianity, the classes 3 and 6.

These general indications given, it is easy to see that I divide

fraud into three categories, which are, moreover, susceptible of

co-existing and of forming mixed types: this is the ordinary case. We

have, first of all, the guilty, voluntary and conscious fraud; then

the impulsive, but conscious, frequent fraud; then the unconscious and

involuntary fraud, veritable normal automatism: the author cannot be

held responsible for this last order of fraud, which is, moreover, very

frequent with many excellent mediums.

If we study the psychological mechanism of fraud, we will find variable

and diverse causes.

1. CONSCIOUS AND VOLUNTARY FRAUD

The most usual cause is self-interest. This is the case with

charlatans, who speculate upon the credulity of the public. We must

not think this is the only motive; each impostor obeys motives which

are peculiar to himself. The medical student, who gave me such curious

examples of fraud, was not actuated by motives of self-interest. I

think it was simply for the pleasure of cheating, of taking me in, for

I had often spoken to him about my suspicions. He often cheated simply

as a prank; this is what happened in a seance given by a spiritistic

group to convince some new converts, when my student, it appears, gave

them manifestations somewhat out of the common!

However, conscious and voluntary fraud raise no real psychological

problem.

2. CONSCIOUS AND INVOLUNTARY OR MIXED FRAUD

On the contrary, the problem originates in this order of fraud. It

often happens in circles, though composed of honourable persons, that

some of the sitters, who would be incapable of voluntarily committing a

fraud, do not dare to accuse themselves of an involuntary movement made

by them, and of which they are conscious. This can only be applied to

fairly rapid movements, such as those which imitate raps or parakinetic

movements. In serious seances, the sitters should give themselves the

habit of openly acknowledging every involuntary movement; it will be

noticed that certain persons are very prone to these movements. They

often end by being ashamed of accusing themselves so often, and thus

fraud from timidity: I have met with this, especially among women. It

is one of the reasons which make me condemn all experiments for the

production of movements with contact.

Timidity is the usual cause of this kind of fraud: the psychological

problem raised is simple.

3. UNCONSCIOUS AND INVOLUNTARY FRAUD

Here the problem becomes complicated. I will not distinguish, as

Ochorowicz does, fraud committed in the waking state from fraud

committed in the trance or second state. The psychological mechanism

is the same in both cases, and appears to me to depend upon

self-suggestion, or what has been called _monoïdeism_, that is to say,

the mind is invaded by one idea, which ends by stifling all others, and

by realising itself: it is, in reality, a phenomenon analogous to that

determined by suggestion.

It is in unconscious or involuntary frauds, that the psychological

disaggregation of the medium which Janet has studied, is best observed.

These frauds present phenomena which are without interest from a

medianic point of view.

What is the mechanism of unconscious and involuntary frauds? It appears

to me to be the following: the subjects—they may have been good

mediums in their day—who commit this kind of fraud sit down to the

table, or give a seance in view of obtaining supernormal phenomena.

But the production of these phenomena is often difficult, sometimes

impossible. Immobility, expectation, and obscurity act powerfully upon

the nervous system of these mediums, and particularly so when they are

hysterical. They determine the trance; the desire for the phenomenon

becomes a fixed idea, and then a self-suggestion. If the supernormal

phenomenon delays, the inferior strata of the consciousness—_whose

morality often differs greatly from that of the active personal

consciousness_—realises it normally.

In the same way, even if the sensitive does not fall into the trance

state, there is, nevertheless, a particular state manifested which is

not sleep, neither is it the full, genuine waking-state. The active

and voluntary personal element of the consciousness, as well as the

judgment, becomes weakened. The sphere of the personality is reduced,

and personal activity gives place to automatism. Every degree between

conscious and involuntary fraud and pure automatism is to be met with.

Therefore, it is prudent to take measures to guard against fraud with

all subjects who become entranced, or with those who become somnolent

in obscurity, silence, immobility, and expectation; but we should be

frank with our sensitives: let us not offer, in ourselves, an example

of dissimulation to the medium; neither must we let him have the

impression of not being controlled: this would be to expose him to a

temptation, all the greater in that his personal power of volition is

weakened.

Add to this, that we do not in the least know what influence the mental

state of the experimenters has upon the medium, although some kind

of influence appears to me to exist. We do not know to what extent

an ill-founded certitude of fraud can be responsible for its birth.

Ochorowicz says on this subject:—

‘After having recognised that the medium is only a mirror, who reflects

and directs the ideas and nervous forces of the assistants towards an

ideoplastic end, we will not be surprised to see that _suggestion_

plays an important rôle therein. There is no doubt but that the

assistants can suggest the desired act to the medium; neither is it

doubtful that the manifestations bear the stamp of surrounding beliefs.

In a society of materialists I have seen “John” (with Eusapia Paladino)

become dissolved into an impersonal force, which the medium simply

called “questa forza,” while in intimate spiritistic circles it took

the form of deceased persons, more or less clumsily. In the same way,

with controllers imbued with the idea of fraud as Messrs. Hodgson and

Maskelyne were, the medium will remain under the empire of a suggestion

of fraud.’

Without completely sharing Ochorowicz’s conviction, I have reasons for

thinking that his theory comes very close to the truth. I have myself

indicated how _suggestible_ the personification is.

There is something else. In cases where force is lacking, or is feeble,

it is easier for the medium to obtain the phenomenon normally—that

is to say, by fraud—rather than by veritable exteriorisation. I have

remarked, that often the paranormal movement has to be normally

simulated before it is supernormally realised. This is frequently the

case with Eusapia. We can conceive how the movement of simulation can

end in fraud, when the medium is in a hemisomnambulistic state.

In short, the energy which sets an object in movement appears to me

to be of nervous origin, and I believe it to be of the same nature

as that which provokes muscular contractions. Therefore, this is what

follows: the force only becomes exteriorised if accumulated and wrought

up to a sufficient tension. In proportion as its tension increases,

so it tends to expend itself in the form of impulsive movements;

the medium must resist this tendency to be able to obtain the pure

phenomenon. Therefore experimenters ought to keep the medium in this

resistance, and not allow him facility for expending the energy which

tends to realise itself in muscular movements.

Such are the conclusions to which the observations I have made with

several mediums have led me. Unconscious and involuntary fraud is

frequent, and in order to avoid it, the conditions likely to favour it

should be carefully put aside, especially in the beginning of a series

of experiments, and when experimenting with an undeveloped medium.

Medianity is powerfully influenced by acquired habits.

There exists, finally, another kind of unconscious and involuntary

fraud: that which is due to illusion. It is constantly found in

spiritistic seances, where ninety-nine times out of a hundred mediums

produce no real phenomena. They are, nevertheless, in earnest, but they

do not take into consideration the rôle of memory and imagination. This

is particularly the case with _intuitive_ writing mediums and ‘control’

mediums. With this order of phenomenon we rarely obtain verifiable

indications; the ‘spirits’ utter plenty of commonplace generalities,

but give no precise information.

_Fraud_ is a misnomer in this case: being unconscious and involuntary,

it cannot, correctly speaking, be called fraud; therefore it is better

to reserve the word ‘illusion’ for it.

I cannot think of analysing the question of fraud in detail. If

examined closely it is extremely complicated. But, like Richet, I deem

‘it possible that in states bordering on trance, and in trance itself,

the psychology of a medium may be very different from ours.’ I confine

myself simply to indicating the result of my reflections, which are the

fruit of a long series of observations. Let me renew my oft-repeated

recommendation for avoiding fraud: Experiment with light, the greatest

possible amount of light, and seek for simple phenomena, difficult,

perhaps, to obtain, but easy to observe, such as raps and movements

without contact.

II. ERROR

If I insist so much upon the necessity, especially in the beginning,

of seeking only for phenomena observation of which is easy, it is

because error of observation is facile. We need to be much accustomed

to seances to be able to distinguish rapidly between probable phenomena

and those which are certainly tricked. It is with this, as with

everything else, a question of time and reflection.

One of the causes of error, which it is highly important to avoid,

is obscurity. For many simple phenomena darkness is unnecessary;

therefore, from the very outset, we should exhort the personification

to accept light. I have already frequently said that personifications

are very suggestible. I know well it is not always so, and that at

times the personification displays much obstinacy. Personifications of

this class are especially observed with mediums who have long-acquired

habits. It was so with Eusapia, who was only accustomed to giving

dark seances. But even when the personification appears to have very

decided ideas, it is possible, with a little ingenuity, to induce him

to change. It is with them as with secondary personalities, or subjects

to whom we have given a suggestion. We must enter right into the circle

of suggested ideas in order to break it; it is a question of tact only.

With Eusapia we succeeded in operating in a good light by appealing to

‘John’s’ vanity. We explained to him that obscurity stood in the way

of the observation of the phenomena, that he was just as capable of

working in the light as the ‘guides’ of other mediums were. In this

way, we lead him to change his habits with us; the _meno luce_ to which

those who have experimented with this medium are accustomed, was still

demanded, but only when the seance was well advanced. At Bordeaux,

where there was a large bay-window in the seance-room, the reflection

thereon from the lights burning in the kitchen and winter-garden

enabled us to see a little. In that case, Eusapia or John did not

desire total obscurity, and we always had this feeble light, allowing a

visual control which was sometimes satisfactory.

When we are lucky enough to meet with an undeveloped medium, it is easy

to give him the habit of operating in full light. This has occasionally

happened to me.

I need not enlarge upon the influence of obscurity upon error. With

some very rare exceptions we can never be certain of the authenticity

of a phenomenon obtained in a dark seance.

Obscurity is, however, necessary for luminous phenomena. When once we

have observed decided luminous forms, or really characteristic lights,

it is easy to distinguish between them and illusion. A cool, calm

observer does not make a mistake; it is not quite the same with excited

experimenters. These latter give veritable suggestions to one another,

and they end by having curious collective hallucinations. This is one

of the most interesting facts of observation in spiritistic seances,

so rich in purely psychological curiosities. I have frequently heard

a sitter say that he saw a light in a given direction; the others

looked in their turn and also saw it. Then one declared he perceived a

form; soon others also saw a form. And from exclamation to exclamation

the description of the form is completed. This is the genesis of a

collective hallucination.

I need hardly say, that experimenters who are so suggestible are not

good elements: in purely scientific researches they should be reduced

to a minimum.

Personal experience has shown me, that of all the senses, that of sight

is the most liable to imaginary impressions; after sight, the sense

of touch is the most prompt to receive illusion. There are constant

examples of this in spiritistic seances; the _cool breeze_, which is

often really felt, is more often only imaginary. One person says he

feels it; others at once imagine they feel it also. Sometimes it is not

an error of imagination, but an error of attribution, the sensation of

a cool breeze being caused by the breath.

The sense of hearing has seemed to me to be refractory to suggestion

in seances, though it does not altogether escape. I know of very few

examples of imagined raps or noises.

On the contrary, the muscular sense is one of the most unfaithful.

Unless one has experimented oneself, it is impossible to imagine how

frequent unconscious and involuntary movements are. These movements are

of very feeble amplitude; they are slight, but they end by acquiring a

certain amount of force. It will then be noticed that the assistants

accuse each other reciprocally of pushing the table, and it is not rare

to see angry discussions arise on these occasions. This is a frequent

fact of observation. I have also very frequently noticed tactile

hallucinations with impressionable experimenters, who easily imagine

diverse contacts.

The sense of smell sometimes perceives imaginary odours, but it is

somewhat rare. I have not observed any hallucinations of taste.

Another cause of error which requires pointing out is fatigue on the

part of the experimenters. Every phenomenon which is produced after a

long period of waiting stands many chances of being badly observed. The

attention kept for a long time on the _qui vive_ becomes weary, gives

place to abstraction, and often the phenomena takes the experimenters

by surprise; hence they are unable to examine the conditions with

certitude. It is also bad to hold very long seances, fatigue quickly

setting in.

Such are the principal causes of positive errors; that is to say, of

errors tending to persuade one of the existence of an imaginary fact;

negative errors, that is to say, those which tend to make one look upon

a real fact as an imaginary one, are not less dangerous than positive

errors.

In the first place, _parti pris_ is to be pointed out. If we wish to

experiment with success, we must experiment without credulity, without

faith, even without confidence; but we must not be determined only to

meet with fraud.

We must not experiment naïvely. If, at the beginning of a seance, it

be useful to allow freedom in order to put the force _en train_, as

Ochorowicz wisely recommends, once the phenomena are established,

we must control them with the greatest care. But we should make our

intentions known to the medium and to the personification. This,

I think, is an indispensable precaution. The personification will

always consent to it; but this does not mean we will always obtain the

wished-for result. We must not allow the medium or the personification

to think we are their dupes if they fraud; we must tell them, gently

but clearly, that they are not giving anything good. Equivocation is to

be carefully avoided, all misunderstanding is to be shunned.

We must not, however, place the medium under such conditions that the

experiment cannot be realised. We do not understand these conditions,

and, perhaps, apparently simple phenomena may not be realisable. I

remember that at Choisy in 1896, a lady, a member of my family—she

has an insurmountable bias against psychical experiments, which she

declares _a priori_ are fraudulent—declared to Eusapia that she would

believe in her phenomena, if she could make a doll’s table move before

her eyes. Eusapia placed this small table on top of the seance-table,

but did not succeed in making it move. Why could not such an

apparently simple phenomenon be obtained?

We must, therefore, observe, but we must not wish to impose beforehand

the conditions which the phenomenon should fulfil in order to be

accepted.

Many experimenters tie up the medium, put him into a sack, and seal

him therein. If he consents to this, well and good; if he refuses,

other means of control must be found. We must not indeed suppose that

the medium’s refusal is always due to a desire to fraud. The slightest

fetters may sometimes be very painful, especially when there be

cutaneous hyperæsthesia.

Before bringing a negative judgment to bear upon the phenomena, the

experimenters should always hold a certain number of seances, and

should not found their judgment upon one bad seance alone; by so doing

they would expose themselves to a wrong course of action.

It is especially in psychical experimentation that inexhaustible

patience is necessary.

CONCLUSION

And now my task is accomplished. I perceive that in the latter part

of my work, I have broached complex and difficult problems, and have

allowed myself to be drawn into—not theorising—but combating certain

theories which appear to me to be incorrect or insufficient; for which

I beg my reader’s pardon. In conclusion, I wish to repeat that I am

convinced of having, in a sure, positive manner, observed raps and

movements without contact. I have seen many other phenomena; but I will

not venture to be so affirmative concerning them, at present.

I make no pretension of demonstrating the reality of the facts I have

observed. In publishing my conclusions, I have had but one object in

view, that of bringing my testimony to those, who, long before me,

attested to the facts which I in my turn affirm. Does that mean that

I have not been mistaken? most assuredly, no! And it is very possible

that my observations may have been imperfect. I am, nevertheless,

so convinced of their exactness, that I can only advise those who

may impugn the accuracy of my statements, to experiment as I have

done, with the same method, and the same patience. I have had many

occasions to pronounce these words in the course of my work, and now in

terminating it, I pronounce them once again with stronger emphasis than

ever.

I doubt, though, whether my voice will be heeded, where others, more

influential than mine, have remained unheard. However, I do not

regret having expressed my opinion about these facts. I am persuaded,

that some day, _perhaps very soon_, they will come under scientific

discipline, and this, in spite of all the obstacles which obstinacy and

fear of ridicule accumulate in the way.

One of these obstacles, and it is not the least, is due to the fashion

in which many savants estimate mediums. Their judgment is summed up in

such expressions as hysteric, cheat, physically or morally tainted,

degenerates. Such a judgment is iniquitous, absurd and false in its

generality, and baneful in its consequences. It is founded upon a

deplorable error, for I know mediums who possess faculties superior

to the average, and who present absolutely no stigma of degeneracy. I

have said, and I cannot repeat it too often, my finest phenomena were

obtained with subjects who were sound and healthy in mind and body. It

is with hysterical subjects that we observe fraud, side by side with

gleams of true phenomena; but with a medium who has no nervous taint,

whose well-balanced intelligence knows how to offer resistance to

self-suggestion, and _l’idée fixe_, we have real phenomena or none at

all.

The opinion of savants, who, ill acquainted with the facts, inform

us that mediums are hysterics and victims of nervous disorders, is

therefore erroneous; unfortunately the consequences of such an opinion

are lamentable. I know many remarkable subjects who absolutely refuse

to experiment outside a tested and restricted group, because they fear

to be regarded as neurotics; they are afraid of being stigmatised

as insane, they are afraid of compromising their commercial position

or their professional interests. I will never succeed in convincing

them that they are above the average; doubtless I will succeed still

less in inducing others to believe it: though in many respects it be

true. If the relative perfection of their nervous system renders these

persons more sensitive than the average, it would be wrong to conclude

thereupon, that they were degenerate specimens of humanity. This

argument is lacking in common-sense; we might just as reasonably insist

that Europeans are in degeneration, because they are more emotional

and more sensitive to pain than certain savage tribes. How ignorant,

tactless, and incautious we are! The attitude of certain learned

centres—it is with intention that I do not say the most cultured—is,

to me, similar to that of ecclesiastical authorities in the middle

ages. The novelty of a thing frightens them. They treat independent

scientific thought as the inquisitors treated free thought in days

gone by. Like their prototypes of other times, they have the same

intolerance, the same hate for schism and heresy. Their accumulated

errors ought to make them cautious: but, no! If they no longer make a

pariah of the arch-heretic or schismatic, if they no longer deliver

him up to the executioner, they treat him with the same relative

vigour. They excommunicate him, in their fashion, and cast him out

of sane healthy humanity as a degenerate, a mystic, an _exalté_. The

future will have the same opinion of them as we have, to-day, of their

predecessors. Their attitude prevents the most cultured, the most

capable mediums from allowing their psychic faculties to become known.

If these mediums spoke of visions, a douche would be recommended! If

they caused a table to move without contact, the words hysteria and

fraud would be heard. Is it surprising they should hide their gifts?

We ought to consider mediums as precious beings, as forerunners of the

future type of our race. Why should we only see degeneracy around us?

Why should we not see superior beings ahead of us, beacons, as it were,

on the route we have to follow? Does not simple common-sense suggest

that humanity has not yet arrived at perfection—that it is evolving

to-day just as it has always been doing? All men have not attained the

same degree of evolution. As there are types representing the average

state of former days, so there are advanced types representing to-day

the average state of the future. The progress of the race seems to

make for perfection along the lines of the nervous system, in the

acquisition of more delicate senses, of greater nervous sensibility,

and of vaster means of information. If the discovery of implements, new

instruments of investigation, such as the telescope and microscope,

for example, aid in the progress of the race, they are of no use for

the evolution of the individual himself. Now, veritable progress is

individual; it is the improvement of the individual which assures

the evolution of the race, and this progress should be determined by

heredity. Do what we will, we shall never be born with a microscope

at the eyes, and a telephone at the ears. Progress of this kind is

not transmissible; only physiological acquisitions are transmissible.

The sensibility of the nervous system of mediums is a progress on

our relative obtuseness; it is not the same thing with the bad sight

of him who makes an improper use of the microscope. If Virchow were

still alive, there would be many disagreeable things to be said to him,

concerning the inaptitude of the ordinary type of savant to personify

the desirable progress of the race towards health, force, sensibility,

and the perfect form.

The intolerance of certain savants is equalled by that of certain

dogmas. To take an example, Catholicism considers psychical phenomena

as the work of the devil! Is it worth while at this hour to discuss

so obsolete a theory? I think not. However, superior ecclesiastical

authorities, with the tact and sentiment of opportunism which they

often show, permit many Catholics to undertake the experimental study

of psychical facts. I cannot blame them for recommending prudent

abstention to the mass of the faithful; spiritism appears to me to

be an adversary with which they will have to reckon very seriously

some day. The simplicity of its doctrines ensures it the _clientèle_

of simple souls enamoured of justice, that is to say, of the immense

majority of mankind.

But this question is foreign to psychical facts themselves. As far as

my experience permits me to judge of them, these phenomena contain

nothing but what is natural. The devil does not show his hoof here,

timorous souls may feel reassured; if the tables claim to be Satan

himself, they need not be believed; summoned to prove his power, this

grandiloquent Satan will be a sorry thaumaturgist. Religious prejudice,

which proscribes these experiments as being supernatural, is just as

little justified as scientific prejudice, which sees therein nothing

but fraud and imposture. Here, again, the old adage of Aristotle finds

its application: Justice lies midway.

May my book determine a few experimenters of goodwill to try to

observe in their turn. May it help to dispel from the mind of gifted

mediums their fears of being ranked with insane and disordered

intelligences, or looked upon as being in partnership with the devil.

May it especially contribute to make metapsychic phenomena come to

be considered as natural facts, worthy of being usefully observed,

and capable of enabling us to penetrate more deeply than any other

phenomena into a real knowledge of the laws which govern Nature.

APPENDIX A

_An Appreciation on Certain Documents published on the subject of

Fraud._

The question of fraud is so important that I feel I should not only

give the results of my own observations, but also my appreciation of

some of the principal documents published on the subject.

With the exception of Richet and a few others, representatives of

science in France are very ill informed on this question, as I have

endeavoured to show. They overlook the immense work which has been done

in the United States and in England; consequently it is very difficult

to discuss the question with these savants, they are either ignorant or

feign to be ignorant of what others have done. I have shown that their

experiments are defective and their methods open to criticism.

If all serious discussion be impossible with certain savants, it

is not so with those who have taken the trouble to verify psychic

phenomena for themselves. This is the case with the principal members

of the Society for Psychical Research, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett, Myers,

Sidgwick, Gurney, Podmore, Hodgson, Hyslop, and others. The first three

are persuaded of the reality of the facts observed by them. The others

have a tendency to attribute to fraud all _physical_ phenomena; they

admit, on the other hand, _intellectual_ phenomena, and explain them

either by telepathy as Mr. Podmore does, or by the intervention of

spirits as spiritists themselves do, though they were at one time the

latter’s adversaries; this is notably the case with Myers, Hodgson,

and Hyslop. The great respect I have for the remarkable men who direct

the Society for Psychical Research, obliges me to examine their

experiments very carefully, for their judgment has a great value in

my eyes; at the same time, I have too much regard for the research of

truth to conceal from them the errors of experimentation, which they

appear to me to have committed.

In the fourth volume of the _Proceedings_ will be found a series

of papers by Mrs. Sidgwick, Messrs. Lewis, Hodgson, and Davey upon

fraud. The last-named deal particularly with the production of direct

slate-writing. This phenomenon is very easy to simulate; it suffices to

read the papers mentioned, especially Davey’s document, to understand

under what suspicious conditions the phenomenon was produced.

A long time ago I myself artificially produced this kind of

manifestation by fixing a pencil into a hole in the table, and

thereupon moving the slate about. With practice a certain amount

of facility can be acquired; you can write fairly well and give

regularity to apparently spasmodic and involuntary movements; but only

inexperienced or credulous people are taken in by this trick; and

though they may be more complicated, Mr. Davey’s methods are not by any

means more difficult to expose.

I wonder how a man of Dr. Hodgson’s intelligence could have based

his judgment upon such superficial observations as those of the

experimenters he cites. Here are men, without doubt honourable and

well educated, who hold seances with the object of obtaining direct

slate-writing through Mr. Davey. Instead of taking the elementary

precaution of never abandoning their slates, they allow the medium to

manipulate them, permit him to leave the seance-room for a moment,

consent to allow other slates than their own to remain on the table

at the same time as those which are used for the experiment, and

lastly when they examine, only examine it on one side. This is not

mal-observation, it is absence of observation. (See R. Hodgson, ‘Mr.

Davey’s Imitations by Conjuring of Phenomena sometimes attributed to

Spirit Agency,’ _Proceedings_, vi. 253.)

Mr. Davey has also produced raps and materialisations fraudulently.

It is necessary to read, in Dr. Hodgson’s paper, the conditions

under which he operated to see what ill-placed confidence his

co-experimenters had in him (Davey). They do not verify, although

they are invited to do so, the contents of a trunk precisely where

the material essential to fraud was concealed; they allow Mr. Davey

to close the door of the room: he gives two turns of the key, the one

locking, the other unlocking the door, which is carelessly sealed with

gummed paper; no one thinks of verifying if the door is well closed.

The most elementary precautions are neglected by the assistants who,

one would really think, had been chosen by Mr. Davey for their very

credulity. Frauds as easy to prevent as those from which Dr. Hodgson

draws his argument, cannot be considered as being able to take in a

prudent, shrewd observer, accustomed to experimentation, and knowing

how to preserve a little _sang-froid_. Was it not enough that the

medium should have asked one of the observers: ‘What do you want the

spirit to write on the slate? In what colour do you want the writing

to appear?’ for these very questions alone to suggest imposture? Dr.

Hodgson’s argumentation is inoperative, and the faults, accumulated

by the deceived observers whose impressions he cites, are excessive.

One would think he had had to do with very convinced spiritists,

inclined to admit _a priori_ the reality of the forthcoming phenomena

without troubling themselves about the precise conditions of their

observations; this is what the perusal of the reports of these seances

makes one think, for I read textually (p. 296): ‘It may be interesting

to compare the reports given by spiritualists of a sitting with Mr.

Davey with his account of what really occurred.’ Can one draw an

argument from these accounts of spiritists? Some spiritists, convinced

of the reality of the facts, appear to care very little indeed about

any sort of control. To reason from their methods of observation, to

generalise this reasoning and to extend it to all observers, is rather

too easy a form of discussion.

There are certain phenomena which lend themselves badly to observation:

this is particularly the case with those which require obscurity and

arrangements of a nature likely to hinder or interfere with the best

control which can be exercised, that of the eyesight. In my opinion

the phenomenon has no demonstrative value whenever it occurs out of

sight, as is the case with slate-writing, when the slate is held under

the table. Neither has it any great signification when it requires

sustained observation in order to control it. Errors are easy, for

abstraction almost inevitably follows, if it does not accompany,

sustained attention. Hodgson, in ‘The Possibilities of Mal-Observation

and Lapse of Memory from a Practical Point of View’ (_Proceedings_,

iv. 381) gives examples of this, but his paper only points out facts

well known to those who are familiar with human testimony. In order

to observe with a minimum chance of error, the phenomenon we intend

to study should be simple, and repeated often enough to prevent the

attention from becoming weary from waiting. From this point of view,

the production of raps and telekinetic movements with the aid of

the experimental manœuvres I have described, permit, by specifying

the moment when the phenomenon is going to occur, of bringing the

whole attention to bear upon the examination of the conditions under

which the phenomenon is obtained. Raps and movements without contact

appear to me to lend themselves admirably to observation; with these

phenomena, by operating as I have indicated, experimentation is almost

possible; but a veritable medium must be sought for in the first

instance.

Now this is what my colleagues of the Society for Psychical Research

did, but they did so under conditions which were far from satisfactory.

Mrs. Sidgwick, a woman of brilliant intellect, has given an account

of the attempts made by herself, her husband, and friends to obtain

psychical phenomena. They went to Eglinton and Slade for slate-writing,

to the Misses Wood and Fairlamb and a Mr. Haxby for materialisations.

The first two gave phenomena which were suspicious, not to say worse;

as for Haxby, he frauded shamefacedly. Mrs. Sidgwick’s account is

demonstrative on this point, and it is enough to read it to be

convinced that no shrewd observer could be taken in.

The first mistake, committed by the distinguished members of the

Sidgwick group, was to suppose that psychical phenomena can be obtained

at will. Whenever a paid medium gives regular seances, there are a

hundred chances to one of downright fraud. If there be a positive

feature in these supernormal facts, that feature in my opinion is their

apparent irregularity. I have been able to experiment with intelligent,

well-educated mediums anxious for a thorough investigation of their

powers: I have made very many experiments with them, and I have

observed that often whole weeks passed away without a good seance; at

other times, the force was so abundant that phenomena were forthcoming

without seance. I have related some curious facts in this respect,

_e.g._ the table moving spontaneously in the course of a conversation

bearing upon psychical phenomena (p. 106).

What are the conditions which impede or favour the production of this

unknown mode of energy? I cannot specify them; but I think I have

noticed concordances, which confirm in a measure the conclusions of

Ochorowicz (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vi. 115):—

1. Action of temperature. Dry cold weather is the most favourable. Damp

or close weather is most unfavourable.

2. Health of the medium and sitters. If the medium does not feel well,

things happen as though he exteriorised no force whatever. It is the

same thing with the sitters, but in a lesser degree; in the latter case

it suffices to eliminate the experimenter who feels ill.

3. Mental condition of the medium and sitters.[40] Ill-humour, anxiety,

sadness—especially a sadness without any specific cause, a kind of

mental discomfort—are prejudicial. Joy, gaiety are often favourable.

[40] There are _apparent_ exceptions to this rule.

4. Nervous exhaustion. This condition is too often overlooked. I have

not unfrequently had occasion to conduct several series of experiments

at one and the same time. I generally noticed that the results were not

good. I have not been able to understand the cause of this want of

success; it is probably other than that of simple nervous exhaustion,

although this may have an action in prolonged series of seances.

Neither do seances held too frequently with the same medium give good

results; in this case, nervous exhaustion is certainly in play.

The English experimenters do not appear to have taken these diverse

elements into consideration; I am persuaded the results of their

investigations would have been different had they shunned ‘paid

mediums,’ and sought for fresh or undeveloped mediums, persons

uninfluenced by private considerations, intelligent and capable of

bringing a correct analysis of their subjective impressions into the

research. These mediums are rare, but they are to be found.

None of these conditions were fulfilled by the Sidgwick group. These

experimenters, acting with the best of intentions, took a wrong

course. Eglinton, Slade, Haxby, have perhaps been genuine mediums in

their time, but as soon as they made it a business to give regular

seances, they were at once prepared to give fraudulent phenomena with

regularity. At Newcastle, the group operated at one and the same time

with Miss Fairlamb and with Miss Wood. These two parallel series of

experiments could not help being prejudicial one to the other, even if

these two mediums had been honest, which does not appear to have been

the case, judging from Mrs. Sidgwick’s account.

I cannot think of discussing in detail all the experiments of the

Sidgwick group; but I will study their experiments with Eusapia

Paladino at Cambridge more carefully, for their judgment on this medium

appears to me unjustified. Every one knows under what conditions

Messrs. Myers, Hodgson, Sidgwick, etc., invited Eusapia to England, in

order to resume experiments previously made with her at Ribaud. These

experiments had obtained a favourable report from Dr. Lodge; Mr. Myers

and Mr. Sidgwick associated themselves with Dr. Lodge’s conclusions.

Dr. Hodgson—who is a doctor of law and not a doctor of medicine, as

some people suppose—criticised the experiments summarised by Dr.

Lodge. He was met with the reply that his criticisms contained nothing

new; that what he said had been already pointed out by Richet and

others, and that the experimenters were acquainted with every possible

system of fraud; that the substitution of one hand for another,

the substitution of an artificial foot for the medium’s foot, were

well-known systems of imposture, against which every precaution had

been taken. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the fact that the report

had been drawn up by such competent men as Richet, Ochorowicz, Lodge,

and Myers, it was criticised with an undeniable appearance of logic

and justice by Hodgson: the latter reproached them for insufficiently

describing the manner in which the diverse controls were ensured, for

omitting to dwell upon the precautions which were taken, and for the

lack of a minute description of all the movements of the medium. In his

article (_Journal_, vii. 49) he expressly says:—

‘Professor Lodge makes the following declaration concerning the raising

of the table:—

‘“It appears to me impossible for any person to lift a table of this

size and weight while standing up to it, with hands only on top,

without plenty of leg action, and considerable strength and pressure of

hands. It was quite beyond the possibility of Eusapia.”

‘Now let us suppose,’ continues Hodgson, ‘that Eusapia used a form of

support which, with some variation or other, I fancy is not altogether

unknown in the Italian race. Let us suppose that she had, next to her

body, a light strong band round her shoulders and across her chest,

with a pendant attached of a black band or cord, with a hook or other

catch at the end which could be tucked out of sight in her dress front

when not in use. (By the way, in a photograph which I have seen of

Eusapia at a sitting, when the table is supposed to be completely off

the floor, one of the buttons of the bosom of her dress seems to be

unfastened.)

‘She fixed this catch—either stooping or bending her legs slightly

outward—to one of the sideboards of the table, or to some point in

the neighbourhood of the junctures of, for example, sideboards and top

of table. She straightened herself out, stiffened her shoulders and

her body back, and pushed forward with her foot against the leg of the

table, close to which she was standing. The light touch of one of her

hands may have helped to steady the table, the edge of which may also

have been in contact with her body. Was this hypothesis or any kindred

hypothesis tested by Professor Lodge?’ etc.

This long quotation shows how Hodgson reasons. Conscientious savants

omitted to indicate, explicitly, in their report, that every hypothesis

of fraud had been studied and put to one side; they omitted to analyse

each hypothesis, because their implicit affirmation of the reality

of the fact appeared sufficient to them, and a detailed examination

of each hypothesis would have given exaggerated dimensions to their

report. No matter. Analysts like Dr. Hodgson will not spare them,

and will not hesitate to indicate hypotheses, even those the least

compatible with the conditions of observation.

However, the Cambridge experiments were decided upon, and although

Hodgson had taken a decided stand in the matter, he was invited to

assist. These experiments gave bad results, and Sidgwick was able to

say, in spite of the contrary observations of other experimenters, who

were his colleagues in the Society for Psychical Research (_Journal

S. P. R._, vii. 230): ‘It will be seen that at our last meeting a

question was asked with regard to “phenomena” obtained by Eusapia

Paladino subsequent to the exposure of her frauds at Cambridge. It may

be well that I should briefly state why I do not intend to give any

account of these phenomena.

‘It has not been the practice of the Society for Psychical Research

to direct attention to the performances of any so-called “medium” who

has been proved guilty of systematic fraud. Now, the investigation at

Cambridge, of which the results are given in the _Journal_ for November

1895, taken in connection with an article by Professor Richet in the

_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, for January-February 1893, placed

beyond reasonable doubt the facts that the frauds discovered (_sic_) by

Dr. Hodgson at Cambridge, had been systematically practised by Eusapia

Paladino for years. In accordance, therefore, with our established

custom, I propose to ignore her performances for the future, as I

ignore those of other persons engaged in the same mischievous trade.’

Such a judgment made a considerable and lamentable stir: if it were

exact, it was just to pronounce it; if it were not thoroughly exact,

Sidgwick should have suspended his verdict. This is what Myers

advised—this is what Lodge and Richet advised. But the experimenters

who followed Hodgson’s impulse did not do this. They made a mistake,

and subsequent events have proved they were wrong.

I have said that their judgment was not quite accurate. Professor

Sidgwick said, addressing a general meeting of the Society for

Psychical Research on the 11th October 1895 (_Journal S. P. R._, vii.

131):—

‘I consider it to be proved beyond a doubt that the medium used

systematic trickery throughout this series of sittings. Her _modus

operandi_ I will leave to Dr. Hodgson to describe, who—though only

present during a part of the sittings—has had better opportunities

for personally observing the actual process of fraud. When this

trickery was discovered, the greater part of the phenomena offered as

supernormal at these sittings were at once explained; and, this being

so, I think it, in the circumstances, unreasonable to attribute—even

hypothetically—to supernormal agency the residuum that was not so

easily explicable. And considering the great general resemblance

between the performances of the medium at these sittings and those

I witnessed last year, I am now disposed to think that my earlier

experiences are to be similarly explained; I therefore wish to withdraw

altogether the limited and guarded support which I gave last year to

the supernormal pretensions of Eusapia Paladino.’

So Sidgwick declares that his former experiments were null and void, as

everything could be explained by trickery!

Hodgson, at that same general meeting, explained the means used by

Eusapia, the surreptitious freeing of foot and hand, and some simple

apparatus such as a handkerchief and a small object, such as a coin

or a piece of paper, covered with some phosphorescent preparation.

Hodgson—and Myers reminded him of this—forgot to say that he had

invented nothing, and that these trick devices had been discovered and

previously pointed out by others, notably by Richet, who has often

experimented with Eusapia Paladino. Sidgwick remarks that a portion of

the phenomena are not easily explicable by fraud. It would have been

interesting to know which. I suspect that certain levitations were

among the number of these phenomena. But the notes published in the

_Journal S. P. R._, vii. 148, only mention _attouchements_, and it is

advisable to limit the discussion to this fact, though it appears to me

the least demonstrative.

Let us take the seance of the 1st September. We read p. 153:

‘7.25.—R. H. says, phenomenon preparing. _Enormous hand shaking

Mrs. M.’s head, hand clearly felt._ H. S., hand well held, but not

completely. R. H. has hand completely held, gap and then grasp again.

Hand holds H. S. well. Right hand, thumb and finger clutch R. H.

(On nearly all occasions after the first few hand-touch phenomena,

I informed the sitters of a coming phenomenon in some such words

as that a phenomenon was preparing, before the phenomenon actually

occurred, and usually immediately prior to its occurrence. I made this

announcement as a rule when I felt the right hand leaving mine, but

sometimes when I felt it preparing to leave. After the phenomenon was

over, and the hand returned, I described usually what I felt at the

moment of my description, so that E. might not become aware, through

some partial appreciation of my English, that I knew that her hand was

away from mine during the production of the phenomenon. In some cases,

when it was necessary, I added a few words about the state of holding

during the phenomenon.)’

I confess that I do not understand. Hodgson has shown himself so severe

for others, that he will not be annoyed with me for exacting the same

precision from him that he requires of others. Now, in the passage

quoted, we read: first, that Mrs. Myers is touched by an enormous hand,

a hand which is ‘clearly felt.’ Either it is Eusapia’s hand, released

by Hodgson, in which case it ought to be _small_, for Eusapia’s hand

is small, or Mrs. Myers did not ‘clearly feel’ the hand which shook

her. If Mrs. Myers has correctly described her impression, then Hodgson

makes a mistake in seeming to indicate that it is Eusapia’s hand which

touched Mrs. M.; if not, then Mrs. M. has made a mistake. At any rate,

there is a contradiction here between the two observers.

Sidgwick acknowledges that Eusapia’s tricks do not explain everything,

yet he allows Hodgson to expatiate complacently upon fraudulent

_attouchements_. The learned lawyer even mimicked Eusapia’s tricks

for freeing her hands and feet before members of the Society for

Psychical Research. But all this was already known by Continental

specialists. Hodgson had invented nothing; why did he confine himself

to partial criticisms? why did he not discuss each fact, and especially

those which appeared inexplicable? He is very severe with Eusapia;

why not treat her as he treats Mrs. Piper? He carefully discusses

the Neapolitan’s errors and attempts; but does he think that there

is no conscious or unconscious fraud with the American medium, and

that defunct Phinuit is alone responsible for the inaccuracies and

falsehoods observed in Mrs. Piper’s mediumship, whilst Eusapia’s fraud

is conscious and voluntary?

As far as his experiments with Eusapia Paladino are concerned, I

will reply to him that, in a great measure, he and his friends

were responsible for her frauds, and almost wholly responsible for

the failure of the experiments. They appear to have neglected the

psychological side of a medium’s rôle, and forgot that a medium is not

a mechanical instrument.

Eusapia was not at her ease, and, if my memory serves me right, she

found the Cambridge centre rather disdainful and haughty, save Mr. and

Mrs. Myers. She was dull and lonely. I think she was not admitted to

the same table. But I will not affirm this detail; it seems to me she

told me, she was usually served apart from the members of the household.

The seances were too numerous (there were twenty seances held in

less than seven weeks—a seance every other day) if we take into

consideration her not being very well, and consequently unfit for

anything for a few days. This was making sure of bad results,

especially as the seances sometimes lasted two and a half to three

hours. It was impossible for the medium to recruit her strength

physically or morally, especially in a country where the manners, life,

language, and even the cooking were so different from those at Naples.

She was not well when in England. Was she long ill? I cannot say; but I

can affirm that she did not go home satisfied.

It appears, however, that the first seances were pretty good; there

were some suspicious things, as is often the case with Eusapia.

Hodgson’s arrival changed everything: it was then that fraud was

discovered, but a long time after Richet and Toselli had pointed it out.

How did Hodgson go to work? He appears to have conceived the

singular idea not to control Eusapia at all, and to leave at her

free disposal the hand he was supposed to hold. Every time he ceased

to feel the contact of her hand, he announced a phenomenon; the

phenomenon produced, he related his impressions in _English_ to his

co-experimenters. These were two capital mistakes. The first passed

even unconscious fraud: for though severe control sometimes stops the

phenomena, at least it effectually prevents trickery. The second,

by arousing Eusapia’s jealous susceptibility, was bound to worry

and irritate her. These considerations may appear to be secondary

to persons, who are not acquainted with the difficulties which the

observation of psychical phenomena present; those who are familiar

with them will not gainsay me. However, if the Cambridge experimenters

had not gone any further than this, we might excuse them, and simply

consider they had blundered touching the necessary conditions; but they

went further. They invited to the seances Messrs. Maskelyne, father

and son. These men, the well-known directors of the Egyptian Hall

in London, have made it a speciality of producing by conjuring the

phenomena called ‘spiritistic.’

Mr. Maskelyne, senior, did not conceal his bias, to judge by his

letters in the _Daily Chronicle_ (29th Oct. 1895, and following days).

This conjurer explained certain levitations in a singular fashion.

A small table had been carried on to the seance-table. According to

Maskelyne, Eusapia had seized it with her teeth by bending backwards,

and by this feat of dental strength had herself carried and placed

the smaller table on the larger one! Mr. Maskelyne felt the movement,

just as Dr. Hodgson felt he had lost the contact of the hand, when a

phenomenon was going to be produced. From this negative observation,

Mr. Maskelyne, like Hodgson, deducts the positive conclusion, that

the phenomenon was normally and fraudulently produced. I retain Mr.

Maskelyne’s affirmation, that the backward movement Eusapia made when

the small table was carried on to the larger one, revealed her method

to him. Hodgson has the same impression as the conjurer. In concluding

as they do, they both forget this circumstance, often observed with the

Italian medium, that synchronous movements of her limbs accompany the

phenomenon. If Mr. Maskelyne is excusable in not having studied and

examined this circumstance, Dr. Hodgson, well acquainted with psychical

matters, is unpardonable in having neglected it. This omission is a

fundamental gap in his reasoning; and I think it robs it of all serious

value.

Let us take another example in the rare indications given by the

Cambridge experimenters (Extracts from report of seance of 1st Sept.

1895, _Journal_, vii. 151-153):—[‘The Report consists of notes taken

by Mr. Myers at the time from the dictation of the sitters, with

supplementary statements added by some of the sitters afterwards; these

are placed in square brackets, and all except those to which Mrs.

Sidgwick’s initials are appended were written by Dr. Hodgson on Sept.

2nd and 3rd. The italics refer to the descriptions of phenomena, the

ordinary type to the conditions of holding, etc.]. [Sitters arranged

as follows:—

[Illustration]

‘Mrs. Myers goes under the table, has the medium’s feet on palms of

hands far apart.]

‘=7.= 6. _Three knocks_ [which sounded as if made on the top of the

table]. Right hand lies across R. H. and holds H. S.’s three fingers

with at least two. Left hand holds F. D. and Mrs. S. Three movements

made with left hand beforehand. Knees not moved and feet held tight.

[Medium was asked to repeat this phenomenon.]

‘=7.= 7. _Three knocks, rather loud and dull_ [resembling the

preceding]. Right hand moving, holding H. S.’s and R. H.’s. Left hand

well off the table; holding satisfactory, held by F. D. and Mrs. S.

Feet well held, knees not moved.

‘[Both series of three knocks were doubtless produced by Eusapia’s

head. On the second occasion, I succeeded in getting her head between

me and a slight light from the curtains behind, and observed the motion

of her head part of the way forward and back. She moved her right hand,

with H. S.’s hand and mine, forward, outward, and upward somewhat,

and possibly made a similar movement with her left hand, thus giving

herself a free space to bend her head forward and down, and at the same

time having the hands which were holding hers, in a position from which

it would be more difficult to grab.] [And had practically six hands out

of the way of an accidental contact with her head. E. M. S.].’

Such is the _procès-verbal_. Dr. Hodgson, I repeat, has been so severe

with others, that he will forgive me for being exigent with him.

Is it admissible to reason in this way? to consider that she has,

_perhaps_, made a movement with the left hand similar to the one

effected with the right hand, and afterwards to hold that supposition

as a demonstrated fact? Should he not have remembered that such a

movement, in a big woman like Eusapia, cannot be easily made without

her arms betraying the movement of the spinal column, and the muscles

of the neck, without the knees revealing the movement of the body?

Now, the knee did not move; and Hodgson points out no movement of the

arm.

The movement of the head might have been one of those synchronous

movements of which I have spoken. Dr. Hodgson has omitted to consider

this hypothesis.

To sum up, limiting ourselves simply to published documents, we see

that the English experimenters paid no attention to the conditions

under which it is expedient to operate, that they tired out the medium,

surrounded her with elements of suspicion, encouraged her to fraud—Dr.

Hodgson especially—and finally concealed from her the severe judgment

they had formed about her. As Richet says, the Cambridge experiments

prove only one thing, which is, that in that particular series of

seances Eusapia frauded with her well-known methods, but it is rash to

conclude thereupon that she has always frauded.[41]