THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS 371
_Resumé_, the proof apparent--The proof presumptive--The
alleged influence of magnets and metals--The alleged marvels of
spiritualism--Usage of the word telepathy--On various theories
of telepathy--Difficulties of a physical explanation--Value of
theory as a guide to investigation--Is telepathy a rudimentary or a
vestigial faculty?--Our ignorance stands in the way of a conclusive
answer--Imperative need for more facts.
PREFACE.
The following pages aim at presenting in brief compass a selection
of the evidence upon which the hypothesis of thought-transference,
or telepathy, is based. It is now more than twelve years since
the Society for Psychical Research was founded, and nearly eight
since the publication of _Phantasms of the Living_. Both in the
periodical _Proceedings_ of the Society and in the pages of Edmund
Gurney's book,[1] a large mass of evidence has been laid before
the public. But the papers included in the _Proceedings_ are
interspersed with other matter, some of it too technical for the
taste of the general reader; whilst the two volumes of _Phantasms
of the Living_, which have for some time been out of print, were
too costly for the purse of some, and too bulky for the patience of
others. The attention which, notwithstanding these drawbacks, that
work excited on its first appearance, the friendly reception which
it met with in many quarters, and the fact that a considerable
edition has been disposed of, encouraged the hope that a book on
somewhat similar lines, but on a smaller scale, might be of service
to those--and their number has probably increased within the last
few years--who take a genuine interest in this inquiry. Accordingly
in the autumn of 1892 I obtained permission from the Council of the
Society for Psychical Research to make full use, in the compilation
of the present work, not merely of the evidence already published
by us, but of the not inconsiderable mass of unpublished records in
the possession of the Society.
It will be seen that the present book has little claim to novelty
of design; but it is not merely an abridged edition of the larger
work referred to. On the one hand it has a somewhat wider scope,
and includes accounts of telepathic clairvoyance and other
phenomena which did not enter into the scheme of Mr. Gurney's book.
On the other hand, the bulk of the illustrative cases here quoted
have been taken from more recent records; and, in particular,
certain branches of the experimental work have assumed a quite
new importance within the last few years. Thus the experiments
conducted by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at Brighton have strengthened
the demonstration of thought-transference, and have gone far to
solve one or two of the problems connected with the subject; and
the evidence for the experimental production of telepathic effects
at a distance has been greatly enlarged by the work of MM. Janet
and Gibert,[2] Richet, Gibotteau, Schrenck-Notzing, and in this
country by Mr. Kirk and others.[3] It may be added that some of
the criticisms called forth by _Phantasms of the Living_, and our
own further researches, have led us to modify our estimate of
the evidence in some directions, and to strengthen generally the
precautions taken against the unconscious warping of testimony.
To say, however, that the following pages owe much to Edmund
Gurney is but to acknowledge the obligation which all students
of the subject must recognise to his keen and vigorous intellect
and his colossal industry. My own debt is a more personal one. To
have worked under his guidance, and to have been stimulated by his
example, was an invaluable schooling in the qualities demanded by
an inquiry of this nature. Of the living, I owe grateful thanks,
in the first instance, to Professor and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, who
have read through the whole of the book in typescript, and have
given help and counsel throughout. Miss Alice Johnson, Mr. F. W.
H. Myers, the late Dr. A. T. Myers, Miss Porter, and others have
also given me welcome help in various directions. In acknowledging
this assistance, however, it is right to add that, though I trust
in my estimate of the evidence presented, and in the general tenour
of the conclusions suggested, to find myself, with few exceptions,
in substantial agreement with my colleagues, yet I have no claim to
represent the Society for Psychical Research, nor right to cloak my
own shortcomings with the authority of others.
One word more needs to be said. The evidence, of which samples are
presented in the following pages, is as yet hardly adequate for the
establishment of telepathy as a fact in nature, and leaves much to
be desired for the elucidation of the laws under which it operates.
Any contributions to the problem, in the shape either of accounts
of experiments, or of recent records of telepathic visions and
similar experiences, will be gladly received by me on behalf of the
Society for Psychical Research, at 19 Buckingham Street, Adelphi,
W.C.
FRANK PODMORE.
_August 1894._
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: The book actually bore on the title-page the names of
Edmund Gurney, F. W. H. Myers, and the present writer. But the division
of authorship, as explained in the Preface, was as follows:--"As
regards the writing and the views expressed, Mr. Myers is solely
responsible for the Introduction, and for the 'Note on a Suggested
Mode of Psychical Interaction;' and Mr. Gurney is solely responsible
for the remainder of the book.... But the collection, examination, and
appraisal of evidence has been a joint labour."]
[Footnote 2: Some account of the earlier experiments by MM. Janet and
Gibert was included in the supplementary chapter at the end of the
second volume of _Phantasms_.]
[Footnote 3: See Chapters V. and X. of the present book.]
APPARITIONS AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY--SPECIAL GROUNDS OF CAUTION.
It is salutary sometimes to reflect how recent is the growth of our
scientific cosmos, and how brief an interval separates it from the
chaos which went before. This may be seen even in Sciences which deal
with matters of common observation. Amongst material phenomena the
facts of Geology are assuredly not least calculated to excite the
curiosity or impress the imagination of men. Yet until the middle of
the last century no serious attempt was made to solve the physical
problems they presented. The origin of the organic remains embedded
in the rocks had indeed formed the subject of speculation ever since
the days of Aristotle. Theophrastus had suggested that they were
formed by the plastic forces of Nature. Mediæval astrologers ascribed
their formation to planetary influences. And these hypotheses, with
the alternative view of the Church, that fossil bones and shells were
relics of the Mosaic Deluge, appear to have satisfied the learned of
Europe until the time of Voltaire, who reinforced the rationalistic
position, as he conceived it, by the suggestion that the shells, at
any rate, had been dropped from the hats of pilgrims returning from
the Holy Land. Yet Werner and Hutton were even then preparing to
elucidate the causes of stratification and the genesis of the igneous
rocks. Cuvier in the next generation was to demonstrate the essential
analogies of the fossils found in the Paris basin with living species;
Agassiz was to investigate the relation of fossil fishes and to show
the true nature of their embedded remains. Nay, even in the middle of
the present century, so slow is the growth and spread of organised
knowledge, it was possible for a pious Scotchman to ascribe the origin
of mountain chains to a cataclysm which, after the fall of Man, had
broken up and distorted the once symmetrical surface of the earth;[4]
for a Dean of York to essay to bring the Mediæval theory up to date and
prove that the whole series of geological strata, with their varied
organic remains, were formed by volcanic eruptions acting in concert
with the Mosaic Deluge;[5] and for another English divine to warn his
readers against any sacrilegious meddling with the arcana of the rocks,
because they represented the tentative essays of the Creator at organic
forms--a concealed storehouse of celestial misfits![6]
The subject-matter of the present inquiry has passed, or is now
passing, through stages closely similar to those above described.
"Ghosts" and warning dreams have been matters of popular belief and
interest since the earliest ages known to history, and are prevalent
amongst even the least advanced races at the present time. The
Specularii and Dr. Dee have familiarised us with clairvoyance and
crystal vision. Many of the alleged marvels of witchcraft were
probably due to the agency of hypnotism, which in later times, under
the various names of mesmerism, electrobiology, animal magnetism, has
attracted the curiosity of the unlettered, and from time to time the
serious interest of the learned. These phenomena indeed were made the
subject of scientific inquiry, first in France and later in England,
during the first half of the present century; have now again, after a
brief period of eclipse, been investigated for the last two decades
by competent observers on the Continent, and are at length winning a
recognised footing in scientific circles in this country. Yet within
the last two or three years we have witnessed the spectacle of more
than one medical man, of some repute in this island, laughing to scorn
all the researches of Charcot and Bernheim, just as their prototypes a
generation or two ago ignored the results of Cuvier and Agassiz, and
held it an insult to the Creator to accept the scientific explanation
of coprolites.
And as regards the other subjects, to which must be added the
alleged marvels of the Spiritualists, there have indeed been one
or two isolated series of observations by competent inquirers, but
for the most part the learned have held themselves free to ascribe
the phenomena without investigation to fraud and hysteria, and the
unlearned to "magnetism," "psychic force," or the Devil. For whilst
men of science, preoccupied for the most part with other lines of
inquiry, have kept themselves aloof, the vacant ground was naturally
occupied by the ignorant and credulous, and by those who looked to
win a harvest from ignorance and credulity. It is not of course
implied that all persons who interested themselves in such matters
came under one or other of these categories. There were many sensible
men and women amongst them, but they lacked for the most part the
special training necessary for such inquiries, or they failed through
want of co-operation and support. No serious and organised attempt
at investigation was made until, in 1882, the Society for Psychical
Research was founded in London, under the presidency of Professor Henry
Sidgwick. He and his colleagues were the pioneers in the research, and
their example has been widely followed. Two years later an American
society under the same title (now a flourishing branch of the English
society) was founded in Boston; and there are at the present time
societies with similar objects at Berlin, Munich, Stockholm, and
elsewhere. Moreover, the Société de Psychologie Physiologique, which
was founded in Paris, under the presidency of M. Charcot, in 1885, has
devoted much attention to some forms of telepathy.
But the forces of superstition and charlatanry, to which this vast
territory has been ceded for so long, have bequeathed an unfortunate
legacy to those who would now colonise it in the name of Science;
and the preliminary difficulties of the undertaking can perhaps most
effectually be met by a frank recognition of that fact. On the one
hand, a large number of thinking men have been repelled, and still feel
repulsion, from a subject whose record is so unsavoury. On the other
hand, the appetite for the marvellous which has been so long unchecked
is not easily restrained. The old habits of inaccuracy, of magnifying
the proportions of things, of confusing surmises with facts, cannot be
eradicated without long and careful discipline. To one writer, indeed,
those dangers seemed so serious that he solemnly warned the Society for
Psychical Research, at the outset of its career, against the risk of
stimulating into disastrous activity inborn tendencies to superstition,
by even the semblance of an inquiry into these matters. Without going
to such lengths, it may be conceded to the critic that even with those
who endeavour to apply scientific methods to the investigation the
mental attitude is liable to be warped by the environment, and that
here, as elsewhere, evil communications may corrupt. As regards the
actual investigators this difficulty is growing less serious, as more
men who have received their training in other branches of science are
attracted to the inquiry, and as the affinities of the subject to
long-recognised departments of knowledge become daily more apparent.
In another direction, however, this mental attitude presents still a
more or less formidable obstacle. Many of the observations on which
students of the subject are compelled to rely are derived from persons
who have had no training in such habits of accuracy as are required in
scientific research. When accounts of the ornithorhynchus first reached
this country naturalists laughed at the traveller's tale of a beast
with the tail of a beaver and the bill and webbed feet of a duck. In
the same way scientific men for long refused to admit the existence of
aerolites, as they now decline to credit the reports of a Sea Serpent
of colossal proportions. In all these cases, so long as the alleged
facts rest solely on the testimony of men untrained in habits of close
observation and accurate reporting, a suspension of judgment seems
to be justified. And if these considerations are valid in ordinary
cases, a much higher degree of caution may be reasonably demanded of
investigators who leave the neutral ground of the physical sciences
to enter upon a field in which the emotions and sympathies are most
keenly engaged, and in which the incidents narrated may have served
to afford support to the dearest hopes and sanction to the deepest
convictions of the narrator. So insidious, in such a case, is the work
of the imagination, so untrustworthy is the memory, so various are the
sources of error in human testimony, that it may be doubted whether we
should be justified in attaching weight to the phenomena of telepathic
hallucination and clairvoyance, to which a large part of this book is
devoted, if the alleged observations were incapable of experimental
verification. Certainly in such a case, though the recipient of an
experience of this kind might cherish a private conviction of its
significance, it would hardly be possible for such a view to win
general assent.
In fact, however, the clue to the interpretation of the more striking
phenomena, in the case of which, since they occur for the most part
spontaneously, direct experiment or even methodical and continuous
observation are rarely possible, is furnished by actual experiment on
a smaller scale and with mental affections of a less unusual kind.
The thesis which these pages are designed to illustrate and support
is briefly: _that communication is possible between mind and mind
otherwise than through the known channels of the senses_. Proof of
the existence of such communication, provisionally called _Thought
Transference_ or _Telepathy_ (from _tele_ = at a distance, and _pathos_
= feeling), will be found in a considerable mass of experiments
conducted during the last twelve years by various observers in
different European countries and in America. Before proceeding, in the
course of the next four chapters, to examine this part of the evidence
in detail, it will be well to consider its various defects and sources
of error--defects common in some degree to all experiments of which
living beings are the subject, and sources of error for the most part
peculiar to this and kindred inquiries. The word _experiment_ in this
connection usually, and rightly, suggests the most perfect form of
experiment, that in which all the conditions are known, and in which
the results can be predicted both quantitatively and qualitatively.
If, for instance, we add a certain quantity of nitric acid under given
conditions to a certain quantity of benzine, we know that there will
result a certain quantity of a third substance which is unlike either
of its constituents in taste, smell, and physical properties. Or if we
burn a given quantity of coal in a particular engine, we can predict,
within narrow limits of error, the total amount of energy which will be
evolved. That we cannot in the second instance predict with absolute
accuracy the amount of energy produced is simply due to the difficulty
of measuring with precision all the factors in the case. But when we
leave the problems of chemistry and physics and approach the problems
of biology, the difficulties increase a hundredfold. Here not only are
we unable to measure the various factors, we cannot even name them.
No skill or forethought would have enabled an observer, from however
patient a study of parentage and environment, to have predicted the
appearance, say, of Emanuel Swedenborg or Michael Faraday. Of the
seven children of John Lamb and his wife it might have seemed easier
to conjecture that the majority would not survive childhood, and that
one would become insane, than that another should take his place
amongst those whose writings the world would not willingly let die.
And even where, as in most biological researches, the results drawn
from observation can be to some extent checked and controlled by direct
experiment, generations may elapse before the balance of probabilities
on one side or the other becomes so great as to lead to unanimity
amongst the inquirers. One of the most interesting, and certainly not
the least important, of the questions now occupying biologists, is
that of the transmission to the offspring of characters acquired in
the lifetime of the individual. Observations have been accumulated on
the subject since before the days of Lamarck; and these observations,
interpreted and confirmed by experiment, have been adduced and are
still held by many as evidence that such transmission occurs. On the
other hand, Weismann and his followers contend that no such inference
can legitimately be drawn from the observations and experiments quoted,
and that the occurrence of such transmission is irreconcilable with
what is known of the growth and development of the germ. And for all
that has been said and written the opinion of competent biologists is
still divided upon the question.
But in many biological problems the conditions are much simpler, and
the questions at issue can more readily be brought to the test of
experiment. Yet even so various unknown factors are included, and the
results obtained are correspondingly difficult of interpretation.
No question affects us more nearly than the part played by the
several kinds of food in repairing the daily waste of the human body.
Statistics and analyses have been collected of workhouse, prison, and
military dietaries; innumerable experiments have been conducted on
fasting men and hypertrophied dogs and rabbits; and yet the precise
function of nitrogenous substances in nutrition is still undetermined.
Again, the import of the experiments made during the last few decades
by Goltz, Hitzig, Ferrier, Horsley, and others on the functions of
various areas of the brain substance, and the exact nature and degree
of localisation which those experiments imply, are still matter of
debate amongst the physiologists concerned.
To take yet another instance, and one which has a more intimate
bearing upon the experiments to be discussed. Some years ago Dr.
Charlton Bastian claimed to have proved experimentally the fact of
abiogenesis, or the generation of living organisms from non-living
matter. He had placed various organic infusions in glass tubes, which
were heated to the boiling point and then hermetically sealed. When
the tubes were, after a certain interval, unsealed, the contained
liquid was found in some cases to be swarming with bacteria. Believing
that these micro-organisms and their germs were invariably destroyed
by the heat of boiling water, Dr. Bastian saw no other conclusion
than that the bacteria were formed directly from the infusion. His
conclusions were not accepted by the scientific world. But they were
rejected, not because the fact of abiogenesis was regarded as in itself
improbable, nor yet because Dr. Bastian was unable to indicate by what
steps or processes the transformation of an infusion of hay into
living organisms of definite and relatively complex structure could
be conceived to take place, but because Pasteur, Tyndall, and others
showed that the germs of some of these micro-organisms are capable of
sustaining for some minutes the heat of boiling water; and further,
that when elaborate precautions were taken, by filtering and otherwise
purifying the air, tubes containing similar infusions would remain
sterile for an indefinite period.
The conclusion that under certain conditions thought-transference
may occur rests upon reasoning similar to that by which Dr. Bastian
sought to establish a theory of abiogenesis. Neither the organs by
which nor the medium through which the communication is made can be
indicated; nor can we even, with a few trifling exceptions, point to
the conditions which favour such communication. But ignorance on these
points, though a defect, is not a defect which in the present state of
experimental psychology can be held seriously to weaken the evidence,
much less to invalidate the conclusion. That conclusion rests on the
elimination of all other possible causes for the effect produced.
But at this point the analogy between the two researches fails. Dr.
Bastian's conjecture was based on a short series of experiments
conducted by a single experimenter under one uniform set of conditions.
At the first breath of criticism the whole fabric collapsed. The
experiments here recorded represent the work of many observers in many
countries, carried on with different subjects under a great variety of
conditions. The results have been before the world for about twelve
years, and during that period have been subjected to much adverse and
some instructive criticism. But no alternative explanation which has
yet been suggested has attained even a momentary plausibility.
Whether the elimination of all other possible causes is indeed
complete, or whether, as in Dr. Bastian's case, there may yet lurk in
these experiments some hitherto unsuspected source of error, the reader
will have the opportunity of judging for himself. To assist him in
forming a judgment some of the main disturbing causes will be briefly
indicated.
(1) _Fraud._--In nearly all the experiments referred to in this
book the agent was himself concerned in the inquiry as a matter of
scientific interest. But it necessarily happens on occasion that
neither agent nor percipient are by education and position absolutely
removed from suspicion of trickery in a matter where trickery might to
imperfectly educated persons appear almost venial. If any such cases
have been admitted, it is because the precautions taken appear to us to
have been adequate. At the same time, the investigators of the Society
for Psychical Research have come across some instances of fraud in
cases where they had grounds for assuming good faith, and it may be
useful, therefore, to illustrate some of the less obvious methods of
acquiring intelligence fraudulently. The conditions of the experiment
should of course, as far as possible, preclude, even where there is
no ground for suspecting fraud, communication between the percipient
and the agent, or any one else knowing the idea which it is sought to
transfer.
In the autumn of 1888 some experiments were conducted with a person
named D., whose antecedents afforded, it was thought, justification
for the belief that the claims which he put forward were genuine. D.
acted as agent, the percipient being a subject of his own, a young
woman called Miss N., who was apparently in a light hypnotic sleep
during the experiment. It was soon discovered that the results were
obtained by means of a code formed from a combination of Miss N.'s
breathing with slight noises--a cough or the creak of a boot--made by
D. himself. I have seen a somewhat similar code employed in Prince's
Hall, Piccadilly, where the conjurer stood in the middle of the hall
with a coin or other object in his hand, a description of which he
communicated to his confederate on the platform by means of a series
of breathings, deep enough visibly to move his dress-coat up and down
on the surface of his white collar, punctuated by slight movements
of head or hand. The novel feature in the first case, however, was
that the percipient herself furnished the groundwork of the code, the
punctuation alone being given by the conjurer. A still more elaborate
form of collusion is described at length by Bonjean.[7] In this case
the subject, a young woman named Lully, appears to have read the words
to be conveyed after the fashion of a deaf mute, by the motion of
the lips of the showman. Lully was apparently in a hypnotic trance,
with the eyes fast closed. Another form of fraud, since it does not
require the aid of a confederate, is perhaps worthy of note. Some years
ago a young Australian came to this country with a reputation for
"genuine thought-reading," based on the successful mystification of
some members of a certain Colonial Legislature. The writer had a few
experiments with this person, in which several small objects--a knife,
a glass bottle, etc.--placed in the full light of a shaded lamp, were
correctly named. The object was in each case placed behind the back of
the "Thought-reader," who looked intently at the writer's eyes, which
were in turn fixed upon the brightly illuminated object. Experiments
made under more usual conditions, not dictated by the "Thought-reader,"
completely failed; and there can be little doubt that the initial
successes were due to the "Thought-reader" seeing the image of the
object reflected in the agent's cornea.
(2) _Hyperæsthesia._--But, after all, it is rarely necessary to
take special precautions against fraud, for there are dangers to be
guarded against of a more subtle kind. There are various, and as yet
imperfectly known methods of communication by which indications may
be unconsciously given and as unconsciously received. Thus, to take
the last instance, it is pretty certain that cornea-reading does not
always imply fraud, and that hints may be gained in all good faith
from any reflecting surface in the neighbourhood of the experimenter;
or the movements of lips, larynx, and even hands and limbs may betray
the secret to eye or ear. We know little of the limits of our sensory
powers even in normal life; and we do know that in certain subconscious
states--automatic, hypnotic, somnambulic--these limits may be greatly
exceeded, and that indications so subtle as frequently to escape
the vigilance of trained observers may be seized and interpreted
by the hypnotic or automatic subject. It is clear, therefore, that
results which it is possible to attribute to deliberate fraud stand
almost necessarily self-condemned. For if the precautions taken by
the investigators left such an explanation open, much more were
those precautions insufficient to guard against the subtler modes of
communication referred to. It is not the friend whom we know whose eyes
must be closed and his ears muffled, but the "Mr. Hyde," whose lurking
presence in each of us we are only now beginning to suspect.
There is a case recorded by M. Bergson,[8] in which a hypnotised boy is
said to have been able to state correctly the number of the page in a
book held by the observer, by reading the corneal image of the figures.
The actual figures were three millimetres high, and their corneal image
is calculated by M. Bergson to have been O.1 mm., or about 1/250 of an
inch in height! In some other experiments conducted by M. Bergson with
the same subject the acuteness of vision is said to have exceeded even
this limit. In another case, recorded by Dr. Sauvaire,[9] a hypnotised
subject was able to recognise the King of Clubs, face downwards,
in two different packs of cards. In the first of these cases the
results, which could not have been attained by the senses under normal
conditions, must apparently be attributed to hyperæsthesia. Instances,
especially of auditory hyperæsthesia, are of course quite familiar to
those who have studied the phenomena of hypnotism. In Dr. Sauvaire's
case, however, the power of distinguishing the cards by touch may have
been the result of practice. Mrs. Verrall records (_Proceedings Soc.
Psych. Research_, vol. viii. p. 480) that she acquired such a power by
means of "a longish series of experiments"; and Mr. Hudson, in _Idle
Days in Patagonia_, tells of a gambler who by careful training had
developed the same faculty in a very high degree.
It seems probable in the cases described by M. Bergson and Dr.
Sauvaire, and possible also in the case of Mr. D.'s subject, that there
was no intentional deception, and that the hypnotised person was not
himself aware of the means by which his knowledge was attained.[10]
The same remark probably applies to the following case, in which,
though the conditions of vision were certainly unusual, it seems not
clear whether the degree of success attained should be attributed to
abnormal sensibility of the eyes, or to the facility acquired by long
practice. In a series of experiments at which the writer assisted, in
1884, an illiterate youth named Dick was hypnotised, a penny was placed
over each eye, and the eyes and surrounding features were elaborately
bandaged with strips of sticking-plaster; a handkerchief being bound
over all. Under these conditions Dick named correctly objects held in
front of him, even at a considerable distance, a little above the level
of his eyes. Normal vision appeared to be impossible. Mr. R. Hodgson,
however, repeated the experiment upon himself, and found after several
trials that he also could see objects, though fitfully and imperfectly,
under the same conditions, the channel of vision being a small chink in
the sticking-plaster on the line where it was fastened to the brow.
(3) _Muscle-reading._--From this last case we may pass to the
illustrations of "thought-reading" given by professional conjurers
and others, where it seems clear that the skill exhibited in the
interpretation of unconscious movements and gestures is due rather to
long practice and careful observation than to any abnormal extension
of faculty. It hardly needs saying that experiments in which contact
is permitted between the agent and percipient can rarely be regarded
as having evidential value. It has been demonstrated again and again
that with the fullest intention of keeping the secret to themselves,
most "agents" in such circumstances are practically certain to betray
it to the professional thought-reader by unconscious movements of some
kind. Indeed, it is difficult to place any limit to the degree of
susceptibility to slight muscular impressions which may be attained.
A careful experimenter has assured the writer that when acting as
percipient in some experiments with diagrams the slight movements of
the agent's hand resting upon her head gave her in one case a clue to
the figure thought of. And Mr. Stuart Cumberland has exhibited feats
still more marvellous before kings and commoners. Nor is it necessary,
as already said, for successful muscle-reading that there should be
actual contact in all cases. The eye or the ear can sometimes follow
movements of the lips or other parts of the body. But though we can
look for little evidence from experiments conducted with contact, or
under conditions which allow of interpretation by gesture, etc., and
their repetition in this connection can rarely be expected to serve any
useful purpose, it seems worth pointing out that, if telepathy is a
fact, we should expect to find it operating not merely where, from the
conditions of the experiment, it must be presumed to be the sole source
of communication, but also as an auxiliary to other more familiar modes
of expression. It seems not improbable, therefore, that some of the
more startling successes of the professional "thought-reader" and some
of the results obtained in the "willing game" may be due to this cause.
(4) _Thought-forms._--There remains one other source of error to
be guarded against. An image--whether of an object, diagram, or
name--which is _chosen_ by the agent may be correctly described by
the percipient simply because their minds are set to move in the
same direction. It must be remembered that, however unexpected and
spontaneous they may appear, ideas do not come by chance, but have
their origin mostly in the previous experience of the thinker. Persons
living constantly in the same physical and intellectual environment
are apt to present a close similarity in their ideas. It would not
even be _prima facie_ evidence of thought-transference, for instance,
if husband and wife, asked to think of a town or of an acquaintance,
should select the same name. And investigation has shown that our
thoughts move in grooves which are determined for us by causes
more deep-seated and more general than the accident of particular
circumstances. Thus it is found that individuals will show a preference
for certain figures or certain numbers over others; and that the
preference for some geometrical figures tends to be tolerably constant.
The American Society for Psychical Research[11] made some interesting
observations on this point in 1888. Blank cards were issued to a large
number of persons, with the request that the recipients would draw on
the card "ten diagrams." 501 cards were returned, and the diagrams
inscribed on them were carefully tabulated. It was found that of the
501 persons no less than 209 drew circles, 174 squares, 160 equilateral
triangles and crosses, while three only drew wheels, two candlesticks,
and one each a corkscrew, a ball, and a knife. It was found that the
simpler geometrical figures[12] occurred not only most frequently but
as a general rule early in each series of ten. It follows, therefore,
that in an experiment the success of the percipient in reproducing a
circle, a square, or a triangle raises a much fainter presumption of
thought-transference than if the object reproduced had been a corkscrew
or a pine-apple. But so much was perhaps obvious even without a
detailed investigation. From a similar analysis of the guesses made,
it can be shown that some percipients have decided preferences amongst
the simple numerals. And in the same way it seems probable that others
have a preference for particular cards. An important illustration of
the working of the "number-habit" has been brought forward by Professor
E. C. Pickering of the Harvard College Observatory, U.S.A.[13] A
revision of part of the Argelander Star-Chart had been undertaken by
several observatories, of which the Harvard Observatory was one. For
the purposes of the revision the assistant had the Argelander chart
before him, whilst the observer, who was in ignorance of the magnitude
assigned in the chart, made an independent estimate of the magnitude
of each star. If no thought-transference or other disturbing cause
affected the result, the amount of deviation of the later observations
from the earlier in each tenth of a degree of magnitude would be
represented by a smooth curve. As a matter of fact, it was found that
the number of cases of complete agreement were much greater, with
some observers more than 50 per cent. greater, than they should have
been on an estimate of the probabilities. At first sight this excess
of the actual over the theoretical numbers suggested the action of
thought-transference between the assistant and the observer. But
Professor Pickering shows, on a further analysis of the figures, that
almost the whole of the excess was due to the preference of both the
earlier and the later observers for 5 and 10 over all other fractions
of a degree.
The practical deduction from this investigation is that in any
experiment care should be taken to exclude, as regards the agent at any
rate, the operation of any diagram or number-habit.[14] If an object is
thought of, it should if possible be chosen by lot, and should not be
an object actually present in the room. If a card, it should be drawn
from the pack at random; if a number, from a receptacle containing a
definite series of numbers; if a diagram, it is preferable that it
should be taken at random from a set of previously-prepared drawings.
It will be seen that in the majority of the cases quoted in the four
succeeding chapters these precautions have been observed.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 4: _Primary and Present State of the Solar System_, by P.
McFarlane. Edinburgh, Thomas Grant, _circa_ 1845.]
[Footnote 5: At the meeting of the British Association in 1844; quoted
by Hugh Miller, _Testimony of the Rocks_, pp. 358, 359.]
[Footnote 6: _A Brief and Complete Refutation of the Antiscriptural
Theory of the Geologists_, by a Clergyman of the Church of England.
London, 1853; quoted by Hugh Miller, _loc. cit._]
[Footnote 7: _L'Hypnotisme et la suggestion mentale._ Germer Baillière
et Cie. Paris, pp. 261-316.]
[Footnote 8: _Revue Philosophique_, Nov. 1887, quoted in _Proceedings
of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. p. 532.]
[Footnote 9: _Revue Philosophique_, March 1887.]
[Footnote 10: Mrs. Verrall states that after long practice she "lost
all consciousness of the means which enabled her to guess, and _saw_
pictures of the cards."]
[Footnote 11: _Proceedings of the American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp.
302 _et seq._]
[Footnote 12: No doubt the great preponderance of geometrical figures
is in some measure due to the use of the word "diagram," which in
English would probably suggest to most persons a geometrical diagram.
But possibly the word has a different shade of meaning in American. It
is certain too that a considerable proportion of the persons who filled
in the cards were acquainted with the object of the inquiry.]
[Footnote 13: _Proc. American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp. 35-43.]
[Footnote 14: It is not possible to eliminate the operation of such
preferences in the percipient. But if care be taken that the series of
things to be guessed is chosen arbitrarily, the only effect of even a
decided preference for particular cards, numbers, etc., on the part
of the percipient will be to lessen the number of coincidences due to
thought-transference.]
CHAPTER II.
EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS IN THE NORMAL STATE.
It is somewhat remarkable that the facts of thought-transference should
only have attracted serious attention within the last two decades.
With waking percipients, indeed, such phenomena do not seem to occur
unsought with sufficient frequency, or--if we leave on one side for the
moment telepathic hallucinations--on a sufficiently striking scale to
afford evidence of any transmission of thought or sensation otherwise
than through the familiar channels. But the hypnotic state appears
to offer peculiar facilities for such transmission, and hypnotism,
under the name of mesmerism, has now been closely studied by numerous
observers for upwards of a century. The earlier French observers,[15]
indeed, occasionally recorded instances of what appears to have been
thought-transference between the mesmerist and his subject. But these
facts were observed by the way, in the search for phenomena of another
kind; and no attempt appears to have been made to follow up the clue
by means of direct experiment. Even the English observers of 1840 and
onwards, though familiar with what they termed "community of sensation"
between the operator and his subject, appear never to have realised
its possible significance. Dr. Elliotson, for instance, describes in
the _Zoist_ (vol. v. pp. 242-245) some experiments in which a lady,
mesmerised by himself, was able to indicate correctly the taste of
salt, cinnamon, sugar, ginger, water, and pepper, as Dr. Elliotson
placed successively these various substances in his mouth. But he
seems to have recorded the results chiefly from curiosity, and to
have regarded them as of little scientific interest compared with the
stiffening of a limb, or the painless performance of an operation under
mesmeric anæsthesia. Dr. Esdaile (_Practical Mesmerism_, p. 125), Mr.
C. H. Townshend (_Facts in Mesmerism_, pp. 68, 72, 76, etc., etc.),
Professor Gregory (_Animal Magnetism_, p. 231), and other writers of
that time, record similar observations. But the subject seems to have
been crowded out, on the one hand, with the more cautious observers,
by the growing importance of hypnotism as an anæsthetic and a curative
agency, on the other by the greater marvels of "clairvoyance" and
"spirit" communications.
It was Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, who,
in a paper read before the British Association at Glasgow in 1876,
first isolated the phenomenon from its somewhat dubious surroundings,
and drew public attention to its importance. Up to that time "community
of sensation" or thought-transference seems to have been known only
as a rare and fitful accompaniment of the hypnotic trance. But in
the course of the correspondence arising out of his paper Professor
Barrett learnt of several instances where similar phenomena had been
observed in the waking state. The Willing game was just then coming
into fashion, and cases had been observed in which the thing willed had
been performed without contact between the performer and the person
willing, and apparently without the possibility of any normal means
of communication between them. Later, in the years 1881-82, a long
series of experiments, in which Professor Sidgwick, the late Professor
Balfour Stewart, the late Edmund Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers and others
joined with Professor Barrett, seemed to establish the possibility
of a new mode of communication. And these earlier results have been
confirmed by further experiments continued down to the present time by
many observers both in this country and abroad. In the present chapter
some account will be given of experiments in the transference of
simple ideas and sensations performed with percipients in the ordinary
waking state. The next chapter will deal with similar results obtained
with hypnotised persons. In Chapters IV. and V. results of a more
complicated or unusual character will be described and discussed.
_Transference of Tastes._
The particular form of telepathy which first attracted attention to
the whole subject, the transmission to the percipient of impressions
of taste and pain experienced by the agent, appears to have been
observed in the normal state very rarely. One such case may be here
quoted. In the years 1883-85 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., of Liverpool,
the then head of a large drapery business in that city, conducted a
long series of experiments with two of his employees, Miss E. and
Miss R. In September 1883 Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Edmund Gurney, and Mr.
Myers, indicated respectively by the initials M. G., E. G., and M.,
had a series of trials with these percipients in the transference of
tastes. The percipients, who were fully awake, were blindfolded; the
packets or bottles containing the substances experimented upon were
placed beyond the range of possible vision; and in the case of strongly
smelling substances, either at a distance or outside the room; and
other precautions were taken by the agents, by keeping the mouth closed
and turning the head away, etc., in order that the percipients should
not become aware by the sense of smell of the nature of the substance
experimented with. Strict silence was of course observed. It may be
conceded that when all possible precautions are taken, experiments
with sapid substances must be inconclusive when the agent is in the
same room with the percipient; since nearly all such substances have
an odour, however faint. In view, however, of the extreme sensibility
already demonstrated (see below, pp. 23, etc.) of these particular
percipients to transferred impressions of other kinds, it seems
probable that the results in this case also were actually due to
telepathy. The alternative explanation is to attribute to persons in
the normal waking state a degree of hyperæsthesia for which we have
no exact parallel even in the records of hypnotism. For to persons of
normal susceptibility the odour of a small quantity, _e.g._ of salt or
alum, in the mouth of another person at a distance of two or three feet
would certainly be quite inappreciable.
No. 1.--By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.
_September 3, 1883._
EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN.
1 M. E. Vinegar. "A sharp and nasty taste."
2 M. E. Mustard. "Mustard."
3 M. R. Do. "Ammonia."
4 M. E. Sugar. "I still taste the hot
taste of the mustard."
_September 4._
5 E. G. & M. E. Worcestershire sauce "Worcestershire sauce."
6 M. G. R. Do. "Vinegar."
7 E. G. & M. E. Port wine "Between eau de Cologne and
beer."
8 M. G. R. Do. "Raspberry vinegar."
9 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes "Horrible and bitter."
10 M. G. R. Alum "A taste of ink--of
iron--of vinegar. I feel
it on my lips--it is as
if I had been eating
alum."
11 M. G. E. Alum (E. perceived that M. G.
was as not tasting bitter
aloes, E. G. and M.
supposed, but something
different. No distinct
perception on account of
the persistence of the
bitter taste.)
EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN.
12 E. G. & M. E. Nutmeg "Peppermint--no--what you
put in puddings--nutmeg."
13 M. G. R. Do. "Nutmeg."
14 E. G. & M. R. Sugar Nothing perceived.
15 M. G. R. Do. Nothing perceived.
(Sugar should be tried at an
earlier stage in the series,
as, after the aloes, we
could scarcely taste it
ourselves.)
16 E. G. & M. E. Cayenne pepper "Mustard."
17 M. G. R. Do. "Cayenne pepper."
(After the cayenne we were
unable to taste anything
further that evening.)
Throughout the next series of experiments the substances were kept
outside the room in which the percipients were seated.
_September 5._
18 E. G. & M. E. Carbonate of Soda Nothing perceived.
19 M. G. R. Caraway seeds "It feels like meal--like a
seed loaf--caraway seeds."
(The _substance_ of the
seeds seems to be perceived
before their _taste_.)
20 E. G. & M. E. Cloves "Cloves."
21 E. G. & M. E. Citric acid Nothing felt.
22 M. G. R. Do. "Salt."
23 E. G. & M. E. Liquorice "Cloves."
24 M. G. R. Cloves "Cinnamon."
25 E. G. & M. E. Acid jujube "Pear drop."
26 M. G. R. Do. "Something hard, which is
giving way--acid jujube."
27 E. G. & M. E. Candied ginger "Something sweet and hot."
28 M. G. R. Do. "Almond toffy."
(M. G. took this ginger in
the dark, and was some
time before he realised
that it was ginger.)
29 E. G. & M. E. Home-made Noyau. "Salt."
30 M. G. R. Do. "Port wine."
(This was by far the most
strongly smelling of the
substances tried; the
scent of kernels being
hard to conceal. Yet it
was named by E. as salt.)
31 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes "Bitter."
32 M. G. R. Do. Nothing felt.
(_Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_,
vol. ii. pp. 3, 4.)
Further experiments in this direction are much to be desired. But
apart from the difficulty above referred to, experiments of the kind
are liable to be tedious and inconclusive because of the inability of
most persons to discriminate accurately between one taste and another,
when the guidance of all other senses is lacking. To conduct such
experiments to a successful issue, it would probably be necessary that
the percipients should have some preliminary training to enable them
to distinguish by taste alone between various salts and pharmaceutical
preparations.
_Transference of Pains._
Experiments in the transference of pains are not attended with the
same difficulties, nor open to the same evidential objections; and
some interesting trials of this kind with one of the same percipients,
Miss R., met with a fair amount of success. The experiments were
carried on at intervals, interspersed with experiments of other kinds,
by Mr. Guthrie at Liverpool during nine months in 1884 and 1885. The
percipient on each occasion was blindfolded and seated with her back
towards the rest of the party, who each pinched or otherwise injured
themselves in the same part of the body at the same time. The agents
in these experiments--the whole series of which is here recorded--were
three or more of the following:--Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr.
Hicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss
Redmond, and on one occasion another lady. The results are given in the
following table:--
No. 2.--BY MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.
1.--Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised. 2.--Lobe of left
ear pricked. Rightly localised. 3.--Left wrist pricked. "Is it
in the left hand?" pointing to the back near the little finger.
4.--Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A
lower joint of that finger was guessed. 5.--Left wrist scratched
with pins. "Is it in the left wrist, like being scratched?"
6.--Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.
7.--Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.
8.--Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.
9.--Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.
10.--Hands burned over gas. "Like a pulling pain ... then tingling,
like cold and hot alternately," localised by gesture only.
11.--End of tongue bitten. "Is it the lip or the tongue?"
12.--Palm of left hand pricked. "Is it a tingling pain in the left
hand here?" placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.
13.--Back of neck pricked. "Is it a pricking of the neck?"
14.--Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.
15.--Spot just above left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.
16.--Spot just above right wrist pricked. "I am not quite sure, but
I feel a pain in the right arm, from the thumb upwards to above the
wrist."
17.--Inside of left ankle pricked. Outside of left ankle guessed.
18.--Spot beneath right collar-bone pricked. The exactly
corresponding spot on the left side guessed.
19.--Back hair pulled. No result.
20.--Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 424-452.)
_Transference of Sounds._
It is noteworthy that there is little experimental evidence for the
transmission of an auditory impression. Occasionally, in trials with
names and cards the nature of the mistakes made has seemed to indicate
audition, as when, _e.g._, _three_ is given for _Queen_ or _ace_ for
_eight_. But obviously a long series of experiments and a long series
of mistakes would be necessary to afford material for any conclusion.
Sometimes a percipient has stated that he heard the name of the thing
thought of; as, for instance, in a case recorded in Chapter V., where
the percipient "heard" the word _gloves_ before "seeing" a vision of
them. But such cases appear to be rare. Experiments with a view to test
the transmission of _actual_ sounds could of course only be carried
out under special conditions, of which one would be the separation
of the agent from the percipient by a considerable intervening
space--and this condition is, of itself, found to interfere with
success. Some evidence, indeed, of a quasi-experimental character for
the transference of musical sounds at a distance will be given in a
later chapter (Chapter V., No. 33). Experiments with imagined sounds
appear to have been rarely tried, or at least, successful results have
rarely been recorded.[16] Occasionally indeed experimenters have put on
record that in thinking of an object they have mentally repeated the
name of the object as well as pictured the object itself, and there are
a few cases where the general idea of the object thought of appears to
have reached the percipient before the outlines of the form, which may
possibly be explained as due to the reception of an auditory before a
visual impression.[17]
This lack of evidence for auditory transmission is no doubt largely
due to a desire on the part of experimenters in the first instance
to make the proof of actual thought-transference as complete as
possible. Experiments with sounds would impose a greater strain upon
the agents, since in most cases they must be imagined sounds. Moreover,
in such experiments it would be at once more difficult to estimate
with precision degrees of success, and to preserve a permanent record
of the result; and finally, the subject thought of would be more
easily communicated either fraudulently, by a code, or by unconscious
indications on the part of the agent. In this connection it is possibly
significant that whilst in morbid conditions auditory hallucinations
are much commoner than visual, the proportion appears to be reversed
with telepathic hallucinations. It seems probable that the apparent
infrequency of auditory transmission may be in part due to the fact
that in the modern world the sense of vision is for educated persons
the habitual channel for precise or important information. To the Greek
in the time of Socrates no doubt the ear was the main avenue for all
knowledge; it was the ear that received not merely the current talk of
the market-place and the gymnasium, but the oratory of the law-court,
the literature of the stage, and the philosophy of the Schools. But
for modern civilised societies the newspaper and the libraries have
placed the eye in a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. It seems
likely therefore, apart from all defects in such evidence, that the
agent would find a greater difficulty, as a rule, in calling up a vivid
representation of a sound than of a vision; and that the percipient
would experience a corresponding difference in the reception and
discrimination of the two classes of impressions.
_Transference of Ideas not definitely classed._
Experiments by PROFESSOR RICHET and others.
In the following cases, where the exact nature of the impression
received was not apparently consciously classified by the percipient,
it may be presumed to have been either of a visual or an auditory
nature. M. Charles Richet (_Revue Philosophique_, Dec. 1884, "La
suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilités") conducted a series
of experiments in guessing the suits of cards drawn at random from a
pack. 2927 trials were made: ten persons besides M. Richet himself--who
acted sometimes as agent and sometimes as percipient--taking part in
the experiments. In the 2927 trials the suit was correctly named 789
times, the most probable number of correct guesses being 732. A similar
series of trials was conducted, on Edmund Gurney's initiative, by some
members of the S.P.R. and others. There were 17 series, containing
17,653 trials, and 4760 successes; the theoretically probable number,
on the assumption that the results were due to chance, being 4413.
The probability for some cause other than chance deduced from this
result is .999,999,98, which represents perhaps a higher degree of
probability than the inhabitants of this hemisphere are justified in
attaching to the belief that the ensuing night will be followed by
another day.[18] In a similar series of experiments carried out under
the direction of the American S.P.R. the proportion of successes was
little higher than the theoretically probable number.[19] But in the
absence of details as to the conditions under which the experiments
were made, no unfavourable inference can fairly be drawn from these
results. At any rate some very remarkable results were obtained later,
in a series of trials made on the lines laid down by the committee of
the American Society. The agent in this case was Mrs. J. F. Brown, the
percipient Nellie Gallagher, "a domestic lately come from the county
of Northumberland, in New Brunswick." The experiments appear to have
been carried out with great care, and the results are recorded and
analysed at length (_Proc. Am. S.P.R._, pp. 322-349). 3000 trials were
made in guessing the numbers from 0 to 9 or from 1 to 10 inclusive. The
order of the digits in each set of 100 trials was determined by drawing
lots. The agent sat at one side of a table, the percipient at the other
side. At first the percipient sat facing the agent, but after about
1000 trials had been made her back was turned to the table--and this
position was continued to the end. The paper containing the numbers
to be guessed was placed in the agent's lap, out of sight of the
percipient. There was no mirror in the room. In the result the digits
were correctly named 584 times, or nearly twice the probable number,
300. The proportion of the successes steadily increased, from 175 in
the first batch of 1000 trials, to 190 in the second, and 219 in the
third batch.
No. 3.--By DR. OCHOROWICZ.
In the following set of experiments, made by Dr. Ochorowicz,
ex-Professor of Psychology and Natural Philosophy at the University of
Lemberg, described in his book _La Suggestion mentale_ (pp. 69, 75,
76), there are not sufficient indications in most cases to enable a
judgment to be formed as to the special form of sense-impression made
on the percipient's mind. The percipient was a Madame D., 70 years of
age. She had been shown to be amenable to hypnotism, but during these
experiments she was in a normal condition. She is described as being of
strong constitution and in good health; intelligent above the average,
well read, and accustomed to literary work. The first experiments
with Madame D. are not quoted here, not having been conducted, as Dr.
Ochorowicz explains, under strict conditions. The objects thought of
had been selected by the agent, instead of being taken haphazard, and
the choice had frequently been directly suggested by his surroundings.
It seemed possible, therefore, to explain the results as due to an
unconscious association of ideas common to agent and percipient.
Dr. Ochorowicz, however, has shown by his careful analysis of the
experiments recorded in the earlier chapters of his book that he is
fully aware of the risk of error from this and other causes, and in
the series of the 2nd May and the following days he tells us that
adequate precautions were taken.
_An Object._
36. A bust of M. N. | Portrait ... of a man ... a
| bust.
37. A fan. | Something round.
38. A key. | Something made of lead ...
| of bronze ... it is iron.
39. A hand holding a ring. | Something shining, a diamond
| ... a ring.
_A Taste._
40. Acid. | Sweet.
_A Diagram._
41. A square. | Something irregular.
42. A circle. | A triangle ... a circle.
_A Letter._
43. M. | M.
44. D. | D.
45. J. | J.
46. B. | A, X, R, B.
47. O. | W, A; no, it is an O.
48. Jan. | J ... (go on!) Jan.
_Third Series_, May 6th, 1885.--Twenty-five experiments were made,
of which, unfortunately, I have kept no record, except of the three
following, which impressed me most. (The subject had her back to us,
held the pencil and _wrote_ whatever came into her head. We touched her
back lightly, keeping our eyes fixed on the letters we had written.)
49. Brabant. | Bra ... (I made a mental
effort to help the subject,
without speaking.)
Brabant.
50. Paris. | P ... aris.
51. Telephone. | T ... elephone.
_Fourth Series_, May 8th.--Same conditions.
52. Z. | L, P, K, J.
53. B. | B.
54. T. | S, T, F.
55. N. | M, N.
56. P. | R, Z, A.
57. Y. | V, Y.
58. E. | E.
59. Gustave. | F, J, Gabriel.
60. Duch. | E, O.
61. Ba. | B, A.
62. No. | F, K, O.
_A Number._
63. 44. | 6, 8, 12.
64. 2. | 7, 5, 9.
(I told my assistant to imagine the look of the number when
written, and not its sound.)
65. 3. | 8, 3.
66. 7. | 7.
67. 8. | 8; no, 0, 6, 9.
Then followed thirteen trials with fantastic figures, details of which
Dr. Ochorowicz does not record. He tells us, however, that only five
of the representations presented even a general resemblance to the
originals.
It is to be observed that in this series of experiments contact was
not completely excluded in all the trials. But if Dr. Ochorowicz's
memory may be relied upon for the statement that the agent looked
at the original letters and diagrams, and not at the percipient's
attempts at reproducing them, the hypothesis of involuntary muscular
guidance must be severely strained to account for the results. At any
rate, in the three remaining trials in this series it seems clear that
muscle-reading is inadequate as an explanation.
A person thought of.
_Subject._ | _Answer._
68. The percipient. | M. O----; no, it's myself.
69. M. D----. | M. D----.
An Image.
70. We pictured to ourselves | I see passing clouds ... a
a crescent moon. M. | light ... (in a satisfied
P---- on a background | tone)--it is the moon.
of clouds, I in a |
clear dark blue sky. |
_Transference of Visual Images._
NO. 4.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.
The experiments which follow were made by Dr. Blair Thaw, M.D., of New
York. The series quoted, which took place on the 28th of April 1892,
comprises all the trials in which Dr. Thaw was himself the percipient.
Dr. Thaw had his eyes blindfolded and his ears muffled, and the agent,
Mrs. Thaw, and Mr. M. H. Wyatt, who was present but took no part in
the agency, kept silent, except when it was necessary to state whether
an object, card, number, or colour was to be guessed. The objects were
in all cases actually looked at by the agent, the "colour" being a
coloured disc, and the numbers being printed on separate cards.[20]
_1st Object._ SILK PINCUSHION, in form of Orange-Red Apple, quite
round.--Percipient: _A Disc_. When asked what colour, said, _Red or
Orange_. When asked what object, named _Pincushion_.
_2nd Object._ A SHORT LEAD PENCIL, nearly covered by the nickel cover.
Never seen by percipient. Percipient: _Something white or light. A
card. I thought of Mr. Wyatt's silver pencil_.
_3rd Object._ A DARK VIOLET in Mr. Wyatt's button-hole, but not known
to be in the house by percipient. Percipient: _Something dark. Not very
big. Longish. Narrow. Soft. It can't be a cigarette because it is dark
brown. A dirty colour._ Asked about smell, said: _Not strong, but what
you might call pungent; a clean smell_.
Percipient had not noticed smell before, though sitting by Mr. Wyatt
some time, but when afterwards told of the violet knew that this was
the odour noticed in experiment.
Asked to spell name, percipient said: _Phrygian, Phrigid, or first
letter V if not Ph_.
_4th Object._ WATCH, dull silver with filigree. Percipient: _Yellow
or dirty ivory. Not very big. Like carving on it._ Watch is opened by
agent, and percipient is asked what was done. Percipient says: _You
opened it. It is shaped like a_ _butterfly_. Percipient held finger
and thumb of each hand making figure much like that of opened watch.
Percipient asked to spell it, said: _I get r-i-n-g with a W at first_.
PLAYING CARDS.
KING SPADES.--_Spades. Spot in middle and spots outside. 7 Spades. 9
Spades._
4 CLUBS.--_4 Clubs._
5 SPADES.--_5 Diamonds._
NUMBERS OUT OF NINE DIGITS.
4.--Percipient said: _It stands up straight. 4_.
6.--Percipient said: _Those two are too much alike, only a little gap
in one of them. It is either 5 or 6_.
3.--_3._
1.--Percipient said: _Cover up that upper part if it is the 1. It is
either 7 or 1_.
2.--_9, 8._
[From acting so much as agent in previous trials, I knew the shapes of
these numbers printed on cardboard, and as agent found the 5 and 6 too
much alike. After looking hard at one of them I can hardly tell the
difference, and always cover the upper projection of the I because it
is so much like a 7.
The numbers were printed on separate pieces of cardboard, and there
were about a hundred in the box, being made for some game.]
COLOURS, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.
Chosen. 1st Guess. 2nd Guess.
BRIGHT RED _Bright Red_
LIGHT GREEN _Light Green_
YELLOW _Dark Blue_ _Yellow_
BRIGHT YELLOW _Bright Yellow_
DARK RED _Blue_ _Dark Red_
DARK BLUE _Orange_ _Dark Blue_
ORANGE _Green_ _Heliotrope_
The percipient himself told the agents to change character of object
after each actual failure, thus getting new sensations.
Percipient was told to go into next room and get something.
_1st Object._ SILVER INKSTAND chosen.--Percipient says, _I think of
something, but it is too bright and easy. It is the silver inkstand._
Percipient told to get something in next room.
_2nd Object._ A GLASS CANDLESTICK.--Percipient went to right corner
of the room and to the cabinet with the object on it, but could not
distinguish which object.
Percipient had handkerchief off to be able to walk, but was not
followed by agents, and did not see them. Agents found percipient
standing with hands over candlestick undecided.
From the percipient's descriptions it would seem that the impression
here was of a visual nature, though Dr. Thaw himself says, "I cannot
describe my sensation as a visualisation of any kind. It seemed rather
to be by some wholly subjective process that I knew what the agents
were looking at." It is not always, however, an easy task to analyse
one's own sensations; and, on the whole, it seems more probable that
there was visualisation, but of a very faint and ideal kind.
No. 5.--By MR. MALCOLM GUTHRIE.
Reference has already been made to the long series of experiments
carried on during the years 1883-85 by Mr. Malcolm Guthrie of
Liverpool. During a great part of the series he was assisted by Mr.
James Birchall, Hon. Sec. of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical
Society. Professor Oliver Lodge, Edmund Gurney, Professor Herdman,
and others co-operated from time to time. Throughout there were two
percipients only, Miss R. and Miss E. The experiments were conducted
and the results recorded with great care and thoroughness; and the
whole series, in its length, its variety, and its completeness, forms
perhaps the most important single contribution to the records of
experimental thought-transference in the normal state.[21] Summing up,
in July 1885, the results attained, Mr. Guthrie writes:--
"We have now a record of 713 experiments, and I recently set myself
the task of classifying them into the 4 classes of successful,
partially successful, misdescriptions, and failures. I endeavoured
to work it out in what I thought a reasonable way, but I
experienced much difficulty in assigning to its proper column each
experiment we made. This, however, is a task which each student of
the subject will be able to undertake for himself according to his
own judgment. I do not submit my summary as a basis for calculation
of probability. A few successful experiments of a certain kind
carry greater weight with them than a large number of another
kind; for some experiments are practically beyond the region of
guesses....
"The following is a summary of the work done, classified to the
best of my judgment:--
FIRST SERIES.
Key
A. = Nothing perceived.
B. = Complete.
C. = Partial.
D. = Misdescriptions.
---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+
Experiments and Conditions. |Total.| A. | B. | C. | D. |
---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+
Visual--Letters, figures, and cards-- | | | | | |
Contact | 26 | 2 | 17 | 4 | 3 |
Visual--Letters, figures, and cards-- | | | | | |
Non-contact | 16 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 5 |
Visual--Objects, colours, etc.--Contact| 19 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 2 |
Do. do. Non-contact| 38 | 4 | 28 | 6 | 0 |
Imagined visual--Non-contact | 18 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 3 |
Imagined numbers and names--Contact | | | | | |
and Non-contact | 39 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 10 |
Pains--Contact | 52 | 10 | 30 | 9 | 3 |
Tastes and smells--Contact | 94 | 19 | 42 | 20 | 13 |
+------+----+-----+----+----+
| 302 | 57 | 153 | 53 | 39 |
Diagrams--Contact | 37 | 7 | 18 | 6 | 6 |
Do. Non-contact | 118 | 6 | 66 | 23 | 23 |
+------+----+-----+----+----+
| 457 | 70 | 237 | 82 | 68 |
---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+
"There were also 40 diagrams for experimental evenings with
strangers, in series of sixes and sevens, all misdrawn, and not
fairly to be reckoned in the above.
457 experiments under proper conditions.
70 nothing perceived.
---
387
319 wholly or partially correct; 68 misdescriptions = 18 per cent."
In the second series there were 123 trials; in 15 cases no impression
was received, and in 35 cases, or 32 per cent of the remainder, an
incorrect description was given. In the third series, of 133 trials
there were 24 in which no impression was received and 40 failures:
proportion of failures = 37 per cent. Mr. Guthrie attributes this
gradual decline in the proportion of successes to the difficulty
experienced by both agents and percipients in maintaining the original
lively interest in the proceedings.
No. 6.--By PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.
Subjoined is a detailed description of experiments made on two evenings
in 1884, recorded by Professor Lodge,[22] which leaves no room for
doubt that the impressions received in this instance by the percipient
were of a visual nature. The agent on the first evening was Mr. James
Birchall, who held the hand of the percipient, Miss R. The only other
person present was Professor Lodge. The object was placed sometimes on
a wooden screen between the percipient and the agent, at other times
behind the percipient, whose eyes were bandaged. The bandage, it should
be observed, was a sufficient precaution against cornea-reading; but
for other purposes no reliance was placed upon it. It is believed that
the precautions taken were in all cases adequate to conceal the object
from the percipient if her eyes had been uncovered. In the account
quoted any remarks made by the agent or Professor Lodge are entered
between brackets.
_Object_--_a blue square of silk_.--(Now, it's going to be a
colour; ready.) "Is it green?" (No.) "It's something between green
and blue.... Peacock." (What shape?) She drew a rhombus.
[N.B.--It is not intended to imply that this was a success by any
means, and it is to be understood that it was only to make a start
on the first experiment that so much help was given as is involved
in saying "it's a colour." When they are simply told "an object,"
or, what is much the same, when nothing is said at all, the field
for guessing is practically infinite. When no remark at starting is
recorded none was made, except such an one as "Now we are ready,"
by myself.]
_Next object--a key on a black ground._--(It's an object.) In a few
seconds she said, "It's bright.... It looks like a key." Told to
draw it, she drew it just inverted.
_Next object--three gold studs in morocco case._--"Is it yellow?...
Something gold.... Something round.... A locket or a watch
perhaps." (Do you see more than one round?) "Yes, there seem to
be more than one.... Are there three rounds?... Three rings?"
(What do they seem to be set in?) "Something bright like beads."
[Evidently not understanding or attending to the question.] Told
to unblindfold herself and draw, she drew the three rounds in a
row quite correctly, and then sketched round them absently the
outline of the case, which seemed therefore to have been apparent
to her though she had not consciously attended to it. It was an
interesting and striking experiment.
_Next object--a pair of scissors standing partly often with their
points down._--"Is it a bright object?... Something long-ways
[indicating verticality].... A pair of scissors standing up.... A
little bit open." Time, about a minute altogether. She then drew
her impression, and it was correct in every particular. The object
in this experiment was on a settee behind her, but its position had
to be pointed out to her when, after the experiment, she wanted to
see it.
_Next object--a drawing of a right-angled triangle on its
side._--(It's a drawing.) She drew an isosceles triangle on its
side.
_Next--a circle with a cord across it._--She drew two detached
ovals, one with a cutting line across it.
_Next--a drawing of a Union Jack pattern._--As usual in drawing
experiments, Miss R. remained silent for perhaps a minute; then
she said, "Now I am ready." I hid the object; she took off the
handkerchief, and proceeded to draw on paper placed ready in front
of her. She this time drew all the lines of the figure except the
horizontal middle one. She was obviously much tempted to draw this,
and, indeed, began it two or three times faintly, but ultimately
said, "No, I'm not sure," and stopped.
[Illustration: ORIGINAL.]
[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]
[N.B.--The actual drawings made in all the experiments are
preserved intact by Mr. Guthrie.]
[END OF SITTING.]
Experiments with MISS R.--_Continued_.
I will now describe an experiment indicating that one agent may be
better than another.
_Object--the Three of Hearts._--Miss E. and Mr. Birchall both
present as agents, but Mr. Birchall holding percipient's hands at
first. "Is it a black cross ... a white ground with a black cross
on it?" Mr. Birchall now let Miss E. hold hands instead of himself,
and Miss R. very soon said, "Is it a card?" (Right.) "Are there
three spots on it?... Don't know what they are.... I don't think I
can get the colour.... They are one above the other, but they seem
three round spots.... I think they're red, but am not clear."
_Next object--a playing card with a blue anchor painted on it
slantwise instead of pips._--No contact at all this time, but
another lady, Miss R----d, who had entered the room, assisted Mr.
B. and Miss E. as agents. "Is it an anchor? ... a little on the
slant." (Do you see any colour?) "Colour is black.... It's a nicely
drawn anchor." When asked to draw she sketched part of it, but had
evidently half forgotten it, and not knowing the use of the cross
arm, she could only indicate that there was something more there
but she couldn't remember what. Her drawing had the right slant
exactly.
_Another object--two pairs of coarse lines crossing; drawn in red
chalk_, and set up at some distance from agents. No contact. "I
only see lines crossing." She saw no colour. She afterwards drew
them quite correctly, but very small.
[Illustration: ORIGINALS.]
[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]
_Double object._--It was now that I arranged the double object
between Miss R----d and Miss E., who happened to be sitting nearly
facing one another. [See _Nature,_ June 12th, 1884.] The drawing
was a square on one side of the paper, a cross on the other. Miss
R----d looked at the side with the square on it. Miss E. looked at
the side with the cross. Neither knew what the other was looking
at--nor did the percipient know that anything unusual was being
tried. Mr. Birchall was silently asked to take off his attention
and he got up and looked out of window before the drawings were
brought in, and during the experiment. There was no contact. Very
soon Miss R. said, "I see things moving about.... I seem to see two
things.... I see first one up there, and then one down there.... I
don't know which to draw.... I can't see either distinctly." (Well,
anyhow, draw what you have seen.) She took off the bandage and drew
first a square, and then said, "Then there was the other thing as
well ... afterwards they seemed to go into one," and she drew a
cross inside the square from corner to corner, adding afterwards,
"I don't know what made me put it inside."
No. 7.--By HERR MAX DESSOIR.
In June 1885 some successful experiments in thought-transference were
made by Herr Dessoir, of Berlin, author of _A Bibliography of Modern
Hypnotism_, and other works, with the co-operation of some friends,
Herren Weiss, Biltz, and Sachse. There were in all eighteen trials
with diagrams in which Herr Dessoir was the percipient. The diagrams
which follow--reproduced from the original drawings--were the result
of six consecutive trials. They are, as will be seen, not completely
successful, but they convey a fair idea of the amount of success
attained in the whole series. It should be noted that the impression
received by the percipient appears to have been persistent; and that
the second attempt at reproduction, in five out of the six cases,
was more successful than the first. Herr Dessoir states that he was
generally out of the room whilst the figure was being drawn; he
returned at the given signal, with eyes closely bandaged; "I set myself
at the table, and in many instances placed my hands on the table, and
the agent placed his hands on mine; the hands lay quite still on one
another. When an image presented itself to my mind, the hands were
removed ... and I took off the bandage and drew my figure."
A full account of these experiments, and of others conducted by Herr
Dessoir, will be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 111-126; vol. v.
pp. 355-357.
[Illustration: I.
ORIG.
Agent: W. S.
REP. 1. REP. 2.
While the second reproduction was proceeding, an interruption occurred
which prevented its completion.]
[Illustration: II.
ORIG.
Agent: H. B.
REP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3. REP. 4.]
[Illustration: III.
ORIG.
Agent: H. B.
REP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3.
The percipient said, "It looks like a
window."
]
[Illustration: IV.
ORIG.
Agent: H. B.
REP. 1.
REP. 2.]
[Illustration: REP. 3.
V.
Orig.
Agent: H. B.]
[Illustration: REP. 1. REP. 2.]
[Illustration: VI.
ORIG. REP. 1. REP. 2.
Agent: E. W. The percipient said, "It looks like a window."
]
No. 8.--By HERR SCHMOLL and M. MABIRE.
Of more recent experiments with diagrams, those recorded by Herr Anton
Schmoll and M. Etienne Mabire are perhaps the most important.[23] The
experiments took place at Herr Schmoll's house, 111 Avenue de Villiers,
Paris. In addition to Herr Schmoll and M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll and four
or five other persons assisted at one time or another. Mr. F. W. H.
Myers was also present on three occasions. In all about 100 trials were
made with diagrams and real objects (the actual number of experiments
of all kinds was 148), full details of which will be found in the
original papers. The experiments were made in the evenings, in a room
lighted by a hanging lamp. The agents, usually three or four in number,
sat at a round table immediately under the lamp, and fixed their
eyes on the diagram or object, which was placed on the table before
them. The percipient, with his eyes bandaged, sat in full view of the
agents with his back to them in a corner of the room at a distance
of about ten feet from the object. Silence was maintained during the
experiments, except where otherwise expressly stated. The object or
diagram was carefully hidden before the handkerchief was removed from
the eyes of the percipient to enable him to draw his impression. In
the first nineteen experiments the figure was drawn with the end of a
match dipped in ink, whilst the percipient was in the room. It was not
likely, under the circumstances, as the match moved almost noiselessly
over the paper, that any indication of the figure drawn could by this
means have been given to the percipient. Nevertheless, in the later
experiments quoted the precaution was taken to draw the figure whilst
the percipient was in another room, and a soft brush was substituted
for the match. The following is a record, by Herr Schmoll, of the last
two evenings of the first series:--
18.--_August 24th, 1886._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--M. Mabire.
_Object_ (drawn)--
[Illustration]
_Result_--M. Mabire saw "a sort of semicircle like the tail of a
comet, but of spiral construction, like some of the nebulæ." What
he saw he reproduced in the following manner:--
[Illustration]
19.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Schmoll.
_Object_ (drawn)--
[Illustration]
_Result_--"I see two double lines, that cross each other at about
right angles." (Pause.) "The two double lines now appear single,
but like rays of light, and in the form of an =X=." (Another
pause.) "Now I see the upper part of the =X= separated from the
lower by a vertical line." I draw:--
[Illustration]
20.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.
_Object_--A brass weight of 500 grms. was placed on the table.
[Illustration]
_Result_--"What I see looks like a short piece of candle, without
a candlestick. It must be burning, for at the upper end I see it
glitter."
_Remark_--At the upper part of the object, indicated by the arrow,
bright reflections, caused by the oblique lighting, were seen
by all the agents (the weight was rubbed bright). The form seen
decidedly resembles the original, especially the outline.
21.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.
_Object_--My gold watch (without the chain) was noiselessly placed
before us, the back turned towards us; on the face are Roman
numbers.
_Result_--After five minutes: "I see a round object, but I cannot
describe it more particularly." (During the pause that followed,
without causing the slightest noise, I turned the watch round, so
that we saw the face.) Soon Mdlle. Louise called out: "You are
certainly looking at the clock over the piano, for now I quite
clearly see a clock face with Roman numbers."
[The watch, as was ascertained after the experiment, was not going
at the time.]
22.--_September 10th, 1886._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Schmoll.
_Object_--A pamphlet (in 8vo) was slantingly placed on the table.
_Result_--Completely failed. I saw nothing whatever.
_Remark_--At the beginning of our trials to-day we had neglected to
clear the table. The book was surrounded by other objects, and also
badly lighted.
23.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.
_Object_--A piece of candle, 20 centimetres long, was placed on the
table.
_Result_--After eight minutes: "I see it well, but not clearly
enough to say what it is. It is a thin, long object."
"How long?" asked M. Mabire.
Frau Schmoll tried by separating her hands to give a measurement,
but could not do it with certainty, and said, "A full hand's
length, about 20 centimetres." Begged for a further description,
she said, "I see something like a walking-stick, but at one end
there must be gold, for something shines there." (The candle was
_not_ burning.)
24.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.
_Object_--A Faience tea-pot was placed on the table:--
[Illustration]
_Result_--After five minutes: "It is not a drawing, but a real
object. I see very clearly a little vase, a little pot or pan."
25.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--M. Mabire.
_Object_--The stamp of the firm was placed on the table:--
[Illustration]
_Result_--After twenty minutes: "The picture appears to be rather
confused. But I believe that I see the lower part of a drinking
glass." (Pause.) "Now it has gone again." (A pause of five
minutes.) "Now I see another form, like two symmetrical S-shaped
double curves, placed side by side." Then M. Mabire drew:--
[Illustration]
_Remark_--Apparently the lower part was seen first, and then the
upper.
26.--_The same evening._
_Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.
_Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.
_Object_--The double eye-glasses (pince-nez) belonging to M. Mabire
were laid on the table.
[Illustration]
_Result_--After five minutes: "I see two curves, open above, that
do not touch each other." Then Mdlle. Louise drew:--
[Illustration]
Unfortunately, the original drawings and reproductions in this series
were not preserved. The figures given are facsimile reproductions of
those in Herr Schmoll's MS. record, which were copied at the time on
a reduced scale from the actual drawings made by the agent and the
percipient respectively. In the second series the actual drawings have
been preserved. In the experiments quoted below, as already stated, the
figure was drawn whilst the percipient was out of the room, and (with
the exception of No. 58) several copies were made of the drawing, "in
order that each agent might be able to see the drawing in an upright
position, and that he might be able to place it at the most favourable
point of view." The percipient when ready withdrew the bandage from
his eyes and, still seated in the chair with his back to the agents,
executed the reproduction.
_April 5th, 1887._
-------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------
No. of | Percipient.| Agents. | Original | Result.
Trial. | | | Drawing. |
-------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------
| | | |
51 | Mdlle. | 4. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
| Louise M. | Mme. D. | |
| | Mdlle. Jane. | |
| | Mme. Schmoll | |
| | M. Schmoll. | |
| | | Each agent |Before drawing
| | | had a copy | the above figure,
| | | of the | Mdlle. Louise
| | | original. | said, "a
| | | | terrestrial globe
| | | | on a support."
| | | | 10 minutes.
| | | |
52 |Mdlle. Jane.| 4. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
| |Mdlle. Louise | |
| | in place of | |
| | Mdlle. Jane.| |
| | |Four copies of | 10 minutes.
| | | the original |
| | | were used by |
| | | the agents. |
| | | |
53 |Mme. Schmoll| 3. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
| | | |
| | | Three copies |During the
| | | used. | experiment
| | | | Mme. Schmoll said
| | | | that she saw "a
| | | | little roof."
| | | | 10 minutes.
54 |Mdlle. Jane.| 3. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
| | Mme. Schmoll | | 15 minutes.
| | in place of | |
| | Mdlle. Jane.| |
| | | Three copies |
| | | used. |
-------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------
Mdlle. Jane, _after having seen the original_, said that her first idea
had been that of a glass.
_April 5th, 1887_ (_continued_).
-------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------
No. of | Percipient.| Agents. | Original | Result.
Trial. | | | Drawing. |
-------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------
| | | |
55 | Mme. D. | 4. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
| | | |
| | | Four copies | 10 minutes.
| | | used. |
| | | |
56 | M. Schmoll.| 4. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
| | Mme. D. | |
| | in place | | [Illustration]
| | of M. | |
| | Schmoll. | |
| | | Four copies | 10 minutes.
| | | used. |
| | | |
57 | A Failure. | | |
| | | |
58 |Mdlle. Jane.| 6. |[Illustration]| After five minutes
| | | | Mdlle. Jane said,
| | | | "I see a cat's head."
| | | | On being asked to
| | | | draw what she saw,
| | | | she produced the
| | | | following figure:--
| | | |
| | | This was the | [Illustration]
| | | first time |
| | | that an |
| | | animal had |
| | | been drawn. |
| | | |
59 |Mdlle. Jane.| 6. |[Illustration]| At the end of five
| | | | minutes, Mdlle. Jane
| | | | having said, "_it
| | | | is a head in
| | | | profile_," a cry
| | | | of joy unfortunately
| | | | escaped one of those
| | | | present. This cry
| | | | having betrayed to
| | | This was the | Mdlle. Jane that she
| | | first time | had guessed rightly,
| | | that a head | no drawing was made.
| | | had been | In order to repair
| | | drawn. | the wrong as much
| | | | as possible, Mdlle.
| | | | Jane was asked
| | | | which way the head
| | | | was turned. "To
| | | | the left," she
| | | | replied.
-------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------
Experiments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 were failures. No. 65 was not an
experiment with a diagram.
_April 8th, 1887._
-------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------
No. of | Percipient. | Agents. | Original | Result.
Trial. | | | Drawing. |
-------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------
| | | |
66 | Mdlle. | 5. |[Illustration]| At the end of a few
| Louise. |(plus Mr. | | minutes, Mdlle.
| | Myers) | | Louise said, "I see
| | | | three fish on a
| | | | skewer." Not being
| | | | well understood, she
| | | | explained, "Three
| | | | fish held by a
| | | | skewer, that is as
| | | | they are sold in the
| | | | fish markets; but
| | | | everybody
| | | | knows that!"
| | | | Then she took off
| | | | her bandage and
| | | | drew--
| | | |
| | | This figure | [Illustration]
| | | was drawn by |
| | | Mr. Myers. |
67 | Failure. | | |
| | | |
68 | Failure. | | |
| | | |
69 | Mdlle. | 5. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
| Louise. |(plus Mr. | |
| | Myers) | |
-------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------
Appended is a statement from Mdlle. Jane D., a young lady of 20, who
appears to have been one of the most successful percipients in this
series:--
"Whenever I have taken part in the experiments as percipient, I
have endeavoured to expel from my mind all thoughts and images, and
have remained inactive, with my hands over my eyes, waiting for
the production of an impression; sometimes I have tied up my eyes,
but this plan has not always been successful. At other times the
_idea_ of an object has presented itself to me before I have seized
its form, but most frequently I seemed to see the picture either
black on a white ground, or white on a black ground. In general,
the objects present themselves in an undecided manner, and pass
away very rapidly; usually I only grasp a portion of them.
"Whenever I have been most successful, I have remarked that
the picture has presented itself to my imagination almost
instantaneously. Sometimes also I have been led to draw an object
of which the name was forced on me, as if by some external
influence.
"JANE D.
"Paris, _February 17th, 1888_."
Appended are a few facsimiles of the most successful of the above
results, reproduced in the original size.
[Illustration: No. 51.--ORIGINAL. No. 51.--REPRODUCTION.]
[Illustration: No. 53.--ORIGINAL.]
[Illustration: No. 53.--REPRODUCTION.]
[Illustration: No 56.--ORIGINAL.]
[Illustration: No. 56.--REPRODUCTION.]
[Illustration: No. 58.--ORIGINAL. No. 58.--REPRODUCTION.]
[Illustration: No. 66.--ORIGINAL.]
[Illustration: No. 66.--REPRODUCTION.]
No. 9.--By DR. VON SCHRENK-NOTZING.
Baron von Schrenk-Notzing, M.D., of Munich, whose work in hypnotism
is well known, carried on a series of experiments with diagrams and
numbers, etc., in the course of the year 1890.[24] Space will not
permit of our quoting these results in full. The following experiments
are selected as being the only three in which the agent and percipient
were in different rooms. The percipient, Fräulein A., was a patient
of Dr. von Schrenk-Notzing's, of rather hysterical temperament;
throughout the experiments she was in a normal condition and fully
awake. In these three trials, which took place between 10.12 P.M. and
10.23 P.M. on the 15th October 1890, Fräulein A. sat on a chair in the
agent's study about a yard from the door leading into the adjoining
room, and with her back towards it; paper and pencil were on the table
before her. In the adjoining room, about 12 feet in a direct line
from the percipient, with the door of communication closed, Dr. von
Schrenk-Notzing stood, beside a small table, and drew a rough diagram
representing the staff of Æsculapius and the Serpent. When the drawing
was complete, to quote Dr. Schrenk-Notzing,
"I call 'Ready?' The percipient says, 'Yes.' We have been drawing
at the same time in different rooms. On returning to the study I
compare the drawings and see with astonishment that Fräulein A. has
drawn a serpent. Even the open mouth and the thickened end of the
tail in the reproduction agree with the original. The experiment
has succeeded in its essential part, and as regards strictness of
conditions I think it quite unassailable. Unconscious suggestion
is absolutely excluded, when agent and percipient are in different
rooms. Any corresponding association of ideas seems to me also
impossible, for the idea of the staff of Æsculapius first occurred
to me in the other room. In the study there is no object which
could have led up to the idea--no indication which could have
pointed out the way."
The percipient had, in fact, drawn a spiral figure apparently intended
to represent a serpent.
The two other experiments here referred to were performed in immediate
succession, and under precisely similar conditions, the time allowed in
each case being about two minutes.
In the second experiment the agent drew an arrow; the percipient drew
another spiral, with intersecting loops. In this case, as the agent
points out, the original idea of the serpent appears to have persisted
in the percipient's mind.
In the third experiment the agent drew a triangle inscribed in a
circle; also two diameters to the circle, crossing each other at
right angles, the vertical diameter bisecting the upper angle of the
triangle. The agent writes:--
"The drawing was done in the following way. I began with the
triangle, and then drew the perpendicular on the base. The idea
that thereupon occurred to me, that the figure was too simple,
induced me to add a circle and to prolong the perpendicular to
the circumference; finally I added the horizontal diameter. The
percipient was drawing at the same time at table _b_, sitting
on chair 5, with her back to the closed door of communication.
Question from the next room, 'Are you ready?' Answer, 'Stop,' as I
am about to open the door. Then, 'Now.' I open the door and enter
the room. The two drawings agree except that the circle and the
horizontal diameter are wanting. Even the perpendicular of the
triangle, which has become obtuse angled, is prolonged beyond the
base, just as in the original. This prolongation and addition of
the perpendicular cannot be explained by any tendency of ideas to
recur (diagram-habit). Only the fact that a triangle was drawn
might, taken alone, be explained in some such way."
Figures of the original diagrams in this case are given in the
_Proceedings of the S.P.R._
Some experiments with diagrams, conducted in July 1890 by Drs. Grimaldi
and Fronda, have been published by Lombroso.[25] The subject was a
young man of twenty, subject to hysterical attacks and spontaneous
somnambulism. The first experiments were made in the hypnotic state,
with numbers, and met with only moderate success. Later, however, the
trials were made in the normal state. At the first sitting diagrams
were tried. The subject had his eyes firmly bandaged and his ears
plugged with cotton wool. The diagrams were drawn at a certain distance
(_ad una certa distanza_) from the subject, and behind him. Under these
conditions the first five experiments were completely successful; the
subject reproduced in turn a rhomb, a circle, a triangle, an irregular
pentagon, shaped something like the profile of a barn, and a cone. The
next experiment failed, only a formless scribble being obtained. The
subject was much exhausted, and fell into a semi-cataleptic state as
soon as the bandage was removed.
Some success was obtained in later sittings, in the guessing of names
and in the execution of mental commands. But the experiments had soon
to be abandoned, on account of the health of the percipient.
Other experiments with diagrams, in addition to those above referred
to, will be found in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. i. pp.
161-215, by Mr. Gurney, the writer, and others; vol. ii. pp. 207-216,
by Mr. W. J. Smith. The paper on Thought-transference, etc., by
Professor C. Richet, _Proceedings_, vol. v. pp. 18-168, should also be
consulted in this connection.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 15: See, for instance, Puységur, _Memoires pour servir à
l'établissement du magnétisme_, pp. 22, 29 _et seq._, and Pététin,
_Electricité Animale_, p. 127, etc. (quoted by Dr. Ochorowicz, _De la
Suggestion mentale_).]
[Footnote 16: Some trials were made by Mr. Guthrie with imagined
tunes. But they were in no instance successful without contact;
and as obviously the chances of unconscious indications being
given, in any case considerable where tunes are in question, are
much increased by contact, we should not be justified in regarding
successful results, under such conditions, as even _prima facie_ due
to Thought-transference. (See _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 426, 447,
448.)]
[Footnote 17: See below, Chapter III.--Mrs. Sidgwick's experiments.]
[Footnote 18: The calculation is by Professor F. Y. Edgeworth. (See
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 190.) Of course the statement in the
text must not be taken as indicating the belief of Mr. Edgeworth
or the writer or any one else that the above figures demonstrate
Thought-transference as the cause of the results attained. The results
may conceivably have been due to some error of observation or of
reporting. But the figures are sufficient to prove, what is here
claimed for them, that _some_ cause must be sought for the results
other than chance.]
[Footnote 19: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 17 _et seq._]
[Footnote 20: See Dr. Thaw's paper, _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol.
viii. pp. 422 _et seq._]
[Footnote 21: Records of these experiments will be found in the _Proc.
of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. pp. 263-283; vol. ii. pp. 1-5,
24-42, 189-200; vol. iii. pp. 424-452.]
[Footnote 22: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ii. pp. 194-196.]
[Footnote 23: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. pp. 324 _et seq._;
vol. v. pp. 169 _et seq._]
[Footnote 24: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 3-22.]
[Footnote 25: _Trasmissione del Pensiero_, etc., Naples, 1891.]
CHAPTER III.
EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS WITH HYPNOTISED
PERCIPIENTS.
As already stated, the hypnotic state offers peculiar facilities for
observing the transmission of thought and sensation. It is possible
that the superior susceptibility of the hypnotised percipient is in
some measure due simply to the quiescence and freedom from spontaneous
mental activity very generally induced by the state of sleep-waking.
There are indications, moreover, that the hypnotic state itself may
present in many cases a specialised manifestation of that rapport
which would appear to exist generally between Agent and Percipient
in thought-transference. But the close association of the telepathic
activities with the consciousness which emerges in hypnotism and allied
states suggests an explanation of a more general kind, and may possibly
throw light on the evolution of the faculty itself.[26] However this
may be, there can be no question that the most remarkable results in
experimental telepathy so far recorded are those given in this and the
following chapters with hypnotised percipients.
_Transference of Tastes._
The fact that notwithstanding this recognised facility comparatively
few observers have experimented with hypnotised subjects, except in
one or two directions, calls for some explanation. There are, indeed,
innumerable records of the transmission of sensations of taste and
pain in the hypnotic state. The uncertainty attending any experiment
in the first direction with subjects in whom special exaltation of any
particular sense is not merely possible, but even under the conditions
of the experiments probable, has been already pointed out. Such trials,
conducted with a variety of substances nearly all of which are in some
degree odorous, must necessarily lie under suspicion. To the references
quoted in the preceding chapter (p. 21) and to the experiments of
this nature recorded in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._[27] it will
suffice here to add one further instance, in which the hypothesis of
hyperæsthesia seems hardly an adequate explanation of the result. In a
communication to the _Revue Philosophique_ in February 1889, Dr. Dufay
quotes the following passage from a letter received by him from Dr.
Azam, the veteran historian of Félida X.:--
No. 10.--By DR. AZAM.
"I myself, and I believe many other medical men, have observed
cases of this or of a similar nature. I will quote two, in which I
think I took all necessary precautions before being convinced of
their truth.
"1st. About 1853 or 1854, I had under my care a young woman with
confirmed hysteria: nothing was easier than to put her to sleep
by various means. I consider myself entitled to state that, while
holding her hand, my unspoken thoughts were transferred to her, but
upon this I do not insist, error and fraud being possible.
"But the transmission of a definite sensation seemed to me to be
absolutely certain. This is how I proceeded: Having put the patient
to sleep, and seated myself by her side, I leaned towards her and
dropped my handkerchief behind her chair; then, while stooping to
lift it up, I quickly put into my mouth a pinch of common salt,
which, unknown to her, I had beforehand put into the right-hand
pocket of my waistcoat. The salt being absolutely without smell,
it was impossible that the patient should have known that I had
some in my mouth; but as soon as I raised myself again I saw her
face express disgust, and she moved her lips about. 'That is very
nasty,' she said; 'why did you put salt into my mouth?'
"I have repeated this experiment several times with other inodorous
substances, and it has always succeeded. I report this fact alone
because it seems to me to be certain."
_Transference of Pain._
Experiments with sensations of pain, as has been pointed out, stand on
a different footing. There is no special source of error to be guarded
against. The following trials, conducted by Mr. Edmund Gurney, with the
assistance of the present writer and others, on two evenings in the
early part of 1883, will perhaps suffice to indicate the possibility
of such transmission. The percipient was a youth named Wells, at the
time of the experiments a baker's apprentice. He was hypnotised by Mr.
G. A. Smith. During the trials Wells was blindfolded, and Mr. Smith
stood behind his chair. On the first evening Mr. Smith held one of the
percipient's hands; and throughout the series it was necessary for Mr.
Smith to hold communication with Wells; the only words used, however,
being the simple uniform question, "Do you feel anything?"[28]
No. 11.--By EDMUND GURNEY.
_First Series. January 4th, 1883._