1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right a_Apparitions and thought-transference: an examination of the evidence for telepathy

continuously. Wells, after an interval of about two minutes, began

to rub the corresponding part on his own body.

2. Back of the neck pinched. Same result.

3. Calf of left leg slapped. Same result.

4. Lobe of left ear pinched. Same result.

5. Outside of left wrist pinched. Same result.

6. Upper part of back slapped. Same result.

7. Hair pulled. Wells localised the pain on his left arm.

8. Right shoulder slapped. The corresponding part was correctly

indicated.

9. Outside of left wrist pricked. Same result.

10. Back of neck pricked. Same result.

11. Left toe trodden on. No indication given.

12. Left ear pricked. The corresponding part was correctly

indicated.

13. Back of left shoulder slapped. Same result.

14. Calf of right leg pinched. Wells touched his arm.

15. Inside of left wrist pricked. The corresponding part was

correctly indicated.

16. Neck below right ear pricked. Same result.

In the next series of these experiments Wells was blindfolded, as

before; but in this case a screen was interposed between Mr. Smith and

Wells; and there was no contact between them. During two or three of

the trials Mr. Smith was in an adjoining room, separated from Wells by

thick curtains.

_Second Series. April 10th, 1883._

17. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. After a lapse of

about two minutes, Wells cried out, "Who's pinching me?" and began

to rub the corresponding part.

18. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left arm pinched. Wells indicated the

corresponding part almost at once.

19. Mr. Smith's right ear pinched. Wells struck his own right ear,

after the lapse of about a minute, as if catching a troublesome

fly, crying out, "Settled him that time."

20. Mr. Smith's chin was pinched. Wells indicated the right part

almost immediately.

21. The hair at the back of Mr. Smith's head was pulled. No

indication.

22. Back of Mr. Smith's neck pinched. Wells pointed, after a short

interval, to the corresponding part.

23. Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. Same result.

After this, Mr. Smith being now in an adjoining room, Wells began,

as he said, "to go to sleep;" and said that he "didn't want to be

bothered." He was partially waked up, and the experiments were resumed.

[Four experiments with tastes are here omitted.]

28. Mr. Smith's right calf pinched. Wells was very sulky, and for a

long time refused to speak. At last he violently drew up his right

leg, and began rubbing the calf.

After this Wells became still more sulky, and refused in the next

experiment to give any indication whatever. With considerable

acuteness he explained the reasons for his contumacy. "I ain't

going to tell you, for if I don't tell you, you won't go on

pinching me. You only do it to make me tell." Then he added, in

reply to a remonstrance from Mr. Smith, "What do _you_ want me

to tell for? they ain't hurting _you_, and _I_ can stand their

pinching." All this time Mr. Smith's left calf was being very

severely pinched.

To the onlooker the situation was rendered additionally piquant

by the fact that the boy, at the very time when he was apparently

acutely sensitive to pain inflicted upon Mr. Smith, showed no sign of

susceptibility when any part of his own person was pretty severely

maltreated. The only point in the trials which seems to call for

special notice is the failure on two occasions to indicate the seat

of pain when the agent's hair was pulled (7 and 21). Numerous trials

with the same and other percipients have shown that this particular

experiment rarely succeeds, possibly because the pain so caused is with

many people not of an acute kind.[29]

_Transference of Visual Images._

But when we leave these experiments in the transfer of the less

specialised forms of sensation we find that but few observers have paid

attention to the phenomena of telepathy in the hypnotic state. Probably

this is in some measure due to one or two initial difficulties in

conducting experiments on such subjects. Opening the eyes to permit the

subject to reproduce a diagram will in many cases have the effect of

wakening him. Again, with some persons it is a matter of difficulty to

maintain the exact stage of the hypnotic trance when they are quiescent

enough for the alien impression to meet with little risk of disturbance

from the subject's own mental activities, and yet sufficiently alert

to prevent them from relapsing, as was frequently the case with Wells,

the percipient just referred to, into a torpid sleep from which no

further response could be elicited. But, after all, these difficulties

when they occur can readily be overcome by the exercise of a little

patience. If the study of thought-transference in the hypnotic state

has been comparatively neglected, it is mainly because, as already

suggested, with most persons the more salient phenomena of the

trance--hallucination, anæsthesia, rigidity, etc.--have distracted

attention from what may ultimately prove to be a more fruitful line of

inquiry.

For the following record we are indebted to Dr. Liébeault, of Nancy,

who sent us the account in 1886.

No. 12.--By DR. LIÉBEAULT.

[The first series of experiments were made on the afternoon of

the 10th December 1885, in Dr. Liébeault's house at Nancy. There

were present, in addition, Madame S., Dr. Brullard, and Professor

Liégeois, who acted as agent, and Mademoiselle M., the subject. The

subject was hypnotised by Professor Liégeois, and experiments were

made with diagrams, and in two cases the design--a water-bottle

(_carafe_) and a table with a drawer and drawer-knob--was

reproduced with exactness. Precautions had, of course, been taken

to conceal the original design from the percipient. The account of

the seventh and last experiment is quoted in full.]

"7. M. Liégeois wrote the word _mariage_, Mdlle. M. then wrote

'Monsieur.' Then she said 'Decanter,--no--picture--no.' [What is

the letter?] 'It is an _l_--no, it is an _m_.' Then after thinking

for some minutes, 'There is an _i_ in the word, an _a_ after the

_m_--a _g_--another _a_--an _e_--there are six letters--no--seven.'

When she had found all the letters and their places, _ma iage_, she

could not find the letter _r_. After a few minutes it was suggested

to her that she should try combinations with the different

consonants, and finally she wrote _mariage_."

[Further experiments were made by Dr. Liébeault, in conjunction

with M. Stanislas de Guaita, on the 9th January 1886. The subject

in this case was Mademoiselle Louise L., who was hypnotised by

Dr. Liébeault. The first two experiments, which are not quoted

here, suggest lip-reading or unconscious audition as a possible

explanation; but the third experiment of this series and the two

subsequent trials with Mdlle. Camille Simon present interesting

illustrations of a telepathic hallucination superimposed upon a

basis of reality.]

"3. Dr. Liébeault, in order that no hint should be given even in a

whisper, wrote on a piece of paper, 'Mademoiselle, on waking, will

see her black hat transformed into a red one.' The paper was first

passed round to all the witnesses, then MM. Liébeault and De Guaita

placed their hands silently on the subject's forehead, mentally

formulating the sentence agreed upon. After being told she would

see something unusual in the room, the young woman was awakened.

Without a moment's hesitation she fixed her eyes upon the hat, and

with a burst of laughter exclaimed that it was not her hat, she

would have none of it. It was the same shape certainly, but this

farce had lasted long enough--we must really give her back her own.

['Come now, what difference do you see?'] 'You know quite well.

You have eyes like me.' ['Well what?'] We had to press her for

some time before she would say what change had come over her hat;

surely we were making fun of her. At last she said, 'You can see

for yourselves that it is red.' As she refused to take it we were

forced to put an end to her hallucination by telling her that her

hat would presently resume its usual colour. The doctor breathed on

it, and when it became, in her eyes, her own again, she consented

to take it back. Directly afterwards she remembered nothing of her

hallucination....

"Nancy, 9th January 1886.

"Signed, A. A. LIÉBEAULT.

STANISLAS DE GUAITA."[30]

* * * * *

"We had one very successful experiment with a young girl of about

fifteen, Mdlle. Camille Simon, in the presence of M. Brullard and

several other persons. I gave her a mental suggestion that on

waking she should see her hat, which was brown, changed to yellow.

I then put her _en rapport_ with all the others, and I passed round

a slip of paper indicating my suggestion, and asking them to think

of the same thing. But, by a lapse of memory not unusual to me, I

did not think after all of the colour which I had written down;

I had a distinct impression that she would see her hat _red_. On

awaking her I told her she would see something representing our

common thought. When she was wakened she wondered at the colour of

her hat. 'It was brown,' she said. After having thought for a long

time, she assured us that really it did not look at all the same,

that she could not quite define the colour, but that it seemed to

her a sort of yellow-red. Then I remembered my aberration. In

the present case the others thought of yellow, I of red: thus the

object appeared yellow and red to the awakened somnambule; which

proves that the mental suggestion may be the echo of the thought of

many minds."

[The following experiment, made with the same "subject," and sent

to us by Dr. Liébeault on June 3, 1886, is an interesting example

of temporary latency of the telepathic impression:--]

"In another experiment with the same young girl it was suggested

to her, mentally, by several persons that on awaking she would see

a black cock walking about the room. For a considerable time after

waking, nearly half-an-hour, she said nothing, although I told her

she would see something. It was about half-an-hour afterwards that,

having gone into the garden and looked by chance into my little

courtyard, she came running back to us to say, 'Ah, I know what

I was to see: it was a black cock. This came into my head when I

was looking at your cock.' My cock is greenish-black on the wings,

tail and breast; everywhere else he is yellowish-white. Here we

have an idea caused by the sight of a real object associated with a

fictitious idea mentally transmitted by the persons present."

Between the beginning of July and the end of October 1889 a series

of trials in the transference of numbers was conducted by Mrs. H.

Sidgwick, with the assistance of Professor Sidgwick and Mr. G. A.

Smith. The conditions were as follows:--Some small wooden counters,

belonging to a game called Loto, and having the numbers from 10 to 90

stamped on them in raised figures, were placed in a bag. From this

bag, which it will be seen contained 81 numbers in all, Mr. G. A.

Smith drew a counter, placing it in a little wooden box, the edges of

which effectually concealed it from the view of the percipient. The

percipient, who had been previously placed in the hypnotic state by

Mr. Smith, sat with his eyes closed and guessed the number drawn. The

remarks, if any, made during the experiments, and the results, were

recorded by Mrs. Sidgwick. After the first few days it was arranged,

in order to avoid all possibility of bias in recording the numbers,

that Professor Sidgwick should draw the counter from the bag and hand

it to Mr. Smith, and that Mrs. Sidgwick should be herself ignorant of

the number drawn. Throughout the experiments, although eight or more

other persons tried to act as agent, Mr. Smith alone was successful.

Mr. Smith himself failed to produce any result when the percipients

were not hypnotised. The following detailed account of part of the

experiments on one day, July 6th, 1889, will give a fair idea of the

whole; but it should be added that in later experiments Mr. Smith kept

complete silence, and that on several occasions a newspaper was placed

over P.'s head. These precautions do not appear to have affected the

success of the experiment.

The percipient was Mr. P., a clerk in a wholesale business, aged about

nineteen, who had been frequently hypnotised by Mr. Smith, and now

passes into the hypnotic state very quickly, his eyes turning upwards

as he goes off, before the eyelids close. He is a lively young man,

with a good deal of humour, and preserves the same character in the

sleep-waking state.

No. 13.--By PROFESSOR and MRS. SIDGWICK.

NUMBER NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.

DRAWN.

87 S.: "Now, P., you're going to see numbers. I shall

look at them, and you will see them." P. (almost

immediately): "87. You asked me if I saw a

number. I see an 8 and a 7." (Number put

away.) P.: "I see nothing now."

19 P.: "18. What are those numbers on? I see only the

letters like brass numbers on a door; nothing

behind them."

24 P. (after a pause): "I keep on looking.... I see it!

an 8 and a 4--84."

35 P.: "A 3 and a 5--35." S.: "How did that look?"

P.: "I saw a 3 and a 5, then 35."

28 P.: "88. One behind the other, then one popped forward,

and I could see two eights." (Illustrated

it with his fingers.)

20 P.: "I can't see anything yet." S.: "You will directly."

P.: "23." S.: "Saw that clearly?" P.:

"Not so plain as the other." S.: "Which did

you see best?" P.: "The 2."

NUMBER NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.

DRAWN.

27 P.: "I can see 7, and I think a 3 in front of it. I can

see the 7." S.: "Make sure of the first figure."

P.: "The 7's gone now."

48 S.: "Here's another one, P." (This remark, though not

always recorded, almost always began each experiment,

until July 27th, when, to avoid the

possibility of unconscious indications, Mr. Smith

adopted the plan of not speaking at all.) P.:

"Another two, you mean. You say another

one, but there are always two." S.: "Yes,

two." P.: "Here it is. You said there were

two! There's only one, an 8." Some remarks

here not recorded. We think that Mr. Smith

said there were two, and told him to look again.

P. said he saw a 4. Mrs. Sidgwick: "Which

came first?" P.: "The 8 first, then the 4 to

the left, so that it would have been 48. I should

like to know how you do that trick."

20 P.: "A 2 and an 0; went away very quickly that time."

71 P.: "71."

36 P.: "3 ... 36."

75 P.: "I might turn round. Should I see them just the

same over there?" (Changed his position so as

to sit sideways in the chair, and looking away

from Mr. Smith.) S.: "Well, you might try."

P.: "I don't think I see so well this way."

(He did not move, however.) "I see a 7 and a

5--75. Why don't you let them both come at

once? I believe I should see them better if you

let me open my eyes." (No notice was taken of

this.)

17 S.: "Now then, P., here's another." P.: "Put it there at

once." (Then, after some time:) "You've only

put a 4 up. I see 7." S.: "What's the other

figure?" P.: "4 ... the 4's gone." S.:

"Have a look again." P.: "I see 1 now."

S.: "Which way are they arranged?" P.:

"The 1 first and the 7 second."

52 S.: "Here's another." P.: "52. I saw that at once.

I'm sure there's some game about it." (He had

said something about this before, when the

number was slow in coming. He said Mr.

Smith was making game of him, and pretending

to look when he was not looking.)

76 P.: "76."

It will be observed that P. always speaks of "seeing" the figures, but

as a matter of fact his eyes were closed, or appeared to be closed,

throughout the experiments, and the pupils, as already stated, were

introverted, at least at the commencement of the trance. That the

impression was of a visual nature there can be no reasonable doubt.

This may have been due to Mrs. Sidgwick's suggestion to the percipient

that he would _see_ the figures: though it seems equally probable that

it was owing to the fact that Mr. Smith's impression was a visual

one. That the vision in most cases was perfectly distinct seems

equally clear. It is difficult to decide whether impressions received

under such circumstances, with the eyes closed, are properly to be

classed as hallucinations.[31] That under appropriate conditions the

percept was capable of rising to the level of an externalised sensory

hallucination, the following experiments, which took place later on the

same day, July 6th, seem to show:--A blank sheet of paper was spread

out on the table. P. was told that he would see numbers on it, and was

then partially awakened and his eyes opened. He was at once told to

look at the paper and see what came, but saw nothing for some time.

Different stages of the hypnotic trance frequently exhibit different

and mutually exclusive memories, and P. now had evidently forgotten all

about the previous state in which he had been guessing numbers, and

appeared so wide awake that it was hard to believe that he was not in a

completely normal condition. Mr. Smith stood behind him.

NUMBER

DRAWN. NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.

18 ... P.: "23." S.: "Is that what you can see?" P.:

"Yes" (but he added later that he did not see

it properly).

87 ... P.: "A 7, o. Oh, no, 8, 78. Funny! I saw a 7 and

a little o, and then another came on the top of

it, and made an 8."

37 ... P.: "There's a 4, 7." Asked where, he offered to trace

it,[32] and drew 47 in figures 1-1/2 inches long.

NUMBER

DRAWN. NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.

44 P.: "No. I see 5, 4; it's gone again." S.: "All

right, look at it." P.: "45." S.: "Sure?"

P.: "There's a 4;--the other's not so clear."

(Then quickly:) "Two fours; 44."

As he looked one of them disappeared, and he turned the paper over

to look for it on the other side; then looked back at the place

where he saw it before and said, "That's funny! while I was looking

for that the other one's gone." When looking under the paper he

noticed some scribbling on the sheet below and said, "Has that

writing anything to do with it?" He seemed puzzled by the figures,

which were apparently genuine externalised hallucinations. He could

not make out why they came, nor why they disappeared.

37 P. (after long gazing): "37." S.: "Is that what you

see?" P.: "It's gone. I'm pretty sure I saw

37."

Mr. Smith then looked at the 37 again, and we told P. to watch

whether it came back, but after a little while he said he thought

he saw 29.

Similar trials were made with three other subjects, Miss B., T., and W.

In all 644 trials were made with the agent in the same room with the

percipient, of which 131 were successful, that is, both digits were

given correctly, though in 14 out of the 131 cases in reverse order.

The chance of success was of course 1 in 81, and the most probable

number of complete successes was therefore 8. 218 trials were also made

with Mr. Smith in a different room from the percipient, but of these

only 9 succeeded, one having its digits reversed; 8 of these successes,

however, occurred in the course of 139 trials with P., whilst 79

trials with T. yielded only one success. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.

123-170.)

As regards the possibility of unconscious indications of the number

thought of being given by the agent, it seems certain that no such clue

could have been perceived through the sense of sight or touch, contact

between agent and percipient having been absolutely excluded throughout

the experiments. It remains to consider whether any indication could

have been given by means of sounds. In the presence of two or more

attentive and vigilant witnesses any indications by sounds--_e.g._, an

unconscious whispering of the number by Mr. Smith--could only have been

perceived by persons of abnormal susceptibility. We know, indeed, of

no precise limit which can be set to the hyperæsthesia of hypnotised

subjects. But, on the other hand, hyperæsthesia of any sense in such

subjects is generally the result of suggestion, direct or indirect,

on the part of the operator; and in these experiments the only

suggestion given--a suggestion apparently acted on throughout--was that

they should _see_ the result. Since, indeed, hypnotised persons are

apparently not necessarily aware of the channel by which information

reaches them, this circumstance is not in itself conclusive; but taken

with the fact that no direct suggestion to hear was given, it tends to

make auditory hyperæsthesia less probable. It is perhaps more important

to note that the experimenters, including Mr. Smith himself, were fully

aware of this source of error, and on their guard against it; that no

movements of Mr. Smith's lips, such as must have occurred if he had

whispered the number, were observed; and that a careful analysis of the

failures shows no tendency to mistake one number for another similar

in sound--_e.g._, _four_ for _five_, _six_ for _seven_, or _five_ for

_nine_.

_Experiments with Agent and Percipient in different Rooms._

[Illustration]

However, the later experiments by the same observers, recorded below,

in which a marked degree of success was obtained with agent and

percipient in different rooms, will no doubt be considered to render

untenable any explanation of the kind above indicated. This further

series was carried on through the years 1890-1-2. Mrs. Sidgwick,

aided by Miss Johnson, conducted the experiments throughout, with

the occasional assistance of Professor Sidgwick, Dr. A. T. Myers,

and others. The percipients were P., T., Miss B., and three others,

and Mr. G. A. Smith was in nearly all cases the agent. Some of these

experiments, as in the last series, were with numbers of two digits;

but the percipient was now in a different room from the agent. At first

the trials were carried on in an arch, fitted up with two floors,

under the Parade at Brighton. On the ground-floor was a little lobby,

kitchen, etc.; on the upper floor a sitting-room about 15 feet square.

The staircase, which, as shown in the plan subjoined, led directly out

of the upper room, was not enclosed above, but had a door below, which

was kept shut during the experiments. The floor of the room above was

covered with a thick Axminster carpet. Even so the sound-insulation

was not perfect; but it was found that words spoken in ordinary

conversation on one floor were indistinguishable on the other unless

the ear was pressed against the door or wall of the staircase. In the

experiments carried on at Mrs. Sidgwick's lodgings in Brighton the

percipient sat in the room at a distance from the door, which was

closed, varying from 9 to 13 feet, and Mr. Smith was in the passage

outside, Miss Johnson sitting between him and the door. Of course

strict silence was observed by the agent. One of the experimenters, in

most cases Miss Johnson, accompanied the agent, drew the number from

the bag, and noted each as it was drawn. Mrs. Sidgwick, of course in

ignorance of the number drawn, sat by the percipient and took notes of

his remarks. As in the previous series, the impressions received by the

percipient, who in the first experiments was Miss B., appear generally

to have been of a visual nature. Details of all the trials with Miss B.

as percipient and Mr. Smith as sole agent are given in the following

table:--

No. 14.--By MRS. SIDGWICK AND OTHERS.

(1) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT UPSTAIRS; AGENT DOWNSTAIRS.

--------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------

Date 1890.

|Quite

| right.

| |Digits

| | Reversed.

| | |First Digit

| | | only right.

| | | |Second Digit

| | | | only right.

--------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------

Jan. 6 | .. | .. |6[33]| .. | 2 | 8 |{Professor Barret present

" 7 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 17 |{ in addition to the usual

| | | | | | |{ party.

" 8 | .. |1[34]| 2 | .. | 3 | 6 |This set was done under

" 11 | 1 |1[34]| 8 | .. | 10 | 20 | very unfavourable

" 12 | 9 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 8 | 33 | conditions, as there were

Mar. 17 | 3 | .. | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | in the room guessing at

" 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | the same time, which was

" 22 | 1 | .. | 5 | 1 | 4 | 11 |Drs. Myers, Penrose, and

" 23 | 2 | .. | 6 | .. | 10 | 18 |Drs. Myers and Rolleston

July 8 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 2 | 3 | present in addition to

" 9 | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | the usual party.

Nov. 6 | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | .. | 3 |Dr. Myers present.

" 10 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 3 |

--------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+

Totals| 20 | 5 | 55 | 11 | 57 | 148 |

--------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------

(2) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT DOWNSTAIRS; AGENT UPSTAIRS.

--------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------

Mar. 17 | .. | .. | 4 | 1 | 13 | 18 |

" 23 | .. | .. | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 |

June 16 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 2 | 3 | Miss McKerlie present.

--------+----+----+---+----+----+----+

Totals| .. | .. | 7 | 4 | 22 | 33 |

--------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------

(3) PLACE, MRS. SIDGWICK'S LODGINGS. PERCIPIENT IN ROOM, AND AGENT IN

PASSAGE.

--------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---------------------------------

Date |

1890. |

|Quite right

| |Digits

| | reversed.

| | |First Digit

| | | only right

| | | |Second digit

| | | | only right

--------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------

Mar. | | | | | | |

19.. | .. | .. | 1 |.. | 2 | 3 |

| | | | | | |

Dec. | | | | | | |

17.. | 2 | .. | 11 | 2 | 12 | 27 |These guesses were made by

" 19.. | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | .. | 7 |

" 19.. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | 5 |Agent in room across passage,

{| 1 | 1 | 2 |.. | .. | 4 |{Guesses made verbally by Miss

{| | | | | | |{ B. hypnotised, having her

" 20 {| | | | | | |{ hands on the table.

{| .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |{Guesses tilted by the table,

{| | | | | | |{ at the same time as the

| | | | | | |{ above.[35]

" 20.. | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | Miss B. hypnotised, guessing

| 1 |1[36]| 4 | 2 | 6 | 14 |Guesses made by table-tilting,

--------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+

Totals | 7 | 3 | 23 | 8 | 30 | 71 |

--------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+

of (1) | | | | | | |

(2)&(3) | 27 | 8 | 85 |23 |109 | 252 |

--------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------

It will be seen that in 252 trials the number was guessed quite

correctly 27 times, and with digits in reverse order 8 times--the most

probable number of complete successes by chance being 3. Further,

in the unsuccessful trials the first digit was correctly guessed no

fewer than 85 times. The proportion of successes in a series of trials

carried on during the same period with Mr. Smith in the same room

with Miss B. was, however, much higher--viz., 29 (three with digits

reversed) out of 146 trials. It is noticeable that in the short series

of trials with Miss B. in the lobby downstairs a very much smaller

degree of success was obtained, a result attributed by Mrs. Sidgwick to

the percipient's feeling ill at ease in her surroundings.

Another noteworthy point is the large proportion of cases in which the

first digit was correctly named.[37] This disproportion is not found

in the trials made with the agent and the percipient in the same room,

and is possibly due, as suggested by Mrs. Sidgwick, to Mr. Smith in

all cases concentrating his attention originally on the first digit.

When in the same room with the percipient he would hear when the first

digit had been named, and would then turn his attention to the other;

but when out of the room he could not, of course, follow the process of

guessing.

A further series of trials was conducted with the percipient under

the same conditions, except that either P. or T. acted as agents

jointly with Mr. Smith. In all 53 trials were made, resulting in 9

complete successes and two with the digits reversed. The proportion

of successes, it will be seen, is much higher than in the experiments

first described; but the series is too short to allow of a safe

conclusion being drawn as to the superior efficacy of collective agency.

Experiments conducted under similar conditions with four other

percipients yielded a slight but appreciable measure of success.

A large number of trials--nearly 400 in all--were made with Miss

B. as percipient, the agent or agents being at a still greater

distance--viz., being either in a separate building, or with two

closed doors and a passage intervening; but practically no success

was obtained. Miss B. complained of the numbers being so far off.

"They are all muddled up," she said on one occasion; "they seem miles

off." It is not easy to account satisfactorily for this failure,

but it may probably be attributed partly to a prejudicial effect

exercised by the novel conditions on the agent's or percipient's

anticipation of success, and partly to the tedious waiting inseparable

from experiments of this kind, where there is no ready means of

communication at the end of each trial. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.

536-552.)

_Transference of Mental Pictures._

By MRS. SIDGWICK and MISS JOHNSON.

Later on, after various trials had been made with little success with

letters, playing cards, and diagrams, a series of experiments was made

in the transference of mental pictures. There were in all 108 trials,

with 5 percipients--Miss B., P., and T., and two men, Whybrew and

Major, who had been subjects of an itinerant lecturer on Hypnotism.

The method of experiment was as follows:--A subject for a picture was

written down by Mrs. Sidgwick or Miss Johnson and handed to Mr. Smith,

who then summoned up a mental representation of the subject suggested,

which he tried to transfer to the percipient. Occasionally, to aid his

imagination, he drew on paper a rough sketch of the subject. During the

experiment Mr. Smith was sometimes close to the percipient, sometimes

behind a screen, sometimes in another room.

When in the same room it was occasionally necessary for Mr. Smith, in

order to keep alive the percipient's interest and attention, to say a

few words to him from time to time. These remarks were always recorded.

In the earlier experiments the percipient's eyes were open, and he was

given a white card or a crystal to look at; and he appears to have seen

the pictures as if projected on these objects. In the later trials the

percipient's eyes were closed, but this change in the conditions does

not appear in any way to have affected the vividness of the impressions.

Successful experiments were made with all five percipients, full

details of which will be found in the paper referred to.[38] It will

suffice here to quote a few illustrative cases of success, complete or

partial.

The first experiments were made on July 9th, 1890. Miss B. was the

percipient. I quote the account of the first two trials:--

No. 15.

The percipient, being in a hypnotic trance, had her eyes opened and

was given a card and told to look out for a picture which would

come on it.

The subject, chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick, was _a little boy with a

ball_. Mr. Smith sat close to Miss B., but neither spoke to her nor

touched her. Miss B. presently said: "A figure is coming--a little

boy." Mrs. Sidgwick asked what he had in his hand, and Miss B.

replied: "A round thing; a ball, I suppose."

For the next experiment Mr. Smith got behind a screen. The subject,

_a kitten in a jar_, was again set by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss B. said:

"Something like an old cat--a cat--I think it's a cat." Mrs.

Sidgwick: "What is the cat doing?" Miss B. (doubtfully): "Sitting

down." Mrs. Sidgwick: "Is there anything else but a cat?" Miss B.:

"No; only scratches about."

In all 21 experiments of the kind were tried with Miss B., of which

8, including the two above recorded, may be classed as more or less

successful.

The following experiments were made with P. on November 5th, 1890.

The notes of these cases were taken by Miss Johnson, who was herself

ignorant of the subject, which was chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick.

The first experiment on this day was a failure.

No. 16.

Subject: _A black kitten playing with a cork_. P.: "Something

like a cat; it's a cat." Mrs. Sidgwick: "What is it doing?" P.:

"Something it's been feeding out of--some milk, is it a saucer?

Can't see where its other paw is--only see three paws."

Subject: _A sandwich man with advertisement of a play_. P. said:

"Something like letter A--stroke there, then there." Mrs. Sidgwick:

"Well, perhaps it will become clearer." P.: "Something like a head

on the top of it; a V upside down?--two legs and then a head.--A

man with two boards--looks like a man that goes about the streets

with two boards. I can see a head at the top and the body and

legs between the boards. I couldn't see what was written on the

boards, because the edges were turned towards me." Mr. Smith told

us afterwards that he had pictured to himself the man and one board

facing him, thus not corresponding to the impression which P. had.

Subject: _A choir-boy_.[39] P. said: "Edge of card's going a dark

colour. Somebody dressed up in white, eh? Can see something all

white; edge all black, and like a figure in the middle. There's his

hands up" (making a gesture to show the attitude) "like a ghost

or something--you couldn't mistake it for anything but a ghost.

It's not getting any better, it's fading--no, it's still there. It

might frighten any one." He also made remarks about the difficulty

of seeing a white figure on a white card (the blank card he was

looking at was white), which Mr. Smith afterwards said corresponded

with his own ideas.

Subject: _A vase with flowers_. (Mr. Smith, still behind P.,

was looking at a blue flower-pot in the window containing an

indiarubber plant.) P. said: "I see something round, like a round

ring. I can see some straight things from the round thing. I

think it's a glass--it goes up. I'll tell you what it is; it must

be a pot--a flower-pot, you know, with things growing in it. I

only guessed that, because you don't see things growing out of a

glass.--It's not clear at the top yet. You see something going up

and you can't see the top, because of the edge of the paper--it's

cut off. I don't wonder, because it's no good wondering what Mr.

Smith does, he does such funny things. I should fancy it might

be a geranium, but there's only sticks, so you can't tell." Mrs.

Sidgwick "What colour is the pot?" P.: "Dark colour, between

terra-cotta and red--dark red you'd call it." Here the somewhat

confused impression, apparently corresponding to the struggle of

ideas in Mr. Smith's mind between what he was seeing and what he

was trying to think of, is an interesting point.[40]

In all 50 trials were made with P., 26 with agent and percipient in

the same room, 24 with agent and percipient in different rooms. Of

the former 14 were successful, of the latter only one. In the 35

unsuccessful experiments no impression at all was received in 14 cases,

7 of which occurred while agent and percipient were in the same room.

Two trials with Whybrew are worth quoting as illustrating the gradual

development of the impression.

The percipient's eyes were closed during these experiments. The first

was made on July 11th.

No. 17.

Subject: _A man riding_. Mr. Smith downstairs with Miss Johnson;

Whybrew, upstairs with Mrs. Sidgwick, said, after some remarks

on the former pictures: "There's another one--I think it's like

the other two--a puzzle [to see]--if I can find the picture. I

hope I'll be able to see it properly. A kind of a square--square

shadow--blowed if I can understand what it's meant for--I don't

know what to make out of that. I don't know if that's meant to

be the lower part of a pair of legs. Do you see a picture?" Mrs.

Sidgwick: "I see something." Whybrew: "I see them two spots, but I

don't know what to make of them. If they're legs, the body ought

to come.--Don't seem to come any brighter, but there's those two

things there, that look like a pair of legs." Here Mr. Smith was

asked to come upstairs and talk to him. He told him the picture

was coming up closer and that he had turned the gas on to make it

brighter. Whybrew: "There's them pair of legs there." Mr. Smith:

"Yes" (doubtfully). Whybrew "Why, there's another. I never see

that other pair before. Why, it's a horse. I expect it's like them

penny pictures that you fold over. That horse--that's plain enough;

but what's that other thing?" Mr. Smith: "Yes, I told you there

was something else." Whybrew: "Why, I see what it is now--it's

supposed to be a man there, I expect." Mr. Smith: "Yes." Whybrew:

"Riding him. But that ain't so good as the boy and the ball." Mrs.

Sidgwick: "How is the man dressed?" Whybrew: "Ordinary."

The second took place on July 16th, 1891.

Mr. Smith having hypnotised Whybrew, sat by him, but did not speak

to him at all after he knew the subject--_a man with a barrow of

fish_--given him by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss Johnson, not knowing what

the subject was, carried on the conversation with Whybrew. He said:

"It's the shape of a man. Yes, there's a man there. Don't know

him. He looks like a bloke that sells strawberries." Miss Johnson

asked: "Are there strawberries there?" Whybrew: "That looks like

his barrow there. What's he selling of? I believe he's sold out.

I can't see anything on his barrow--perhaps he's sold out. There

ain't many--a few round things. I expect they're fruit. Are they

cherries? They look a bit red. Aren't they fish? It don't look

very much like fish. If they're fish, some of them hasn't got any

heads on. Barrow is a bit fishified--it has a tray on. What colour

are those things on the barrow? They looked red, but now they

look silvery." He was rather pleased with this picture and asked

afterwards if it was for sale.

Of 18 experiments with Whybrew 6 were successful. Of the 12 failures, 8

occurred when agent and percipient were in separate rooms. There were

only two cases in which no impression was received--one with the agent

in the same room.

Seven trials were made with Major, of which 1 was completely and 2

partially successful. Subjoined is the record of the only complete

success, which occurred on July 8th, 1891. The percipient was

hypnotised and his eyes were closed; Mr. Smith sat by him, talking to

him and telling him that he was to see a picture.

No. 18.

The subject given was _a mouse in a mouse-trap_. Regarding himself

as a man of culture and being generally anxious to exhibit this,

Major asked if it was to be an old master or a modern "pot-boiler."

He was told the latter, and he then discoursed on "pot-boilers" and

how he knew all the subjects of them--mentioning two or three--in a

very contemptuous manner. He did not seem to see anything, however,

and appeared to be expecting to see an artist producing a rapid

sketch. Then, when told that the picture was actually there, he

suddenly exclaimed: "Do you mean that deuced old trap with a mouse?

He must have been drawing for the rat vermin people."

Thirty-two trials were made with T., of which only four were

successful--two completely, one partially, one completely, but

deferred--_i.e._, the subject of the preceding experiment, a black dog,

came before his vision after the agent had already passed to another

subject, the Eiffel Tower. T. had, of course, not been told the subject

of the previous experiment. Instances of deferred impressions of this

kind occurred also with Miss B. A few experiments were tried with

another percipient, a man named Adams, but without success; his own

imagination appeared to be so fertile that any telepathic impression

must have been crowded out.

An analysis of the impressions showed that most of them were

reproductions of objects familiar to the percipient, in certain cases

of hallucinations previously imposed upon them in the course of these

or other experiments. With some of the successful percipients these

spontaneous impressions showed a marked tendency to recur. Thus P.

had a wrong impression--of an elephant--no less than four times in

the course of the experiments; and T. of a woman and a perambulator

three times. One of these coincided with the subject actually set,

and the coincidence may perhaps therefore be attributed to chance.

Speaking generally, however, this tendency to repetition amongst the

percipient's native impressions constitutes an additional argument, if

any such is needed, for attributing the frequent coincidences of the

impression with the subject set to some other cause than the automatic

association of ideas.

An instance of a quasi-experimental character, which closely resembles

the cases above described, is recorded by Dr. A. Gibotteau:--[41]

No. 19.--By DR. GIBOTTEAU.

"Madame P. complained of headache. I placed my hand upon her

forehead, and in a few minutes she was in a light hypnotic sleep.

Without deepening the trance I endeavoured to give her a sensation

of calm and well-being, and to procure this sensation for myself

in the first place, I called up a picture of the sea, in which air

and water were full of sunlight. 'I feel a little better,' she

said; 'how fresh the air is!' I then proceeded to imagine myself

walking along the _Boulevard Saint Michel_, in a slight rain. I

saw the hurrying people and the umbrellas. 'How strange it is!'

said Madame P.; 'I seem to be at the corner of the _Boulevard Saint

Michel_ and the _Rue des Écoles_, in front of the _Café Vachette_'

(the exact spot I pictured); 'it is raining, there are a great many

people, a hurrying crowd. They are all going up the street, and I

with them. The air is very fresh. It gives me a pleasant, restful

feeling.' With these words she opened her eyes and gave me further

confirmation of her impressions.

"I should add that this scene took place in the provinces; I had

not been in Paris for some months, nor Madame P. for several years.

"There had been no mention of the subject in the course of our

conversation that day."

It will be seen that Dr. Gibotteau attempted to transfer to the

percipient only the general sensation of calm and rest induced in

himself by the imagined scene, and that the success obtained was

therefore of a kind by no means anticipated.

Another experiment of the same nature is recorded by Dr. Blair Thaw in

the article already referred to (p. 31). The percipient was Mrs. Thaw,

Dr. Thaw and Mr. Wyatt were the agents. We are not told whether in

this instance, as on some other occasions, the percipient was actually

hypnotised, but judging from previous experiments it may perhaps be

inferred that she was at least in a condition called by Dr. Thaw "a

passive state," not easy to distinguish from the lighter stages of

sleep-waking. The experiment took place on the 28th April 1892.

No. 20.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

_1st Scene._ Locomotive running away without engineer tears up

station.--Missed.

_2nd Scene._ The first real FLYING MACHINE going over Madison

Square Tower, and the people watching.--Percipient: _I see lots

of people. Crowds are going to war. They are so excited. Are they

throwing water?_ (Percipient said afterwards she thought it was a

fire and that was the reason of the crowd.) _Or sailors pulling at

ropes._ Agent said, "What are they doing?" Percipient: _They are

all looking up. It is a balloon or some one in trouble up there._

Agent said, "Why balloon?" Percipient: _They are all looking

up._ Agent said, "I thought of a possible scene in the future."

Percipient: _Oh, it's the first man flying. That's what he's doing

up there._ Agent: "Where is it?" Percipient: _In the city_.

An account of a similar instance of the transfer to a hypnotised

percipient of an imagined scene has been recorded by Mr. E. M. Clissold

and Mr. Auberon Herbert.[42]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 26: See the discussion on this question in Chapter XVI.]

[Footnote 27: Vol. i. pp. 226, 241; vol. ii. pp. 17-19.]

[Footnote 28: It is a frequent experience that hypnotised subjects are

incapable of responding to any voice other than that of the person who

has hypnotised them. The difficulty can, indeed, generally be removed

by asking the hypnotiser to place some other person in rapport with

the subject--_i.e._, to give the subject the suggestion that he should

also be able to hear the person indicated. At this early stage of our

experiments it would appear, however, that this device had for some

reason not been adopted.]

[Footnote 29: Cf. No. 19 in the series of similar trials conducted with

Miss Relph, p. 24.]

[Footnote 30: Quoted in _Le Sommeil Provoqué, etc_., by Dr. Liébeault,

Paris, 1889, pp. 295, 296.]

[Footnote 31: For such impressions seen with closed eyes Kandinsky has

proposed the name _pseudo-hallucinations_.]

[Footnote 32: He had been, on previous occasions, asked to trace

hallucinations.]

[Footnote 33: Two of these were given completely right first and then

changed.]

[Footnote 34: The first digit of the number drawn was guessed first.]

[Footnote 35: See Chapter iv., pp. 96-100.]

[Footnote 36: This was given completely right first and then changed.]

[Footnote 37: As all numbers above 90 were excluded, and as 0 cannot

come first, the first digit should, by pure chance, have been correctly

named more often than the second; but the disproportion, it will be

seen, is far greater than could be thus accounted for.]

[Footnote 38: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 554-577.]

[Footnote 39: This was an idea extremely familiar to P., who had been a

chorister and was still connected with the choir of his church.]

[Footnote 40: _Proceedings Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. viii. pp. 565,

566.]

[Footnote 41: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 334, 335.]

[Footnote 42: See _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 677, 678.]

CHAPTER IV.

EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF MOVEMENTS AND OTHER EFFECTS.

In the two preceding chapters we have discussed experiments where the

impression received by the percipient may be interpreted as having

been a more or less accurate reproduction of the sensation experienced

by the agent, or at most a translation of it into some other simple

sensation. There have now to be considered various cases in which

the transmission of thought is productive of other results in the

percipient than the simple duplication or translation of a sensation.

The most usual case is where the telepathic impulse leads to some

action on the part of the percipient. It was frequently stated by the

older mesmerists[43] that the operator, by a silent act of will, could

induce a good subject to do or refrain from doing some prescribed or

customary action. Isolated observations on such a point are little

likely to compel belief; the vanity or the credulity of the recorder

may be supposed to have led to his overlooking the negative instances,

and attributing to his own peculiar gifts a result in reality due

to chance. But, following on the clue thus obtained, the Committee

on Mesmerism appointed by the S.P.R. in 1882, to some of whose work

reference has already been made (Chapter III., p. 60), succeeded in

obtaining results less open to question.

_Inhibition of Action by Silent Willing._

The first experiments of the kind were conducted on our friend Mr.

Sidney Beard, who was for some time an Associate of the Society

and took an active interest in its work. Mr. Beard, who was easily

hypnotised, would be entranced by Mr. Smith, and sit in a chair with

closed eyes. Then, to quote the account of a single experiment, a

list of twelve _Yeses_ and _Noes_ in arbitrary order was written by

one of ourselves and put into Mr. Smith's hand, with directions that

he should successively will the subject to respond or not to respond,

in accordance with the list. A tuning-fork was then struck and held

at Mr. Beard's ear, and the question, "Do you hear?" was asked by one

of ourselves. This was done twelve times in succession, Mr. Beard

answering or failing to answer on each occasion in accordance with the

"yes" or "no" of the written list--that is to say, with the silent

will of the agent. Similar trials on other occasions with Mr. Beard

were equally successful. The percipient's own account of the matter is

as follows: "During the experiments of January 1st [1883], when Mr.

Smith mesmerised me, I did not lose consciousness at any time, but

only experienced a sensation of total numbness in my limbs. When the

trial as to whether I could hear sounds was made I heard the sounds

distinctly each time, but in a large number of instances I felt totally

unable to acknowledge that I heard them. I seemed to know each time

whether Mr. Smith wished me to say that I heard them; and as I had

surrendered my will to his at the commencement of the experiment, I was

unable to reassert my power of volition whilst under his influence."

(_Proceedings of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. p. 256.)

No. 21.--By PROFESSOR BARRETT.

Further trials of the same kind were carried on in November 1883 by

Professor Barrett, at his own house in Dublin. The hypnotist and agent

was again Mr. G. A. Smith, the percipient a youth named Fearnley, a

stranger to Mr. Smith. In the first series of trials Professor Barrett

asked Fearnley, "Now will you open your hand?" at the same time

pointing to "Yes" or "No," written on a card, and held in sight of Mr.

Smith, but out of view from the percipient. Mr. Smith, who was not in

contact with the subject, directed his silent will in accordance with

the written indication. In twenty experiments conducted under these

conditions there were only three failures. Later, to quote Professor

Barrett,

"The experiment was varied as follows:--The word 'Yes' was written

on one, and the word 'No' on the other, of two precisely similar

pieces of card. One or other of these cards was handed to Mr.

Smith at my arbitrary pleasure, care of course being taken that

the 'subject' had no opportunity of seeing the card, even had he

been awake. When 'Yes' was handed Mr. Smith was silently to will

the 'subject' to answer aloud in response to the question asked by

me, 'Do you hear me?' When 'No' was handed Mr. Smith was to will

that no response should be made in reply to the same question. The

object of this series of experiments was to note the effect of

increasing the distance between the willer and the willed,--the

agent and the percipient. In the first instance Mr. Smith was

placed _three feet_ from the 'subject,' who remained throughout

apparently asleep in an arm-chair in one corner of my study.

"At three feet apart, 25 trials were successively made, and _in

every case_ the 'subject' responded or did not respond in exact

accordance with the silent will of Mr. Smith, as directed by me.

"At 6 feet apart six similar trials were made without a single

failure.

"At 12 feet apart six more trials were made without a single

failure.

"At 17 feet apart six more trials were made without a single

failure.

"In this last case Mr. Smith had to be placed outside the study

door, which was then closed with the exception of a narrow chink

just wide enough to admit of passing a card in or out, whilst

I remained in the study observing the 'subject.' To avoid any

possible indication from the tone in which I asked the question, in

all cases except the first dozen experiments, I shuffled the cards

face downwards, and then handed the unknown 'Yes' or 'No' to Mr.

Smith, who looked at the card and willed accordingly. I noted down

the result, and then, and not till then, looked at the card.

"A final experiment was made when Mr. Smith was taken across the

hall and placed in the dining-room, at a distance of about 30 feet

from the 'subject,' two doors, both quite closed, intervening.

Under these conditions, three trials were made with success, the

'Yes' response being, however, very faint and hardly audible to me,

who returned to the study to ask the usual question after handing

the card to the distant operator. At this point, the 'subject' fell

into a deep sleep, and made no further replies to the questions

addressed to him."

Further trials were made under different conditions, the results being

almost uniformly successful.

In interpreting these results there is no justification for assuming

direct control by the agent over the organism of the percipient. Nor

does the current phrase, endorsed as it is in the first case by the

percipient himself, that the operator's will dominated the will of

the subject, give an adequate account of the matter. When, as in the

case of experiments previously described, the percipient's impression

reproduces the sensation of the agent, there is nothing to indicate

that the impulse transferred directly affects the external organs, or

even the intermediate sensory centres. In the absence of any direct

evidence it is at least equally probable that the higher brain centres

only are concerned in the transmission in the first instance, and

that the transmitted idea is reflected downwards, until it actually

assumes, as in some of the experiments recorded with P. and Miss B.,

the form of a sensory hallucination. Upon this view no fundamental

distinction need be drawn between the results before described and

those now under discussion. In the latter case the question is not one

of transference of will or of a motor or inhibitory impulse. What is

actually transferred from the agent is probably only a simple idea. Its

subsequent translation into action, or the inhibition of action, is

as much the work of the percipient's mind as, in the other case, the

transformation of the idea of a number into a visual hallucination.

As regards the particular effect produced, it must be remembered that

the prime characteristic of the hypnotic state is its openness to

suggestion, and especially to suggestion coming through a particular

channel. It is the establishment of this suggestible state, which

consists essentially in the suppression of the controlling faculties

which normally pass judgment on the suggestions received from without,

and select those which are to find response in action, that Mr. Beard

describes as the surrender of his will. So that when Mr. Beard answered

our questions he did what his natural courtesy led him to do; when

he maintained silence his tendency to respond to the stimulus of

our questions was momentarily overcome by the stronger stimulus of

the idea received from the agent. But the superior efficacy of the

idea so transferred resulted not from any impulsive quality in the

idea itself, but from the previously established relations between

agent and percipient. The fact that experiments of this kind have

rarely succeeded in the waking state is no doubt due to the inferior

suggestibility of that state.

_Actions originated by Silent Willing._

In the paper already referred to (_supra_, p. 31) Dr. Blair Thaw

records some experiments which present us with a modification of the

Willing Game, but without contact. In most of the experiments the

person who was willed to perform a certain action--the nature of

which had been previously communicated to the other experimenters in

writing--was in the same room as the agents. But the agents did not

follow the percipient about the room, nor did the percipient look at

the agents for guidance. The percipient appears to have been awake

throughout the experiments, but it seems probable that her condition

was not that of complete normal wakefulness.

Of 26 experiments conducted under such conditions, 10 were completely

and 12 partially successful. When, however, as in this case, there are

several agents, all of whom are actually watching the movements of the

percipient, it is impossible to feel convinced that no indication by

the movements of the eyes or by breathing was given to the percipient

to show her whether or not she was moving in the right direction. In

the last four trials of the series, however, the percipient was willed

to fetch an object from another room which was out of sight from the

agents, and it is difficult to conceive that any indication could have

been given to her of the object selected.

No. 22.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

_April 7th_, 1892.

Mrs. Thaw, Percipient. Mr. M. H. Wyatt and Dr. Thaw, Agents. In the

next four experiments an object was selected in another room, and

then the percipient sent in for it. No clue was given as to what

part of the room.

_1st Object Selected._ A WOODEN CUPID, from a corner-piece in room

with eight other objects on it.--Percipient first brought a photo

from the lower shelf of corner-piece, then said: "It's the wooden

Cupid."

_2nd Object._ MATCH-BOX on mantel.--Percipient seemed confused at

first and brought two photos, then said: "It's the brass match-box

on mantel."

_3rd Object._ A VELLUM BOOK on table, among twenty other

books, chosen; but a bag under one window was thought of

first.--Percipient went to table, put her hand on the book, then

went to the bag and took it up, then back to the table and took the

vellum book and then the bag, and appeared with both. Percipient

was in sight of agents during this time, but did not see them.

_4th Object._ BOOK on small table, among ten others.--Missed.

In commenting on these experiments, Dr. Thaw is himself inclined to

attribute some of the results to "an indistinct motor impulse of some

kind, leading the percipient near the object." But in the experiments

above recorded, at any rate, it is sufficient, probably, to suppose the

transference of the idea of the object.

Experiments of a somewhat similar nature are recorded by Dr. Ochorowicz

(_La Suggestion mentale_, pp. 84-117). The subject in this case,

Madame M., was sunk in the deep hypnotic state (_l'état aidéique_), a

condition in which she would usually remain motionless until aroused by

the doctor. Under these circumstances Dr. Ochorowicz conducted upwards

of forty experiments in conveying mental commands, a large proportion

of which were executed by the subject with more or less exactness.

These trials have the drawback above indicated, common to all

experiments of the kind with the agent in the same room; moreover, each

experiment appears to have extended over a considerable period, and

the command--_e.g._, to rise from the chair and hand a cake from the

table to Dr. Ochorowicz--was frequently executed in stages. In judging

of the results, however, it should be remembered that Dr. Ochorowicz

has elsewhere shown himself to be acute in criticism and accurate in

observation.

Some experiments made by Dr. Gibert on Madame B., and recorded by

Professor Pierre Janet,[44] seem open to a similar objection. Dr.

Gibert communicated the mental command by touching Madame B.'s

forehead with his own whilst concentrating his thoughts on the ideas

to be conveyed. It is difficult to feel sure that the success of the

experiment under such conditions was not due to the command having

been unconsciously muttered by Dr. Gibert within the hearing of the

percipient. In the following account, however, thought-transference

would seem to be the simplest explanation of the results. The narrator,

unfortunately, remains anonymous; he is, however, personally known to

Dr. Dariex, the editor of the periodical from which the account is

extracted, and the experiments were obviously conducted with care.[45]

In this case it seems clear, since the command, though understood,

was on more than one occasion disobeyed, that the idea telepathically

intruded into the percipient's mind was not necessarily associated with

an impulse to action.

No. 23.--By J. H. P.

[On the 6th December 1887], having placed M. in a deep trance,

I turned my back upon her, and, without any gesture or sound

whatever, gave her the following mental order:--

"When you wake up you are to go and fetch a glass, put a few drops

of Eau de Cologne into it, and bring it to me."

On waking up, M. was visibly preoccupied; she could not keep still,

and at last came and placed herself in front of me, exclaiming--

"What an idea to put in my head!"

"Why do you speak so to me?"

"Because the idea that I have got can only come from you, and I

don't wish to obey."

"Don't obey unless you like; but I wish you to tell me at once what

you are thinking of."

"Well, then, I was to go and look for a glass, put some water in it

with some drops of Eau de Cologne, and take it to you; it is really

ridiculous."

My order had then been perfectly understood for the first time.

From that moment, December 6th, 1887, till to-day, with only two or

three exceptions, the mental transmission, whether in the waking

or sleeping state, has been most vivid. It is only disturbed at

certain times, or when M. is feeling very anxious.

On the 10th of December 1887, unknown to M., I hid a watch, that

was not going, behind some books in my bookcase. When she arrived I

put her to sleep, and gave her the following mental command:--

"Go and fetch me the watch that is hidden behind some books in the

bookcase."

I sat in my armchair with M. behind me, and was careful not to look

in the direction where the object was hidden.

M. suddenly got up from her armchair and went straight to the

bookcase, but could not open it; making energetic movements the

while, whenever she touched the door, and especially the glass.

"It is there! It is there! I am certain; but this glass burns me!"

I decided to open it myself; she rushed at my books, took them out,

and seized the watch, delighted to have found it.

Similar trials have been made with commands that one of my friends

passed to me, written beforehand, and not in the presence of the

subject, and the success has been complete; but if the person who

passes me the order is unknown to her, she refuses to obey, saying

that the command is not mine.

* * * * *

M. N., who was convinced that mental transmission is a fraud,

assured me that I should never be able to transmit an order from

him to M.

I invited him to come to my house, at five o'clock in the evening,

with a command written, which he was to give me only when M. was

asleep, and outside my study.

At 5.10 N. arrived and we went out, leaving M. in a trance; when we

were separated from my study by the two intervening rooms, with all

the doors shut, N. pulled out a small paper and said--

"You will read this command, we will both come back to M., and

without any gestures, you will communicate it to her."

"Certainly."

In the note was written, "Give the mental command to M. to count

out loud from 5 to 1; 5, 4, 3, 2, 1."

We came back to my study; I sat at my desk as usual--I am in the

habit of making notes during the progress of the experiments, so

as to report them with scrupulous accuracy--and I sent N.'s mental

command, while pretending to write. M. suddenly exclaimed--

"Doubtless, you imagine that I cannot count! I can count from 1 to

50,000, if I wish."

Mental command--"Count from 5 to 1."

"No, I will not obey a strange command; it is not a command of

yours."

All my efforts were useless; we had to abandon the experiment. The

command was certainly understood; but M. N. retired, convinced that

it had not been understood, and that even the trance was a sham!

_Automatic Writing._

Sometimes the working of the telepathic impulse is of a more apparently

mysterious kind. We have seen that Mr. Beard was fully conscious of the

action of a restraining force; and Mrs. Thaw, who was in a condition

little if at all removed from the normal, appears also to have been

aware of what she was doing, if perhaps without explicit recognition

of her motives at the time of performing the prescribed actions. But

in the various cases now to be described the telepathic impulse seems

never to have affected the normal consciousness of the percipient at

all; and the results produced through the agency of his organism were

due to no recognised volition on his part. The intelligence directing

his hand was an intelligence working below and apart from his ordinary

life.

Now this subterranean intelligence presents many points of analogy with

the secondary consciousness of the hypnotic subject; in both states

we find indications of thought and will distinct from those of waking

life, and of a memory not shared with that life. Moreover, it has

been shown experimentally, by Mr. Edmund Gurney,[46] Professor Pierre

Janet,[47] and others, that the consciousness which makes itself known

through planchette is, in certain persons at any rate, identical with

the consciousness found in the hypnotic trance, so far as the test of

a common memory can be relied upon to prove identity. The superior

susceptibility to telepathic influences, already referred to, of the

hypnotic subject, may perhaps, therefore, in the light of these later

experiments, be found to indicate a superior susceptibility of those

parts of the brain whose workings lie below the ordinary consciousness,

and reveal themselves only in the activities of trance and automatism.

The following is an illustrative case. The account is derived from

contemporary notes, made by the late Mr. P. H. Newnham, Vicar of Maker,

Devonport, of a series of experiments conducted by himself and his

wife during eight months in 1871.[48] Mr. Newnham would write, in a

book kept for the purpose, a question of the purport of which Mrs.

Newnham was in ignorance; and Mrs. Newnham, holding her hand on a

planchette, would write an answer to the question. The conditions of

the experiments are described by Mr. Newnham, in an account written in

1884, as follows:--

No. 24.

"My wife always sat at a small low table, in a low chair, leaning

backwards. I sat about eight feet distant, at a rather higher

table, and with my back towards her while writing down the

questions. It was absolutely impossible that any gesture, or play

of features, on my part, could have been visible or intelligible

to her. As a rule she kept her eyes shut; but never became in the

slightest degree hypnotic, or even naturally drowsy."

In all 309 questions with their answers were recorded under these

conditions, before the experiments were finally abandoned on account of

their prejudicial effect on Mrs. Newnham's health. The extracts from

Mr. Newnham's note-book given below show that Mrs. Newnham throughout

had some kind of knowledge, not always apparently complete, of the

terms of the question.[49] But she was not herself consciously aware of

the purport either of the question or of the answer written through her

hand.

_January 29th._

13. Is it the operator's brain, or some external force, that moves

the Planchette? Answer "brain" or "force." A. Will.

14. Is it the will of a living person, or of an immaterial spirit,

distinct from that person? Answer "person" or "spirit." A. Wife.

15. Give first the wife's Christian name; then, my favourite name

for her. (This was accurately done.)

27. What is your own name? A. Only you.

28. We are not quite sure of the meaning of the answer. Explain. A.

Wife.

Failing to get more than this at the outset, we returned to the

same thought after question 114; when, having been closely pressed

on another subject, we received the curt reply--"Told all I know."

_February 18th._

117. Who are you that writes, and has told all you know? A. Wife.

118. But does no one tell wife what to write? If so, who? A. Spirit.

119. Whose spirit? A. Wife's brain.

120. But how does wife's brain know (certain) secrets? A. Wife's

spirit unconsciously guides.

121. But how does wife's spirit know things it has never been told?

A. No external influence.

122. But by what _internal_ influence does it know (these) secrets?

A. You cannot know.

Mr. Newnham, who was a Mason, took the opportunity on several occasions

of questioning the planchette on details of the Masonic ritual and

archæology--of which Mrs. Newnham was of course ignorant--with very

surprising results. It will be seen from the extracts which follow

that Mrs. Newnham's answers showed not only an acquaintance with the

terms of the question, but even a fragmentary knowledge of the correct

answer--knowledge which under the circumstances could hardly have been

derived elsewhere than from the questioner's brain.

_March 26th._

166. Of what language is the first syllable of the Great Triple

R.A. Word?[50] A. Don't know.

167. Yes, you do. What are the three languages of which the word

is composed? A. Greek, Egyptian, Syriac first syllable (_correctly

given_), rest unknown.

168. Write the syllable which is Syriac. A. (First syllable

correctly written.)

169. Write the syllable which is Egyptian. A. Second.

170. Can you not write the syllable itself? A. Third Greek.

174. Write down the word itself. A. First three and last two

letters were written correctly, but four incorrect letters, _partly

borrowed from another word of the same degree_, came in the middle.

176. Why do you write a word of which I know nothing? A. Wife tried

hard to tell the word, but could not quite catch it.

177. Catch it from whom? A. Not quite sure.

178. Not quite sure of what? A. I know nothing. Wife doesn't quite

know.

182. Write out the prayer used at the advancement of a Mark Master

Mason. A. Almighty Ruler of the Universe and Architect of all

worlds, we beseech Thee to accept this, our brother, whom we have

this day received into our most honourable Company of Mark Master

Masons. Grant him to be a worthy member of our brotherhood; and may

he be in his own person a perfect mirror of all Masonic virtues.

Grant that all our doings may be to Thy honour and glory, and to

the welfare of all mankind.

This prayer was written off instantaneously and very rapidly. It

is a very remarkable production indeed. For the benefit of those

who are not members of the craft, I may say that no prayer in the

slightest degree resembling it is made use of in the Ritual of any

Masonic degree; and yet it contains more than one strictly accurate

technicality connected with the degree of Mark Mason. My wife has

never seen any Masonic prayers, whether in "Carlile," or any other

real or spurious Ritual of the Masonic Order.

183. I do not know this prayer. Where is it to be found? A. Old

American Ritual.

184. Where can I get one? A. Most likely none in England.

185. Can you not write the prayer that I make use of in my own

Lodge? A. No, I don't know it.

We have to remark here not merely the exhibition of a will and an

intelligence differing from the writer's normal self, but the display

of a yet more alien disingenuousness. Similar evasions and inventions

occur more than once in the course of these experiments. Indeed,

a certain degree of moral perversity is a frequent and notorious

characteristic of automatic expression.

Some interesting experiments of the same kind were conducted, in

the winter of 1892-93, by Mr. R. H. Buttemer, of Emanuel College,

Cambridge, and Mr. H. T. Green. Throughout the series the questions

were, as in the preceding case, written down, so that the percipient

was completely ignorant of their purport. The following is the record

of the last experiments of the series.

No. 25.--By MR. R. H. BUTTEMER.

February 18th, 1893, 8 P.M. Mrs. H., Miss B., Mr. and Miss M.

present, in addition to Mr. Green, and Messrs. S., W., and Buttemer.

Mr. Green, as usual, operated Planchette, and on this occasion sat

with his back to all the other persons present.

_Q._ (from Mr. M.): What was I doing this afternoon?

_A._ i. ---- the sun ---- (all else illegible). ii. Enjoying the

fresh air of heaven.

_Q._ What was Mr. Rogers doing in Cambridge?

_A._ i. (Irrelevant, or possibly connected vaguely with the

question.) ii. Ask another, but Mr. Rogers came up on important

business connected with the Lodge. (Correct.)

_Q._ Where has Mrs. M. gone?

_A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. Far, far away, but more next time. iii.

Her mother has gone to--oh, what a happy place is London! iv.

All change here for Bletchley. (Mrs. M. had possibly passed this

station on her journey.)

_Q._ Who has won the Association Match to-day?

_A._ i. (Illegible.) ii. O ye simple ones, how long will ye love

simplicity? Why, Oxford, of course. [This fact was known to some

persons in the room, but not to Mr. Green.]

One of the company then suggested the attempt to get the name on

a visiting card transmitted, and the question was written, "Write

name on card." Mr. Green did not know that this experiment was

about to be tried, and the card was picked from a pile at random.

The name was John B. Bourne. A sentence was written by Mr. Green,

which proved to be, "Think of one letter at a time and then see

what will happen." We did so.

_A._ i. J for Jerusalem, O for Omri, H for Honey, and N for

Nothing. ii. B for Benjamin, O for Olive, U for Unicorn. (The

remaining letters were given incorrectly.)

_Q._ How many of the Society's books are here? (There were two

volumes of _Proceedings_ on the table.)

_A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. The answer is 100-98.

_Q._ What is 2 × 3?

Two irrelevant answers were given, possibly owing to a slight

disturbance in the room. The third answer was--"When that noise has

ceased and S. has finished knocking the lamp over, I say 6."

A trial shortly after this, February 19th, gave no results, and the

power of automatic writing appears to have entirely left Mr. Green

for the present. (_Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ix. pp. 61-64.)

In this, as in Mr. Newnham's case, the mode of expression is again

characteristic of the automatic consciousness. It is explained by Mr.

Buttemer that when two or more answers are given, the operator had been

simply told to write again, after the first irrelevant answer, without

being shown the question.

_Table Tilting._

No. 26.--By the AUTHOR.

We pass on to experiments in which the ideas transmitted from the

agent find other subterranean channels in the percipient's organism

for their expression. Of all forms of intelligent automatism writing,

next to speaking, is probably in an educated percipient the easiest,

because in normal life the commonest. In the cases, therefore, recorded

below the actual movements involved, though of a relatively simple

kind, as being unaccustomed called possibly for the exercise of a

degree of mental activity as high as would have been the case had

writing been the vehicle of expression. In the preceding chapter it was

recorded, in the experiments with numbers, that some of the answers

were given through the movements of a table on which the percipient's

hands rested (p. 73). A series of experiments of this nature was made

by the writer in November and December 1873, with the assistance of a

few friends, amongst whom were Mr. F. H. Colson, now Head Master of

Plymouth College, and the Rev. W. E. Smith, of Corton, near Lowestoft.

The following is a description of the methods adopted. Three or four of

us would sit round a small centre-legged table, cane-bottomed chair,

waste-paper basket, or metal tripod, with our hands resting on it. We

found that in a few minutes the table (or other instrument) would tilt

on one side, or move round and round, with considerable freedom. When

these motions had once been fairly established, one or two of those

present in the room would retire to a distance, keeping their backs to

the table, and think of a letter of the alphabet. The table would move

freely up and down, under the varying pressure of the hands laid on

it, in a succession of small tilts. Those sitting at the table would

count the tilts--one tilt standing for A, two for B, three for C, and

so on. Excluding second trials, there were 70 experiments conducted

under these conditions. The right letter was tilted in 27 cases, and in

two others the next succeeding letter was given. On some occasions the

proportion of successes was much higher; thus, on the 28th November,

out of a total of 16 trials, 10 were correct. On the 1st December, on

the other hand, 10 trials were made without any success. It was the

rule throughout that the agents should stand with their backs to the

table at some distance from it, and after the first few experiments we

found, or thought we found, that the thought-transference succeeded

best with a single agent. In order that the letter might not be

guessed from the context, we generally took the initial or initial

and final letters only of a word; in four cases only did the agent

select as many as three consecutive letters of a word. If the letters

had been arbitrarily chosen, the chances against the right letters

being indicated would be 25 to 1. But as the letters actually selected

were in most cases constituent parts of a word, generally the initial

letter, and as in some cases two or three consecutive letters were

selected, the adverse chances would be reduced, roughly speaking,

to something like 15 to 1. But even so the results attained are

sufficiently striking.[51]

In these experiments the percipient or percipients themselves counted

the tilts; and it is probable that occasionally one or other of those

seated at the table half-consciously guided its movements in conformity

with his own ideas of what the letter would be. But in a modified form

of the experiment, introduced by Professor Richet, the percipients, two

or three in number, were seated at one table and a printed alphabet

was placed on another table behind the percipients and out of their

range of vision. When the first table tilted,[52] under the automatic

movements of the hands resting on it, it caused a bell to ring. M.

Richet or some other experimenter sat at the second table and drew

a pen slowly backwards and forwards over the printed alphabet. The

letters to which the pen was pointing when the bell rang were noted,

and it was found that they made up intelligible words and sentences,

provided that in some cases the next letter or the next but one were

substituted for that actually given.[53] All necessary precautions were

taken that the alphabet should be out of sight of the "mediums," who

were in most cases personal friends of M. Richet, and whose good faith

was, he believes, in all cases unimpeachable. Subjoined is an account

of the results obtained on one evening. M. Richet appears from the

account to have been one of those seated at the tilting table.

No. 27.--By PROFESSOR RICHET.

"On the 9th of November we took the same precautions, but used

an ordinary alphabet, not the circular one.[54] The name of the

'spirit' who came to the table was given as V I L L O N. Then we

made a great noise, we repeated poetry, sang, and counted to such

good purpose that P., who was at the alphabet, could hardly follow

the ringing of the bell. We asked for some French poetry. The reply

was--

Q U S N N T K F S N E I G D R D A M S A M

_O U, S O N T, L E S, N E I G E S, D A N T A N_

That is, "Ou sont les neiges d'Antan?"--a verse of Villon's, obviously

known to us all.

We then asked, what were the relations of Villon with the kings of

France?

K O U H T L E C R U E L

_L O U I S, L E, C R U E L_

Louis le cruel.

What book ought we to read?

E S S A Y S U R D A D M O N I N M A N H P

_E S S A Y, S U R, D A E M O N I O M A N I E_

The reader will understand that if I mention these experiments, it is

not because the answers are interesting in themselves, but because the

precautions taken seemed sufficient to prevent the medium from gaining

any knowledge of the movements of the operator at the alphabet.... I

add a few more replies; but the number and intrinsic significance of

these replies is a matter of but little importance.

F E S T I N A L E N T E

L O F A M D T M R E I I N A J U B R

_I N F A N D U M, R E J I N A, J U B E S_

R E N O V A R E D O L O R E M

_R E N O V A R E, D O L O R E M_

The old spelling of the word "Rejina" should be noticed." (_Proc.

Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. v. pp. 142, 143.)

In this case it will be observed that P. alone was in possession of

the knowledge, without which all the efforts of those at the table

could have produced only a meaningless sequence of letters. In some

other experiments of the series the procedure was more complicated. M.

Richet, standing apart from both tables, asked a question, the answer

to which was given by the percipients with a certain approximation to

correctness. The results, though less striking than those already

quoted, are yet such as to suggest that they were not due to chance.[55]

_Production of Local Anæsthesia._

We now pass to experiments of another kind, resembling those last

quoted, inasmuch as the effects were produced without the consciousness

of the percipient, but differing in the important particular that no

deliberate and conscious effort on his part could have enabled him

to produce them. In experiments carried on with various subjects at

intervals through the years 1883-87, at some of which the present

writer assisted, Mr. Edmund Gurney had shown that it was possible by

means of the unexpressed will of the agent to produce local anæsthesia

in certain persons. (_S.P.R._, vol. i. pp. 257-260; ii. 201-205; iii.

453-459; v. 14-17.) In these experiments the subject was placed at a

table, and his hands were passed through holes in a large brown paper

screen, so that they were completely concealed from his view. Mr. G. A.

Smith then held his hand at a distance of two or three inches from the

finger indicated by Mr. Gurney, at the same time willing that it should

become rigid and insensible. On subsequently applying appropriate tests

it was found, as a rule, that the finger selected had actually become

rigid and was insensible to pain. In the last series of 160 experiments

Mr. Gurney, as well as Mr. Smith, held his hand over a particular

finger. In 124 cases the finger over which Mr. Smith's hand had been

held was alone affected; in 16 cases Mr. Gurney and Mr. Smith were

both successful; in 13 cases Mr. Gurney was successful and Mr. Smith

failed. In the remaining 7 cases no effect at all was produced. It is

noteworthy that in a series of 41 similar trials, in which Mr. Smith,

while holding his hand in the same position, willed that no effect

should be produced, there was actually no effect in 36 cases; in 4

cases the finger over which his hand was held, and in the remaining

case another finger, were affected. The rigidity was tested by asking

the subject, at the end of the experiment, to close his hands. When he

complied with the request the finger operated on--if the experiment

had succeeded--would remain rigid. The insensibility was proved by

pricking, burning, or by a current from an induction coil. In the

majority of the successful trials the insensibility was shown to be

proof against all assaults, however severe.

In these earlier experiments it seemed essential to success that Mr.

Smith's hand should be in close proximity to that of the subject,

without any intervening barrier. These conditions made it difficult

to exclude the possibility of the subject learning by variations in

temperature, or by air currents, which finger was actually being

operated on; though it is hard to conceive that the percipient could

by any such means have discriminated between Mr. Gurney's hand and

Mr. Smith's. On the other hand, even if this source of error was held

to be excluded, the interpretation of the results remained ambiguous.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Gurney himself was inclined to attribute the

effects produced, not to telepathy, as ordinarily understood, but to

a specific vital effluence, or, as he phrased it, a kind of nervous

induction, operating directly on the affected part of the percipient's

organism. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 254-259.)

With a view to test this hypothesis further experiments of the same

kind were made by Mrs. Sidgwick during the years 1890 and 1892, the

subjects being P. and Miss B. already mentioned. The percipient was

throughout in a normal condition. As before, he sat at a table with

his hands passed through holes in a large screen, which extended

sufficiently far in all directions to prevent him from seeing either

the operator or his own hands. Mr. Smith, as before, willed to produce

the desired effect in the finger which had been intimated to him,

either by signs or writing, by one of the experimenters. Passing over

the trials, very generally successful, made under the same conditions

as Mr. Gurney's experiments--_i.e._, with the agent's hand held at

a short distance without any intervening screen from the finger

selected--we will quote Mrs. Sidgwick's account of the later series

performed under varied conditions. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.

577-596.)

No. 28.--By MRS. H. SIDGWICK.

In the second division, (_b_), of our experiments come those in

which a glass screen was placed over the subject's hands. For the

first four of these we used a framed window pane which happened

to be handy. Then we obtained and used a sheet of 32 oz. glass,

measuring 22 by 10 inches and 1/6 inch in thickness. This was

supported on two large books placed beyond the subject's hands on

each side, and in this position the upper surface of the glass

was 2-1/4 inches above the surface of the table, so that there

was ample room for the hands to rest underneath without touching

the glass. Mr. Smith held his hand in the usual position over

the selected finger, above the glass and not touching it. Under

these conditions we tried 21 experiments with P., of which 18 were

successful, and 6 with Miss B., all successful. In the case of the

3 failures with P., no effect was produced on any finger. In one

successful case, the time taken was long, and we interrupted the

experiment by premature testing in the way explained above.

Division (_c_) includes those experiments in which Mr. Smith did

not approximate his hand to that of the subject at all, but merely

looked at the selected finger from some place in the same room as

the subject, but out of his sight. The distances between him and

the subject varied from about 2-1/2 to about 12 feet. Under these

conditions we tried 37 experiments with P., 18 in 1890, of which

6 were failures, and 2 only partially successful, and 19 in 1892,

of which 10 were failures. The proportion of success was, it thus

appears, much less than under the previously described conditions,

but still much beyond what chance would produce. Of the 6 failures

in 1890, one was a case in which Mr. Smith made a mistake as to

which finger we had selected, but succeeded with the one he thought

of. In another case the left thumb instead of the right thumb

became insensitive. In the other 4 cases no finger at all was

affected.

Of the 10 failures in 1892, no effect was produced in 4 cases;

in another the right (viz., the little) finger of the wrong

hand became insensitive;[56] in 4 cases an adjoining finger was

affected--once only slightly--instead of that selected, and in the

remaining case a finger distant from the selected one was slightly

affected.

Six experiments were made with Mr. Smith looking at the finger through

the opera-glass at a distance of from 22 to 25 feet; in three cases

the experiment succeeded, in three another finger was affected instead

of that selected. Fourteen experiments were made with a closed door

intervening between percipient and agent; 2 only succeeded, and in 8

a wrong finger was affected, no effect at all being produced in the

remaining 4 cases. In a further series of 4 trials Mr. Smith held his

hand near the percipient, and willed to produce no effect. The trials

were successful. In all these experiments P. was the percipient.

The rigidity was tested, as before, by asking the subject to close his

hands; the anæsthesia, as a rule, by touches or the induction coil.

Tested by the latter means it was found, as the current was gradually

increased to the maximum, that the insensibility was not always

complete. Flexibility and sensation were usually restored, for economy

of time, by means of upward passes; but a few trials made later in the

series served to show that the finger could be restored to its normal

condition by a mere effort of will on the part of the agent. In some

cases when their attention was specially directed to their sensations

the subjects were able to indicate beforehand the finger operated on,

by reason of the feeling of cold in it. But as a rule they appeared to

be unaware which finger was affected. It is perhaps needless to point

out that no conscious effort on their part could have produced the

results described.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 43: Cases are recorded in the _Zoist_ and other publications

of the period. See the instances, quoted in _Phantasms of the Living_,

vol. i. pp. 89-91, of the Rev. J. Lawson Sisson, Mr. Barth, Mr. N.

Dunscombe, and Mr. H. S. Thompson. Traditions of the marvels wrought by

the last-named gentleman still linger in Yorkshire society, and will no

doubt demand the serious attention of future students of folk-lore.]

[Footnote 44: _Bulletin de la Soc. de Psychologie Physiologique_, 1885.]

[Footnote 45: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 130-133.]

[Footnote 46: See the account of his experiments on "Peculiarities of

certain Post-hypnotic States," _Proc. S. P. R._, vol. iv. pp. 268-323.]

[Footnote 47: "L'Automatisme Psychologique."]

[Footnote 48: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iii. pp. 6-23.]

[Footnote 49: Mr. Newnham explains that "five or six questions were

often asked consecutively without her being told of the subject that

was being pursued."]

[Footnote 50: Previous questions had been asked on the same subject,

and the first syllable had already been correctly written. On a

subsequent occasion the same question was repeated and a wholly

incorrect answer was given.]

[Footnote 51: There were nine sittings in all, but the records of one

were imperfectly kept, and have not been preserved. In two cases the

details given are insufficient; in the notes of the first evening it is

stated that the person seated at the table "failed three or four times,

succeeded once in giving word of (_i.e._, selected from) newspaper

(which agent) held in his hand." These trials have been omitted

altogether from the results given in the text. On the third evening

there is a record, "gave S H but got wrong afterwards." The word

thought of was _Sherry_. I have counted this trial as two successes and

two failures, judging from the other experiments recorded that not more

than four consecutive letters at most would have been attempted.]

[Footnote 52: In this case it will be observed the table tilted

only once for each letter. The method adopted (after trial of the

alternative) in my own experiments, though slower and more cumbrous,

was apparently productive of more accurate results. It will be readily

understood that it might be easier for the transmitted impulse to check

a movement, at once uncertain and spasmodic, which had been already

initiated, than to overcome, in a short space of time, the resistance

of inertia and generate a new movement. The distinction may perhaps

be illustrated by the difference between the amount of force required

to start a railway truck at rest on the level, and that which would

suffice to arrest one actually in gentle motion.]

[Footnote 53: Of course substitutions of this kind considerably reduce

the value of the results obtained, but it will be found that when

full deduction has been made on this score, the coincidences remain

overwhelmingly in excess of anything which could have been produced by

chance.]

[Footnote 54: In some previous experiments a circular alphabet had

been used, with a view of preventing any of those seated at the first

table from learning by the movements of the operator's hand what

point of the alphabet he had reached. The other precautions described

seemed, however, as M. Richet points out, sufficient to exclude all

considerations of this kind.]

[Footnote 55: _Rev. Phil._, Dec. 1884; see also _S.P.R._, vol. ii. pp.

247 _et seq._]

[Footnote 56: It happened on another occasion under these conditions

that the right little finger was slightly affected when the left little

finger, which had been selected, was so in a more decided manner.]

CHAPTER V.

EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF TELEPATHIC EFFECTS AT A DISTANCE.

In the cases so far described, where success has been attained, the

agent and percipient, if not actually in the same room, have been

separated by a distance not exceeding at the most 25 or 30 feet. The

analogy of the physical forces would, of course, have prepared us to

find that the effect of telepathy diminishes in proportion to the

distance through which it has to act. And in fact we have but few

records of successful experiments at a distance. Yet, on the other

hand, we are confronted by a large body of evidence for the spontaneous

affection of one mind by another, and that at a distance frequently

of hundreds of miles. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, in

view of the close similarity, in many cases, of the effects produced,

that the force operating in these spontaneous phenomena is identical

with, or at least closely allied to, that which causes the transfer of

sensations or images from agent to percipient within the compass of a

London drawing-room. It is probable, indeed, that the non-experimental

evidence, for reasons already alluded to, and discussed at length in

the succeeding chapter, should be generously discounted. But it is not

easy for an impartial inquirer to reject it altogether. Nor indeed is

any such summary solution required by the results of experimental

telepathy. It is true that experiments at a distance have seldom

succeeded, and that we have no record of any long-continued series

of such experiments at all comparable to those conducted, _e.g._, by

Mr. Guthrie or Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at close quarters. But it is also

probably true that such experiments have been comparatively seldom

attempted. And if account be taken of the various drawbacks incident

to experiments at a distance, the amount of success already achieved,

though no doubt less in proportion to the number of serious and

well-conceived attempts than is the case with experiments conducted

under the more usual conditions, is yet far from discouraging. For

trials at a distance are tedious; they consume much time, and call

for long preparation and careful pre-arrangement. The difficulties

of securing the necessary freedom from disturbance are probably

increased when agent and percipient are separated. The interest in such

experiments is difficult to maintain apart from the stimulus of a rapid

succession of trials with an immediate record of the results. Lastly,

such experiments would generally be undertaken only after a series of

trials at close quarters; after, that is, some portion at least of the

original stock of energy and enthusiasm has been exhausted. And even

when such considerations have no effect upon the experimenter, it is

likely, as has been already pointed out, that the novel conditions

would of themselves affect unfavourably the imagination of the

percipient, and thus prejudice the results. That, notwithstanding

these various drawbacks, there have been several successful series of

experiments at a distance is a matter of good augury for the future.

It is much to be desired that investigators should give attention to

obtaining more results in this branch of the inquiry. For independently

of the fact that results of the kind form an indispensable link between

instances of thought-transference at close quarters and the more

striking spontaneous cases at a distance, it is important to observe

that in experiments of the kind described in the present chapter the

gravest objection which is at present urged, and may fairly continue

to be urged, against most experiments at close quarters--viz., the

risk of unconscious apprehension through normal channels--is no longer

applicable. Moreover, the results can only be attributed to fraud

on the extreme assumption that both parties to the experiment are

implicated in deliberate and systematic collusion.

_Induction of Sleep at a distance._

Some of the most striking experimental cases, which are concerned with

the production of hallucinations, are reserved for later discussion.

(See Chapter X.)

But perhaps the most valuable body of testimony for the agency of

thought-transference at a distance is to be found in the experiments

recorded by French observers in the induction of sleep. It is not

a little remarkable that this, one of its rarest and most striking

manifestations, should have been among the first and, until recently,

almost the only form of telepathy which attracted attention amongst

French investigators. Moreover, of late years at any rate, this

particular form of experiment has rarely succeeded except in France,

and with hypnotic subjects. But as the number of physicians who

practise hypnotism increases in other countries, we may no doubt

hope to see the observations already made confirmed and enlarged.

The analogy of the experiments in the induction of anæsthesia by

thought-transference, recorded in the last chapter, would perhaps

have prepared us to accept the induction of sleep as a not improbable

effect of telepathy. But we are not without more direct testimony. The

opening sentences of Professor Janet's account of the experiment with

Madame B. show us that, in this case at all events, the conscious will

of the operator was necessary to produce the hypnotic trance, even at

close quarters. When, therefore, we find that the same cause, operating

at a distance, is constantly followed by a like effect, there can be no

reasonable ground for refusing to recognise the operator's will as in

this case also the cause of the sleep; unless, indeed, we are prepared

to attribute all the results to chance.

No. 29.--Experiments by MM. GIBERT and JANET.

In the autumn of 1885 Professor Pierre Janet of Havre witnessed some

trials made by Dr. Gibert of the same town on Madame B., a patient of

his own. Madame B., whose fame has now reached beyond her native land,

is described by Professor Janet as an honest peasant woman, in good

health, with no indications of hysteria. She has been hypnotised since

childhood by various persons, and is occasionally liable to spontaneous

attacks of somnambulism. One of the most remarkable features presented

by Madame B.'s induced trances is that she can be awakened by the

person who hypnotised her and by no one else; and that his hand alone

can produce partial or general contractures, and subsequently restore

her limbs to their normal condition.

"One day," to quote Professor Janet ("Note sur quelques Phénomènes

de Somnambulisme," _Revue Philosophique_, Feb. 1886), "M. Gibert

was holding Madame B.'s hand to hypnotise her (_pour l'endormir_),

but he was visibly preoccupied and thinking of other matters, and

the trance did not supervene. This experiment, repeated by me

in various forms, proved to us that in order to entrance Madame

B. it was necessary to concentrate one's thought intensely on

the suggestion to sleep which was given to her, and the more the

operator's thought wandered the more difficult it became to induce

the trance. This influence of the operator's thought, however

extraordinary it may seem, predominates in this case to such an

extent that it replaces all other causes. If one presses Madame

B.'s hand without the thought of hypnotising her, the trance is not

induced; but, on the other hand, one can succeed in sending her to

sleep by thinking of it without pressing her hand."

Of course in experiments of this kind no precautions could exclude

the chance that some suggestion of what was expected might reach the

percipient's mind through the gestures, the attitude, or even the

silence of the experimenter. But, acting on the clue thus given, MM.

Gibert and Janet succeeded in impressing mentally on Madame B. commands

which were punctually executed on the following day. During the same

period Dr. Gibert made three attempts, all of which met with partial

success, in inducing the hypnotic trance by mental suggestion given at

a distance. Subsequently, during February and March 1886, and again

during April and May of the same year, these trials were repeated with

striking results. During one of the trials which took place in April

Mr. F. W. H. Myers and Dr. A. T. Myers were present, and from their

contemporary record the following account is taken. Throughout these

trials, it should be stated, Madame B. was in the Pavillon, a house

occupied by Dr. Gibert's sister, and distant about two-thirds of a mile

from Dr. Gibert's own house. The distance intervening between agent and

percipient in this series of experiments was in no case less than a

quarter of a mile or more than one mile. In the first trial described

by Mr. Myers (18 in the subjoined table) Madame B. actually went to

sleep about twenty minutes after the effort at willing had been made;

but as some of the party had in the interval entered the house where

she was and found her awake, it seems possible that their coming had

suggested the idea of sleep. In the second case (No. 19) an attempt to

will Madame B. to leave her bed at 11.35 P.M. and come to Dr. Gibert's

house had failed--the only result, possibly due to other causes, being

an unusually prolonged sleep and a headache on waking. Subsequently, to

quote Mr. Myers' account,

"(20) On the morning of the 22nd we again selected by lot an hour

(11 A.M.) at which M. Gibert should will, from his dispensary

(which is close to his house), that Madame B. should go to sleep

in the Pavillon. It was agreed that a rather longer time should be

allowed for the process to take effect; as it had been observed

(see M. Janet's previous communication) that she sometimes

struggled against the influence, and averted the effect for a time

by putting her hands in cold water, etc. At 11.25 we entered the

Pavillon quietly, and almost at once she descended from her room

to the _salon_, profoundly asleep. Here, however, suggestion might

again have been at work. We did not, of course, mention M. Gibert's

attempt of the previous night. But she told us in her sleep that

she had been very ill in the night, and repeatedly exclaimed:

'Pourquoi M. Gibert m'a-t-il fait souffrir? Mais j'ai lavé les

mains continuellement.' This is what she does when she wishes to

avoid being influenced.

"(21) In the evening (22nd) we all dined at M. Gibert's, and in

the evening M. Gibert made another attempt to put her to sleep

at a distance from his house in the Rue Séry,--she being at

the Pavillon, Rue de la Ferme,--and to bring her to his house

by an effort of will. At 8.55 he retired to his study; and MM.

Ochorowicz, Marillier, Janet, and A. T. Myers went to the Pavillon,

and waited outside in the street, out of sight of the house. At

9.22 Dr. Myers observed Madame B. coming half-way out of the

garden-gate, and again retreating. Those who saw her more closely

observed that she was plainly in the somnambulic state, and was

wandering about and muttering. At 9.25 she came out (with eyes

persistently closed, so far as could be seen), walked quickly

past MM. Janet and Marillier without noticing them, and made for

M. Gibert's house, though not by the usual or shortest route. (It

appeared afterwards that the _bonne_ had seen her go into the

_salon_ at 8.45, and issue thence asleep at 9.15: had not looked

in between those times.) She avoided lamp-posts, vehicles, etc.,

but crossed and recrossed the street repeatedly. No one went in

front of her or spoke to her. After eight or ten minutes she grew

much more uncertain in gait, and paused as though she would fall.

Dr. Myers noted the moment in the Rue Faure; it was 9.35. At about

9.40 she grew bolder, and at 9.45 reached the street in front of

M. Gibert's house. There she met him, but did not notice him, and

walked into his house, where she rushed hurriedly from room to room

on the ground-floor. M. Gibert had to take her hand before she

recognised him. She then grew calm.

"M. Gibert said that from 8.55 to 9.20 he thought intently about

her; from 9.20 to 9.35 he thought more feebly; at 9.35 he gave

the experiment up, and began to play billiards; but in a few

minutes began to will her again. It appeared that his visit to

the billiard-room had coincided with her hesitation and stumbling

in the street. But this coincidence may of course have been

accidental....

"(22) On the 23rd, M. Janet, who had woke her up and left her

awake,[57] lunched in our company, and retired to his own house at

4.30 (a time chosen by lot) to try to put her to sleep from thence.

At 5.5 we all entered the _salon_ of the Pavillon, and found her

asleep with shut eyes, but sewing vigorously (being in that stage

in which movements once suggested are automatically continued).

Passing into the talkative state, she said to M. Janet, 'C'est vous

qui m'avez fait dormir à quatre heures et demi.' The impression as

to the hour may have been a suggestion received from M. Janet's

mind. We tried to make her believe that it was M. Gibert who had

sent her to sleep, but she maintained that she had felt that it was

M. Janet.

"(23) On April 24th the whole party chanced to meet at M. Janet's

house at 3 P.M., and he then, at my suggestion, entered his study

to will that Madame B. should sleep. We waited in his garden, and

at 3.20 proceeded together to the Pavillon, which I entered first

at 3.30, and found Madame B. profoundly sleeping over her sewing,

having ceased to sew. Becoming talkative, she said to M. Janet,

'C'est vous qui m'avez commandé.' She said that she fell asleep at

3.5 P.M." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 133-136.)

The subjoined table, taken, with a few verbal alterations, from Mr.

Myers' article, gives a complete list of the experiments in the

induction of trance at a distance (_sommeil à distance_) made by MM.

Janet and Gibert up to the end of May 1886:--

Experi-| | | given. | +---------------+

-------+---------+---------+-----------+----------------------------+

| 1885. | | | |

| | | | wards off trance. | ?

2 | " 9| do. | 11.40 A.M.|Found entranced 11.45. | 1

3 | " 14| do. | 4.15 P.M.|Found entranced 4.30: |

| | | | 15 minutes. | 1

|---------| | | |

| 1886. | | | |

4 |Feb. 22| Janet | .. |She washes hands and |

| | | | wards off trance. | ?

5 | " 25| do. | 5 P.M. |Asleep at once. | 1

6 | " 26| do. | .. |Mere discomfort observed. | 0

7 |March 1| do. | .. | do. do. | 0

8 | " 2| do. | 3 P.M. |Found asleep at 4: has |

| | | | slept about an hour. | 1

9 | " 4| do. | .. |Will interrupted: trance |

| | | | coincident but incomplete.| 1

10 | " 5| do. |5-5.10 P.M.|Found asleep a few minutes |

| | | | afterwards. | 1

11 | " 6| Gibert | 8 P.M. |Found asleep 8.3. | 1

12 | " 10| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1

13 | " 14| Janet | 3 P.M. |Success--no details. | 1

14 | " 16| Gibert | 9 P.M. |Brings her to his house: |

| | | | few minutes after 9. | 1

|---------| | | |

| | | | minutes. | 1

16 | " 19| Gibert | 4 P.M. |Found asleep 4.15. | 1

17 | " 20| do. | 8 P.M. |Made to come to his |

| | | | house. | 1

18 | " 21| do. | 5.50 P.M. |Asleep about 6.10: trance |

| | | | too tardy. | ?

19 | " 21| do. |11.35 P.M. |Attempt at trance during |

| | | | sleep. | 0

20 | " 22| do. | 11 A.M. |Asleep 11.25: trance too |

| | | | tardy. | ?

21 | " 22| do. | 9 P.M. |Comes to his house: |

| | | | leaves her house 9.15. | 1

22 | " 23| Janet | 4.30 P.M. |Found asleep 5.5, says |

| | | | 4.30. | 1

23 | " 24| do. | 3 P.M. |Found asleep 3.30, says |

| | | | she has slept since 3.5. | 1

24 |May 5| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1

25 | " 6| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1

| | | | +---

| | | | | 18

-------+---------+---------+-----------+--------------------------------

Apparitions and thought-transference: an examination of the evidence for telepathy · 第 17 / 23 章

1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right arm was pinched