successes. In two of the latter Madame B. was found washing her hands
to ward off the trance, and in two others the trance supervened only
after an interval of twenty minutes or more, and under circumstances
which rendered it doubtful whether telepathy were the cause. It is
important to note that during these earlier visits of Madame B. to
Havre, about two months in all, she only once fell into ordinary sleep
during the daytime, and twice became spontaneously entranced; and that
she never left the house in the evenings except on the three occasions
(14, 17, 21), on which she did so in apparent response to a mental
suggestion. There is little ground, therefore, for attributing the
results above given to chance.
A further series of trials with the same percipient was conducted by
Professor Janet during the autumn of 1886. The results, communicated
by him to Professor Richet, were published by the latter in the
_Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 43-45.[58] In order to
facilitate comparison I have thrown these later results also into
tabular form. In the later trials it will be observed that there is a
tolerably constant retardation of the effect. The exact degree of the
retardation it was not always possible to ascertain, as it was not
practicable to keep Madame B. continually under observation, and to
have let those at the Pavillon into the secret, and to have asked them
to exercise special vigilance at the time of the experiments would
have entailed the risk of vitiating the results. Moreover, in order to
avoid giving any suggestion by the hour of his arrival, M. Janet made
it a rule during a great part of this period to come to the house at
the same hour--4 P.M. in most cases--for several days consecutively.
When an early hour, therefore, had been chosen for the experiments,
the exact degree of success could only be determined if Madame B.'s
movements had chanced at the right time to come under the observation
of those in the house. During the period of the trials Madame B. fell
asleep in the daytime spontaneously only four times.
No. of
Experi- Date. Hour when Remarks. Success
ments. given. or
Failure.
1886.
1 8th Sept. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 4 P.M. M. J.
entered unseen and without
knocking ?
2 9th Sept. 3 P.M. Madame B. complained of
headache F.
3 11th Sept. 9 (? A.M.) Found at 10, "troublée et
étourdie" F.
4 14th Sept. 4 P.M. M. J. enters at 4.15. Madame
B. says she was asleep, but
wakened by ringing of
door-bell ?
5[1] 18th Sept. 3.30 P.M. Found asleep at 4 P.M.; states
she was put to sleep at 3.30 S.
6[59] 19th Sept. 3 P.M. Went to sleep at about 3.15 S.
7 23rd Sept. 2 P.M. She was out walking F.
8 24th Sept. 3.15 P.M. Found asleep at 4. Had
been seen awake at 3.15 ?
9 26th Sept. 3 P.M. Walking in garden F.
10 27th Sept. 8.30 P.M. Commanded by M. Gibert to
come to his house. Left
the Pavillon, entranced, at
9.5 P.M. [in the account in
the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_
the latter hour is given at
_9.15_] S.
11 29th Sept. 3.50 P.M. Found asleep at 4.5 [given in
_Revue_ as _5.5_] S.
12 30th Sept. 3.30 P.M. F.
13 1st Oct. 2.40 P.M. She was out walking F.
14 5th Oct. 4 P.M. Fell asleep suddenly at 4.5
whilst talking with nurse in
garden S.
15 6th Oct. 3 P.M. F.
16 9th Oct. 3.15 P.M. F.
17 10th Oct. 3.20 P.M. Found asleep at 4.5 ?
18 12th Oct. 3 P.M. F.
19 13th Oct. 5 P.M. Found asleep. Executed a
mental command given at
a distance--viz., to rise at
M. J.'s entrance S.
20 14th Oct. 2.30 P.M. Found asleep at 3.20 ?
21 16th Oct. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 3.30 S.
22 24th Nov. 2.30 P.M. F.
23 3rd Dec. 4.10 P.M. F.
24 5th Dec. 4.10 P.M. F.
25 6th Dec. 4.10 P.M. Found awake, washing her
hands ?
26 7th Dec. 2.30 P.M. Found asleep at 3.5 ?
27 10th Dec. 4.20 P.M. She was out walking F.
28 11th Dec. 3.15 P.M. ?
29 13th Dec. 4.5 P.M. Found asleep at 4.25. Had
been seen awake a few
minutes after 4 P.M. S.
30 14th Dec. 11.30 A.M. F.
31 18th Dec. F.
32 21st Dec. F.
33 22nd Dec. F.
34 23rd Dec. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 3.40 ?
35 25th Dec. 3.15 P.M. She was out walking. Bad
headache came on at 3.20.
Returned hurriedly, and at
once fell asleep in the
_salon_. S.
Throughout the series, except in case 10, M. Janet was the operator.
It will be seen that in the 35 trials there were nine cases in which
Madame B. was found asleep within half-an-hour of the attempt being
made to entrance her. In six other cases she was found asleep after a
longer interval, but there is nothing to indicate that the sleep did
not actually supervene at the right time. In one case she was found
awake within fifteen minutes of the trial, but stated that she had
been awakened by the ringing of the bell which announced M. Janet's
arrival. In one other case she was found washing her hands to ward off
the trance. Of the 17 failures Madame B. was out walking in four cases
at the time of the trial, a circumstance which no doubt diminished the
chances of success. In two cases headache or disturbance were produced;
of the remaining 11 trials no details are given, and it is presumed
that no unusual effect was observed, and that there was no apparent
cause for the failure. Of course, experiments carried on under these
conditions, the trials being confined for the most part within a narrow
range of hours, and the subject liable to spontaneous trance, offer
some scope for chance coincidence. But as Madame B. actually fell
asleep spontaneously on only four occasions during the period over
which the trials extended, it will probably be considered that the
number of coincidences, imperfect as they were, was considerably more
than could plausibly be attributed to accident or self-suggestion.[60]
In January 1887 M. Richet made some experiments of the same kind
on Madame B. Of 9 trials, however, two only could be described as
completely successful, and three more as doubtful. A few further
trials, in December 1887 and January 1888, were even less successful.
M. Richet has attempted on several occasions to influence other
subjects at a distance, but no series of successful results was
attained; and isolated coincidences of the kind have, of course, little
evidential value (_loc. cit._, pp. 47-51).[61]
No. 30.--Experiments by DR. DUFAY.
In a paper published in the _Revue Philosophique_ of September 1888, M.
Dufay, a physician formerly in practice at Blois, and now a Senator of
France, records several instances in which he has himself succeeded in
producing sleep at a distance. In one case he hypnotised from his box
in the theatre, as he believes without her knowledge, a young actress
who had been a patient of his, and caused her, whilst in the state of
lucid somnambulism, to play a new and difficult part with more success
than she would have been likely to achieve in the normal state. In this
particular case, however, it seems possible that the subject may have
received some intimation of Dr. Dufay's presence in the house, and that
the hypnotic state may have been due to expectation. Another case was
that of Madame C., who had been for some time treated hypnotically by
Dr. Dufay for periodical attacks of sickness and headache. So sensitive
did this patient become to his suggestions that she would fall into the
hypnotic sleep as soon as the bell rang to announce his coming, and
before he had actually entered the house. The circumstances under which
Dr. Dufay first made a deliberate attempt to influence Madame C. at a
distance were as follows:--He was in attendance on a patient whom he
was unable to leave, when he was unexpectedly summoned by Monsieur C.
to hypnotise Madame C., who was in the height of an attack. He assured
Monsieur C. that on his return home he would find Madame C. asleep
and cured, as proved actually to be the case. However, here also, as
Dr. Dufay points out, self-suggestion is a possible explanation. The
following case seems less open to suspicion on this ground:--
"On another occasion," Dr. Dufay writes, "Madame C. was in perfect
health, but her name happening to be mentioned in my hearing, the
idea struck me that I would mentally order her to sleep, without
her wishing it this time, and also without her suspecting it. Then,
an hour later, I went to her house and asked the servant who opened
the door whether an instrument, which I had mislaid out of my case,
had been found in Madame C.'s room.
"'Is not that the doctor's voice that I hear?' asked Monsieur C.
from the top of the staircase; 'beg him to come up. Just imagine,'
he said to me, 'I was going to send for you. Nearly an hour ago my
wife lost consciousness, and her mother and I have not been able to
bring her to her senses. Her mother, who wished to take her into
the country, is distracted....'
"I did not dare to confess myself guilty of this catastrophe, but
was betrayed by Madame C., who gave me her hand, saying, 'You did
well to put me to sleep, Doctor, because I was going to allow
myself to be taken away, and then I should not have been able to
finish my embroidery.'
"'You have another piece of embroidery in hand?'
"'Yes; a mantle-border ... for your birthday. You must not look as
though you knew about it, when I am awake, because I want to give
you a surprise.'
* * * * *
"I repeated the experiment many times with Madame C., and always
with success, which was a great help to me when unable to go to
her at once when sent for. I even completed the experiment by also
_waking_ her from a distance, solely by an act of volition, which
formerly I should not have believed possible. The agreement in time
was so perfect that no doubt could be entertained.
"To conclude, I was about to take a holiday of six weeks, and
should thus be absent when one of the attacks was due. So it
was settled between Monsieur C. and myself that, as soon as the
headache began, he should let me know by telegraph; that I should
then do from afar off what succeeded so well near at hand; that
after five or six hours I should endeavour to awaken the patient;
and that Monsieur C. should let me know by means of a second
telegram whether the result had been satisfactory. He had no doubt
about it; I was less certain. Madame C. did not know that I was
going away.
"The sound of moanings one morning announced to Monsieur C. that
the moment had come; without entering his wife's room he ran to
the telegraph office, and I received his message at ten o'clock.
He returned home again at that same hour, and found his wife
asleep and not suffering any more. At four o'clock I willed that
she should wake, and at eight o'clock in the evening I received
a second telegram: 'Satisfactory result, woke at four o'clock.
Thanks.'
"And I was then in the neighbourhood of Sully-sur-Loire, 28
leagues--112 kilometres--from Blois."
Similar experiments have been recorded by, amongst others, Dr. J.
Héricourt,[1] a colleague of M. Richet in the editing of the _Revue
Scientifique_, Dr. Dusart,[62] and Dr. Dariex.[63] In the last case
there were only five trials, the experiments being then discontinued
at the request of the patient. The first three trials were completely
successful, the sleep supervening within, at most, a few minutes of
the time chosen by the agent.
The following narrative resembles those cited above in its general
features. But in view of the nature of the effect produced--a painful
hysterical attack--it is perhaps hardly a matter for regret that the
case is without any exact parallel.
No. 31.--By DR. TOLOSA-LATOUR.
In this account, taken from a letter written to M. Richet by Dr.
Tolosa-Latour on the 5th March 1891 (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,
Sept.-Oct. 1893), Dr. Latour explains that he had repeatedly hypnotised
a lady who was seized in September 1886 with hysterical paralysis, and
had ultimately succeeded in effecting by this means a complete cure.
Prior to his treatment, in 1885, she had suffered for some time from
daily hysterical attacks, and when she came under Dr. Latour she was
still occasionally subject to them, and found relief in the hypnotic
sleep. Both symptoms had at the time which he writes almost completely
disappeared.
"I had made some very curious experiments, but I had never
thought about either action at a distance or clairvoyance. It
was while leaving Paris and reading your [M. Richet's] pamphlet
in the carriage that the idea occurred to me of sending Mdlle.
R. to sleep. It was Sunday, October the 26th, the very day of my
departure. I remember the hour too; it was just before reaching
Poitiers, where some relations of my grandmother were expecting me.
I told my wife that I was going to try the experiment, and begged
her to say nothing about it to any one. I began to fix my thoughts
about six o'clock, and during the journey from Poitiers to Mignie
(where we stayed several days) I again and again thought of this
question, especially during the intervals of silence which always
occur during a journey.
"I wished to cause a violent hysteric attack, as I knew that she
had not been dangerously ill for a long time. So on Sunday, October
the 26th, from six till nine o'clock in the evening, I fixed my
thoughts intently on the experiment.
"Then, on my return, I asked my brother if Mdlle. R. had called him
in, as she always did when she was ill. Among the patients' names
I did not find hers. It seemed almost certain that my experiment
had failed. A week afterwards I called on her, and was agreeably
surprised to learn that, on the contrary, it was a success, as you
will judge by her letter. She does not fix the day, but her sister
and the nurse have told me that it was the second Sunday after the
festival of St. Theresa--that is to say, after Wednesday the 15th;
the first Sunday being the 19th, the second is of course the 26th.
"This is the letter:--
"_From_ MDLLE. R. to M. TOLOSA-LATOUR.
"_March_ 23_rd_, 1891.
"MY EXCELLENT FRIEND AND DEAR DOCTOR,--I wanted to write to you
yesterday to give you the particulars of the attack I had about the
middle of last October, but I was not able to do so till to-day.
"As I told you, it was about the middle of October; I do not
remember the date, but I recollect very well that it was a festival
day, and at half-past six in the evening.
"We had just been to see my sister and brother; we had had luncheon
with them. I was perfectly well, without any excitement; it was
five o'clock, and I reached home all right, but when I was sitting
down, in the act of eating, I found myself unable to speak or open
my eyes, and, at the same moment, I had a very severe, long, and
violent attack, such as I do not remember to have had for a long
time.
"I was so ill that I thought of sending for Raphael,[64] and my
sister proposed it, but I thought that I ought not to disturb him,
for, knowing that you were away, nobody could stop the convulsions
and the excitement.
"I suffered horribly, for it was an attack in which I experienced,
so to say, all my previous sufferings combined. I was completely
broken down, but I have had no other attacks since, not even a
spasm."
No. 32.--By J. H. P.[65]
The next case records the execution by the subject of a simple command
to approach the operator, as in some of M. Gibert's experiments already
described, and the partial execution of an order of a more complicated
kind, given from a distance of more than twenty-five miles:--
It is possible to give M. a command in the waking state, but she
must be quiet at the moment when she receives it.
We had never made experiments of this kind until R. one day
proposed that we should try to make M. come to the room where we
were. M. was in a neighbouring house, and could not know that we
were actually in a kiosk at the end of the garden.
For three minutes I gave her the mental command to come. I began
to think that I had failed, and continued energetically for three
minutes more; she did not come, however.
We were just thinking that the experiment had failed when the door
opened suddenly and M. appeared.
"Well, do you think I have nothing else to do! Why do you call me?
I have had to leave everything."
"We wanted to say 'good morning' to you."
"Very well! I am going away now."
She shook hands with us and went away quickly; whereupon it
occurred to me to make her stop just at the gate.
(Mental command)--"I forbid you to go out. You cannot open the
gate; come back." And back she came, furious, asking if we were
laughing at her.
Now, to send this last command I had not moved at all from my
place, and M. was completely invisible behind the garden wall;
moreover, I was a long way from the window. I told her that this
time she could open it, and let her go.
I will finish with another experiment of the same kind, which only
partly succeeded, but which will serve to show the intensity of the
mental transmission between M. and me. I went away, one morning,
without thinking of M. I had to be away all day, 38 kilomètres from
her. At 2.30 it occurred to me to send her a mental command, and I
repeated it for ten minutes.
"Go at once to the dining-room; you will take a book there that is
on the mantelpiece; you will take it up to my study, and you will
sit in my armchair before my writing-table." I reached home at
night. The next day, as soon as I saw M., and even before saying
good morning to me, she cried: "I did a clever thing yesterday.
I must be losing my wits, I suppose! Just imagine! I came down
without knowing why, opened the dining-room door, then went up to
your study, and sat in your armchair. I moved your papers about,
then I went back to my work."
The command had then been understood; but she did not go into the
dining-room, and she did not take the book from there.
J. H. P.
(_Annales des Sci. Psych._, May-June 1893.)
_Transference of Simple Sensations._
We may now pass to experiments in the transference of simple
impressions of the same kind as those dealt with in Chapters II.
and III. The following is a record of a series of trials in the
transference of auditory impressions:
No. 33.--From MISS X.
Miss X. is a lady resident in London, who is known personally to the
present writer and other members of the S.P.R. She has experienced all
her life frequent interchange of telepathic impressions with some of
her friends. At the request of Mr. F. W. H. Myers, Miss X. and a friend
D., also living in London, throughout the year 1888, with the exception
of three months during which they were living in the same house,
kept diaries in which any incident or feeling which might seem to be
telepathically connected with the other was recorded. The ladies during
a great part of the time saw each other constantly, and compared notes
of their experience. In D.'s diary for the year there are thirty-five
entries of the kind, of which twenty are believed to have been recorded
before it was known whether or not there was any actual event to
correspond with the impression. Of the twenty entries fourteen refer
to hearing music played by Miss X., and two to reading books at, as D.
believed, her telepathic instigation.
The entries in D.'s diary are given in italics. The degree of
correspondence with the entries in Miss X.'s diary is indicated in the
words included between brackets.[66]
(1) _Jan._ 6_th. Tried several books ... finally took to "Villette."_
(From Miss X.'s diary it appears that she willed D. to read _The
Professor_, also by Charlotte Brontë.)
(2) _Jan._ 23_rd. Sonnets, E.B.B._ 10.30 P.M.
(In Miss X.'s diary, written at about 10 P.M., appears the entry,
"Sonnets viii.-ix., E.B.B.")
(3) _March_ 6_th. Hellers_, 7.30. (_i.e._, D. had an impression of
hearing Miss X. playing. Miss X. states that she was actually
playing Hellers at the time, but there is no note in her diary of
the fact.)
(4) _March_ 7_th. Beethoven waltzes_, 10. (Correct--recorded in X.'s
diary after seeing D.'s entry.)
(5) _March_ 8_th. No practice._ (_i.e._, X., contrary to her custom,
was not playing at this hour: correct.)
(6) _March_ 9_th. Music_ 7.30-8. (Correct.)
(7) _March_ 10_th._ ?_Music_ 9.30-10 A.M. (Correct. Miss X. had told
D. that she would be out at that hour, and had subsequently changed
her plans, so that the music was unexpected to D., hence the note
of interrogation.)
(8) _March_ 13_th._ 7.40. _Music._ (Correct.)
(9) _March_ 14_th._ 9.30 A.M. [Music.] _Evening of same day. Nothing
but organs and bands, popular airs and Mikado_. ?_Flash of Henselt_
9 (P.M.)
(10) _March_ 15_th._ 9-10. ?_Faint Henselt._ (Miss X. writes:--"I
remember that when D. showed me these entries I was specially
interested. I was practising at the time some music of Henselt's
she had never heard, and was playing this on all five occasions.
D. notes it on the first three vaguely as 'Music,' something which
she did not recognise. On the 14th I played it over to her, and
afterwards she recognised it imperfectly. I was practising it for
her, knowing she would like it, so that she was much in my mind at
the time.")
The following entries were made whilst D. and X. were in different and
distant counties:--
(11) _August_ 15_th. Hellers_, 9.10-25. (Correct.)
(12) _August_ 17_th. Slumber Song_, 7.35-50. (Correct. D. wrote of
her two experiences, and X. read the letter aloud to her hostess,
who remembered that X. had actually played the music named above at
the time referred to.)
(13) _September_ 14_th. Hallé_, 9 A.M. (Incorrect. X. was not
playing.)
(14) _November_ 18_th. Chopin Dead March_, _War March Athalie_,
7.15-8 P.M.
(15) _November_ 25_th. Lieder_, 7.30.
(16) _November_ 26_th. Lied, never gets finished._ 5.15-20.
(Miss X. writes:--"On each of the above three occasions D. asked
me next day what I had played and found she was right. My playing
of the Lied on November 26th was interrupted by the arrival
of visitors, and the unfinished air naturally haunted me. D.
writes:--On the day in question H. and I were together. I said
to her that I could hear you [Miss X.] playing--a Lied we both
associated with you--but that you never got beyond a certain part,
which seemed to be repeated. H. replied, 'It is strange you should
say that. I can't _hear_ her, but I have been seeing her at the
piano for some minutes.' H. corroborates this.")
It will thus be seen that in these 16 cases there were only two
instances (1 and 13) in which D.'s impression failed to correspond with
the facts. The remaining four entries (out of 20 recorded beforehand)
relate to impressions which also appear to have corresponded with the
event, but the degree of correspondence is more difficult to estimate.
In Miss X.'s own diary there are 55 entries during this period,
of which 27 were made before the event was known. Of these 3 are
failures, and in two other cases it is doubtful whether the impression
was actually telepathic, or whether the coincidence should not be
attributed to accident. In the other 22 cases of correspondence,
presumably telepathic, Miss X. was sometimes the agent, sometimes the
percipient. The impressions relate to events of various kinds, such as
meeting particular persons, receiving letters, and playing music. Of
the veridical impressions four were visual and one was a dream.[67]
No. 34.--From M. J. CH. ROUX.
The following record is taken from a paper by M. Jean Charles Roux,
medical student, published in the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_
(vol. iii. pp. 202, 203). These experiments in thought-transference at
a distance were preceded by a series of fairly successful trials with
playing-cards at close quarters, and by some other experiments designed
to test clairvoyance.
_Third Series_: Experiments at a distance.
Lemaire is in his room, I in mine, with two rooms intervening. At an
hour previously fixed on, I suggest a card to him.
Date. Card thought of. Card guessed.
(1) Mar. 15, 1892 4 hearts red, hearts; low number, five
(2) " 18, " 10 hearts 3 diamonds
(3) " 27, " 6 spades 6 clubs
(4) " " " Kg. diamonds Knave diamonds
(5) " " " ace diamonds 5 clubs
(Agent had failed to concentrate his attention.)
(6) " " " Queen spades King spades
(7) " " " 4 clubs 6 clubs
(8) Apr. 6, " 3 clubs 5 clubs
(9) " " 2 spades 2 spades
_Fourth Series._
The account of the following six trials at a distance in space and
time, which are imperfectly recorded in the _Annales_, is taken from a
letter received from M. Roux, dated the 19th December 1893:--
(10) Paris, 2nd April.--Lemaire having gone out I drew a card from
the pack, the 9 _Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. Then I
wrote a note to the following effect: "Guess the card that I am
thinking of as I write these words," and left it on the table. A
few minutes after Lemaire entered and guessed the 7 _Hearts_.
(11) 3rd April.--Lemaire was out. I drew a card from the pack, the
_ace Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. As on the previous
day, I left a note on the table and went out immediately. When I
came back at midnight I found a line from Lemaire saying he had
guessed the _ace Hearts_.
The four other experiments took place in a country town, at
Chateauroux. We lived about 500 or 600 yards apart.
(12) 13th April.--In the morning I saw Lemaire and said to him,
"At 2 o'clock you must guess a card that I shall suggest to you."
I went home, and at a quarter to twelve I drew from the pack the
5 _Hearts_. I saw Lemaire again in the evening. He had guessed
the 6 _Hearts_. He was walking in the street with a friend. At
about two minutes to 2 P.M. he looked at his watch, remembered the
experiment, and immediately the idea of _Hearts_ came to him. A few
minutes later, when alone, he tried to guess the exact card, and
decided on the 6 _Hearts_.
(13) 13th April.--I said to Lemaire that on the 14th April, at 9
A.M., he was to guess a card. After going home on the 13th April,
at 10 P.M. I drew a card from the pack--4 _Clubs_. Next day, at 9
A.M., Lemaire guessed 2 _Clubs_.
(14) July 17th.--Lemaire was to guess a card at 9 o'clock. At 10
minutes to 9, from my house, I tried to transfer the 4 _Spades_.
(I have forgotten to make a note of whether I merely thought of
this card or whether I drew it from a pack.) At 9 o'clock Lemaire
guessed 5 _Spades_.
(15) 30th July.--This experiment is more complicated but none the
less interesting. On the 30th July, at 11 A.M., Lemaire was to
guess a card which I had tried to suggest to him on the 26th July.
This card was the _Knave Diamonds_. But he forgot to do it, and did
not remember to guess the card till 7 P.M. on the 30th July. Now
on this same day, the 30th July, from 6 to 6.30 P.M. I was myself
engaged in guessing a card by clairvoyance, and after many attempts
I decided on 7 _or_ 8 _Clubs_, and Lemaire, guessing the card at 7
P.M., also decided upon 7 _Clubs_. So that I had suggested the card
to him unconsciously.
Thus, omitting the last trial as of doubtful interpretation, we find
that in 14 trials the card was guessed correctly twice, the number
alone once, and the suit alone nine times, or three times the probable
number.
_Transference of Visual Impressions._
In the four cases which follow the impression was of a well-marked
visual character; reaching, indeed, in the two last to the level of
actual hallucination. It should be observed that in none of these four
cases is the possibility of chance coincidence so entirely precluded
as in many of the experiments at close quarters already cited. In the
first of the cases recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (No. 40), and in some
of Mr. Kirk's experiments (No. 37), the luminous patches seen by the
percipients are not unlike rudimentary hallucinations of a sufficiently
common type, and their resemblance in these instances to the objects
actually looked at or thought of by the agents should not therefore
be pressed very far. In the other cases, however, the percipient
received a well-marked impression of a definite object. But here
there is a flaw of another kind. The coincidences may have been due,
as indeed Miss Campbell (No. 35) is careful to suggest, to a lucky
shot on the part of the percipient at the object the agent would be
likely to choose. The very distinct nature of the impression produced
in each case upon the percipient, as contrasted with the vague images
called up, _e.g._ in Miss Campbell's case, by more or less conscious
conjecture, is, however, against this interpretation; and the fact that
in the first narrative the experiments quoted were the culmination of a
successful series of experiments at close quarters tells in favour of a
telepathic explanation for these also.
No. 35.--By MISS CAMPBELL and MISS DESPARD.
A series of experiments in thought-transference at close quarters
had been carried on by the narrators at intervals from November 1891
to October 1892. In sending the account of these experiments at a
distance, Miss Campbell explains that in the trial on October 25th,
"there was first an auditory impression, as if some one had said the
word 'gloves,' and then the gloves themselves were visualised."
(No. 1.) "_June_ 22_nd_, 1892.
"Arranged that R. C. Despard should, when at the School of Medicine
in Handel Street, W.C., between 11.50 and 11.55, fix her attention
upon some object which C. M. Campbell, at 77 Chesterton Road, W.,
is by thought-transference to discover."
PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.
"Owing to an unexpected delay, instead of being quietly at home at
11.50 A.M., I was waiting for my train at Baker Street, and as just
at that time trains were moving away from both platforms, and there
was the usual bustle going on, I thought it hopeless to try on my
part; but just while I was thinking this I felt a sort of mental
pull-up, which made me feel sure that Miss Despard was fixing _her_
attention, and directly after I felt 'my--compasses--no, scalpel,'
seemed to see a flash of light as if on bright steel, and I thought
of two scalpels, first with their points together, and then
folding together into one; just then my train came up.
"I write this down before having seen Miss Despard, so am still in
ignorance whether I am correct in my surmise, but as I know what
Miss Despard would probably be doing at ten minutes to twelve,
I feel that that knowledge may have suggested the thought to
me--though this idea did not occur to me until just this minute, as
I have written it down.
"C. M. CAMPBELL.
"77 Chesterton Road, W."
AGENT'S ACCOUNT.
"At ten minutes to twelve I concentrated my mind on an object that
happened to be in front of me at the time--two scalpels, crossed
with their points together--but in about five minutes, as it
occurred to me that the knowledge that I was then at the School of
Medicine might suggest a similar idea to Miss Campbell, I tried to
bring up a country scene, of a brook running through a field, with
a patch of yellow marsh marigolds in the foreground. This second
idea made no impression on Miss Campbell--perhaps owing to the
bustle around her at the time.
"R. C. DESPARD."
(No. 2.) "_October_ 25_th_, 1892.
"At 3.30 P.M. R. C. Despard is to fix her attention on some object,
and C. M. Campbell, being in a different part of London, is by
thought-transference to find out what that object is."
PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.
"At 3.30 I was at home at 77 Chesterton Road, North Kensington,
alone in the room.
"First my attention seemed to flit from one object to another
while nothing definite stood out, but soon I saw a pair of gloves,
which became more distinct till they appeared as a pair of baggy
tan-coloured kid gloves, certainly a size larger than worn by
either R. C. D. or myself, and not quite like any of ours in
colour. After this I saw a train going out of a station (I had just
returned from seeing some one off at Victoria), almost immediately
obliterated by a picture of a bridge over a small river, but I felt
that I was consciously thinking and left off the experiment, being
unable to clear my mind sufficiently of outside things."
AGENT'S ACCOUNT.
"At 3.30 on October 25th I was at 30 Handel Street, Brunswick
Square, W.C. C. M. C. and myself had arranged beforehand to make
an experiment in thought-transference at that hour, I to try
to transfer some object to her mind, the nature of which was
entirely unspecified. I picked up a pair of rather old tan-coloured
gloves--purposely not taking a pair of my own--and tried for about
five minutes to concentrate my attention on them and the wish to
transfer an impression of them to C. M. C.'s mind. After this I
fixed my attention on a _window_, but felt my mind getting tired
and therefore rather disturbed by the constant sound of omnibuses
and waggons passing the open window.
"R. C. DESPARD.
"_October_ 25_th_, 1892."
Miss Campbell writes later:--
"77 CHESTERTON ROAD, NORTH KENSINGTON, W.,
_November_ 24_th_, 1892.
"With regard to the distant experiments, the notes sent to you were
the only ones made. In the first experiment (scalpels) I wrote
my account before Miss Despard's return, and when Miss Despard
returned, before seeing what I had written [she] told me what she
had thought of, and almost directly wrote it down.
"In the second experiment (gloves), I was just going to write
my account when Miss Despard returned home, and she asked me at
once, 'Well, what did I think of?' and I told her a pair of tan
gloves--then sat down and wrote my account, and, when she read
it through, she said, 'Yes, you have exactly described Miss M.'s
gloves, which I was holding while I fixed my attention on them,'
and then she wrote her account."
The next account is taken from the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,
vol. iii. pp. 114-116. M. Hennique, the agent, had acted as agent in
four experiments at a distance with another percipient in the previous
year (_Annales_, vol. i. pp. 262-265). In the first the percipient saw
vague lights, and finally a vase of flowers (very clear); the agent
was looking at a lamp covered by a transparent shade, with a vase of
flowers painted on it. In the second the percipient again saw vague
lights, and then a luminous sphere; the agent was looking at the lamp
globe placed on the table in full light. In the third, the percipient
only saw brilliant lights, like stars or jewels; the agent was looking
at the word _Dieu_, in big letters. In the fourth the percipient,
to his astonishment, saw _nothing_; the agent had willed him to
see nothing. In each case the percipient's impression was recorded
in writing before any communication was received from the agent. In
the present case, it will be seen, the percipient received, not the
impression which the agent wished to transfer, but the image of another
object within the agent's field of vision, and which had entered his
thoughts in connection with this very experiment.
No. 36.--From M. LEON HENNIQUE and M. D.
"On Friday, the 8th of July last, my friend Hennique and I made a
further experiment in telepathy. Hennique was away from Paris, and
separated from me by a distance of 171 kilomètres. At midnight I
wrote to Hennique the following letter:--
"'PARIS, _July_ 8_th_, 1892, _midnight_.
"'MY DEAR HENNIQUE,--A friend came unexpectedly to dinner. At
10.30, looking through the open window at the blue sky under the
full moon, I thought all of a sudden of the experiment planned by
us, of the telepathic meeting that we had fixed for eleven o'clock
this evening, and my brain received at the same time the impression
of a puppet. It seemed to me that you were trying to show me a
little cardboard man fitted with strings to make his arms and legs
move.
"'Reminded by this impression of my telepathic duty, I said
good-night to my friend, and at eleven o'clock I waited, with my
eyes closed, in the darkness of the dining-room. Nothing happened
till twelve or fifteen minutes past eleven, when there appeared to
me for an instant a small black silhouette, a Chinese shadow, as
if you had cut out a little black figure and placed it in front
of a light; for the round part, which seemed to be its head, was
surrounded by a bluish halo. It was mostly this little black
sphere--which I thought was a head--that I saw; the body I rather
deduced than saw. 'D.'
"M. Hennique replied to me as follows:--
"'RIBEMONT (AISNÉ), _Sunday_, 10_th July_ 1892.
"'MY DEAR FRIEND,--It was a bottle full of water, surmounted by its
cut-glass stopper, a large stopper, very bright, that served for
our experiment. But the most curious part of the affair is that
about four inches from the bottle there was actually hanging on the
wall a nigger-doll, of the kind which you describe, belonging to
my daughter. Was it reflected on the crystal? A mystery! For one
second, but scarcely for a second, I had intended to telepathise
the jumping-jack to you before choosing the water-bottle. It is
certainly very odd!
"'LEON HENNIQUE.'
"M. Hennique added to this letter a water-colour drawing of the
above-mentioned 'nigger-doll.' The head is a black circle, in which
only the lips are red; the arms and legs are black; the chest is
white, crossed with red; arms, thighs, and legs are jointed, and
can be worked by a string.
"I wrote to my friend to ask him if, at 10.30--that is to say, at
the moment when I had conceived of a jumping-jack, he had not,
on his part, thought at the same moment, of the same object. He
answered me:--
"'RIBEMONT, 14_th July_ 1892.
"'No; at 10.30 I was not thinking in the least of the jumping-jack;
but, if I remember rightly, once or twice last year I wished to
make use of it. It was only at the moment of choosing a simple
object for the experiment that for an instant the idea of that
little man came into my head; it was, you see, before beginning our
experiment. This puppet was not four inches, but only two inches
away from the water-bottle. There is something very curious in it,
a physical or psychical effect, which I can't account for. The more
so that this doll, _in cardboard mounted on strings_, is always
fixed to the wall, above the table from which I am sending you my
good wishes. It must have been about 9 o'clock, while tidying the
before-mentioned table, that I had the idea of transmitting to you
the image of the jumping-jack.
"'LEON HENNIQUE.'"
No. 37.--By MR. JOSEPH KIRK and MISS G.
During the year 1890 and onwards, Mr. Joseph Kirk, of 2 Ripon Villas,
Plumstead, has carried on with a friend, Miss G., a series of
experiments in thought-transference at a distance varying from 400
yards to about 200 miles. Some account of these experiments will be
found in the _Journal of the S.P.R._ for February and July 1891 and
January 1892. There are 22[68] trials in the transference of diagrams,
etc., there recorded. The object looked at by Mr. Kirk was generally
a square or oblong card, or a white disc with or without a picture,
diagram, or letter on it. The object was always illuminated by a strong
light.
Notes of the experiments were in every case made independently in
writing by agent and percipient. In each case, with the exception
of two occasions (on which Mr. Kirk's notes record his anticipation
of failure), the percipient saw luminous appearances, often taking
the form of round or square patches of light, in correspondence
with the shape of the surface looked at by the agent. When Miss G.
was at Pembroke or Ilfracombe (Mr. Kirk remaining at Plumstead) the
correspondence did not go beyond this; but in two or three cases,
when Miss G. was also at Plumstead, at a distance of only 400 yards,
the percipient appears to have seen some details of the diagram on
the card, and in one instance a fairly accurate reproduction of the
diagram was given. Mr. Kirk on this occasion, 5th June 1891, was trying
to impress three percipients--of whom Miss G. was one--and used three
diagrams, viz., a Maltese cross, a white oval plate with the figure 3
on it, and a full-sized drawing of a man's hand in black on white. Miss
G.'s report is as follows:--
"5/6/91. Sat last night from 11.15 to 11.45. After a few minutes
wavy clouds appeared [these are drawn as a group of roundish
objects], followed by a pale bluish light very bright in centre.
[This is drawn of an indefinite oval shape with roundish white spot
in centre.] Near the end of experiment saw a larger luminous form,
lasting only a moment but reappearing three or four times; it had
lines or spikes about half an inch wide darting from it in varied
positions."
Appended are reproductions of Miss G.'s original drawings of her
impression, which bear, it will be seen, a marked likeness to a man's
hand.
[Illustration]
It should be added that Miss G. has not had any hallucinations of the
kind except at times when Mr. Kirk was experimenting; and the amount
of correspondence between her visions and the images which Mr. Kirk
endeavoured to transfer would certainly seem beyond what chance could
produce.
No. 38.--By MR. KIRK and MISS G.
A further series of seven trials with the same percipient in
April-June 1892 produced some interesting results. Full notes of the
experiments were, as in the previous cases, made by Mr. Kirk and Miss
G. independently. Mr. Kirk wrote his notes immediately after the
conclusion of the experiments, which were made late in the evening, at
a time previously agreed upon. Miss G., who was in the dark, and as a
rule in bed, wrote her notes on the following morning before hearing
from Mr. Kirk. No diagrams were used in this series, "the object
being," in Mr. Kirk's words, "to test the possibility of influencing
the imagination, and inducing the percipient to visualise hallucinatory
figures of persons or animals thought of by the agent." Miss G. knew
only that diagrams would not be used. The distance between agent and
percipient was about 400 yards.
In the first three trials (April 10th, 17th, and 24th, 1892) Mr. Kirk
pictured to himself some ducks in a room, a witch, and other figures.
On the 17th Miss G. saw at one time a small sunlike light, but with
this exception she had no impression at all on any of the three
occasions.
At the fourth trial (1st May) Miss G. records the same night that she
saw "a broken circle [Illustration], then only patches of faint light,
not cloudlike, but flat, which alternated with vertical streaks of pale
light." Afterwards, however, she had another vision, which she thus
records on the following morning before meeting Mr. Kirk:--
"Soon after lying down last night, I had a rapid but most realistic
glimpse of Mr. Kirk leaning against his dining-room mantelpiece;
the room seemed brightly lighted, and he looked rather bothered,
and just as I saw him he appeared to say, 'Doctor,[69] I haven't
got my pipe.' This seems very absurd, the more so as I do not know
whether Mr. Kirk ever smokes a pipe. I see him occasionally with
a cigar or cigarette, but cannot remember ever seeing him with a
pipe; if I have, it must have been years ago. I do not know whether
my eyes were open or closed, but the vividness of the impression
quite startled me. This occurred just after the expiration of time
appointed for experiment (10.45-11.15)."
Mr. Kirk reports in his account of the trial, written on the 1st May,
that he tried to transfer an image of himself, sitting on a low chair,
and also the part of the room facing him in the light of the lamp. But
after seeing Miss G.'s report, he adds--
"The fact that I had another experiment to make [_i.e._, after the
trial with Miss G.] enables me to trace minutely my actions before
beginning it. Immediately the time had expired with Miss G., I got
up and rapidly lit the gas and three pieces of candle, which I
had ready in the cardboard box-cover, to illuminate the diagram.
The room was therefore brilliantly lighted. I now rested with
my right shoulder against the mantelpiece, with my face towards
Miss G., but with my eyes bent on the carpet. In this position I
thought intensely of myself and the whole room, and feeling really
anxious to make a success, for at least six minutes. By this time
my shoulder was aching very much with the constrained attitude
and the pressure on the mantelpiece, and I broke off, using words
(talking to myself) very similar to those given by Miss G. What I
muttered, as nearly as I can remember, was, '_Now_, Doctor, I'll
get my pipe.'... Until within the last few weeks I have not smoked
a pipe for many years, and I do not think it probable that Miss G.
has ever seen me use one; but it is an absolute certainty that she
was not aware I had taken to smoke one recently."
In the fifth experiment of the series, made on the 9th May, the
impression which appears to have been transferred was fortunately
recorded beforehand. Mr. Kirk's report of that date, after describing
an attempt to transfer an image of the room, and of an imaginary witch,
runs as follows:--
"Continued to influence her some minutes after limit of time for
experiment (11.30 P.M.). During this time I was much bothered by
a subcurrent of thought, which I in vain strove to cast off. In
the morning, just before time to get up, I had a vivid dream of
my lost dog ('Laddie').[70] I dreamt he had returned, and that my
wife, Miss G., and myself, made much of him. I thought of him all
day, and tried to suppress the thought, fearing it would interfere
with the success of experiment; feel worried and irritated at
this, being really anxious to make an impression. Do not expect
favourable result. Written same night. "J. K."
Miss G.'s report is as follows:--
"Experiment last night (9-5-92) most unsatisfactory. Saw only a
glow of light and once for a few seconds a figure [of a vase].
Some minutes after 11.30 (time for conclusion of experiment) it
seemed as if the door of my room were open, and on the landing I
saw a very large dog, moving as though it had just come upstairs.
I cannot conceive what suggested this, nor can I understand why I
thought of Laddie during time of experiment. I do not think we have
mentioned him recently. My door was locked as usual. "L. G."
The sixth experiment (15th May 1892) was, in the words of Mr. Kirk's
contemporary report, "devoted to making hypnotic passes, done with
great energy and concentration of mind. The passes were made, not only
over Miss G.'s [imagined] face and arms, but specially over her hands,"
with the view of inducing hypnotic sleep.
Miss G. reports that she "fell asleep before the time arranged had
expired. But it was only to awake again very soon, through dreaming I
was in a basement room ... making frantic efforts to strike a match,
prevented doing so by some one behind clasping my wrists. The sensation
was so unpleasantly real that it awoke me." The time fixed for the
experiment had then passed. This was the only occasion in this series
on which Miss G. went to sleep during an experiment.
In the seventh experiment (5th June 1892) Mr. Kirk again made passes to
send Miss G. to sleep. Miss G., on her side, saw only something "like
the varied but regular movements one sees in turning a kaleidoscope,
only without the colouring; it was simply luminous, and lasted more or
less distinctly from 15 to 20 minutes." This impression may conceivably
have been due, as Mr. Kirk suggests, to the regular movements of his
hands in making the hypnotic passes.
In estimating the value of the coincidences between Mr. Kirk's thought
and Miss G.'s impressions in the fourth and fifth trials, it should not
be overlooked that the percipient's impressions were not vague images,
such as are wont to crowd through our minds on the near approach of
sleep, but clear-cut visions, approximating to visual hallucinations.
No. 39.--By MR. KIRK and MISS PRICKETT.
Mr. Kirk conducted another short series of experiments in March 1892,
with Miss L. M. Prickett, the distance between agent and percipient
being about twelve miles. The results are given below. It is to be
noted that the percipient's impressions in this series seem generally
to have been deferred. But in weighing the amount of correspondence
between the diagrams and the percipient's reproductions, it should be
observed that of the four diagrams employed, three were reproduced
with substantial accuracy, and in their chronological order;
and that even on the second and third evenings the percipient's
impressions--rectilinear figures inscribed in a circle--bore a general
resemblance to the diagram actually selected. It is perhaps unfortunate
that three out of the four diagrams included circles or figures akin
to circles, but as the percipient had not seen any of the diagrams
beforehand, this circumstance does not in any way invalidate the
results, though it weakens the argument against chance-coincidence.
-----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
No. of | Date and Hour. | Diagram looked at by |
Experiment.| | Agent. |
| | |
-----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
| | |
{ | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |
{ | 1st March, 1892. | |
{ | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | |
1 { | | |
{ |White circle with blue | |
{ | border, about 7 in. | |
{ | diam.--cross in | |
{ | centre blue. | |
-----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
{ | Friday, |Agent did not experiment. |
2 { | 4th March, 1892. | Percipient sat, in ignorance |
{ | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | of agent's intentions. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
-----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
{ | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |
3 { | 8th March, 1892. | |
{ | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | |
| | |
-----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
[Note: table has been split]
--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Impression received | Percipient's |
by Percipient. | Remarks. |
| |
--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| "No result whatever." |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Percipient wrote, "Saw particularly |
| one clear circle, at first all light, but |
| after a little a dark centre, with a V, |
| or triangle on it; * * * one or two |
| flakes in the shape of bright crescents." |
| Drew rough diagrams accordingly. |
--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Drew a figure like a capital E |
| inscribed in a circle; also one other form|
| with circular lines, "all very |
| indistinct." |
--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
-----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
No. of | Date and Hour. | Diagram looked at by |
Experiment.| | Agent. |
-----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
{ | Friday | [Illustration] |
{ | 11th March, 1892. | |
{ | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. |Spots painted in blue on |
{ | | raised disc of whitening |
{ | | on white cardboard |
4 { | | about 14" x 12". |
{ | | |
{ | | |
{ | | |
{ | | |
-----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
{ | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |
{ | 15th March, 1892. | |
{ | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. |In blue on white, about |
{ | | 4-1/2" in longer diam. |
5 { | | |
{ | | [Illustration] |
{ | | |
{ | |In blue on white about |
{ | | 4" high. |
-----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
{ | Friday, | Was unable to experiment. |
{ | 18th March, 1892. | |
6 { | 10:30 to 11.0 P.M. | |
{ | | |
{ | | |
{ | | |
-----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
[Note: table has been split]
----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Impression | |
received | Percipient's Remarks. |
by Percipient. | |
----------------+------------------------------------------------+
[Illustration] |Drew first _a_, then _b_; "then |
| several times I saw your eyes, and that |
| was all." Later on percipient sent |
| diagram _c_. "These spots represent |
| what I called in my letter your |
| eyes; but two, for there appeared |
| more." [_b_, it will be observed, is a |
| reproduction of the diagram looked |
| at by the agent on the 1st and 8th |
| March.] |
------------------+----------------------------------------------+
|Was unable to sit. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
----------------+------------------------------------------------+
[Illustration] |"Knowing you were not sitting, I |
| tried to reproduce what you intended |
| on Tuesday [15th inst.], with |
| the result shown here." [The first |
| figure, it will be seen, is a partial |
| reproduction of 8.] |
----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Mr. Kirk has conducted several other series of experiments in the
transfer of diagrams and ideas and in the induction of hypnotic sleep
at a distance, with Miss G., Miss Porter, of 16 Russell Square, Mr. F.
W. Hayes, and others. In one case the percipient was at Cambridge, a
distance of more than fifty miles from Plumstead. The results in nearly
all these cases raise a certain presumption of thought-transference,
though the presumption is in most cases--owing partly to the conditions
of the experiments--not so strong as in the two series last quoted. It
is to be remarked that the series of experiments between Plumstead and
Cambridge were perhaps the least successful of any, a result which may
perhaps be attributed partly to the distance, partly to the fact that
the agent and percipient were not personally acquainted.
It should be recorded that Mr. Kirk is strongly of opinion, as the
result of a careful analysis of the experiments conducted by him,
that telepathy, in these cases at any rate, operates as a rule
subconsciously, and that we ought to be prepared to find the most
striking proofs of its action in such undesigned coincidences as are
quoted in Nos. 4 and 5 of the second series with Miss G.
No. 40.--From DR. GIBOTTEAU.
Dr. Gibotteau, in the year 1888, made the acquaintance, at a _crèche_
in connection with a Paris hospital, of a peasant woman named Bertha
J. Bertha was a good hypnotic, and Dr. Gibotteau succeeded on many
occasions in inducing sleep at a distance. But Bertha claimed also to
have the power of influencing others telepathically--a power which in
her case seems to have been hereditary, as her mother had a reputation
for sorcery. Bertha professed to be able, by the exercise of her will,
to cause persons to stumble, or to lose their way, or to prevent them
from proceeding in any given direction. She gave Dr. Gibotteau several
illustrations of these powers, and he believes her pretensions to be
well founded (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 253-267,
and pp. 317-337). The following instances of hallucinatory effects of a
more ordinary kind are taken from the same paper. In the last case, it
will be observed, the experience was collective. In none of the three
cases were the percipients aware of Bertha's intention to experiment.
It will be seen that in the second case she succeeded in producing the
emotional effect desired, though the imaginary object by which she
intended to inspire terror was hardly of a kind calculated to frighten
a hospital surgeon. Dr. Gibotteau writes:--
"I am a good sleeper, and I do not remember ever waking of my
own accord in the middle of my sleep. One night, about 2 or 3
o'clock, I was abruptly awoke. With my eyes still shut I thought,
'This is one of B.'s tricks. What is she going to make me see?' I
then looked at the opposite wall; I saw a circular luminous spot,
and in the centre a brilliant object, about the size of a melon,
that I stared at for several seconds, being wide awake, before it
disappeared. I could not distinguish any form clearly, nor any
detail, but the object was round, and parts of it appeared to be
less luminous. I imagined that she had wished to show me a skull,
but I could not recognise it; the wall was lighted up in that
place as if by a strong lamp; the room was not completely dark,
because the window had outside blinds, and the curtains were drawn
back; but this brilliant object did not seem to give out any light
beyond the area of which it occupied the centre on the wall. That
was all. I waited a moment without seeing anything else, then I
went fast asleep again. The next day I found Bertha, who had come
to visit the hospital, and I questioned her cautiously. She had
tried to show me first of all some dogs round my bed, then some
men quarrelling, and finally a lantern. That was all. It will be
seen that though the first two attempts failed, the third succeeded
perfectly.
"After that, Bertha very often tried to hallucinate me; but I have
never either seen or heard anything.
"I was more sensible to transmissions of a vague and general
character. I have written elsewhere of illusions of the sense of
space: I had a complete illusion of this kind, and P. a very
curious commencement of an hallucination. I have also described the
causeless terror that Bertha could inspire.
"Here is another account of a fright. One evening I was entering my
house, at midnight. On the landing, as I was putting my hand on the
door-handle, I said to myself, 'What a nuisance! here is another of
B.'s tricks! She is going to make me see something terrifying in
the passage; it is very disagreeable.' I was really a bit nervous.
I opened the door suddenly, with my eyes shut, and seized a match;
in a few minutes I was in bed, and, blowing out my candle, I put
my head under the bed-clothes, like a child. The next day Bertha
asked me if I had not seen a skeleton in the passage or in my
room, and been very much frightened. It need hardly be said that a
skeleton was the last thing in the world that could frighten me;
and frankly, I think that I am not more of a coward than the common
run of men."
On another occasion Dr. Gibotteau was in the company of a friend, M. P.
They had just parted from Bertha.
"After having deposited B. near her home, we went back to the
Latin Quarter with the carriage. On reaching the Rue de Vaugirard,
before the gate of the Luxembourg, I felt myself seized by a terror
intense as it was absurd. The street was admirably lighted, there
was not a single passer-by, and the Quarter at that hour (just
about midnight) is perfectly safe. Moreover, this fright did not
seem to depend on any cause. It was fear just for fear. 'It is
absurd,' said I, 'I am frightened, very much frightened; it is
certainly a trick of B.'s.' My friend laughed at me, and almost
immediately, 'Why, it is taking hold of me also. I am trembling
with fear. It is very disagreeable.' The impression lasted until we
were in front of the gate of the Luxembourg Palace; we got out of
the carriage at the corner of the Rue Soufflot and the Boulevard
Saint-Michel. As soon as we set foot on the ground: 'Look,' said
P., 'don't you see something white floating in the air, there, just
in front of our eyes; it has gone.' I saw nothing, but I felt very
strongly the _influence_ of B.
"The next day I met her at the hospital. 'Well! you saw nothing?'
I begged her to tell me what we ought to have seen. This was her
answer: 'First, your driver lost his way--oh! not you, you felt
nothing; he took you by all sorts of queer ways.' It is a fact
that our carriage, from the Rue de Babylone, had gone by a very
complicated way, and one which, at the time, did not seem to me the
right one, but I should not like to say anything definite about it.
'After that you were frightened.' (Which of us?) 'You at first,
M. P. afterwards. Oh, yes! afraid of nothing at all, without any
reason, but you were very frightened. Then you saw some white
pigeons flying round you, quite near.' I had never heard her speak
of this hallucination. As to the fright, that subject was familiar
to her, and she has frightened me several times, deliberately, as I
have related."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 57: An experiment of another kind, the description of which
is here omitted, had been made on the morning of this day.]
[Footnote 58: An account of these experiments is also contained in an
article by M. Richet in the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_ for February 1888.]
[Footnote 59: M. Richet also took part in these two experiments.]
[Footnote 60: It is not stated whether the hour of the experiment was
chosen by lot, but this precaution was taken in many of the earlier
experiments.]
[Footnote 61: An account of these experiments was also contributed by
M. Richet to the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_, Feb. 1888.]
[Footnote 62: _Revue Philosophique_, February and April 1886. A
translation of these accounts is given in the _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.
pp. 222, 223.]
[Footnote 63: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 257-267.]
[Footnote 64: Dr. Latour's brother, house-surgeon at the hospital.]
[Footnote 65: See No. 23, chap. iv.]
[Footnote 66: Miss X.'s notes have been in some cases slightly
abbreviated, in order to save space. Full details of the experiments
will be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 377-397.]
[Footnote 67: Miss X. kindly submitted her diaries for inspection to
Mrs. Sidgwick, who has carefully examined them.]
[Footnote 68: Excluding two in which the distance was only a few yards.]
[Footnote 69: A familiar name given to Miss G. by Mr. and Mrs. Kirk.]
[Footnote 70: Mr. Kirk explains later that this dog had been lost six
years before. They had all been much attached to him, and his loss was
still an occasional topic of conversation and of dreams by Mr. Kirk.]
CHAPTER VI.
GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.
If the reader has been able to accept my estimate of the evidence
brought forward in the preceding chapters, the possibility of the
transmission of ideas and sensations, otherwise than through the known
channels of the senses, must be held to be proved by the experiments
there recorded. That proof can be impugned only on the ground that the
precautions taken against communication between agent and percipient
by normal means were insufficient. For if the precautions are admitted
to have been sufficient, there can be no question that the results
were not due to chance. It is not necessary here to enter into nice
calculations of the probabilities. If, for instance, the odds in favour
of some other cause than chance for the results recorded on pp. 66-69
were to be expressed in figures, the total sum would compete with or
outstrip the stupendous ciphers employed by the astronomer to denote
the distance of Sirius, or the weight of the Sun. But the kind of
evidence now to be considered--the coincidence of some spontaneous
affection of the percipient with some event in the life-history of the
person presumed to be the agent, as when one sees the apparition of a
friend at the time of his death--is of inferior cogency in two ways.
The coincidences are neither so numerous nor so exact; and the risk
of error in the record is far greater. On the one hand, therefore,
there is a greater probability that the percipient's affection,
even if correctly described, was unconnected with the state of the
person supposed to be the agent; on the other hand we have, in most
cases, less assurance that the description given of his experience
is in its essential features accurate. The part played by coincident
hallucination in the question of telepathy may be illustrated from
another branch of scientific inquiry. For some years the "Germ
Theory" rested mainly on observations of the distribution of certain
diseases, their periodic character and their mode of propagation and
development; phenomena which, though sufficiently striking, are not in
themselves susceptible of exact interpretation. It was not until the
minute organisms, whose existence had been so long suspected, had been
actually isolated in the laboratory, and had been proved capable of
reproducing the disease, that the connection of certain maladies with
the presence of certain microbes in the body became, from a plausible
hypothesis, an accepted conclusion of Science. So here it is important
to bear in mind that dreams, visions, and apparitions, however
captivating to the imagination, do not form the main argument for
believing in some new mode of communication between human minds. If all
the cases of the kind hitherto recorded could be shown one by one to be
explicable by more familiar causes,--though the result would indeed be
to add a remarkable chapter to the history of human error; though it
would be a singular paradox that so many intelligent witnesses should
have been so mistaken, and with such undesigned unanimity; and that
a whole class of alleged phenomena should have sprung up without any
substantial basis,--the grounds for the belief in telepathy would not
be seriously affected; we should merely have to modify our conceptions
of its nature, and restrict its boundaries. But in fact there is no
reason to anticipate so lame a conclusion. The incidents, of which
examples will be adduced in the succeeding chapters, though their value
will be differently estimated by different minds, are yet in their
aggregate not such as can plausibly be attributed to misrepresentation
or chance coincidence. And, first, it is important to note that the
cases must be considered in the aggregate. Separately, no doubt, each
particular case is susceptible of more or less adequate explanation by
some well-known cause; and in the last resort it would be unreasonable
to stake the credit of any single witness, however eminent, against
what Hume would call the uniform experience of mankind. But as a
matter of fact the experience of mankind is not uniform in this
matter; and when we are forced by the mere accumulation of testimony
to go on adding one strained and improbable explanation to another,
and to assume at last an epidemic of misrepresentation, perhaps even
an organised conspiracy of falsehood, a point is at length reached
in which the sum of improbabilities involved in the negation of
thought-transference must outweigh the single improbability of a new
mode of mental affection. If to any reader that point should seem not
yet to have been reached--and the position could scarcely be held an
unreasonable one--I would remind him that the cases quoted in this
book form but a small part of the evidence so far accumulated; and I
would ask that he should reserve his judgment until he has studied
the whole of the evidence recorded in _Phantasms of the Living_, in
the _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research, the
scattered cases appearing from time to time in the pages of various
English and Continental periodicals dealing with this subject, and
the ever-growing mass of testimony printed in the _Proceedings_ and
_Journal_ of the Society for Psychical Research in this country.[71] He
will then perhaps be prepared to endorse the verdict of a shrewd and
genial critic on the evidence presented in _Phantasms of the Living_,
viz., that it "can only be rejected as a whole by one who is prepared
to repeat at his leisure what David is reported to have said in his
haste."[72]
It is of course not possible with our present knowledge to estimate
with any precision the probabilities for the coincidence by chance of
such a vision as that recorded by Dr. Dupré (No. 47), or such a dream
as Mr. Hamilton's (No. 58), with the event represented. Neither the
nature of the percipient's impression in these and similar cases, nor
the event to which the impression corresponds, are sufficiently well
defined to admit of any numerical argument being based upon them. We
can only recognise that whilst dreams and mind's-eye pictures are not
very uncommon experiences, dreams and visions which faithfully reflect
external events of an unlikely kind occur, if rarely, with sufficient
frequency to give us pause. The common sense which in such cases leads
us to infer a connection between the event and the corresponding
mental experience is our only guide. But one large class of our
spontaneous evidences is susceptible of more exact treatment. Sensory
hallucinations are affections at once well marked and unusual. If we
can ascertain their relative frequency it is possible to calculate with
more or less exactness the probabilities of the coincidence by chance
with some definite event. Such a calculation has been attempted in
Chapter IX. with regard to hallucinations of a certain well-defined
type coinciding with the death of the person represented. The
conclusion there reached is that such coincidences are far too numerous
to be ascribed to chance. This part of the evidence cannot therefore be
summarily dismissed, as suggested by more than one recent critic, on
the plea that hallucinations which coincide with a death may be set off
against hallucinations which occur without any coincidence, and both
alike be regarded as purely subjective and without significance. Our
own estimate of the probabilities is, of course, provisional, and may
ultimately prove to be wide of the mark. But, meanwhile, it is at least
proof against assault by conjectural statistics or the _obiter dicta_
of amateur psychologists.
But in fact the criticism commonly made is not that, happening as
described, visions and hallucinations happened by chance; but that
they did not happen as described. This objection deserves careful
consideration. It must, I think, be admitted that a proportion, perhaps
a large proportion, even of the cases obtained at first-hand are so
far inaccurate as to have comparatively small value for scientific
purposes; and of the residue, in which the central fact of an unusual
subjective experience on the part of the percipient and its coincidence
with some external event is fairly well established, it is possible
that the details are frequently--and where the record is not made
until some years after the event, generally--untrustworthy. In order
to estimate the nature and probable extent of these defects, it is
proposed briefly to pass in review the various kinds of error to which
testimony is liable, and to note their bearings on the question at
issue.
_Errors of Observation._
Errors of observation are here of very little importance. The thing
to be observed is, of course, the percipient's own sensations. In
subsequent conversation he may exaggerate the exceptional nature of the
impression; but he can hardly make a mistake at the time in observing
what is purely subjective. If a man calls green what we call red, we
may conclude that he is colour-blind; and if he asserts that he sees
a human figure where we see none, that he is hallucinated; but in
neither case have we warrant for saying that he is making an erroneous
statement about his own sensations.
_Errors of Inference._
But his interpretation of what he sees is a different matter. Not
indeed that the mistake commonly made of taking a hallucination at
the time for a figure of flesh and blood, and subsequently for a
hypothetical entity of another kind, directly affects the percipient's
testimony. So long as the witness accurately describes what he saw, it
matters little whether he believes in telepathic hallucinations, or in
black magic, ghosts, or the Himalayan Brothers. But there are one or
two errors of inference of sufficient importance to deserve notice.
A real figure seen under exceptional circumstances may at the time or
in the light of subsequent events be regarded as a hallucination. Such
a mistake is, as a rule, possible only out of doors; and the commonest
form of it is when a figure is seen by the percipient resembling some
friend believed to be at a distance, or in circumstances which make it
difficult to suppose that the figure was of flesh and blood. A curious
instance came under my notice recently. It was reported to me that
a lady had seen in a certain provincial town the ghost of a friend
at about the time of her death. The figure, accompanied by another
figure, was seen in broad daylight at a distance of a few feet only;
it was clearly recognised, and the proof of its non-reality lay in
the complete absence of recognition in return. It was subsequently
ascertained that the friend in question had actually been present in
the flesh, with a companion, at the spot where the figures were seen,
but that for sufficient reasons she desired to avoid recognition. Her
death within a few days of the encounter was merely an odd coincidence.
Another kind of erroneous inference is worth noting. Cases are not
infrequently quoted, as presumably telepathic, of a dream or vision
embodying information demonstrably not within the conscious knowledge
of the percipient. The inference that he cannot have obtained the
information by normal means is clearly unsound, unless it can be shown
that it was impossible for the information to have been received
unconsciously. For it is well established that intelligence, even
of events closely affecting the percipient, may enter through the
external organs of sense and lie latent for days before emerging
into consciousness. It is obvious that, for instance, many of the
cases quoted in which an invalid became aware of news (_e.g._, of the
death of a relative) which had been studiously withheld from him by
those around may be thus explained. Whispers heard in sleep, or hints
unconsciously received, may have betrayed the secret.[73]
_Errors of Narration._
Of much greater importance than errors of observation or inference
are those due to defects either in narration or memory. Deliberate
deception amongst educated persons is no doubt comparatively rare,
though it would perhaps be unwise to hold out any pecuniary inducement
for the production of evidence. But there are those, like Colonel
Capadose in Mr. Henry James' story _The Liar_, who tell ghost stories
for art's sake, and on a slender basis of fact build up a large
superstructure of fiction. And there are many more who, with a natural
and almost pardonable desire to appear as the hero, or at least the
_raconteur_, of a good story, or from the mere love of the marvellous,
allow themselves to exaggerate the coincidences, adjust the dates,
elaborate the details, or otherwise improve the too bare facts of an
actual experience. This kind of embellishment, however, is probably
more frequent in second-hand accounts, where the narrator speaks with
less sense of responsibility, and, it may be added, of reality.
Again, a common form of inaccuracy is to quote as the experience of a
friend one of those weird stories which are passed on from mouth to
mouth in ordinary society--the inconvertible currency of psychical
research. We all know these old friends--at a distance, for no one has
ever succeeded in making their nearer acquaintance. There is the ghost
at No. 50 B---- Square; the driver of the dream-hearse, recognised a
year later in a lift, which fell straightway, with all its passengers,
to the bottom of the hotel; the Form which accompanies the priest,
or Quaker, or godly merchant to save him from robbery on his lonely
nocturnal journeyings; the young lady who took part in some _tableaux
vivants_ whilst her body was lying cold in death--and all the rest of
the phantom throng. Only a few months ago I heard one of them--it was
the ghost of the lift--from the son of a doctor, who assured me that
the incident occurred to one of his father's patients, and gave me the
name of the foreign hotel which had been the scene of the disaster.[74]
Sometimes a story is improved by the narrator that it may the better
serve for instruction and edification. This tendency is especially
liable to distort the evidence in cases connected with death. It must
be remembered that though we may view a coincident hallucination, for
instance, as merely an instance of an idea transferred from a _living_
mind, to the percipient it frequently represents the spirit of the
dead. From a certain class of witnesses the account of such an incident
is as little to be trusted as the text of an apocryphal gospel. It
inevitably becomes a _Tendenz-schrift_, which reflects not the facts as
they occurred, but the narrator's conception of what the facts ought to
have been.
It is not necessary to dwell on these sources of error, for they are
probably apparent to all; and to give illustrative cases would be
superfluous, and perhaps invidious. But it is important to observe
that stories so improved, whether from a desire to reinforce some
theological tenet, or from the mere love of sensation, are apt to
betray their origin in many different ways. Narrators of this kind
rarely content themselves with the finer touches; the added ornaments
are apt to be gross and palpable; the "spirit" will be made to speak
words of warning or comfort; to intimate his testamentary dispositions;
or even--in somewhat bolder flight of fancy--to leave a solid memento
behind him. Now the authentic phantom is seldom either dramatic or
edifying.
_Errors of Memory._
More insidious and more difficult to guard against are errors of
memory. There is a natural and almost inevitable tendency to dramatic
unity and completeness which leads to the unconscious suppression of
some details, and the insertion of others. Probably of all errors due
to this cause a nice adjustment of the dates is the commonest. In
perhaps the majority of second-hand cases, and in some of the more
remote first-hand narratives, the coincidence is said to be exact to
the minute. "_At that very moment my friend passed away_" is a common
phrase. As a matter of fact, in the best attested recent cases it can
rarely be shown that the coincidence is precise, and the impression
frequently follows the death by some hours. But there is risk also
of the actual transformation of the experience itself. A dream after
the lapse of years will be recalled as a hallucination,[75] a vague
feeling of discomfort as a vivid emotion, or even a mental vision; a
hallucination not recognised at the moment will in the retrospect seem
to have been identified with some person who died at about that time;
and details, such as clothes worn or words spoken by the phantom, will
be borrowed from later knowledge and read back into the image preserved
in the memory. There will further be a gradual simplifying and rounding
off of the incident, a deepening of the main lines, and a suppression
of what is not obviously relevant or coherent. With many persons
there can be no doubt that this process is almost, if not wholly,
unconscious; and it need hardly be said that in that very fact lies the
special danger against which we have to guard.[76]
As an instance of the gradual approximation of dates, I may cite a
case recorded in the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 401,
527). The narrator wrote to Dr. Hodgson:--"I once dreamed that W. T.
H. was dead; and the same night he was thrown down several feet on
to an engine, ... when he was taken up it was thought he was dead."
From later inquiries it was ascertained that the accident did indeed
occur as alleged--but a week or ten days after the dream![77] As an
illustration of a different kind of metamorphosis, a case may be given
which I recently received from a lady and her daughter--an account of
a "ghost" seen twenty-five years ago by the latter and her nurse. The
younger lady described to me the figure seen; the mother told me that
she had received a similar description from both nurse and daughter at
the time of the incident. Both ladies were clear-headed and sensible
witnesses, and it was impossible to doubt that they believed what
they said. But in her childish diary, which the younger lady kindly
unearthed for my inspection, the only entry referring to the matter--an
entry written in pencil and obviously as an afterthought--ran: "Ellen
saw a ghost." If the diarist had herself shared the experience, it
is difficult to believe that even the modesty natural to her age and
sex would have withheld her from recording the fact for her private
glorification.
It would be easy to multiply cases of this kind. But those who
demand most proof of the action of telepathy will probably be least
exacting of evidence for the untrustworthiness of ancient memories.
As a matter of fact, we have the evidence of statistics to show that
the imagination does tend after a certain lapse of time to magnify
coincidences in matters of this kind, and even to invent coincidences
where none existed. It will be shown in Chapter IX., in the discussion
on the results obtained from an inquiry into the distribution of
sensory hallucinations, that whereas non-coincidental hallucinations
tend to be forgotten after the passing of a few years, the records of
coincidental hallucinations--or at least of those which are alleged to
have coincided with the death of the person seen--are proportionately
more frequent ten years ago than at the present time, the inference
being that a certain number of coincidences have been unconsciously
improved or invented in the interval.
_Pseudo-presentiment._
In a letter published in _Mind_ (April 1888) Professor Royce,
of Harvard, U.S.A., hazarded a hypothesis that there may occur
"instantaneous and irresistible hallucinations of memory which make
it seem to one that something which now excites or astonishes him
has been prefigured in a recent dream, or in the form of some other
warning." In support of that hypothesis Professor Royce appeals to
the analogy of the well-known cases of double memory,--the impression
of having at some previous time looked on a scene now present, or
heard a conversation now taking place; and to two or three instances
of undoubted hallucination of memory amongst the insane, recorded by
Krafft-Ebing and Kraepelin. As regards the latter, it is sufficient
to remark that the hallucinations occurred to persons whose minds
were admittedly diseased; that the hallucinations themselves were
apparently slow of growth, whereas the hypothesis requires that they
should be more or less instantaneous; and that in other respects they
do not present by any means a perfect parallel to the presumably
telepathic cases with which he compares them. In default, therefore,
of more precise analogies, the hypothesis of pseudo-presentiment must
be regarded as, at best, a plausible guess. And even if it were fully
substantiated it would only, as pointed out by Mr. Gurney (_Mind_,
July 1888), apply to certain classes of telepathic cases, and those
the weakest from the evidential standpoint. At most the theory would
account for dreams and indefinite impressions of various kinds not
mentioned beforehand. In some cases of this kind, and in a large class
of so-called "prophetic" dreams, I am inclined to regard Mr. Royce's
explanation as possibly true, in the modified form suggested by Dr.
Hodgson (_Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 540 _et seq._)--_i.e._, if it
is restricted to cases where there is a vague memory of some actual
dream or other impression, bearing a more or less remote resemblance
to the event; in other words, if we assume an illusion rather than a
hallucination of memory. But it need hardly be said that no serious
investigator would treat the uncorroborated accounts of dreams and
vague feelings of this kind as evidence for anything whatever. To
extend the hypothesis, as Professor Royce suggests, to cases where
there is evidence that the percipient's experience was mentioned
beforehand, is to suppose not one kind of pseudo-memory, but two,--a
pseudo-memory on the part of the percipient that he has had a certain
subjective experience, and a pseudo-memory on the part of some other
person that this experience was mentioned to him before the news of the
event to which it related. In recent cases, at any rate, the assumption
of a double mistake of this kind seems unwarranted.[78] And to apply
this explanation to cases of actual sense-hallucination involves even
more violent improbabilities. It would require far more evidence than
Professor Royce can offer to make it credible that a man on hearing of
the death of a friend should straightway be capable of imagining that
at a definite hour and in a particular place he had seen an apparition
of that friend, when in fact he had had no experience of the kind. It
is remarkable that Mr. Royce does not himself appear to have realised
the distinction between the two kinds of impressions.
_Precautions against Error._
We have now to consider by what methods the various defects incident to
testimony on these matters may be best eliminated. As the evidence upon
which reliance is placed will be illustrated by the examples quoted
hereafter, it will not be necessary to dwell at length here upon the
precautions taken. The testimony at first-hand of the actual witnesses,
it need hardly be said, is to be desired in any investigation; but in
the case of phenomena which are at once stimulating to the imagination,
and, as being novel, have no recognised standard of probability by
which narrator or auditor can check deviations from the truth, no
other evidence is worthy of consideration.[79] It will be seen that in
all the cases here quoted the witness, or one of the witnesses, has
furnished an account of his experience written by himself;[80] and
it is worth noting that the very act of writing such an account to
serve the purpose of a systematic inquiry is calculated to inspire the
percipient with a sense of responsibility, and to lead him to weigh his
words with precision. I may add that by the courtesy of our informants
we have in most cases been enabled to question them orally on the
details of their experience.[81]
But, for reasons already given, no case should be suffered to rest
upon a single memory. It is of the highest importance, therefore, to
obtain the corroborative testimony of persons who were cognisant of
the occurrence of the impression before the news of the corresponding
event. When this is not to be obtained, evidence of some unusual
action on the part of the percipient, such as the taking of a journey,
or the putting on of mourning, may be accepted as collateral proof
of the reality of his impression. But, as we have already seen, the
evidence of the attesting witnesses is liable to the same errors which
affect the testimony of the percipient; and the evidence most to be
desired is of a kind exempt from these weaknesses--that of a letter
or memorandum written before the news. In a large proportion of the
narratives dealt with, it is asserted that such a letter was written,
or such a memorandum made. Unfortunately, this alleged documentary
evidence is rarely forthcoming. It is possible that in some cases this
statement is merely a conventional dramatic tag,--an addition made
unconsciously and in perfect good faith to round off the story.[82]
It cannot, however, I think, be regarded as surprising either that
a letter or note was not written at the time, or that, if written,
it should not have been preserved. Sensory hallucinations--to take
the most striking instance--though unusual are not extremely rare
experiences; most educated persons are perfectly familiar with the
fact of their occurrence and regard them (in most cases rightly) as
purely subjective, the products of some transient cerebral disturbance,
as little worthy of record as a headache or a bilious attack. Often,
probably, the telepathic hallucination is indistinguishable from the
mass of purely subjective experiences of the same kind; and even should
it be recognised at the time as exceptional, the want of leisure, the
fear of ridicule, even the dislike of seeming to admit to himself the
possibility of his experience having a sinister significance, would
probably deter the percipient from writing about it.[83] It is much
more likely that he would speak of it to an intimate friend, should
opportunity occur. And when in the rare conjunction of an exceptional
experience, adequate leisure, and a sympathetic correspondent, or the
habit of writing a diary, the letter is actually written or the note
made, the chances which militate against its preservation are many.
Few persons will take a general and impersonal (in other words, a
scientific) interest in occurrences of this kind. Their own isolated
experience may possess a deep and abiding interest for themselves,
and, less certainly, for their friends; an interest, however, which is
quite compatible with the treatment of the attesting record as waste
paper. But unless it can be used to illustrate or support a theory of
a future life, they seldom regard a "ghost story" as having any value
other than that derived from the personal environment. It appears,
indeed, to possess for most little more significance than the recital
of an extraordinary run of luck at cards, or a fortunate escape from a
railway accident, between which it is commonly sandwiched. Again, few
persons realise the high value of contemporary documentary evidence in
matters of the kind; there are many who would probably share the views
of a courteous correspondent, who, after sending me condensed copies
of some contemporary memoranda, wrote in answer to my inquiries:--"I
have not got the originals; I destroyed them immediately I sent
them (_i.e._, the copies) to you, because I knew they would be more
permanently preserved and recorded; being authenticated to Professor
Barrett and you, there was no further need of them." And even when they
escape immediate destruction the letters may, as in cases reported to
us, be "washed out" or burnt; or may survive the perils of flood and
fire only to be mislaid, so that they cannot be found without a more
thorough search than the courtesy of our correspondents can induce them
to make. Notwithstanding these various adverse chances, it will be
found that many of the narratives which follow are actually attested by
contemporary documentary evidence.
When the great mass of narratives has been carefully examined and
tested in the light of the considerations above set forth, and when
all those which are remote in date, or for some other reason suspect,
have been eliminated, there will be found to remain an important body
of testimony. And of this sifted residue, though we cannot predicate of
any single narrative that it accurately represents the facts, or that
the coincidence with which it deals was not purely casual, yet looking
at the cases as a whole, we may feel a reasonable assurance that in
their essential features the facts are correctly reported, and that the
coincidences are not due to chance.
I may conclude this chapter by calling attention to an argument of a
different kind, on which Mr. Gurney,[84] in reviewing the material
amassed chiefly in this country, laid considerable stress, and in which
he has been followed by an independent observer, Professor Royce,
dealing with narratives received from correspondents in America.[85]
Both these investigators have pointed out, and probably all who make an
equally careful and dispassionate study of the evidence will agree with
them, that the phenomena vouched for in the best-attested narratives
form a true natural group. They are manifestly not the products of
folk-lore, nor of popular superstition, nor of the mere love of the
marvellous. They are singularly free from the more sensational and
bizarre features--dramatic gestures or speech on the part of the
phantasms, prophetic warnings, movement of objects, etc.--which are
conspicuous in second-hand narratives. If these accounts were purely
fictitious, it would be difficult to conceive by what process, coming
from persons of widely separated social grades, of various degrees
of education, and of different nationalities, they could have been
moulded to present such strong internal resemblances; resemblances
consisting not merely in the possession of many common features,
but in the absence of others which, by their frequent occurrence in
admittedly fictitious accounts, are proved to be the natural fruits
of the unrestrained imagination. This undesigned unanimity is strong
evidence that the restraint operating throughout has been the restraint
of fidelity to fact, and that the narratives themselves owe little to
the imagination, and much to their reflection of genuine experience.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 71: Of the _Proceedings_ of the S.P.R., published by Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., three or four parts are published
yearly. The _Journal_, which appears monthly, contains a record of
recent cases of interest, unaccompanied, for the most part, by any
critical commentary, and is privately printed for circulation amongst
members and associates of the Society. Any reader, however, desirous
of studying the subject may procure any number of the _Journal_
referred to in this book on application at the Rooms of the S.P.R., 19
Buckingham St., Adelphi, W.C. Of the foreign periodicals referred to
in the text, perhaps the most important is the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, edited by Dr. Dariex, and published by Germer Baillière
et Cie., Paris. Cases of interest are also to be found in _Sphinx_,
a German periodical, to be obtained through Kegan Paul & Co.; in the
_Revue Spirite_ (Paris: 24 Rue des Petits-Champs); and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 72: Professor C. Lloyd Morgan in _Mind_, 1887, p. 282.]
[Footnote 73: See the case recorded by Miss X. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.
pp. 507, 508). In this instance Miss X. saw in the crystal a notice of
a friend's death in the form of an extract from the obituary column of
the _Times_, in which journal she had almost certainly seen the news,
without perceiving it, the day before. There is a dream recorded in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 687, 688, which may probably
be explained as the emergence in dream of intelligence unconsciously
received a few hours before.]
[Footnote 74: I have before me as I write one case of the kind which
will serve as a sample. A told us the story, and induced B to write
to us about it. B informed us that he heard it from his brother C,
a F.R.S., who had received it from D, to whom it was told by E; who
had it from the lips of F, "who was a visitor at the house where the
occurrence took place." We wrote to D, who referred us to two sources
of information, G and H. G wrote in reply to our letter that he heard
the story from a stranger at a dinner-party "about three years ago,"
and promised further inquiries. H referred us to J and K. Our letter to
K was answered by his cousin L, who wrote that she had heard it from M,
"who got it from some one who was present," and further inquiries were
again promised. It is needless to add that in cases of this kind the
story, like a will-o'-the-wisp, ever recedes as we advance, until it
ends with the nameless stranger at some dinner long since gone "away in
the Ewigkeit."]
[Footnote 75: There is, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out, a converse
error to be guarded against--viz., the gradual effacement of the lines
of an impression, so that an actual waking hallucination has in some
instances come to be regarded, after a long interval, as only a dream.]
[Footnote 76: A good illustration of this kind of embellishment, in a
case recorded at second-hand, will be found in the footnote on a case
in Chapter XII.]
[Footnote 77: So in a case given in the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 5-10, we have an extract from the log-book
of the _Jacques-Gabriel_, which records that the captain, mate, and
another man when at sea heard, on the 17th July 1852, the sound of a
woman's voice crying. In a marginal note on the log-book the captain
adds that on reaching port they learnt of the death of the mate's wife,
"_on the same day and at the same hour_." But the official register
shows that the death took place on the 16_th June_ 1852.]
[Footnote 78: That such a pseudo-memory on the part of a person not
professing to be the actual percipient is possible after a long
interval appears to be shown by the account just cited of the "ghost"
seen by the nurse in a foreign hotel. But we have no evidence that a
memory hallucination of this kind could be, as demanded by the theory,
of instantaneous or very rapid growth; or that any verbal suggestion
could intercalate a false picture into a series of still recent and
unimpaired memories.]
[Footnote 79: Second-hand narratives have, however, a value of
their own, as shown later; for by taking note of the features which
occur commonly in such cases, but are absent from the best attested
first-hand narratives, we obtain a valuable standard of comparison by
which to check aberrations of memory.]
[Footnote 80: An apparent exception to this statement will be found
in Nos. 45 and 46, Chapter VII., and elsewhere, where the account is
furnished not by the actual percipient, but by a person to whom the
percipient related his experience before he knew of its correspondence
with fact. The evidence in such cases, it should be pointed out, is as
good as first-hand; indeed, where, as in Nos. 45 and 46, the actual
percipient was illiterate and the narrator educated, it may be regarded
as better than first-hand.]
[Footnote 81: This part of the work has been undertaken in this country
by Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, Mr. E. Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers,
myself, and others; in America, chiefly by Professor Royce and Dr.
Hodgson.]
[Footnote 82: In the _Times_ of the 6th January 1893 there appeared
a letter from a well-known writer, narrating how in 1851 he had
received a description of the sea-serpent from a lady who had watched
its movements for some half-hour in a small bay on the coast of
Sutherlandshire. So far the story is on a par with any of our own
second-hand ghost stories. But the writer goes on to say that the
serpent had rubbed off some of its scales on the rocks; that a few of
these scales, of the size and shape of scallop-shells, were for some
years in his own possession, but that when he searched amongst his
curios, in order to show these scales to Professor Owen, they were not
to be found. The humble investigators of the S.P.R. have occasionally
found themselves in the same position as the illustrious anatomist.]
[Footnote 83: See, for example, the case quoted in Chapter X., No. 63.]
[Footnote 84: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 164-166.]
[Footnote 85: _Proceedings American S.P.R._, pp. 350, 351.]
CHAPTER VII.
TRANSFERENCE OF IDEAS AND EMOTIONS.
Before proceeding to give examples of the evidence for spontaneous
thought-transference, it may be well to repeat something of what has
been said in the preceding chapter. In the first place, the narratives
quoted in this book are offered as samples only of the evidence of this
kind actually accumulated. No single narrative can afford to stand
alone. Each contains one or more elements of weakness; and in the last
resort chance coincidence, memory-hallucination, or even deliberate
deception would be _in any single case_ a more probable explanation
than a new mode of mental affection. It is only, to borrow Mr. Gurney's
metaphor, as a faggot, and not as a bundle of separate sticks, that the
evidence can finally be judged. But, in the second place, it is not
claimed that the evidence reviewed even in its entirety is by itself
sufficient to demonstrate the possibility of the affection of one mind
by another at a distance. The main proof of such affection is based on
the experiments already described, to which the spontaneous evidence
so far adduced must be regarded as illustrative and in some degree
auxiliary.
It will be more convenient, as a matter of arrangement, that the
spontaneous experiences first considered should be those which
resemble most closely the results of direct experiment, though this
classification has the disadvantage of placing in the forefront cases
of the least definite and striking kind; cases, that is, which are most
readily explicable as due to chance coincidence. It is on all grounds,
therefore, expedient that the reader should reserve his final verdict
until he has the whole case before him.
In the present chapter there will be adduced instances of the
spontaneous transference of (1) simple sensations; (2) ideas and
mental pictures; (3) emotional states; (4) impulses tending to action.
The first two classes, and in some measure the last, resemble the
results described in the first five chapters of this book; for the
third probably no direct experimental parallel can be offered, for the
sufficient reason that vivid and intense emotion cannot be evoked at
will.
_Transference of Simple Sensations._
We will begin by quoting two instances of the transference of simple
sensation. The first we owe to the kindness of Mr. Ruskin. The
percipient was Mrs. Severn, wife of the well-known landscape painter.
No. 41.--From MRS. ARTHUR SEVERN.
"BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,
_October_ 27_th_, 1883.
"I woke up with a start, feeling I had had a hard blow on my mouth,
and with a distinct sense that I had been cut and was bleeding
under my upper lip, and seized my pocket-handkerchief, and held
it (in a little pushed lump) to the part, as I sat up in bed, and
after a few seconds, when I removed it, I was astonished not to
see any blood, and only then realised it was impossible anything
could have struck me there, as I lay fast asleep in bed, and so I
thought it was only a dream!--but I looked at my watch, and saw it
was seven, and finding Arthur (my husband) was not in the room, I
concluded (rightly) that he must have gone out on the lake for an
early sail, as it was so fine.
"I then fell asleep. At breakfast (half-past nine), Arthur
came in rather late, and I noticed he rather purposely sat
farther away from me than usual, and every now and then put his
pocket-handkerchief furtively up to his lip, in the very way I had
done. I said, 'Arthur, why are you doing that?' and added a little
anxiously, 'I know you've hurt yourself! but I'll tell you why
afterwards.' He said, 'Well, when I was sailing, a sudden squall
came, throwing the tiller suddenly round, and it struck me a bad
blow in the mouth, under the upper lip, and it has been bleeding
a good deal and won't stop.' I then said, 'Have you any idea what
o'clock it was when it happened?' and he answered, 'It must have
been about seven.'
"I then told what had happened to _me_, much to _his_ surprise, and
all who were with us at breakfast.
"It happened here about three years ago at Brantwood, to me.
"JOAN R. SEVERN."
Mr. Severn wrote to us on the 15th November 1883, giving an account of
the trivial accident described by the percipient, and adding that after
leaving the boat he
"walked up to the house, anxious of course to hide as much as
possible what had happened to my mouth, and getting another
handkerchief walked into the breakfast-room, and managed to say
something about having been out early. In an instant my wife said,
'You don't mean to say you have hurt your mouth?' or words to that
effect. I then explained what had happened, and was surprised to
see some extra interest on her face, and still more surprised when
she told me she had started out of her sleep thinking she had
received a blow on the mouth! and that it was a few minutes past
seven o'clock, and wondered if my accident had happened at the same
time; but as I had no watch with me I couldn't tell, though, on
comparing notes, it certainly looked as if it had been about the
same time.
"ARTHUR SEVERN."
(_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp, 188, 189.)
So far as I know, this is a unique instance, if we limit ourselves to
first-hand evidence, of the spontaneous transference of a sensation
of pain to a waking percipient.[86] Impressions of the kind, indeed,
unless more definite and intense than the analogy of experiment gives
us warrant for anticipating, would as a rule be quickly forgotten, or
would be naturally ascribed to some other source than telepathy. We owe
the record of the present instance to the fortunate chance that the
agent and percipient met within an hour of the occurrence, and that the
pain of the percipient, though slight, was not such as could be readily
attributed to ordinary causes. In the next instance, also, where the
impression belonged to a different sense, the agent and percipient were
in the habit of meeting almost daily, otherwise it seems possible that
the coincidence would have escaped notice.
No. 42.--From MISS X.
The percipient was Miss X.; the agent was her friend D., already
referred to, who writes:--
"_April_ 13_th_, 1888.
"In the spring of 1881, in the evening after dinner, I accidentally
set fire to the curtains of a sitting-room, and put myself and
several others into some danger. The next morning, on visiting
X., I heard from her that she had been disturbed overnight by an
unaccountable smell of fire, which she could not trace, but which
seemed to follow her wherever she went. I was led to discover the
fire, and so probably to save the house, by what seemed a chance
thought of X. I had left the room, unconscious of anything wrong,
and had settled to my work elsewhere, when I suddenly remembered I
had not put away some papers I had been looking at, and which I had
thought might wait for daylight, but a strong feeling that X. would
insist upon order, had she been there, induced me to go back, when
I found the whole place in flames."
Miss X., in describing the case, adds: "I took considerable trouble to
ascertain the cause (of the smell of fire), and was quieted only by
the assurance that it was imperceptible to the rest of the household."
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 367.)
When we leave these simple modes of feeling, and consider the
affections of the higher senses of hearing and sight, we are confronted
with a new problem. Sensations of the first class are almost purely
homogeneous, they owe little or nothing to memory and imagination.
Moreover, though generally due to an external cause, they are in the
case of smell or taste occasionally, and in that of pain frequently,
excited by causes within the organism. It is not, therefore, a matter
calling for comment that in such cases the transferred idea should
assume a definitely sensory form. But when the organs of sight or
hearing are sensibly affected, past experience has taught us to look
for an external cause; the line between _idea_ and _sensation_ is here
sharply drawn and clearly understood.[87] The line, indeed, as drawn by
common use may not correspond to any real distinction in the nature of
the experience itself. Ideas may be only paler sensations, and a train
of thought nothing else than a series of suppressed hallucinations.
But at any rate the distinction, whether fundamental or not, serves
a useful purpose as a rough-and-ready means of classing our mental
experiences. A visual or auditory image either is on the same level
of intensity as the series of impressions which represent for us the
external world, or it falls below that level. In the former case we
call it a sensation or percept, in the latter, an idea. Sensations
and percepts may be again subdivided, as objective or hallucinatory,
according as they do or do not correspond to a supposed material cause.
In the experiments described in the first five chapters, it will have
been observed that when the transferred impression was of a visual
nature it generally remained ideal, rising occasionally, however, as
in some of the experiments with hypnotised percipients, and in Mr.
Kirk's cases, to the level of a complete sensory hallucination or
quasi-percept. In the present chapter it is proposed to deal with
auditory and visual phantasms which, so far as can be judged, were
of an ideal kind, though one or two of the cases cited may seem to
approximate to sensory embodiment. The more striking hallucinatory
effects will be reserved for later chapters.
_Transference of Ideas._
There is one kind of coincidence, so common as to have passed into
a proverb, which is often referred to as illustrating the action of
telepathy; that is, the idea of a person coming into the mind shortly
before the person himself actually approaches. In most of the cases
cited the coincidence is too indefinite to call for attention, as it
is obvious that the narrator has not taken the elementary precaution
of noting the "misses" as well as the "hits." But if telepathy acts
at all, there is no _à priori_ unlikelihood of its acting in this
direction as well as in others, and it is to be desired that persons
who believe themselves susceptible to impressions of the kind would
keep a full record of their occurrence. Two instances which happened
in his own recent experience are recorded by Professor Richet
(_Proceedings S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 52). Leaving such cases, however,
as too indefinite to have much evidential value, we may quote the
following as an example of an impression of a more detailed kind.
No. 43.--From MISS X.
On the 12th October 1891, Miss X. wrote to Mr. Myers as follows:--
"... I was much upset yesterday by the consciousness that a Master
B. (son of A. B.) had arrived unexpectedly upon the scene ...
no nurse--doctor three miles off--husband away. Being Sunday, I
could not telegraph, but the news as to hour and sex arrived this
morning. My impression was at 2.30 onwards. He arrived at 3.30,
and in the interval I heard her voice over and over again calling
my name. All is well now, but these impressions are not always
comfortable."
In a later letter Miss X. writes:--
"A.'s own account is that (about two, I think), when she was made
aware of her danger, the thought passed through her mind how
fortunate it was that the impossibility of telegraphing would
prevent anxiety at home, and then--that any way _I_ should know.
No one expected to have any cause for anxiety for at least a week.
Yes; I ought to have sent to Mrs. Sidgwick, but I was so wretchedly
ill that--don't shudder--I never at the time even _thought_ of the
S.P.R. I had been dreadfully worried all that week, and was utterly
worn out."
The coincidence is, no doubt, not of the strongest kind. But in
estimating its value it should not be overlooked that the impression
was sufficiently intense to produce a decided feeling of discomfort.
And though Miss X. unfortunately omitted to send an account of her
experience until after she had learnt of its partial correspondence
with the event, she did not know at the time when the first letter was
written that her impression was correct as regards the details of the
absence of husband and nurse. Whatever the value of the coincidence,
therefore, it seems clear that the account owes nothing to exaggeration
or unconscious reading back of details. With this may be compared a
narrative sent to me in December 1891, by the Rev. A. Sloman, Master
of Birkenhead School. On the 12th of the month, whilst Mrs. Sloman was
absent at a concert, a chimney in the school-house had caught fire,
and Mr. Sloman had been summoned from his work to give directions
for dealing with the mischief. On the matter being mentioned to Mrs.
Sloman on her return, she at once explained that during the concert,
just about the actual time of the fire, "I suddenly began to think
what you would do if the house took fire, and I distinctly pictured
you going into the kitchen and speaking about a wet blanket." The
account was written down and signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sloman on the
day of the occurrence, and the coincidence in time between event and
impression seems to be well established. It must be admitted that the
apprehension of fire may not improbably have a more or less permanent
place in the background of a housewife's consciousness; still, even a
slight outbreak of fire is not in an ordinary household a matter of
common occurrence.
The next case is interesting as presenting evidence of the transference
of an auditory impression. The account was originally published in the
_Spectator_ of June 24th, 1882:--
No. 44.--From MRS. BARBER.
"FERNDENE, ABBEYDALE, near SHEFFIELD,
_June_ 22_nd_, 1882.
"I had one day been spending the morning in shopping, and returned
by train just in time to sit down with my children to our early
family dinner. My youngest child--a sensitive, quick-witted little
maiden of two years and six weeks old--was one of the circle.
Dinner had just commenced, when I suddenly recollected an incident
in my morning's experience which I had intended to tell her, and I
looked at the child with the full intention of saying, 'Mother saw
a big black dog in a shop, with curly hair,' catching her eyes in
mine, as I paused an instant before speaking. Just then something
called off my attention, _and the sentence was not uttered_. What
was my amazement, about two minutes afterwards, to hear my little
lady announce, 'Mother saw a big dog in a shop.' I gasped. 'Yes, I
did!' I answered; 'but how did you know?' 'With funny hair,' she
added, quite calmly, and ignoring my question. 'What colour was it,
Evelyn?' said one of her elder brothers; 'was it black?' She said,
'Yes.'"