[Footnote 93: See _Animal Magnetism_, by Binet and Féré, in the
International Science Series, and the references there given.]
[Footnote 94: In many cases the post-hypnotic performance of an
enjoined action, or the experience of a post-hypnotic hallucination, is
associated with the partial recurrence of the hypnotic trance, or of
some condition closely allied to it. Mr. Edmund Gurney has carefully
investigated the question (_Proc. S.P.R._, iv. pp. 268-323. See also
Delbœuf's article there quoted, "De la pretendue Veille Somnambulique,"
_Rev. Phil._, Feb. 1887), and has shown that, with some subjects,
during the performance of the enjoined action a further command can be
given, or a further hallucination imposed, and that the whole incident
will have passed from memory a few seconds later. In the case of some
persons hypnotised by Dr. Bramwell, and bidden to see after waking
an imaginary scene in a crystal, I have myself observed that they
retained no recollection a few minutes later of the scene which they
had been describing; and in at least one case the subject at the time
of the hallucination was apparently insensible to pain. On the other
hand, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_loc. cit._, p. 270), "there are
some cases in which no reason whatever appears for regarding the state
in which the action is performed as other than normal," and the same
remark apparently holds good of post-hypnotic hallucinations. And there
are many persons who can see hallucinatory pictures in a crystal, a
glass of water, etc., when in full health and in a perfectly normal
condition. See Mr. Myers' article already referred to (_S.P.R._, vol.
viii.).]
[Footnote 95: _De la Suggestion_, p. 29.]
[Footnote 96: _La Somnambulisme provoqué_, p. 233.]
[Footnote 97: _Rev. de l'Hypnotisme_, November 1886, p. 148.]
[Footnote 98: Professor Sully, to quote a recent instance, in his work
on _Illusions_ in the International Scientific Series (ed. 1887),
devotes less than a page and a half to the discussion of the sensory
hallucinations of normal life, and sums up the subject by saying
that "when not brought on by exhaustion or artificial means, the
hallucinations of the sane have their origin in a preternatural power
of imagination" (p. 117).]
[Footnote 99: The question, which was worded as follows:--_Have you
ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid
impression of seeing, or being touched by a living being or inanimate
object, or of hearing a voice, which impression, so far as you could
discover, was not due to any external physical cause?_--was printed at
the top of a schedule containing twenty-five spaces for the names and
other particulars of those answering. Collectors were instructed not
to _select_ those of whom the question was asked; and to record alike
negative and affirmative answers. In the case of an affirmative answer
being received, further particulars were sought. For a full discussion
of the various sources of error incident to an inquiry of this nature,
and the precautions taken to avoid them, and for details of the results
obtained, the reader is referred to the Report of the Committee,
presented in a condensed form to the Congress of Experimental
Psychology which met in London in 1892, and to be published in full in
the _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part 26 (forthcoming).]
[Footnote 100: There was ill-health alone in about 5 per cent., anxiety
alone in about 11 per cent., and both ill-health and anxiety in about
1.7 per cent. of first-hand cases.]
[Footnote 101: Hallucinations occurring in the ambiguous state between
waking and sleeping are called by some writers _hypnagogic_. For the
purposes of our investigation, coincident hallucinations occurring
at times when it is doubtful whether the percipient is fully awake,
_e.g._, when he is in bed, are termed "borderland." Their evidential
value is, of course, somewhat less than that of hallucinations
occurring when the percipient is unquestionably awake. (See cases 57,
59, 65, 66, etc.)]
[Footnote 102: Including apparitions of persons not dead more than
twelve hours, and not known by the percipient to be dead.]
[Footnote 103: As opposed to "dream-illusions," which depend on various
organic sensations, or on the stimulation of the external organs of
sense. The distinction is made by Professor Sully, _loc. cit._, p. 139.]
[Footnote 104: These figures do not include second-hand cases. There
are besides 29 undated cases, most of which probably belong to the
remote period. See column 1 of table on p. 218 (visual cases).]
[Footnote 105: The calculation is based upon an analysis of the whole
number of visual cases reported during the most recent month, which
would indicate an annual rate of about 140. The figures for the most
recent quarter indicate an annual rate of about 120.]
[Footnote 106: A hallucination which _coincides_ with a death is
defined, for the purposes of this inquiry, as a hallucination which
occurs within twelve hours of the death.]
[Footnote 107: There is another possible explanation--viz., that some
of the recent death-coincidences have been withheld from us, on account
of the painful associations connected with them. That some cases--and
recent would be more affected than remote examples--have been withheld
on this account seems certain; but the explanation given in the text
must, it is thought, be held primarily responsible for the discrepancy
in the figures.]
[Footnote 108: Cases, that is, in which the collector is known or
suspected to have asked the question of the narrator, because he knew
that he was to receive an affirmative answer.]
[Footnote 109: The gross total of visual phantasms recorded at
first-hand as representing a living human being, or part of a human
being (_e.g._, a hand or a face), is 381. This total includes cases
given in columns 1, 4, and 5 of the table on p. 218. From this total we
have deducted 31 cases where the percipient has had other experiences
but has not enumerated them, and 28 cases which are estimated to have
occurred before the age of ten, leaving the total given in the text,
322.
Of the gross total of 381, 80 are alleged to have coincided with the
death of the person represented. Deducting in like manner 7 cases where
the percipient has had other unspecified experiences, and 8 where the
experience is believed to have occurred before the age of ten, we reach
the total of 65 given above.
As, however, more care was no doubt taken to procure first-hand
evidence in the case of apparitions coinciding with a death than in
other cases, it would perhaps lead to more accurate results if in the
larger total were included the second-hand non-coincidental cases,
38 in number. The reader can, if he prefer, work out the result for
himself on this basis. But it will, of course, be understood that it
is not practicable to sum up in a few pages the results of a long
investigation; and those readers who are interested in the nature
and distribution of casual hallucinations, and their relations to
telepathic apparitions, are referred to the forthcoming Report, from
which the figures in the text are quoted.]
CHAPTER X.
INDUCED TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.
In the present chapter we revert once more to experimental evidence.
The cases now to be discussed should, in the logical order, have
been included in Chapter V., and for a proper appreciation of their
theoretic bearings and evidential value they ought to be considered in
connection with the instances of thought-transference at a distance
there recorded. It seemed best, however, to separate these instances
of the experimental production of hallucinations at a distance, and
reserve them for subsequent treatment, with the view of anticipating
as far as possible the misconceptions to which this class of evidence
is peculiarly open. In brief, until some attempt had been made to
elucidate the nature of sensory hallucination in general, it seemed
unwise to introduce matter so controvertible as apparitions of
the human figure. For we are here assailing the last fortress of
superstition; in discussing such matters even educated persons find it
difficult to free themselves from the fetters of traditional modes of
thought and speech. Men who would be ashamed to think of earth, air,
fire, and water as elements, because they were so held a century ago
and are now so styled in the language of the market-place, will often
see no middle course between rejecting altogether evidence of the kind
here dealt with, and accepting the existence of "ghosts." But those
who have followed the argument of the preceding chapters will see, if
the possibility of thought-transference is granted, that the narratives
now to be presented fall naturally into place as illustrating one of
its modes of manifestation. That A. by taking thought should cause an
image of himself to appear to B. need provoke no more surprise than
that by the same means he should cause B. to see No. 27, or the Queen
of Hearts. No one demands a spiritual entity corresponding to the
Queen of Hearts, why then should any one believe in the other case
that A.'s spirit had left its fleshly tabernacle to interview B.? The
hallucinatory figure induced post-hypnotically in certain subjects
presents an even closer parallel. It is recognised by all in such a
case that the figure seen is a _thought_ fashioned by the subject's
mind, with no more substance than any other thought. It is only the
influence of an unrecognised animism which leads us to demand such a
substantial basis when the figure seen represents a dying man. The
impulse which led to the projection of the hallucination was in the one
case conveyed by word of mouth, in the other by some process as yet
not understood. But the mystery lies in the process rather than in the
result.
The present chapter, then, will contain instances of the action of
thought-transference in which the transmitted idea was translated
in the percipient's mind, not, as in most of the cases described in
previous chapters, into a simple feeling, or sensation, or dream,
but into a hallucination representing the human figure. Readers of
_Phantasms of the Living_ will remember the accounts there given (vol.
i. pp. 104-109) of some experiments made by a friend of ours, Mr. S.
H. B. On several occasions Mr. B. succeeded by an effort of will in
causing a phantom of himself to appear to acquaintances who were not
aware of his intention to try the experiment. On one occasion the
figure was seen by two persons simultaneously. As at that time results
of the kind were almost unprecedented, we felt, notwithstanding our
full confidence in Mr. B., some reluctance in publishing an account
of his experiments, lest isolated marvels of the kind might prejudice
our whole case. But fortunately, while _Phantasms of the Living_ was
actually passing through the press, we received from an independent
source an account of successful experiments of the same kind (see
below, case 63), and within a few weeks of its publication a friend of
the present writer was induced by a perusal of Mr. B.'s narrative to
make on his own account a similar trial, which completely succeeded.
This gentleman wrote to me on 16th November 1886 as follows:--
No. 61.--From the REV. CLARENCE GODFREY.
"I was so impressed by the account on p. 105 that I determined to
put the matter to an experiment.
"Retiring at 10.45 [on the 15th November 1886] I determined to
appear, if possible, to a friend, and accordingly I set myself
to work with all the volitional and determinative energy which I
possess, to stand at the foot of her bed. I need not say that I
never dropped the slightest hint beforehand as to my intention,
such as could mar the experiment, nor had I mentioned the subject
to her. As the 'agent' I may describe my own experiences.
"Undoubtedly the imaginative faculty was brought extensively into
play, as well as the volitional, for I endeavoured to _translate
myself_, spiritually, into her room, and to attract her attention,
as it were, while standing there. My effort was sustained for
perhaps eight minutes, after which I felt tired, and was soon
asleep.
"The next thing I was conscious of was meeting the lady next
morning (_i.e._, in a dream, I suppose?) and asking her at once
if she had seen me last night. The reply came, 'Yes.' 'How?' I
inquired. Then in words strangely clear and low, like a well
audible whisper, came the answer, 'I was sitting beside you.'
These words, so clear, awoke me instantly, and I felt I must have
been dreaming; but on reflection I remembered what I had been
'willing' before I fell asleep, and it struck me, 'This must be a
_reflex_ action from the percipient.' My watch showed 3.40 A.M.
The following is what I wrote immediately in pencil, standing
in my night-dress:--'As I reflected upon those clear words, they
struck me as being quite _intuitive_, I mean _subjective_, and to
have proceeded _from within, as my own conviction_, rather than a
communication from any one else. And yet I can't remember her face
at all, as one can after a vivid dream!'
"But the words were uttered in a clear, quick tone, which was most
remarkable, and awoke me at once.
"My friend in the note with which she sent me the enclosed account
of _her own_ experience, says:--'I remember the man put all the
lamps out soon after I came upstairs, and that is only done about a
quarter to four.'"
Mr. Godfrey received from the percipient on the 16th November an
account of her side of the experience, and at his request she wrote it
down as follows:--
"Yesterday--viz., the morning of November 16th, 1886--about
half-past three o'clock, I woke up with a start and an idea
that some one had come into the room. I heard a curious sound,
but fancied it might be the birds in the ivy outside. Next I
experienced a strange restless longing to leave the room and go
downstairs. This feeling became so overpowering that at last I rose
and lit a candle, and went down, thinking if I could get some soda
water it might have a quieting effect. On returning to my room I
saw Mr. Godfrey standing under the large window on the staircase.
He was dressed in his usual style, and with an expression on his
face that I have noticed when he has been looking very earnestly at
anything. He stood there, and I held up the candle and gazed at him
for three or four seconds in utter amazement, and then, as I passed
up the staircase, he disappeared. The impression left on my mind
was so vivid that I fully intended waking a friend who occupied the
same room as myself, but remembering that I should only be laughed
at as romantic and imaginative, refrained from doing so.
"I was not frightened at the appearance of Mr. Godfrey, but felt
much excited, and could not sleep afterwards."
On the 21st of the same month I heard a full account of the incident
given above from Mr. Godfrey, and on the day following from Mrs. ----.
Mrs. ---- told me that the figure appeared quite distinct and life-like
at first, though she could not remember to have noticed more than the
upper part of the body. As she looked it grew more and more shadowy,
and finally faded away. Mrs. ----, it should be added, told me that
she had previously seen two phantasmal figures, representing a parent
whom she had recently lost.[110]
Mr. Godfrey at our request made two other trials, without, of course,
letting Mrs. ---- know his intention. The first of these attempts was
without result, owing perhaps to the date chosen, as he was aware at
the time, being unsuitable. But a trial made on the 7th December 1886
succeeded completely. Mrs. ----, writing on December 8th, states that
she was awakened by hearing a voice cry, "Wake," and by feeling a hand
rest on the left side of her head. She then saw stooping over her a
figure which she recognised as Mr. Godfrey's.
In this last case the dress of the figure does not seem to have been
seen distinctly. But in the apparition of the 16th November, it will
be observed that the dress was that ordinarily worn in the daytime
by Mr. Godfrey, and that in which the percipient would be accustomed
to see him, _not_ the dress which he was actually wearing at the
time. If the apparition is in truth nothing more than an expression
of the percipient's thought this is what we should expect to find,
and as a matter of fact in the majority of well evidenced narratives
of telepathic hallucination this is what we actually do find. The
dress and surroundings of the phantasm represent, not the dress and
surroundings of the agent at the moment, but those with which the
percipient is familiar. If other proof were wanting, this fact would in
itself seem a sufficient argument that we have to deal, not with ghosts
but with hallucinations. It is to be regretted, however, that most
recent experimenters in this direction have succeeded only in producing
apparitions of themselves. But a crucial experiment of the kind desired
is to be found in an account published in 1822 by H. M. Wesermann,
Government Assessor and Chief Inspector of Roads at Düsseldorf. He
records five successful trials with different percipients, of which the
fifth seems worth quoting in full.[111]
No. 62.--From H. M. WESERMANN.
"A lady, who had been dead five years, was to appear to Lieutenant
----n in a dream at 10.30 P.M. and incite him to good deeds. At
half-past ten, contrary to expectation, Herr ----n had not gone
to bed, but was discussing the French campaign with his friend
Lieutenant S---- in the ante-room. Suddenly the door of the room
opened, the lady entered dressed in white, with a black kerchief
and uncovered head, greeted S---- with her hand three times in a
friendly manner; then turned to ----n, nodded to him, and returned
again through the doorway.
"As this story, related to me by Lieutenant ----n, seemed to be too
remarkable from a psychological point of view for the truth of it
not to be duly established, I wrote to Lieutenant S----, who was
living six[112] miles away, and asked him to give me his account of
it. He sent me the following reply:--
"'... On the 13th of March, 1817, Herr ----n came to pay me a visit
at my lodgings about a league from A----. He stayed the night with
me. After supper, and when we were both undressed, I was sitting on
my bed and Herr ----n was standing by the door of the next room on
the point also of going to bed. This was about half-past ten. We
were speaking partly about indifferent subjects and partly about
the events of the French campaign. Suddenly the door out of the
kitchen opened without a sound, and a lady entered, very pale,
taller than Herr ----n, about five feet four inches in height,
strong and broad of figure, dressed in white, but with a large
black kerchief which reached to below the waist. She entered with
bare head, greeted me with the hand three times in complimentary
fashion, turned round to the left towards Herr ----n, and waved her
hand to him three times; after which the figure quietly, and again
without any creaking of the door, went out. We followed at once
in order to discover whether there were any deception, but found
nothing. The strangest thing was this, that our night-watch of two
men whom I had shortly before found on the watch were now asleep,
though at my first call they were on the alert, and that the door
of the room, which always opens with a good deal of noise, did not
make the slightest sound when opened by the figure.
"'S.
"'D----n, January 11th, 1818.'
"From this story (Wesermann continues) the following conclusions
may be drawn:--
"(1) That waking persons, as well as sleeping, are capable of
perceiving the ideas [_Gedankenbilder_] of distant friends through
the inner sense as dream images. For not only the opening and
shutting of the door, but the figure itself--which, moreover,
exactly resembled that of the dead lady--was incontestably only a
dream in the waking state, since the door would have creaked as
usual had the figure really opened and shut it.
"(2) That many apparitions and supposed effects of witchcraft were
very probably produced in the same way.
"(3) That clairvoyants are not mistaken when they state that a
stream of light proceeds from the magnetiser to the distant friend,
which visibly presents the scene thought of, if the magnetiser
thinks of it strongly and without distraction."
More philosophic or more successful than recent investigators,
Wesermann, it will be seen, varied the form of his experiment. In the
first he caused his own figure to appear, but in each of the subsequent
trials he chose a fresh image, meeting on each occasion with equal
success. It should be observed, however, that though Wesermann seems
to have been a careful as well as a philosophic investigator, he
has omitted to record how often he made trials of this kind without
producing any result, and it cannot fairly be assumed that there were
no failures. But in comparing such cases as those here recorded with
the experiments at close quarters described in Chapters II., III., and
IV., it should be remembered that a failure which consists merely, as
in Mr. Godfrey's second trial, in the absence of any unusual impression
on the part of the percipient, detracts far less from the value of
occasional success than failures attested by the production of wrong
impressions; and further, that a sensory hallucination being a much
rarer phenomenon than an idea, the improbability of chance-coincidence
between a hallucination and the attempt (unknown to the percipient) to
produce it is greater in the same proportion.
Later experience has not confirmed Wesermann's third inference, as to
the stream of light proceeding from the agent; there are no grounds
for regarding such an appearance as other than subjective, due to the
percipient's preconceived ideas of what he ought to see. But another
feature in the narrative is more significant. One is led to infer both
from Herr S.'s description and from Wesermann's remarks in (1) that
the figure seen resembled a deceased lady who was not known to either
of the percipients. If this interpretation is correct, the figure seen
cannot have been subjective in the same sense as the hallucinations
described in Chapter IX. and Mr. Godfrey's apparition may be supposed
to have been. The latter were, _ex hypothesi_, _autoplastic_--_i.e._,
they were hallucinations built up in the percipient's own mind on
a nucleus supplied from without. But what Herren S. and ----n saw
was a _heteroplastic_ image, a picture like that of a diagram or a
card transferred ready-made from the agent's mind. We should not of
course be justified, on the evidence of a single narrative of somewhat
doubtful import, in concluding that such an origin for a hallucination
is possible. But there are a few narratives to be cited later (Chapter
XIII.) which also suggest such an interpretation.
In Mr. Godfrey's trials, as also in those made by Mr. S. H. B., the
agent was asleep at the time of the experiment.[113] In the two cases
which follow the agent was in a hypnotic trance. In the first instance,
it will be seen, there appears to have been a reciprocal effect,
the agent himself becoming aware at the time of the percipient's
surroundings, and of the effect produced on her by his influence. The
account was sent to us in January 1886.
No. 63.--From MR. H. P. SPARKS.
After describing various hypnotic experiments on a fellow-student, Mr.
A. H. W. Cleave, Mr. Sparks continues:--
"Last Friday evening (January 15th, 1886) he expressed his wish to
see a young lady living in Wandsworth, and he also said he would
try to make himself seen by her. I accordingly mesmerised him, and
continued the long passes for about 20 minutes, concentrating my
will on his idea. When he came round (I brought him round by just
touching his hand and willing him, after 1 hour and 20 minutes'
trance) he said he had seen her in the dining-room, and that after
a time she grew restless, and then suddenly looked straight at him
and then covered her eyes with her hands. Just after this he came
round. Last Monday evening (January 18th, 1886) we did the same
thing, and this time he said he thought he had frightened her, as
after she had looked at him for a few minutes she fell back in her
chair in a sort of faint. Her little brother was in the room at
the time. Of course, after this we expected a letter if the vision
was real; and on Wednesday morning he received a letter from this
young lady asking whether anything had happened to him, as on
Friday evening she was startled by seeing him standing at the door
of the room. After a minute he disappeared, and she thought that it
might have been fancy; but on the Monday evening she was still more
startled by seeing him again, and this time much clearer, and it so
frightened her that she nearly fainted.
"This account I send you is perfectly true, I will vouch, for I
have two independent witnesses who were in the dormitory at the
time when he was mesmerised, and when he came round. My patient's
name is Arthur H. W. Cleave, and his age is 18 years. A. C. Darley
and A. S. Thurgood, fellow-students, are the two witnesses I
mentioned.
"H. PERCY SPARKS."
Mr. Cleave writes, on March 15th, 1886:--
"H.M.S. _Marlborough_, PORTSMOUTH.
"Sparks and myself have, for the past eighteen months, been in the
habit of holding mesmeric séances in our dormitories. For the first
month or two we got no very satisfactory results, but after that we
succeeded in sending one another to sleep. I could never get Sparks
further than the sleeping state, but he could make me do anything
he liked whilst I was under the influence; so I gave up trying
to send him off, and all our efforts were made towards my being
mesmerised. After a short time we got on so well that Sparks had
three or four other fellows in the dormitory to witness what I did.
I was quite insensible to all pain, as the fellows have repeatedly
pinched my hands and legs without my feeling it. About six months
ago I tried my power of will, in order, while under the influence,
to see persons to whom I was strongly attached. For some time I
was entirely unsuccessful, although I once thought that I saw my
brother (who is in Australia), but had no opportunity of verifying
the vision.
"A short time ago I tried to see a young lady whom I know very
well, and was perfectly surprised at my success. I could see her as
plainly as I can see now, but I could not make myself seen by her,
although I had often tried to. After I had done this several times
I determined to try and make myself seen by her, and told Sparks
of my idea, which he approved. Well, we tried this for five nights
running without any more success. We then suspended our endeavours
for a night or two, as I was rather over-exerted by the continued
efforts and got severe headaches. We then tried again (on, I
think it was, a Friday, but am not certain), and were, I thought,
successful; but as the young lady did not write to me about it, I
thought I must have been mistaken, so I told Sparks that we had
better give up trying. But he begged me to try once more, which
we did on the following Monday, when we were successful to such
an extent that I felt rather alarmed. (I must tell you that I am
in the habit of writing to the young lady every Sunday, but I did
not write that week, in order to make her think about me.) This
took place between 9.30 P.M. and 10 P.M. Monday night, and on the
following Wednesday morning I got the letter which I have enclosed.
I, of course, then knew I had been successful. I went home about a
fortnight after this, when I saw the young lady, who seemed very
frightened in spite of my explanations, and begged me never to try
it again, and I promised her that I would not."
The two witnesses of the experiment last described write as follows:--
"I have seen Mr. Cleave's account of his mesmeric experiment, and
can fully vouch for the truth thereof.
"A. C. DARLEY."
"I have read Mr. Cleave's statement, and can vouch for the truth of
it, as I was present when he was mesmerised and heard his statement
after he revived.
"A. E. S. THURGOOD."
The following is a copy, made by Mr. Gurney, of the letter in which the
young lady, Miss A----, described her side of the affair. The envelope
bore the postmarks, "Wandsworth, Jan. 19, 1886," "Portsmouth, Jan. 20,
1886," and the address, "Mr. A. H. W. Cleave, H.M.S. _Marlborough_,
Portsmouth."
"WANDSWORTH, _Tuesday morning_.
"DEAR ARTHUR,--Has anything happened to you? Please write and let
me know at once, for I have been so frightened.
"Last Tuesday evening I was sitting in the dining [room] reading,
when I happened to look up, and could have declared I saw you
standing at the door looking at me. I put my handkerchief to my
eyes, and when I looked again you were gone. I thought it must have
been only my fancy, but last night (Monday), while I was at supper,
I saw you again, just as before, and was so frightened that I
nearly fainted. Luckily only my brother was there, or it would have
attracted attention. Now do write at once and tell me how you are.
I really cannot write any more now."
It will be seen that Miss A---- fixes the date of her first
hallucination on _Tuesday_, whereas Mr. Sparks and Mr. Cleave speak of
it as _Friday_. Mr. Gurney, in conversation with the experimenters,
was unable to fix the actual date with any certainty, but there can
be little doubt that if Tuesday was the day, it fell within the five
days on which Mr. Cleave attempted to see Miss A----. Of the second
coincidence there can be no doubt.
The next case is recorded by Mr. F. W. H. Myers (_Journal S.P.R._,
March 1891), who writes:--
No. 64.
"In 1888 a gentleman, whom I will call Mr. A., who has occupied a
high public position in India, and whom I have known a long time,
informed me verbally that he had had a remarkable experience. He
awoke one morning, in India, very early, and in the dawning light
saw a lady, whom I will call Mrs. B., standing at the foot of his
bed. At the same time he received an impression that she needed
him. This was his sole experience of a hallucination; and it so
much impressed him that he wrote to the lady, who was in England at
the time, and mentioned the circumstance. He afterwards heard from
her that she had been in a trance-condition at the time, and had
endeavoured to appear to him by way of an experiment.
"Mr. A. did not give me the lady's name, supposing that she did not
desire the incident to be spoken of; nor did he find an opportunity
of himself inquiring as to her willingness to mention the matter."
Subsequently, on July 13th, 1890, the agent, Mrs. B., wrote of her own
accord to Mr. Myers. Mrs. B. began by stating that she had submitted
herself to be experimented upon by a lady friend, with the view of
acquiring clairvoyant faculties. She then described how in the course
of one experiment in 1886 she lost consciousness of outward things, and
saw the figure of a tall woman, whom she recognised as a friend of her
mother's, standing by her. Then she goes on:--
"I find myself seriously debating within myself what I should do to
prove to myself, and for my own satisfaction, if I am indeed the
victim of hallucination or not. I decided in a flash on a man whom
I knew to be possessed of the most work-a-day world common-sense;
his views and mine regarding most things were at the antipodes,
very unreceptive, who would be entirely out of sympathy with me in
my present experiment and experiences, at which I knew he would
only laugh, while regarding me as a simple tool in tricky hands.
Such a man was, I decided, the most satisfactory for my trial. The
grey lady here impressed me with a desire to will; in her anxiety
she appeared to move towards me. I felt her will one with mine,
and I willed with a concentrated strength of mind and body, which
finally prostrated me, thus: I will that [Mr. A.] may feel I am
near him and want his help; and that, without any suggestion from
me, he write to tell me I have influenced him to-night.
"The grey lady disappeared. I was seated in the chair, weary, but
feeling naturally, and back in common-place life. We put down the
date and the appearance of the grey lady, and I spoke to none of
what had happened. Some weeks passed, when I received a letter from
[Mr. A.], asking how had I been employed on a certain July evening
at such and such an hour, mentioning to what hour it would answer
in London--day, date, and hour were those on which I had made my
proof trial--saying that he was asleep, and had dreamed something
he would tell me, but that he awoke from the dream feeling I wanted
something of him, and asking me to let him know if at the time he
so carefully mentioned I had been doing anything which had any
reference to him. I then, and then only, told him what I have here
related."
Unfortunately Mr. A., on being again appealed to, refused to write
an account of his own experience, on the ground that his memory for
details might by lapse of time have become untrustworthy. The case is
therefore defective, not merely by the length of time which passed
between the incident and the agent's record of it, but by the absence
of any direct testimony from the percipient. It will be seen that Mrs.
B. writes of Mr. A.'s impression as a _dream_. It seems clear, however,
that Mr. A. did not himself regard his experience as a dream.
An interesting account is given by Miss Edith Maughan (_Journal
S.P.R._) of a similar experiment made by her in the summer of 1888.
She was reading in bed when the idea occurred to her of "willing" to
appear to her friend, Miss Ethel Thompson, who occupied the adjoining
room. After concentrating her attention strongly for a few minutes she
"felt dizzy and only half-conscious." On recovering full consciousness
she heard Miss Thompson's voice speaking in the next room. The time was
about 2 A.M. As a matter of fact, Miss Thompson, who was fully awake,
was disturbed between 2 and 3 A.M. by seeing at the bedside the figure
of Miss Maughan, which disappeared instantly on a light being struck.
It is not perhaps possible under the circumstances, in view of Miss
Maughan's own statement that she was only semi-conscious during part of
the experiment, absolutely to exclude the hypothesis that the figure
seen was that of Miss Maughan in some state analogous to somnambulism,
and the case is not therefore given in full; but it is important to
note that both ladies--and we have reason to know that they are good
observers--are convinced that the figure seen was not that of Miss
Maughan in the flesh, and the rapidity of the disappearance is a
further argument against such a supposition.
In the cases so far dealt with the agent, when his state is recorded,
was asleep or entranced at the time of the experiment, whilst the
percipient appears as a rule to have been awake. In the cases which
follow the agent was awake, but the percipient, in two of the cases--if
not also in the third--seems to have seen the hallucinatory figure
in the borderland state on awaking from sleep. In two of the cases
the agent, no doubt intentionally, chose a time when he had reason
to believe that the percipient would be asleep; in the third case,
whilst the experiments at night failed, success was obtained when the
percipient had fallen asleep unexpectedly in the daytime. In view
of the absence of any well-attested cases in which both agent and
percipient are shown to have been fully awake immediately before and at
the time of the experiment,--in case 62 (Wesermann) the state of the
agent, and in case 66 (Wiltse) that of the percipient, is not clearly
shown,--it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the condition of
sleep or trance in one or both parties to the experiment is favourable
to transference of this kind. That sleep, or rather the borderland
which lies on either side of sleep, is peculiarly favourable to the
production in the _percipient_, not only of hallucinations in general,
but of telepathic hallucinations in particular, has already been
shown. But the instances cited in the present chapter would seem to
indicate that in the agent also sleep and trance (or possibly a trance
self-induced in sleep or in waking) may facilitate such transmissions.
No. 65.--From DR. VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING.
We received the following case from Baron von Schrenck-Notzing, some
of whose experiments have been already quoted (No. 9, p. 54). Dr. von
Schrenck-Notzing first gave an account of the incident verbally to
Professor Sidgwick at Munich, and subsequently, at his request, sent
in June 1888 the following written narrative:--
"In the winter of 1886-87, I think it was in the month of February,
as I was going along the Barerstrasse one evening at half-past 11,
it occurred to me to make an attempt at influencing at a distance,
through mental concentration. As I had had, for some time, the
honour of being acquainted with the family of Herr ----, and thus
had had the opportunity of learning that his daughter, Fräulein
----, was sensitive to psychical influences, I decided to try to
influence her, especially as the family lived at the corner of the
Barerstrasse and Karlstrasse. The windows of the dwelling were dark
as I passed by, from which I concluded that the ladies had already
gone to rest. I then stationed myself by the wall of the houses on
the opposite side of the road, and for about five minutes firmly
concentrated my thoughts on the following desire:--Fräulein ----
shall wake and think of me. Then I went home. The next day when I
met Fräulein ----'s friend on the ice, I learned from her (they
shared a bedroom between them) that something strange had happened
to the ladies during the preceding night. I remarked thereupon
to Fräulein Prieger (such was the friend's name) that the time
when the occurrence took place was between half-past 11 and 12;
whereat she was greatly astonished. Then I obtained from the lady
an account of the circumstance, as she herself has written it out
on the accompanying sheet of paper. For me the success of this
experiment was a proof that under certain circumstances one person
can influence another at a distance.
"ALBERT FREIHERR VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING."
The percipient, Miss ----, writes on May 11th, 1888:--
"There is not much to tell concerning the incident of which you
ask me to give an account. It happened thus:--Baron Schrenck was
returning home one night in March 1887 (or April, I am not sure
as to the date), about 11.30, and stood for some time outside my
bedroom window, which looked onto the street. I was in bed at the
time, lying with closed eyes, nearly asleep. It seemed to me as if
the part of the room where my bed was had become suddenly light,
and I felt compelled to open my eyes, seeing at the same time, as
it appeared to me, the face of Baron Schrenck. It was gone again
as quick as lightning. The next day I told my friend Fräulein
Prieger of this occurrence; she went skating that same day, and
met Baron Schrenck on the ice. They had scarcely conversed
together five minutes before he asked Fräulein Prieger if I had
seen anything last night. Fräulein Prieger repeated what I had told
her, whereupon Baron Schrenck said that, at the time of my seeing
him, he was standing outside my window, trying hard to impress his
presence upon me. This never occurred again, and I believe Baron
Schrenck did not have occasion to repeat the experiment."
In a further letter Miss ---- adds (1) that the blinds of her room were
drawn down, (2) that she has experienced no other hallucination of any
kind.
Fräulein Prieger, whose account was enclosed in Dr. von
Schrenck-Notzing's letter of June 1888, writes:--
"The winter before last, shortly after Christmas, I was suddenly
awakened in the night, between 11 and 12 o'clock, by my friend
----, who asked me in an excited manner if I _also_ saw Baron
von Schrenck, who was close by her bed. On my objecting that she
had been dreaming, and should now quietly go to sleep again, she
repeated that she had been completely awake, and had seen Baron von
Schrenck so close to her that she could have caught hold of his
beard. By degrees she quieted herself, and we both went to sleep.
"The following day, on my way home from the ice, I told Baron von
Schrenck of this exciting nocturnal scene, and noticed to my not
slight astonishment that he seemed greatly rejoiced, as though over
a successful experiment which had received its completion in what I
communicated to him.
"LINA PRIEGER.
"Gubelsbergerstrasse, 15 I."
It is much to be regretted that none of the persons concerned thought
it worth while to write down an account of the incident at the time. It
will be observed that even in the comparatively short interval--little
more than a year--which elapsed before this was done, one slight
discrepancy, as to the time at which Fräulein Prieger was told of the
impression, has crept into the narrative. But it seems clear that
Miss ---- told her experience before Fräulein Prieger met Baron von
Schrenck-Notzing.
In the next two cases also the result here recorded is one of many
successful experiments in thought-transference made by the agent (see
Chapter XV.).
No. 66.--From DR. WILTSE, Skiddy, Kansas, U.S.A.
"_March_ 16_th_, 1891.
"Some weeks ago several persons were passing the evening at my
house, and two children, a little girl of eight years and a boy
of six years, whose mother is stopping with us, had been put to
bed in an adjoining room, the door between the rooms being closed.
The company were engaged in games that did not interest me, and I
took a seat some five feet from the bedroom door and began trying
to make the boy see my form in the room at his bedside, he being
on the front side of the bed. I knew the children were awake, as I
could hear them laughing. After some ten or fifteen minutes, the
boy suddenly screamed as if frightened, and, hurrying in there,
I found the little fellow buried up in the bedclothes and badly
frightened, but he seemed ashamed of his fright and would not tell
me what was the matter.
"I kept the matter of my having tried an experiment a thorough
secret, and after some two weeks it came out through the little
girl that Charlie thought he saw a "great big tiger standing by
his bed looking at him, and he could see Uncle Hime (myself) in
the tiger's eyes." What was the tiger? I had not thought of any
form but my own. The child lives in Cleveland, Ohio, and has seen
the collections in Zoological Gardens, but has not been taught
the different colours. I have just now shown him the plates in
Wood's _Natural History_, and he pointed out a lion as the animal
he saw, but as the plates are not coloured, they are little good
for the purpose; but as I began at the back of the book and took
through all sorts first, and the lion was the first and only animal
designated by him as the one he had seen in the room, I conclude
he was near enough to the classification for our purpose. No one
but myself knew of my experiment until the children had told their
story.
"A. S. WILTSE."
Dr. Wiltse writes later:--
"SKIDDY, MORRIS CO., KANSAS,
_March_ 29_th_, 1891.
"I tried one more experiment of the same kind with the little boy,
but failed, but I was conscious of wavering in mind during the
whole course of the experiment, and besides this there were other
unfavourable conditions. The child's mother was absent for the
evening and the children with my own boy (aged fifteen) were making
Rome howl in the way of untrammelled fun."
Mrs. Wiltse and Dr. Wiltse's son write as follows:--
"SKIDDY, KANSAS,
_March_ 28_th_, 1891.
"I was present when Josie Skene told papa what her brother Charlie
was scared about.
"She said that Charlie throwed the cover over his head and told her
that he saw a tiger, and Uncle Hime, as he called papa, was in the
tiger's eyes.
"JASON WILTSE."
"I certify that the above statement is substantially correct, as I
also heard the little girl relate it.
"MRS. HAIDEE WILTSE."
Mrs. Charles Skene, the mother of the little boy, writes:--
"153 PLATT STREET [CLEVELAND, OHIO],
_April_ 9_th_, 1891.
"Your letter dated the 6th came to hand to-day. I was on a visit
to the Dr. and his family, and one evening he said he would try an
experiment on my little boy; it was about seven o'clock and they
had just been put to bed. The Dr. wanted to make him see him by his
bedside, and him in the other room, and he did; he saw him in the
form of a tiger and he also had tigers in his eyes. He commenced to
shout, and said he was frightened, but did not say any more, he was
so frightened. This is my daughter's statement as far as she can
recollect.
"If there are any more questions you would like me to answer I will
gladly do so. I was not at home the night this happened.
"MRS. CHAS. SKENE."
Later she adds:--
"_April_ 27_th_, 1891.
"Your letter of the 17th came to hand. I do not know the date, but
it was about the middle of February, on a Wednesday evening. My
little boy is six years old; he remembers it well, and often talks
of it."
Mrs. Skene added, in answer to a question, that the boy did not know
that the experiment was being tried on him. It should be added that Mr.
Rasero, who was present, wrote, on the 30th October 1891, to confirm
Dr. Wiltse's statement that nothing was said beforehand about trying an
experiment of any kind.
The tiger in this experiment appears to have been a confused nightmare
effect produced by the telepathic impression on the mind of the child
percipient. In the next case, it will be seen, the percept appears to
have been unusually clear and distinct.
No. 67.--From JOSEPH KIRK.[114]
Mr. Kirk has made several attempts to produce a hallucination of
himself. Writing to us on the 7th July 1890, he stated that without
the knowledge of his friend and neighbour, Miss G., he tried each
night, from the 10th to the 20th of June, and once on the 11th in the
afternoon, to induce her to see a hallucination of himself. From casual
conversation, however, with Miss G. he gathered that no effect had been
produced. But on June 23rd Mr. Kirk learned that the trial made on
June 11th, the day and hour of which had been noted at the time, had
completely succeeded. He thus describes the occasion:--
"2 RIPON VILLAS, PLUMSTEAD.
"... I had been rather closely engaged on some auditing work,
which had tired me, and as near as I can remember the time was
between 3.30 and 4 P.M. that I laid down my pencil, stretched
myself, and in the act of doing the latter I was seized with the
impulse to make a trial on Miss G. I did not, of course, know
where she was at the moment, but, with a flash, as it were, I
transferred myself to her bedroom. I cannot say why I thought of
that spot, unless it was that I did so because my first experiment
had been made there--_i.e._, on the previous night, the 10th June.
As it happened, it was what I must call a 'lucky shot,' for I
caught her at the moment she was lightly sleeping in her chair--a
condition which seems to be peculiarly favourable to receiving and
externalising telepathic messages.
"The figure seen by Miss G. was clothed in a suit I was at the
moment wearing, and was _bareheaded_, the latter as would be the
case, of course, in an office. This suit is of a dark reddish-brown
_check_ stuff, and it was an unusual circumstance for me to have
had on the _coat_ at the time, as I wear, as a rule, an office
coat of _light_ material. But this office coat I had, a day or so
before, sent to a tailor to be repaired, and I had, therefore, to
keep on that belonging to the dark suit.
"I tested the reality of the vision by this dark suit. I asked,
'How was I dressed?' (not at all a leading question). The reply
of Miss G. was, touching the sleeve of the coat I was then wearing
(of a _light_ suit), 'Not this coat, but that dark suit you wear
sometimes. I even saw clearly the _small check_ pattern of it;
and I saw your features as plainly as though you had been bodily
present. I _could not_ have seen you more distinctly.'"
Miss G.'s account is:--
"_June_ 28_th_, 1890.
"A peculiar occurrence happened to me on the Wednesday of the
week before last. In the afternoon (being tired by a morning
walk), while sitting in an easy-chair near the window of my own
room, I fell asleep. At any time I happen to sleep during the day
(which is but seldom) I invariably awake with tired, uncomfortable
sensations, which take some little time to pass off; but that
afternoon, on the contrary, I was suddenly quite wide awake,
seeing Mr. Kirk standing near my chair, dressed in a dark brown
coat, which I had frequently seen him wear. His back was towards
the window, his right hand towards me; he passed across the room
towards the door, which is opposite the window, the space between
being 15 feet, the furniture so arranged as to leave just that
centre clear; but when he got about 4 feet from the door, which was
closed, he disappeared.
* * * * *
"I feel sure I had not been dreaming of him, and cannot remember
that anything had happened to cause me even to think of him that
afternoon before falling asleep."
Mr. Kirk writes later:--
"I have only succeeded once in making myself visible to Miss G.
since the occasion I have already reported, and that had the
singularity of being only my features--my face in _miniature_, that
is, about _three inches_ in diameter."
In a letter dated January 19th, 1891, Mr. Kirk says as to this last
appearance:--
"Miss G. did not record this at the time, as she attached no
importance to it, but I noted the date (July 23rd) on my office
blotting-pad, as it was at the office I was thinking of her. I
say 'thinking,' because I was doing so in connection with another
subject, and with no purpose of making an experiment. I had a
headache, and was resting my head on my left hand. Suddenly it
occurred to me that my thinking about her might probably influence
her in some way, and I made the note I have mentioned."
Mr. Kirk enclosed in his statement to us the piece of blotting-paper on
which the note of the second successful experiment had been made. The
fact that the hallucination in the first case included a representation
of the clothes actually worn by the agent at the time may have been a
mere coincidence. But the case should be borne in mind in considering
the possibility of heteroplastic hallucination.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 110: These details are taken from notes made by the writer
immediately after the interview.]
[Footnote 111: _Der Magnetismus und die allgemeine Weltsprache._ A
brief account of the five trials, quoted from the _Archiv für den
thierischen Magnetismus_, vol. vi. pp. 136-139, will be found in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 101, 102. In the other cases the
impression was produced in a _dream_. The distance varied from 1/8 of a
mile to 9 miles in the case quoted in the text.]
[Footnote 112: In Wesermann's book, as also in the account given in
the _Archiv_, the account is headed "Fifth experiment at a distance of
_nine_ miles."]
[Footnote 113: Wesermann unfortunately does not record his own state at
the time of the experiments.]
[Footnote 114: See Nos. 37, 38, 39, Chapter V.]
CHAPTER XI.
SPONTANEOUS TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.
In the last chapter we gave illustrations of telepathic hallucinations
induced by an act of voluntary concentration on the part of the agent.
The hallucinatory effects now to be described were produced without
design, and in some cases, it would appear, without the conscious
direction of the agent's thoughts to the person affected. They purport,
in fact, to have been the spontaneous outcome of some emotional stress
on the part of the person whom the hallucination represented.
_Auditory Hallucinations._
We will begin by quoting two examples of auditory hallucination.
No. 68.--From MISS C. CLARK.
"1889.
"I heard some one sobbing one evening last August (1888) about 10
P.M. It was in the house in Dunbar, Scotland, as I was preparing
to go to bed. Feeling convinced that it was my youngest sister, I
advised another sister not to go into the next room, whence the
sounds seemed to proceed. After waiting with me a few minutes this
sister went into the dining-room, and returned to me saying that
our youngest sister was in the dining-room, and not crying at all.
Then I at once thought there must be something the matter with
my greatest friend, a girl of twenty-four, then in Lincolnshire.
I wrote to her next day, asking her if, and at what hour on the
previous night, she had been crying. In her next letter she said,
'Yes, she was suffering great pain with toothache just at the
time, and was unable to restrain a few sobs.' ... This has been the
only similar experience I have had."
I have seen the letter referred to, together with three others,
extracts from which are given below. It will be seen that Miss Clark
was mistaken in supposing that she wrote _next day_. The letter was
actually begun three days after--on the Wednesday--and completed on
the subsequent day, after the receipt of Miss Maughan's letter written
on the Tuesday evening. In view, however, of the fact that Miss Clark
wrote of her impression before the receipt of her friend's letter, the
mistake seems not material.
From MISS CLARK.
"DUNBAR,
"Wednesday, _August_ 22_nd_, 1888, 9 P.M.
"Were you crying on Sunday night near eleven o'clock? Because I
_distinctly_ heard some one crying, and supposed it was H. in the
next room, but she was not there at all.
"Then I thought it must be something 'occult,' and that it might be
you, and I felt so horrid."
"Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 1888, 4.45 P.M.
"Thank you very much for your letter just come. I am so sorry your
face was sore. Did it make you cry on Sunday night?"
From MISS MAUGHAN.
(The cover of this letter has been preserved, and bears the postmark,
"Spilsby, Aug. 22nd, 1888.")
"Tuesday Evening, _Aug._ 21_st_, 1888.
"On Sunday we went to see Wroxham Broad. We had an immense amount
of walking to do altogether, and I think I got a little cold in my
face in the morning, and all night I suffered with it, and my face
is swelled still."
In a second letter Miss Maughan writes:--
"Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 11 P.M.
"I am putting poultices on my gums. I have never had such a
huge swelling before, and it _won't_ go down. It is so horribly
uncomfortable."
"Saturday Afternoon.
"Thanks for letter. Yes, I was crying on Sunday night; only on
account of the pain. It was awful, but I only cried quietly, as
Edith was asleep...."
From MISS CLARK.
"Monday, _August_ 27_th_, 1888, 10.30 A.M.
"Thanks for your letter. I am sorry it was you crying. You don't
seem at all struck. I was very much so. It was a subdued sort
(_sic_) I heard, and thought H. was trying not to let it be heard.
I shall always be afraid now of hearing things."
The sound here was of an inarticulate kind, nor was it immediately
referred to the actual agent, and both these facts must be held to
detract from the evidential value of the coincidence. In the next case,
however, the voice, it will be seen, was at once recognised. The voice
in this case awoke the percipient, and the impression should therefore
be classed as a hallucination rather than as a dream, but it was of
the "borderland" type. The uneasiness caused to the percipient, as
attested by the letter and telegram sent, is sufficient proof that the
impression was of a kind unusual in his experience.
No. 69.--From MR. WILLIAM TUDOR.
"AUBURNDALE, MASS., _July_ 11_th_, 1890.
"Your favour[115] of the 30th ult., addressed to Mrs. Tudor, I will
answer, as the incident more directly concerned me.
"Late in the evening of Monday, March 17th, near midnight, my
nephew, Frederic Tudor, Jun., fell in front of an electric car
going to Cambridge, was dragged some distance and so badly injured
that for a time his life was in doubt, though he recovered with the
loss of a foot. My wife heard of the accident on Tuesday afternoon
and was much distressed all the night of Tuesday, and quite
restless and wakeful.
"At this time I was in Gainesville, Florida, having important
business there in connection with land purchases. On the night of
Tuesday I went to bed rather early in a calm state of mind. I
slept soundly, as I usually do. About midnight, as I should judge,
I heard my wife call my name quite distinctly and waked instantly
broad awake. I sat up in bed, but soon remembering where I was,
fell asleep again and waked no more until morning. The next day
the incident of the night made me quite uneasy, also during the
following day, and as I was obliged to leave on the afternoon of
Friday for a rough journey in the country I telegraphed to my wife
to know what was the matter. I usually receive a letter from home
every day, and on these days no letter arrived, which added to
my uneasiness. No answer was received to my first telegram, for
the very good reason that it was never delivered. I was obliged
to start, however, in the afternoon of this day, Friday the 21st,
and in the morning of the 22nd, from a small town called New
Branford, sent another telegram, of which the following is the
substance:--'Shall be gone three days; what has happened? Answer
Branford.' I had a strong impression that something serious had
occurred, that my wife was possibly ill, or some of the children
were ill, or that some accident or death had occurred to a near
relation, not however involving my immediate family. The following
extracts from my letters will illustrate this feeling:--
"Letter of March 19th:
"'I thought you called me last night. I waked up and was much
worried; I hope you are not ill.'
"Letter of March 22nd, from New Branford:
"'No answer comes to my telegram, although I left word to have
it forwarded here. Surely some one would telegraph if you were
ill. Surely you would let me know if anything had happened. I
do not _feel_ that anything serious has happened, and yet I
cannot understand such a combination of circumstances. I have
no confidence in these telegraph people, and daresay you never
received my message.'
"Letter of March 24th, from Gainesville, after telegram giving
account of accident was finally received:
"'I had a feeling that something was wrong but that you were all
right.'
"Such I give as the substance of the facts in this case, which I
trust may be interesting to the Society.
"WILLIAM TUDOR."
Mrs. W. Tudor writes:--
"AUBURNDALE, _July_ 29_th_, 1890.
"My nephew's accident occurred on Monday night. Being out of town
I heard of it on Tuesday afternoon. I immediately went to Boston
and returned the same evening about nine o'clock, feeling greatly
distressed. I wrote a letter to my husband after my return
describing the accident and retired to bed rather late and passed
a restless night. The telegram received from my husband rather
surprised me, as he is not usually anxious when away from home. I
believe this is all I know connected with this incident.
ELIZABETH TUDOR."
An account of a similar experience was sent to us in 1889 by the late
Sir John Drummond Hay, K.C.B. He wrote that about 1 A.M. on some day
in February 1879 he heard distinctly the voice of his daughter-in-law
saying, "Oh, I wish papa only knew that Robert was ill." Sir John awoke
Lady Drummond Hay to tell her what he had heard, and made a note of the
incident in his diary. It was shortly ascertained that Mr. R. D. Hay
had been taken seriously ill on that night, and that Mrs. Hay had used
the words heard. Sir John's account is confirmed by Lady Hay and Mrs.
R. D. Hay.
_Visual Hallucinations._
The comparative frequency of auditory hallucinations, and especially
the ease with which auditory illusions can be built up on a basis of
real sound, render coincidences of the kind, even the best attested, of
less service to support, however valuable as illustrating, the theory
of telepathy. Visual hallucinations, however, present us with a much
rarer type of impression, and one in which explanation by illusion
is comparatively seldom possible. Telepathic hallucinations, like
ordinary non-coincidental hallucinations, may assume various forms, and
instances of grotesque and partially developed visual impressions are
not wanting. Thus we have a case in which the face of a dying relative
was recognised in the middle of a large ball of light like a firework
(_Journal_, October 1891); and Mr. Sherer, of Amble, Northumberland,
tells us that he saw reflected in a ship's compass the face of a young
lady to whom he was engaged, at about the time of her death. In the
following case the hallucination, though still far from complete,
appears to have been more realistic and more fully developed.
No. 70.--From COUNTESS EUGENIE KAPNIST.
[Writing on June 24th, 1891, the percipient explains that in
February 1889 she and her sister made the acquaintance at Talta of
a Mr. P., who was at that time in an advanced stage of consumption.
On one occasion, in the course of conversation, Mr. P. promised
Countess Ina Kapnist, in the presence of the narrator, that should
he die before her he would endeavour to appear to her. The Countess
and her sister met Mr. P. occasionally after this conversation, and
frequently saw him walking about in a nut-brown overcoat, which
caused them some amusement. They left Talta, however, in May 1889,
and in the course of a few months had completely forgotten Mr. P.
and his wife, whom they regarded merely in the light of ordinary
acquaintances. On the 12th March 1890 the two ladies, on their way
home from the theatre, drove to the railway station with a friend
who was to return at 1 A.M. to Tsarskoé.]
"On leaving the station," the Countess writes, "our servant went
on before to find the carriage, so that on reaching the steps we
found it had driven up and was waiting for us. My sister was the
first to take her seat; I kept her waiting, as I descended the
steps more slowly; the servant held the door of the landau open.
With one foot on the step I suddenly stood still, arrested in the
act of entering the carriage, and stunned with surprise. It was
dark inside the carriage, and nevertheless, facing my sister and
looking at her, I saw in a faint grey light which seemed unnatural,
and which was clearest at the point on which my eyes were fixed, a
face in profile, not so much vague as soft and transparent. This
vision only lasted an instant, during which, however, my eyes noted
the smallest details of the face, which seemed familiar to me;
the rather sharp features, the hair parted a little on one side,
the prominent nose, the sharp chin with its sparse, light brown
beard. What strikes me when I think of it now is the fact that I
could distinguish the different colours, though the greyish light
which scarcely revealed the stranger would have been insufficient
to enable me to distinguish them in ordinary circumstances. He
had no hat, but wore a top-coat, such as is worn in the South, in
colour a rather light nut-brown. His whole person had an air of
great weariness and emaciation. The servant, much surprised that
I did not enter the carriage but remained petrified on the step,
thought I had trodden on my gown, and helped me to seat myself,
while I asked my sister, as I took my place beside her, if it was
really our carriage, so much was I confused and stupefied by seeing
a stranger seated opposite her. It had not occurred to me that
if a real person had been sitting there, neither my sister nor
the footman would have remained so quietly face to face with him.
When I was seated I no longer saw anything, and I asked my sister,
'Did you see nothing opposite you?' 'Nothing whatever, and what
possessed you to ask as you got in if it was really our carriage?'
she answered laughing. Then I told her what I have related above,
describing my vision minutely. 'That familiar face,' said she, 'the
hair parted at the side, the nut-brown coat, where have we seen
it? Certainly nothing here answers to your description,' and we
racked our brains without finding any clue. After we got home we
related the incident to our mother; my description made her also
remember vaguely a similar face. The next evening (March 12th) a
young man of our acquaintance, Mr. Solovovo, came to see us. I told
him also what had just occurred. We discussed it at some length,
but fruitlessly. I still could not find the right name for the
man of my vision, though I remembered quite well having seen a
face exactly similar among my numerous acquaintances, but when and
where? I could remember nothing, with my bad memory, which often
fails me in this fashion. Some days later we were calling on Mr.
Solovovo's grandmother. 'Do you know,' she said, 'what sad news I
have just received from Talta? Mr. P. has just died, but I have
heard no details.' My sister and I looked at each other. At the
mention of this name the pointed face and the nut-brown top-coat
found their possessor. My sister recognised him at the same time as
myself, thanks to my minute description. When Mr. Solovovo entered
I begged him to find the exact date of the death in the newspapers.
The date of the death was given as the 14th of March, that is to
say two days after my vision. I wrote to Talta for information, and
learned that Mr. P. was confined to bed from the 24th November, and
that from that time he was in a very feeble state, but sleep never
left him. He slept so long and so profoundly, even during the last
night of his life, that hopes were entertained of his improvement.
"We were much astonished that it was I who saw Mr. P., although
he had promised to appear to my sister; but here I ought to add
that before the occurrence mentioned above I had been clairvoyante
a certain number of times; but this vision is certainly the one
in which I distinguished details most clearly, even down to the
colours of the face and dress.
"COMTESSE EUGENIE KAPNIST.
COMTESSE INA KAPNIST."
The second signature is that of the sister who was present at the time.
The account above given, it should be explained, is a translation from
the original French.
Our friend, Mr. Petrovo-Solovovo, through whom we obtained the account,
writes:--
"I have much pleasure in certifying that the fact of Countess
Kapnist's vision was mentioned, among others, to myself before the
news of Mr. P.'s death came to St. Petersburg. I well remember
seeing an announcement of his demise in the papers."
The narrative presents several points of interest. The deferred
recognition is by no means without parallel (see case 68 and cases 26,
191, etc., in _Phantasms_), but in this case the interval which elapsed
before the identification of the phantasm was unusually prolonged.
Of course the fact that the vision was not identified beforehand is
an element of weakness in the case, but as the deep impression left
on the percipient by her vision seems well established, we have some
warrant for assuming that the details have been accurately remembered.
And if we may accept these details the case throws light upon the
genesis of such hallucinations. That a dying man, whilst failing to
impress the idea of his own personality upon the mind of a distant
acquaintance, should succeed in calling up the image--to himself of
quite secondary importance--of the clothes which he habitually wore,
would seem at first sight a paradox. But the difficulty disappears if
we recognise that the telepathic impression in such cases is probably
received and the hallucination elaborated by a subconscious stratum
of the intelligence, and that the picture is in due time flashed up
thence fully formed to the ordinary consciousness. The image of the
clothes worn by the agent, trivial and unessential to himself, would
not improbably bulk more largely in the conception formed of him by
an acquaintance, and might even find an echo in the percipient's
consciousness when the image of the man himself had been obliterated
by more recent memories. It is possible that the arrested development
of the hallucination may have some connection with the imperfect
recognition.
In the following case also the hallucination, though recognised,
appears to have fallen short of complete embodiment.
No. 71.--From MISS L. CALDECOTT.
"_February_ 11_th_, 1890.
"A sensation of faint glowing light in the darkest corner of the
room made me first look in that direction (which happened to be
next the door), and I then became aware of some one standing
there, holding her hands outstretched as if in appeal. My first
impression was that it was my sister, and I said, 'What's the
matter?' but instantly saw who it was--a friend, who was at that
time in Scotland. I felt completely riveted, but though my heart
and pulses were beating unnaturally fast, neither much frightened
nor surprised, only with a sort of impulse to get up and go after
the figure, which I could not move to do. The form seemed to melt
away into the soft glow, which then also died out. It was about
half-past ten at night. I was at my home in ----. The date I am
unable to fix nearer than that it was either August or September
1887.
"I was perfectly well. I was reading Carlyle's _Sartor Resartus_
at the time. I was in no trouble or anxiety of any kind. Age about
twenty-six.
"I had not seen my friend for about a year. I wrote to her the day
after this happened, but, before my letter reached her, received
one in which she told me of a great family trouble that was causing
her much suffering, and saying that she had been longing for me to
help her. Another letter in answer to mine then told me that her
previous letter was written about 10.30 on the night I saw her, and
that she had been wishing for my presence then most intensely. My
friend died very shortly afterwards.
"No other persons were present at the time."
One of the agent's letters, written in reply to a letter from Miss
Caldecott describing the apparition, has fortunately been preserved.
The letter is dated August 16th, 1888. The following extracts were
written down by Mrs. Sidgwick from Miss Caldecott's dictation:--
"'Your account is very strange, and I cannot quite make up my mind
what to think of it. If it had not been that on that very Tuesday
night I really was thinking of you very much, and wishing from the
bottom of my heart that I could get at you, I should be inclined
to say that your apparition was entirely subjective, and that you
imagined you saw me. But if there is any connection between mind
and mind, why should it not be so, and that it really was because
I was wishing so hard I could be with you. You know that was the
night I got back. I unpacked some of my things, and then began to
write to you. It was then somewhere between eleven and twelve.
At all events, I remember it struck twelve some time after I got
into bed.... Tell me anything you can of my general appearance,
and so forth. If you saw me as I was at the time it seems fairly
conclusive it was my thinking of you caused you to see me, and not
indigestion on your part, and entirely independent of me.'"
In conversation Mrs. Sidgwick learnt that the face and hands of the
figure were seen most clearly. The hands appeared as if held out, palms
upward. The dress was "rather indefinite. She looked as Miss Caldecott
was accustomed to see her, but Miss Caldecott did not notice the dress
particularly, and did not see the figure clearly at all below the
knees." Miss Caldecott has had a visual hallucination on two other
occasions, when she was in bed recovering from an illness. At the
time of the vision above described she was in perfect health. It will
be observed that the phantasm developed gradually, the percipient's
attention having been first arrested by noticing the glow in the corner
of the room. (Compare No. 84, Chapter XII., and the cases given in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i., chap. xii.) It will be seen that
the percipient's recollection was at fault, both as to the date and
the hour of the incident. But a discrepancy of this kind cannot be
regarded as serious. Persons whose lives are not marked off--_e.g._, by
changes of residence or occupation--into distinct periods, frequently
experience a difficulty in assigning to the right year even an event
of importance. But in this case the incident in itself was trivial,
and there was no landmark by which to determine its relation, in
point of time, to external events. A mistake in the date under such
circumstances can scarcely be held to reflect upon the narrator's
general accuracy.
In the next case also the apparition was preceded and accompanied by
a luminous effect. In this instance, however, the percipient appears
to have been in bed, and the hallucination should be classed as a
"borderland" case. It will be seen that the apparition preceded the
actual death by several hours, but apparently coincided with a period
of severe illness.
No. 72.--From DR. CARAT.[116]
"25-bis RUE VICTOR-HUGO, MALAKOFF,
PARIS, _July_ 20_th_, 1891.
"My mother, from the time she was twenty-five years old, had
suffered from an affection of the lungs, but she had kept her
health, although she had gone through many troubles. There was
nothing to indicate what happened on the 11th June 1877--she
succumbed in a few hours to an attack of inflammation of the lungs;
indeed, I had two days before that date received a letter from her
in which she showed no anxiety about her health.
"On the night of the 10th June 1877 I had what might be called a
telepathic hallucination. I cannot state the hour with absolute
precision, but it was between ten o'clock and midnight. About that
time, 'between sleeping and waking,' I saw the end of my room
lighted up, the darkness was illuminated by a silvery light (it is
the only word I can think of), and I saw my mother gazing fixedly
at me, with a sort of troubled expression. After a few seconds it
all disappeared.
"Next day one of my friends--M. Laroche, now sub-director of
the _Conservateur_ Co., 18 Rue Lafayette--was breakfasting with
me. I told him about my experience, and he too regarded it as a
hallucination. At parting I said to him, 'Remember, Laroche, if
anything happens, that I have told you this to-day.'
"Next day I received news of my mother's death.
"I have never on any other occasion experienced a hallucination, or
anything approaching to it."
From M. LAROCHE.
[TO PROFESSOR RICHET.]
"SIR,--After an absence from home I have just returned and found
awaiting me the letter which you did me the honour to write on the
7th inst., on the subject of a vision which my friend Dr. Carat had
on the eve of his mother's death, at a time when he believed her
to be in good health at Dunkirk. The circumstance was told me by
Dr. Carat immediately after it occurred. You can make any use of my
testimony you think fit.
"LAROCHE."
From the last case we pass, by an easy transition, to those completely
externalised apparitions which cheat the senses by the life-like
presentment of a human figure.
No. 73.--From MISS BERTA HURLY, Waterbeach Vicarage, Cambridge.
"_February_ 1890.
"In the spring and summer of 1886 I often visited a poor woman
called Evans, who lived in our parish, Caynham. She was very ill
with a painful disease, and it was, as she said, a great pleasure
when I went to see her; and I frequently sat with her and read
to her. Towards the middle of October she was evidently growing
weaker, but there seemed no immediate danger. I had not called
on her for several days, and one evening I was standing in the
dining-room after dinner with the rest of the family, when I saw
the figure of a woman dressed like Mrs. Evans, in large apron and
muslin cap, pass across the room from one door to the other, where
she disappeared. I said, 'Who is that?' My mother said, 'What do
you mean?' and I said, 'That woman who has just come in and walked
over to the other door.' They all laughed at me, and said I was
dreaming, but I felt sure it was Mrs. Evans, and next morning we
heard she was dead.
"BERTA HURLY."
Miss Hurly's mother writes:--
"On referring to my diary for the month of October 1886, I find the
following entry:--'19th. Berta startled us all after dinner, about
8.30 last evening, by saying she saw the figure of a woman pass
across the dining-room, and that it was Mrs. Evans. This morning we
hear the poor woman is dead.' On inquiring at the cottage we found
she had become wandering in her mind, and at times unconscious,
about the time she appeared to Berta, and died towards the morning.
"ANNIE ROSS.
"_February_ 25_th_, 1890."
In this case the apparition, it will have been observed, was mistaken
for a real person. We should not be justified, however, in concluding
that the sensory effect produced was comparable in intensity to that
which would have been caused had a real figure walked across the room.
Perception is so largely a psychical process that it is difficult in
any particular case to assign a definite value to the sensory element.
And in a case of this kind, where, as appears to be generally the case
with telepathic hallucinations, the vision is of brief duration, the
difficulty is, of course, increased.
The hallucination in this, as in the previous case, occurred some
hours before the death, and the evidential value of the coincidence is
so far lessened. But it is perhaps worth while pointing out that we
have no warrant in theory for concluding that in a case of death after
prolonged illness the actual moment of dissolution is more favourable
for the initiation of a telepathic impulse than any moment in the
hours or days of illness preceding death; nor, if due allowance be
made for the tendency to exaggerate the closeness of coincidence, is
it clear that there is sufficient evidence at present to support any
such conclusion. On the other hand, in cases of accident or momentary
illness, we have more than one case where the impression is shown, on
good evidence, to have occurred within, at most, an hour of death.[117]
In the narrative which follows, the vision, it will be seen, took place
some days before the actual death, during the crisis of a serious
illness, of which the percipient was not at the time aware.
No. 74.--From MRS. MCALPINE, Garscadden, Bearsden, Glasgow.
The following account was enclosed in a letter, dated April 12th, 1892.
We had previously received a somewhat briefer account, dated May 7th,
1891, which agrees in all essential particulars with the one printed
below:--
"On the 25th March 1891 my husband and I were staying at Furness
Abbey Hotel, Barrow-in-Furness, with a friend of ours, the late Mr.
A. D. Bryce Douglas, of Seafield Tower, Ardrossan. He was managing
director of the 'Naval Construction Armament Company,' and had
resided at Furness Abbey Hotel for some eighteen months or more. He
had invited us, along with a number of other friends, to the launch
of the _Empress of China_. We breakfasted with Mr. Bryce Douglas on
the day of the launch, the 25th, and afterwards saw the launch, had
luncheon at the shipyard, and returned to the hotel. He appeared
to be in his usual health and spirits (he was a powerfully-built
man, and justly proud of his fine constitution). The following
day (Thursday) he left with a party of gentlemen, to sail from
Liverpool to Ardrossan, on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_
(another large steamer which had been built at his yard).
"We remained on at the hotel for some days with our son Bob, aged
twenty-three, who was staying there, superintending work which Mr.
McAlpine was carrying on at Barrow.
"On the Monday night, the 30th, I went upstairs after dinner. On
my way down again I saw Mr. Bryce Douglas standing in the doorway
of his sitting-room. I saw him quite distinctly. He looked at me
with a sad expression. He was wearing a cap which I had never seen
him wear. I walked on and left him standing there. It was then
about ten minutes to eight. I told my husband and Bob. We all felt
alarmed, and we immediately sent the following telegram, 'How
is Mr. Bryce Douglas?' to Miss Caldwell, his sister-in-law, who
kept house for him at Seafield. It was too late for a reply that
night. On Tuesday morning we received a wire from her; it ran thus:
'Mr. Bryce Douglas dangerously ill.' That telegram was the first
intimation of his illness which reached Barrow. As will be seen in
the account of his illness and death in the _Barrow News_, he died
on the following Sunday, and we afterwards ascertained from Miss
Caldwell that he was unconscious on Monday evening, at the time I
saw him.
"My husband and son can corroborate this, and I have also letters
which bear out my statements."
Mrs. McAlpine enclosed a copy of the _Barrow News_ for April 11th,
1891, containing a memoir of Mr. Bryce Douglas, and a full account
of his last illness and death. It appears from this account that he
left Barrow on Thursday, March 26th, to join the steamer _Empress of
Japan_. He was noticed by his friends to be far from well on Wednesday,
the previous day, on the occasion of the launch of the _Empress of
China_, and was advised to go home. He did not do so, however, until
the Sunday, when he was put ashore at Ardrossan, and walked home to
Seafield--a distance of nearly two miles. His medical man was sent for
the same day, and the case was considered serious from the first, and
on the following Thursday the doctors pronounced it hopeless. He died
on April 5th, at about 5 A.M.
From the evidence which follows it seems clear that if any anxiety
as to his health was felt before he left Barrow, as suggested in the
newspaper report, Mrs. McAlpine knew nothing of it.
Mr. Myers writes:--
"I discussed the incident connected with the death of Mr. Bryce
Douglas with Mr. and Mrs. McAlpine and Mr. McAlpine, Jun., on
February 24th, 1892. I believe that their evidence has been very
carefully given. Mr. McAlpine knew Mr. Bryce Douglas intimately.
Mr. Bryce Douglas was a robust and vigorous man, and disliked
ever to be supposed to be ill. Mr. McAlpine therefore felt great
unwillingness to telegraph to him about his health, but from his
previous knowledge of phenomena occurring to Mrs. McAlpine, he felt
sure that her vision must be in some sense veridical."
Mrs. McAlpine's husband and his son corroborate as follows:--
"_April_ 1892.
"I was at Barrow on the 25th of March of last year (1891), and
distinctly remember the incident of the following Monday night. I
can bear testimony to the statements made by my wife and son.
"ROBERT MCALPINE."
"GARSCADDEN HOUSE, _April_ 4_th_, 1892.
"I was living for several months in the Furness Abbey Hotel, at
Barrow-in-Furness, and I remember father and mother coming for
a few days in order to see the launch of the _Empress of China_
on the 25th of March 1891, and on the following day (Thursday)
Mr. Bryce Douglas (who was then in his usual health) left with a
party of friends on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_. I
also distinctly remember that the following Monday night (30th) my
father and I were sitting at the drawing-room fire after dinner,
and mother came in looking very pale and startled, and said she
had been upstairs and had seen Mr. Bryce Douglas standing at the
door of his sitting-room (he had used this sitting-room for nearly
two years). Both my father and I felt anxious, and after some
discussion we sent a telegram to Mr. Bryce Douglas's residence at
Ardrossan asking how he was, and the following morning had the
reply, 'Keeping better, but not out of danger,' or words to that
effect. I can assert positively that no one in Barrow knew of his
illness until after the receipt of that telegram.
"ROBERT MCALPINE, JUN."
Letters corroborating the above account have also been received from
Miss Caldwell, sister-in-law to Mr. Bryce Douglas, to whom the telegram
was sent, and who writes: "I was very much surprised at receiving it;"
from Mrs. Scarlett, the wife of the proprietor of the Furness Abbey
Hotel, and from Miss Charlton, of Barrow-in-Furness, both of whom were
cognisant of the circumstances at the time.[118]
Mrs. McAlpine has had several other apparently telepathic experiences,
one of them a vision coinciding with the death of the infant child of
her brother.
In the next case the vision occurred about two hours after the actual
death.
No. 75.--From MISS MABEL GORE BOOTH.
"LISSADELL, SLIGO, _February_ 1891.
"On the 10th of April 1889, at about half-past nine o'clock A.M.,
my youngest brother and I were going down a short flight of stairs
leading to the kitchen, to fetch food for my chickens, as usual. We
were about half-way down, my brother a few steps in advance of me,
when he suddenly said, 'Why, there's John Blaney; I didn't know he
was in the house!' John Blaney was a boy who lived not far from us,
and he had been employed in the house as hall-boy not long before.
I said that I was sure it was not he (for I knew he had left some
months previously on account of ill-health), and looked down into
the passage, but saw no one. The passage was a long one, with a
rather sharp turn in it, so we ran quickly down the last few steps
and looked round the corner, but nobody was there, and the only
door he could have gone through was shut. As we went upstairs my
brother said, 'How pale and ill John looked, and why did he stare
so?' I asked what he was doing. My brother answered that he had his
sleeves turned up, and was wearing a large green apron, such as
the footmen always wear at their work. An hour or two afterwards
I asked my maid how long John Blaney had been back in the house?
She seemed much surprised, and said, 'Didn't you hear, miss, that
he died this morning?' On inquiry we found he had died about two
hours before my brother saw him. My mother did not wish that my
brother should be told this, but he heard of it somehow, and at
once declared that he must have seen his ghost.
"MABEL OLIVE GORE BOOTH."
The percipient's independent account is as follows:--
"_March_ 1891.
"We were going downstairs to get food for Mabel's fowl, when I saw
John Blaney walking round the corner. I said to Mabel, 'That's John
Blaney!' but she could not see him. When we came up afterwards we
found he was dead. He seemed to me to look rather ill. He looked
yellow; his eyes looked hollow, and he had a green apron on.
"MORDAUNT GORE BOOTH."
We have received the following confirmation of the date of death:--
"I certify from the parish register of deaths that John Blaney
(Dunfore) was interred on the 12th day of April 1889, having died
on the 10th day of April 1889.
"P. J. SHEMAGHS, C.C.
"The Presbytery, Ballingal, Sligo,
"10_th_ February_ 1891."
Mr. Myers originally received an account of the incident _viva voce_
from Lady Gore Booth, and subsequently at his request the percipient
and his sister, aged at the time ten and fifteen respectively, wrote
the accounts given above.
Lady Gore Booth writes:--
"_May_ 31_st_, 1890.
"When my little boy came upstairs and told us he had seen John
Blaney, we thought nothing of it till some hours after, when we
heard that he was dead. Then, for fear of frightening the children,
I avoided any allusion to what he had told us, and asked every one
else to do the same. Probably by now he has forgotten all about
it, but it certainly was very remarkable, especially as only one
child saw him, and they were standing together. The place where
he seems to have appeared was in the passage outside the pantry
door, where John Blaney's work always took him. My boy is a very
matter-of-fact sort of boy, and I never heard of his having any
other hallucination."
The interval in this case between the death and the vision may probably
be explained as due to the telepathic influence received from the
dying boy having remained latent in the percipient's mind, awaiting
a favourable opportunity for emerging to consciousness. But it seems
possible that the message may have come, not from the dying boy, but
from some member of the household who was aware of the death. It is to
be noted that Miss Gore Booth did not share her brother's experience.
_Hallucinations Affecting Two Senses._
So far we have dealt with hallucinations of one sense only. In the next
two cases, it will be seen, both sight and hearing appear to have been
affected.
No. 76.--From the REV. MATTHEW FROST.
"BOWERS GIFFORD, ESSEX, _January_ 30_th_, 1891.
"The first Thursday in April 1881, while sitting at tea with my
back to the window and talking with my wife in the usual way, I
plainly heard a rap at the window, and looking round I said to
my wife, 'Why, there's my grandmother,' and went to the door,
but could not see any one; and still feeling sure it was my
grandmother, and knowing, though eighty-three years of age, she was
very active and fond of a joke, I went round the house, but could
not see any one. My wife did not hear it. On the following Saturday
I had news my grandmother died in Yorkshire about half-an-hour
before the time I heard the rapping. The last time I saw her alive
I promised, if well, I would attend her funeral; that [was] some
two years before. I was in good health [and] had no trouble, [age]
twenty-six years. I did not know that my grandmother was ill."
Mrs. Frost writes:--
"_January_ 30_th_, 1891.
"I beg to certify that I perfectly remember all the circumstances
my husband has named, but I heard and saw nothing myself."
The house (seen by Mrs. Sidgwick) in which Mr. Frost was living when
the event occurred stands some way back from the road in a garden, and
the door into the garden opens out of the sitting-room, so that he must
have got to the door much too quickly, if he went at once, for any one
to have got away unseen by him.
Professor Sidgwick called on Mr. Frost in June 1892, and learned from
him that he had last seen his grandmother in 1878, on which occasion
she had promised, if possible, to appear to him at her death. On first
seeing the figure Mr. Frost thought that his grandmother had actually
come in the flesh to surprise him. It was full daylight, and had there
been a real knock and a real presence Mrs. Frost must have both heard
and seen. Mr. Frost had no cause for anxiety about his grandmother, and
has had no other experience of this kind. News of the death came by
letter, and Mrs. Frost remembers the letter, and that she noticed the
coincidence at the time.
In the next case the order of perception is reversed; the visual
preceded the auditory image. The narrative was procured for us by M.
Aksakof, of 6 Nevsky Prospect, St. Petersburg, who also translated the
original Russian into French, from which we have translated it into
English.
No. 77.--From M. A----.
"It was at Milan, on the 10th (22nd) of October 1888. I was staying
at the Hotel Ancora. After dinner, at about seven o'clock, I was
seated on the sofa, reading a newspaper. My wife was resting in the
same room on a couch, behind a curtain. The room was lighted by a
lamp upon the table near which I was sitting reading. Suddenly I
saw against the background of the door, which was opposite me, my
father's face. He wore as usual a black surtout, and was deadly
pale. At that moment I heard quite close to my ear a voice which
said to me, 'A telegram is coming to say your father is dead.'
All this only took a few seconds. I started up and rushed towards
my wife, but not to startle her I said nothing to her about it.
To explain my sudden movement I exclaimed 'Look, do you not see
that the kettle is boiling over!'... On the evening of the same
day, about eleven o'clock, we were taking tea in the company of
several other people, among whom were Madame Y., her daughter E.
Y., formerly an actress at the Court Theatre, and Mademoiselle M.,
who is now living in Florence. All at once there was a knock at the
door, and the _concierge_ presented a telegram. Pale with emotion I
immediately exclaimed, 'I know my father is dead; I have seen....'
The telegram contained these words, 'Papa dead suddenly.--Olga.' It
was a telegram from my sister living at St. Petersburg. I learned
later that my father had committed suicide on the morning of the
same day.
"(Signed) E. A."
Madame A. writes:--
"I was present at the time, and I testify to the accuracy of the
account."
M. Aksakof wrote to us that he had seen the original telegram, which
ran--
"Ricevuto il 22,[1] 1888. Milano, Petersbourg, data 22,[119] ore e
minute, 8.40. 'Papa mort subitement.--Olga.'"
Another case, in which the senses affected were those of touch and
hearing, has been given to us by Mr. Malleson. In 1874 or 1875 he went
for a short sea voyage, taking with him his young son. On the night of
his departure, while in a dreamy, half-conscious state, he imagined
that his son had fallen overboard, and that he himself was bringing
the sad news to his wife. On his return home he learned that on that
night Mrs. Malleson had been awakened by feeling some one leaning over
her. She put out her arm and, as she thought, touched her husband's
coat. She had no doubt that it was her husband's bodily presence,
spoke to him, and heard him answer, "Yes, I have come back." But on
her continuing, "Where is Eddy?" she received no reply, and felt much
alarmed. There are several instances recorded of tactile hallucinations
accompanying visual and auditory phantasms.[120]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 115: Mr. Tudor wrote to Dr. Hodgson in answer to a letter
received from him.]
[Footnote 116: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, July-August 1893, pp.
196, 197.]
[Footnote 117: See, for instance, _Phantasms of the Living_, cases 28,
79, etc.]
[Footnote 118: These letters will be found in full in the account of
the case published in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part xxvi.]
[Footnote 119: M. Aksakof explains that the name of the month (October)
was omitted, through a mistake on the part of the telegraph clerk.]
[Footnote 120: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 434-445; vol. ii.
p. 134, etc.; and _Proc. S.P.R._, etc.]
CHAPTER XII.
COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATIONS.
We have now to discuss that numerous class of cases in which the
phantasm was perceived by two or more persons. The difficulties of
interpretation which such cases present are enhanced for us by the
various defects to which the evidence is here peculiarly liable. Many
so-called cases of collective apparition, especially when the figure
is seen out-of-doors, were probably real men and women.[121] In others
we have to deal with a collective illusion, a quasi-hallucinatory
superstructure built up by each witness, aided by hints from the
others, on a common sensory basis. Such, for instance, appears to us
the most probable interpretation of the following singular case.
From MRS. ALDERSON.
"My son and I were staying in the town of Bonchurch (Isle of Wight)
last Easter vacation (1886). Our lodgings were close to the sea,
and the garden of our house abutted on the beach, and there were
no trees or bushes in it high enough to intercept our view. The
evening of Easter Sunday was so fine that when Miss Jowett (the
landlady's daughter) brought in the lamp, I begged her not to pull
down the blinds, and lay on the sofa looking out at the sea, while
my son was reading at the table. Owing to a letter I had just
received from my sister at home, stating that one of the servants
had again seen 'the old lady,' my thoughts had been directed
towards ghosts and such things. But I was not a little astonished
when, on presently looking out of the window, I saw the figure
of a woman standing at the edge of the verandah. She appeared to
be a broad woman, and not tall (Mrs. A. is tall), and to wear an
old-fashioned bonnet, and white gloves on her closed hands. As it
was dark the figure was only outlined against the sky, and I could
not distinguish any other details. It was, however, opaque, and
not in any way transparent, just as if it had been a real person.
I looked at it for some time, and then looked away. When, after a
time, I looked again, the woman's hands had disappeared behind what
appeared to be a white marble cross, with a little bit of the top
broken off, and with a railing on one side of the woman and the
cross, such as one sometimes sees in graveyards.
"After looking at this apparition, which remained motionless, for
some time, about twenty minutes, perhaps, I asked my son [then an
undergraduate at B.N.C.] to come and to look out of the window, and
tell me what he saw. He exclaimed, 'What an uncanny sight!' and
described the woman and the cross exactly as I saw it. I then rang
the bell, and when Miss J. answered it, I asked her also to look
out of the window and tell me what she saw, and she also described
the woman and the cross, just as they appeared to my son and
myself. Some one suggested that it might be a reflection of some
sort, and we all looked about the room to see whether there was
anything in it that could cause such a reflection, but came to the
conclusion that there was nothing to account for it."
Mr. Alderson writes:--
"Staying at B. (Isle of Wight) during the Easter vacation of 1886,
I remember distinctly seeing an apparition in the form of a woman
with her hands clasped on the top of a cross. The cross looked old
and worn, as one sees in churchyards. My mother drew my attention
to the figure, and after we had watched it for some time we rang
the bell and asked the servant if she saw the figure. She said she
did. I then went out to the verandah (where the figure was), and
immediately it vanished.
"E. H. ALDERSON."
Acorresponding account of the incident has been received from Miss
Jowett, the landlady's daughter. We owe the accounts of the incident
to Mr. F. Schiller, who investigated the matter for the Oxford
Phasmatological Society.
The persistency of the vision in this case is a feature very rarely
found in cases of undoubted hallucination, and the fact that it was
only seen through glass suggests that the whole appearance was due
to a reflection of some kind, although it must be admitted that this
explanation, which was considered and rejected by the percipients at
the time, cannot be accommodated to the facts without difficulty.
In the epidemics of religious hallucination so common in the Middle
Ages, and still occurring from time to time in Catholic countries,
it would appear that as a rule there is no objective basis for the
perception. When, as at Knock, in Ireland, a few years ago, the figure
of the Virgin or a Saint is said to have been seen by a large number
of persons simultaneously, it seems probable that in those who really
saw the figure the hallucination was due to repeated verbal suggestions
acting on minds which, under the influence of strong emotion, were
temporarily in a state analogous to that of trance. The nearest analogy
to such cases is no doubt to be found in hypnotism. A collective
hallucination can be imposed upon a whole roomful of hypnotised persons
by the mere command of the operator. But not the most explicit verbal
suggestion--_si vera est fabula_--could make the courtiers in the
fairy tale see the king's clothes; and there is no evidence that with
normal persons in full possession of their ordinary faculties any
hints derivable from look, word, or gesture could suffice to originate
an instantaneous hallucination. Still, the possibility of such an
explanation under certain conditions should perhaps be kept in view.
(See later, Chapter XVI.)
A possible explanation of a different kind has been already
illustrated by the story quoted on page 153, where it was shown that
a solitary hallucination had grown in the course of five-and-twenty
years into a collective vision. The narrator in this case was a child
at the time of the alleged experience. Children and uneducated persons
generally, who are not prone to analyse their own sensations, seem
liable after a certain interval to mistake the image called up by
another's recital for an actual experience of their own; and this is
especially likely to occur when the auditor was present at the time of
the experience or familiar with the scene of the occurrence. Indeed,
most persons who visualise with moderate facility are probably liable
to this form of mistake on a small scale. I had about five years
since an example of this in my own case. A friend had described to me
minutely some simple apparatus of his own invention. About a year later
he brought the apparatus to London and offered to show it to me. I
replied that I had already seen it; but on being confronted with it I
found the proportions and general appearance of the actual object quite
unlike my mental image of it. I had in fact never seen the object,
but the image which I had mentally constructed to enable me to follow
my friend's description a year before remained so vivid as to lead
me to believe that it was founded on actual sensation. But a sensory
hallucination is too striking and unusual an experience to be readily
feigned, and it is very improbable that the memory of educated persons,
at any rate, would be untrustworthy as regards their recent experiences
of the kind. As already explained, the accounts of this and other forms
of telepathic affection included in this book have in almost all cases
been written down within ten years of the event.
When the fullest allowance has been made for all possible explanations
we find a considerable number of cases remaining of which no other
account can be given than that they are apparitions, due to no
ascertained cause, which are perceived by two or more persons
simultaneously. That the collective perception proves the objective,
or--to use a less ambiguous word--the _material_ existence of the thing
perceived, is probably held now by few persons outside the ranks of
professed mystics. Apart from the theoretical difficulties of such a
hypothesis--difficulties which have by no means been surmounted by the
invocation of fixed ether, intercalary vortex rings, space of four
dimensions, and other subtler forms of the theory evolved in recent
times,--it is to be noted that no facts of any significance have been
adduced to support it. There is at present no trustworthy evidence that
an apparition has ever been weighed or photographed,[122] or submitted
to spectroscopic or chemical analysis. But, indeed, the theory betrays
its own origin in a prescientific age; and without formal destruction
by argument it has shared in the euthanasia which has overtaken many
other pious opinions found inadequate to the facts. The phenomena which
it professes to explain are paralleled in all their essential features
by other phenomena, for which even its supporters would hardly be
rash enough to claim substantial reality; and as the phantasms now to
be discussed bear in all points a close resemblance to those already
described as occurring to solitary percipients, probably no one who
accepts the one class of appearances as hallucinatory will hesitate to
accept the other.
But when the hallucinatory character of collectively-perceived,
or, as they may be styled for brevity, "collective" phantasms is
recognised, there are difficulties of interpretation to be dealt
with. On the telepathic hypothesis there are two modes in which a
collective hallucination may be conceived to originate: (_a_) it may
be communicated direct from a third person to each of the percipients;
or (_b_) it may be communicated by telepathic infection from one
percipient to another. The first explanation involves in most cases,
as Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp.
171, 172), serious theoretical difficulties. For on the view to which
we are led by a review of all the evidence, a telepathic hallucination,
like any other, is, as a rule, the work of the percipient's mind, and
is not transferred ready made from the agent. As such it is frequently
of slow growth, and there are grounds for believing that it is
sometimes not externalised for the percipient's senses until some hours
after the receipt of the original telepathic impulse. We should hardly
expect, therefore, to find two percipients independently developing
similar hallucinations, and at the same moment. But in most of the
cases of collective hallucination hitherto reported, the hallucinations
have been, so far as could be ascertained, similar and simultaneous,
so as indeed to suggest a real figure rather than a hallucination.
Moreover, in well-attested recent narratives it rarely happens that
a connection between the hallucination and any unusual state of the
person represented is clearly established; whilst in many, perhaps
most cases, the hallucination has not been recognised as resembling
any person known to either percipient, and has in some instances been
purely grotesque. In most cases, therefore, it seems easier to believe
that we have to deal with a contagious hallucination, which, whether
initiated by a telepathic impulse, or purely subjective in its origin,
has been transferred telepathically from the original percipient to
others in his company at the time. In some cases, indeed, it is no
doubt permissible, as suggested by Mr. Gurney, to conjecture that the
minds of all the percipients may have been directly influenced by the
agent, and that subsequently an overflow from the mind of one of the
percipients may have served to reinforce the original impulse, and
determine the exact moment of the explosion in his co-percipients, just
as the current regulates the exact hour of striking in electrically
synchronised clocks. Or again, the mind of each percipient may
react upon the others. There are, however, a few cases where the
percipients appear to have had experiences relating to the same event
neither precisely similar nor simultaneous, which seem to require
the hypothesis of an impulse in each case directly derived from the
person represented. Some cases of the kind are given in _Phantasms of
the Living_ (vol. i. p. 362; vol. ii. 173-183), and others will be
cited in the latter part of this chapter. It will be more convenient,
however, to begin by giving examples of the ordinary type of collective
hallucination.
_Collective Auditory Hallucinations._
No. 78.--From MR. C. H. CARY.
"SECRETARY'S OFFICE, GENERAL POST OFFICE,
29_th March_ 1892.
"At Bow, London, on the 8th March 1875, at about 8.30 P.M., I
heard a voice say, 'Joseph, Joseph.' I was talking with my father
and cousin (Joseph Cary) about the battle of Balaclava. I was in
good health, etc. My age was nearly thirteen. All three of us
heard the voice, which we suppose to have been that of Joseph's
grandmother."[123]
In conversation, Mr. Cary explained to me that the voice was not
recognised by any of those who heard it. It was indeed at first
mistaken for the voice of Mrs. Cary (Mr. C. H. Cary's mother), who was
at the time in an adjoining room, but who had not spoken. A telegram
announcing the grandmother's death was received on the day following,
and Mr. Joseph Cary then said that the voice must have been that of his
grandmother. Mr. C. H. Cary had never seen this lady.
Mr. R. H. Cary writes from 49 Gladsmuir Road, London, N.:--
"_March_ 31_st_, 1892.
"With reference to your inquiry concerning the voice which was
heard at the time of the late Mrs. Victor's death, I am able to
state that my son, my nephew, and myself were sitting together,
and we all heard it distinctly. This occurred about fourteen years
ago. The account given by my son exactly coincides with my own
recollection.
"R. H. CARY."
We have ascertained from the Registrar-General that Mary Victor, widow
of Thomas Victor, farmer, died at Linwood, Paul, Penzance, on March
8th, 1875, from bronchitis.
Mr. C. H. Cary adds that though Mrs. Victor was known to be ill,
her death was not thought to be imminent. He has himself had other
auditory hallucinations--viz., the hearing of footsteps on two or three
occasions at about the time of the death of a relation.
In the next case the voice heard did not correspond with any external
event. It was, as it were, "the after-image" of a voice once familiar
in the house.
No. 79.--From MISS ANNIE NEWBOLD.
"_May_ 7_th_, 1892.
"Florence N., a little child of under four years old, to whom I
was very much attached, died on May 23rd, 1889. She lived in the
house where I have my studio, and during the daytime was invariably
with me. There were no other children in the house, and she was
a general pet. I was ill for some time after her death, and one
morning in July 1889 I went to see Mrs. N. We were sitting talking
in her room on the ground-floor when I suddenly heard the child's
voice distinctly call 'Miss Boo' (her name for me). I was about
to answer, when I remembered that it could be no living voice and
so continued my sentence, thinking that I would say nothing about
the occurrence to her mother. At that moment Mrs. N. turned to me
and said, 'Miss Newbold, did you hear that?' 'Yes,' I replied,
'what was it?' And she said, 'My little child, and she called
"Miss Boo."' We both noticed that the sound came from below, as
if she were standing in the kitchen doorway underneath the room
in which we were sitting. There was no possibility of its being
another child, as there was not one in the house. The upper floors
were empty, too, at the time. I can vouch for the accuracy of this
account.
"ANNIE NEWBOLD."
Mrs. N. writes:--
"Miss Newbold came to see me one morning in July 1889, about two
months after my only child's death. We were in my room talking when
I distinctly heard my little girl's voice call 'Miss Boo.' I asked
Miss Newbold if she had heard anything and she said 'Yes. What was
it?' I replied, 'My little child, and she said "Miss Boo."'
"LIZZIE N."
In answer to questions, Miss Newbold writes:--
"1. Mrs. N. never heard her little girl's voice on any other
occasion.
"2. We were not talking about the little girl at the time, nor upon
any subject connected with her. I, however, had a box of roses on
my knee, which I was mechanically sorting, and putting all the
white ones on one side to send to the little child's grave.
"3. Mrs. N. has never heard any other voices, either before or
since. Neither have I; but I have three or four times in my
life been conscious of a presence without being able to explain
definitely what it was I felt. I have never seen anything."[124]
_Collective Visual Hallucinations._
Passing to visual phantasms, we will begin by citing a case in which
there can be little doubt that the hallucination was purely subjective;
a better case for illustrating the hypothesis of the infectious
character of casual hallucination could hardly be found. It is to be
noted indeed that the second percipient saw the apparition on the first
occasion only after a distinct _verbal_ suggestion, but, as already
stated, there is no evidence that a single verbal suggestion can
produce a hallucination in a healthy person in full possession of his
normal faculties.
No. 80.--From MRS. GREIFFENBERG and MRS. ERNI-GREIFFENBERG.