Mr. F. C. S. Schiller, through whom the account was obtained, tells

us that he heard the story in October 1890 from the two percipients.

The following account was put together by him from an account (which

he also sent us) written by Mrs. Erni-Greiffenberg, and various

conversations which he had with both ladies on the subject. He

afterwards obtained their signatures to it. Neither of them has had any

other hallucinatory experience.

"_December_ 14_th_, 1890.

"In the beginning of the summer of 1884 we were sitting at dinner

at home as usual, in the middle of the day. In the midst of the

conversation I noticed my mother suddenly looking down at something

beneath the table. I inquired whether she had dropped anything, and

received the answer, 'No, but I wonder how that cat can have got

into the room?' Looking underneath the table, I was surprised to

see a large white Angora cat beside my mother's chair. We both got

up, and I opened the door to let the cat out. She marched round the

table, went noiselessly out of the door, and when about half-way

down the passage turned round and faced us. For a short time she

regularly stared at us with her green eyes, then she dissolved

away, like a mist, under our eyes.

"Even apart from the mode of her disappearance, we felt convinced

that the cat could not have been a real one, as we neither had one

of our own, nor knew of any that would answer to the description

in the place, and so this appearance made an unpleasant impression

upon us.

"This impression was, however, greatly enhanced by what happened

in the following year, 1885, when we were staying in Leipzig with

my married sister (the daughter of Mrs. Greiffenberg). We had come

home one afternoon from a walk, when, on opening the door of the

flat, we were met in the hall by the same white cat. It proceeded

down the passage in front of us, and looked at us with the same

melancholy gaze. When it got to the door of the cellar (which was

locked), it again dissolved into nothing.

"On this occasion also it was first seen by my mother, and we

were both impressed by the uncanny and gruesome character of the

appearance. In this case, also, the cat could not have been a real

one, as there was no such cat in the neighbourhood."

A very striking example of a collective hallucination, apparently of

the same type, was given to us by Mrs. Ward. She and her husband,

the late E. M. Ward, R.A., in 1851 saw in their bedroom two small

pear-shaped lights which, when touched, broke into small luminous

fragments. (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. p. 193.) We have also a

case in which our informant, when a girl of fifteen, with another girl,

saw in the middle of the room, at a dancing class, a hallucinatory

chair. Yet another case is recorded by Miss Foy, a careful observer,

who had been troubled for some time with a hallucinatory skeleton, the

subjective character of which she fully recognised. On one occasion

when in hospital the hallucination recurred, and appears to have been

seen also by the patient in the adjoining bed, to whom no hint of any

kind had been given. In both these cases, however, the evidence depends

upon a single memory. We have another case in which a singular luminous

body--apparently a hallucination of a rudimentary kind--was perceived

by two witnesses coincidently with the death of a near relative of one

of them. The Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick, from whom I originally received

the account _viva voce_, was walking with a friend across a moor in

Sutherlandshire

"when there suddenly arose, to all appearance out of the road

between our feet as we walked, a ball of fire, about the size of

an 18lb. cannon ball. It was of an orange-red colour, and there

seemed to be a kind of rotatory motion in it, not unlike a firework

of some description.... It seemed to move forward with us, at a

distance of not more than 6 inches in front, and at the same time

rose pretty swiftly breast high ... and then disappeared and left

no trace."

Mr. Goodrick adds that a light rain was falling; but there was no

thunderstorm.

From uneducated witnesses such an account no doubt would have but

little value. A will-o'-the-wisp in an adjoining marsh, or even a

flash of lightning, might in such a case form a sufficient basis for

the story. And even assuming that the account here given accurately

describes what was seen, it is difficult to feel certain that the

appearance was hallucinatory. But if it were of a physical nature, it

is certainly not easy to conjecture what it could have been, and the

coincidence with the death is an additional argument for regarding the

phenomenon as hallucinatory.

In the next case the phantasm seems to belong to a not unusual type

of subjective hallucinations, the "after-image" of a familiar figure.

There are no grounds for ascribing the apparition to any "agency"

on the part of the person whose image was seen. If the incident is

correctly described, the _prima facie_ explanation is that a casual

hallucination was communicated by telepathic suggestion to a second

person in the company of the original percipient. At our request the

two accounts which follow were written independently.

No. 81.--From MRS. MILMAN.

"17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,

_March_ 20_th_, 1888.

"About three years ago I was coming out of the dining-room one

day, after lunch, with my sister. My mother had, as I supposed,

preceded us upstairs, as usual. The library door, which faces

the dining-room, stood wide open, and looking through it as I

crossed the hall, I saw my mother in the library, seated at the

writing-table, and apparently writing. Instead, therefore, of going

upstairs, as I had intended, I went to the library door, wishing to

speak to her, but when I looked in the room was empty.

"At the same moment, my sister, who had also been going towards

the stairs in the first instance, changed her direction, and,

crossing the hall, came up to the library door behind me. She then

exclaimed, 'Why, I thought I saw mamma in the library, at the

writing-table.' On comparing notes, we found that we had both seen

her seated at the writing-table, and bending over it as if writing.

My mother was never in the habit of writing in the library.

"I recollect her dress perfectly, as the impression was quite

distinct and vivid. She had on a black cloak, and bonnet with a

yellow bird in it, which she generally wore.

"It is the only time anything of the kind has happened to me.

"M. J. MILMAN."

From MISS CAMPBELL.

"17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,

_March_ 21_st_, 1888.

"My sister and mother and myself, after returning from our morning

drive, came into the dining-room without removing our things, and

had luncheon as usual, during which my sister and I laughed and

cracked jokes in the gayest of spirits. After a time my mother rose

and left the room, but we remained on for a few minutes. Finally

we both got up and went into the passage, and I was about to go

upstairs and take off my things when I saw my sister turn into my

father's study (which was directly opposite the dining-room), with

the evident intention, as I supposed, of speaking to my mother,

whom I distinctly noticed seated at my father's desk in her cloak

and bonnet, busily absorbed in writing. The door of the study was

wide open at the time. I turned round and followed her to the

door, when, to my surprise, my mother had completely disappeared,

and I noticed my sister turned away too, and left the room as if

puzzled. I asked her, with some curiosity, what she went into the

room for? She replied that she fancied she saw my mother bending

over the desk writing, and went in to speak to her. Feeling very

much startled and alarmed, we went upstairs to see after her, and

found her in her bedroom, where she went immediately on leaving the

dining-room, and had been all the time.

"E. J. CAMPBELL."

In the next case the apparition was recognised by one of the

percipients only, as resembling a relative who had been dead some

years. Neither percipient appears to have seen the face.

No. 82.--From MRS. J. C.

"_August_ 20_th_, 1893.

"Seven years ago my husband and I had the following curious

experience:--

"In the middle of the night I awoke with the feeling that some one

was near me, and at once saw a figure moving from the side of my

bed towards the wardrobe where I kept jewellery. My supposition

was that it was a burglar, and I refrained from waking my husband

(whose bed was two feet from mine), as I thought the burglar would

be armed, and I knew my husband would certainly attack him and be

at his mercy. I therefore lay perfectly still.

"The apparition having passed the foot of my bed, then came

opposite my husband's, when, to my astonishment, I saw my husband

sit up in bed gazing at the figure. In a moment or two he lay down

again, and the figure apparently passed to the door.

"We neither of us spoke one word that night.

"In the morning I asked my husband to look if the doors were locked

(of which there are three in the room). They were all secure. I

also examined the beds to see if they by any possibility could have

touched, and so I unconsciously have awakened him, but they were

quite separate. I then asked if he remembered anything happening in

the night, and he replied, 'Yes, a strange thing: I thought I saw

my father go out of that door.' Not till then did I tell him that I

thought the figure was a burglar, and how frightened I had been at

the thought of his struggling with an armed man, and had therefore

remained silent.

"The gas was burning, and I could see quite across the room."

I received a full account of the incident orally from Mrs. C. on the

20th August 1893. She told me that she never saw the face of the

figure, and could not see, or cannot now recollect, the dress. She had

no doubt at the time that it was a burglar. Mrs. C. has had no other

hallucination of any kind.

Mr. C. writes on the 21st August 1893:--

"I have read my wife's account, and endorse it.

"To my recollection I was not dreaming previously to sitting up in

bed, when I believed I saw my father going towards the door. My

mind had not been specially active about his affairs at that time,

although I was rather anxious about some matters of business.

"The figure I supposed to be my father (and I had no thought it was

any one else) moved noiselessly across the room and disappeared

through the doorway. I should have treated it as a dream only,

if my wife had not recalled my attention to it in the morning by

asking me if I remembered sitting up in bed.

"Although I am certain my eyes were open at the time of the

apparition, I did not see the face, but recognised the figure as

that of my father by the general appearance as I remembered him.

"I have had no other similar waking experience, but have previously

seen my father distinctly in a dream after his decease."

Mr. C. told me that he was positive the figure could not have been

that of a real man: the doors were found locked on the inside in the

morning. Moreover, his recognition of the figure, though he could not

see the face, was unmistakable.

We have many similar accounts of collective phantasms which appear

to have differed from subjective hallucinations of the ordinary type

in no other particular than the fact of their occurrence to two

persons simultaneously. Thus, to quote a few instances, Mrs. Willett,

of Bedales, Lindfield, Sussex, sent us an extract from her diary

describing a figure seen by her daughter and a visitor,--a fair-haired

child running along a gallery. The account is confirmed by the visitor,

Miss S. From Mrs. and Miss Goodhall we have an account of a tall figure

seen by them when driving in a country lane. Miss C---- and two of her

sisters saw in a bedroom in a London house the figure of a young man of

middle height wearing a peaked cap and dark clothes. Mrs. Y. and her

niece saw the figure of a child in a long grey dressing-gown running

down a lighted staircase. In this last case the figure was mistaken

for Mrs. Y.'s daughter, but in the other cases the phantasm bore no

resemblance to any one with whom the percipients were acquainted. In

no instance does it seem possible except by violently straining the

probabilities to suppose the figure seen to have been that of a human

being.

In the next case the phantasm, which was recognised, occurred within a

short time of the death of the person represented. The narrator is a

decorator and house-painter, of Uniontown, Kentucky, U.S.A.

No. 83.--From MR. S. S. FALKINBURG.

"_September_ 12_th_, 1884.

"The following circumstance is impressed upon my mind in a manner

which will preclude its ever being forgotten by me or the members

of my family interested. My little son Arthur, who was then five

years old, and the pet of his grandpapa, was playing on the floor,

when I entered the house a quarter to seven o'clock, Friday

evening, July 11th, 1879. I was very tired, having been receiving

and paying for staves all day, and it being an exceedingly sultry

evening, I lay down by Artie on the carpet, and entered into

conversation with my wife--not, however, in regard to my parents.

Artie, as usually was the case, came and lay down with his little

head upon my left arm, when all at once he exclaimed, 'Papa! papa!

Grandpa!' I cast my eyes towards the ceiling, or opened my eyes,

I am not sure which, when, between me and the joists (it was an

old-fashioned log-cabin), I saw the face of my father as plainly

as ever I saw him in my life. He appeared to me to be very pale,

and looked _sad_, as I had seen him upon my last visit to him three

months previous. I immediately spoke to my wife, who was sitting

within a few feet of me, and said, 'Clara, there is something wrong

at home; father is either dead or very sick.' She tried to persuade

me that it was my imagination, but I could not help feeling that

something was wrong. Being very tired, we soon after retired, and

about ten o'clock Artie woke me up repeating, 'Papa, grandpa is

here.' I looked, and believe, if I remember right, got up, at any

rate to get the child warm, as he complained of coldness, and it

was very sultry weather. Next morning I expressed my determination

to go at once to Indianapolis. My wife made light of it and

over-persuaded me, and I did not go until Monday morning, and upon

arriving at home (my father's), I found that he had been buried the

day before, Sunday, July 13th.

"Now comes the mysterious part to me. After I had told my mother

and brother of my vision, or whatever it may have been, they told

me the following:--

"On the morning of the 11th July, the day of his death, he arose

early and expressed himself as feeling unusually well, and ate a

hearty breakfast. He took the Bible (he was a Methodist minister),

and went and remained until near noon. He ate a hearty dinner,

and went to the front gate, and, looking up and down the street,

remarked that he could not, or at least would not be disappointed,

some one was surely coming. During the afternoon and evening

he seemed restless, and went to the gate, looking down street,

frequently. At last, about time for supper, he mentioned my name,

and expressed his conviction that God, in His own good time, would

answer his prayers in my behalf, I being at that time very wild.

Mother going into the kitchen to prepare supper, he followed

her and continued talking to her about myself and family, and

especially Arthur, my son. Supper being over, he moved his chair

near the door, and was conversing about me at the time he died. The

last words were about me, and were spoken, by mother's clock, 14

minutes of 7. He did not fall, but just quit talking and was dead.

"In answer to my inquiries, my son Arthur says he remembers the

circumstances, and the impression he received upon that occasion is

ineffaceable.

"SAMUEL S. FALKINBURG."

We have procured a certificate of death from the Indianapolis Board of

Health, which confirms the date given.

Mrs. Falkinburg writes to us, on September 12, 1884:--

"In answer to your request, I will say that I cheerfully give my

recollection of the circumstance to which you refer.

"We were living in Brown County, Indiana, fifty miles south

of Indianapolis, in the summer of 1879. My husband (Mr. S. S.

Falkinburg) was in the employ of one John Ayers, buying staves.

"On the evening of July 11th, about 6.30 o'clock, he came into the

room where I was sitting, and lay down on the carpet with my little

boy Arthur, complaining of being very tired and warm. Entering

into conversation on some unimportant matter, Arthur went to him

and lay down by his side. In a few moments my notice was attracted

by hearing Arthur exclaim: 'Oh, papa, grandpa, grandpa, papa,' at

the same time pointing with his little hand toward the ceiling.

I looked in the direction he was pointing, but saw nothing. My

husband, however, said: 'Clara, there is something wrong at home;

father is either dead or very sick.' I tried to laugh him out of

what I thought an idle fancy; but he insisted that he saw the face

of his father looking at him from near the ceiling, and Arthur

said, 'Grandpa was come, for he saw him.' That night we were

awakened by Artie again calling his papa to see 'grandpa.'

"A short time after my husband started (Monday) to go to

Indianapolis, I received a letter calling him to the burial of his

father; and some time after, in conversation with his mother, it

transpired that the time he and Artie saw the vision was within two

or three minutes of the time his father died.

"CLARA T. FALKINBURG."

Asked whether this was his sole experience of a visual hallucination,

Mr. Falkinburg replied that it was. Occasionally, however, since that

time, he has had auditory impressions suggestive of his father's

presence.

Here again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems

more probable that Mr. Falkinburg's hallucination was telepathically

originated, than that the casual remark of a child of five could

produce an effect hitherto observed only as the result of hypnotic

influence or some other equally potent disturbing cause.

In the following case, which again comes to us from the United

States, the vision was of a more complicated kind, and part only of

the original percipient's experience was shared. The occurrence of the

apparition within a few hours of the death of a person to whom it bore

some resemblance seems to be established; but in estimating the value

of the coincidence, it should be borne in mind that the phantasm was

not at the time referred to the deceased, and that there are numerous

chances of the coincidence of an unrecognised hallucination with a

death amongst a doctor's circle of acquaintance.

No. 84.--From DR. W. O. S.,

who wrote to Dr. Hodgson from Albany, New York, on the 10th September

1888, enclosing the following account:--

"I am a physician, have been in practice about eleven years; am in

excellent health, do not use intoxicants, tobacco, drugs, or strong

tea or coffee. Am not subject (in the least) to dreams, and have

never been a believer in apparitions, etc.

"On Monday last, September 3rd, 1888, I went to bed about 11 P.M.,

after my day's work. Had supper, a light one, about 7 P.M.; made

calls after supper.

"My bedroom is on the second floor of a city block house, and I

kept all my doors locked except the one leading to my wife's room,

next to mine, opening into mine by a wide sliding door, always

left wide open at night. The diagram opposite will illustrate the

relation of the rooms.

"I occupy room 1 and my wife room 2. Her room has but one window,

and a door opening only into my room. My room has three doors (all

bolted at night) and one window. Both windows in our rooms have

heavy green shades, which are drawn nearly to the bottom of the

window at night, shutting out early daylight. No artificial lights

command the windows, and the moonlight very seldom.

"I undressed and went to bed about 11, and soon was asleep. In

the neighbourhood of 4 A.M. I was awakened by a strong light in

my face. I awoke and thought I saw my wife standing at Fig. 3, as

she was to rise at 5.30 to take an early train. The light was so

bright and pervading that I spoke, but got no answer. As I spoke,

the figure retreated to Fig. 4, and as gradually faded to a spot at

Fig. 5. The noiseless shifting of the light made me think it was a

servant in the hall and the light was thrown through the keyhole as

she moved. That could not be, as some clothing covered the keyhole.

I then thought a burglar must be in the room, as the light settled

near a large safe in my room. Thereupon I called loudly to my wife,

and sprang to light a light. As I called her name she suddenly

awoke, and called out, 'What is that bright light in your room?' I

lit the gas and searched (there had been no light in either room).

Everything was undisturbed.

"My wife left on the early train. I attended to my work as usual.

At noon, when I reached home, the servant who answers the door

informed me that a man had been to my office to see about a

certificate for a young lady who had died suddenly early that

morning from a hemorrhage from the lungs. She died about one

o'clock--the figure I saw about four o'clock.

[Illustration]

There was but little resemblance between the two, as far as I

noticed, except height and figure. The faces were not unlike,

except that the apparition seemed considerably older. I had seen

the young lady the evening before, but, although much interested

in the case, did not consider it immediately serious. She had been

in excellent health up to within two days of her death. At first

she spit a little blood, from a strain. When she was taken with the

severe hemorrhage, and choked to death, she called for help and for

me.

"This is the first experience of the kind I have ever had, or

personally have known about. It was very clear--the figure or

apparition--at first, but rapidly faded. My wife remarked the light

before I had spoken anything except her name. When I awake I am

wide awake in an instant, as I am accustomed to answer a telephone

in the hall and my office-bell at night."

From MRS. W. O. S.

"ALBANY, _September_ 27_th_, 1888.

"On the morning of September 4 I was suddenly awakened out of a

sound sleep by my husband's calling to me from an adjoining room.

Before I answered him I was struck with the fact that although the

green shade to his window was drawn down, his room seemed flooded

by a soft yellow light, while my chamber, with the window on same

side as his, and with the shade drawn up, was dark. The first thing

I said was, 'What is that light?' He replied he didn't know. I then

got up and went into his room, which was still quite light. The

light faded away in a moment or two. The shade was down all the

time. When I went back to my room I saw that it was a few moments

after four."

In answer to further questions, Mrs. W. O. S. adds:--

"_October_ 16_th_, 1888.

"In regard to the light in my husband's room, it seemed to me to be

perhaps more in the corner between his window and my door, although

it was faintly distributed through the room. When I first saw the

light (lying in bed) it was brilliant, but I only commanded a view

of the corner of his room, between his window and my door. When

I reached the door the light had begun to fade, though it seemed

brighter in the doorway where I stood than elsewhere. My husband

seemed greatly perplexed, and said, 'How strange! I thought surely

there was a woman in my room.' I said, 'Did you think it was I?' He

said, 'At first, of course, I thought so, but when I rubbed my eyes

I saw it was not. It looked some like Mrs. B----' (another patient

of his,--not the girl who died that night). He, moreover, said that

the figure never seemed to look directly at him, but towards the

wall beyond his bed; and that the figure seemed clothed in white,

or something very light. That was all he said, except that later,

when he knew the girl was dead, and I asked him if the figure

at all resembled her, he said, 'Yes, it did look like her, only

older.'"[125]

So far the instances quoted belong to what may be called the normal

type of collective hallucination. In the last case, indeed, one

percipient saw less than the other, but that may have been due merely

to the fact that she awoke later. In the three cases which follow the

impressions produced upon the percipients were diverse, and there is

no evidence that they were simultaneous. In the first of the three

cases, indeed, the circumstances strongly suggest that the mind of one

percipient was influenced by the other. But in the last case, where the

percipients were far apart, and their impressions markedly different,

it seems reasonable to conjecture--their interest in the agent being

equal--that the results produced were in each case directly referable

to the dying man.

The narrative which follows was originally printed in July 1883, in

an account written by the Warden, entitled "The Orphanage and Home,

Aberlour, Craigellachie." It will be observed that the account, though

written in the third person, is actually first hand.

No. 85.--From the REV. C. H. JUPP, Warden.

"In 1875 a man died leaving a widow and six orphan children.

The three eldest were admitted into the Orphanage. Three years

afterwards the widow died, and friends succeeded in getting funds

to send the rest here, the youngest being about four years of age.

[Late one evening, about six months after the admission of the

younger children, some visitors arrived unexpectedly; and] the

Warden agreed to take a bed in the little ones' dormitory, which

contained ten beds, nine occupied.

"In the morning, at breakfast, the Warden made the following

statement:--'As near as I can tell I fell asleep about eleven

o'clock, and slept very soundly for some time. I suddenly woke

without any apparent reason, and felt an impulse to turn round, my

face being towards the wall, from the children. Before turning, I

looked up and saw a soft light in the room. The gas was burning

low in the hall, and the dormitory door being open, I thought it

probable that the light came from that source. It was soon evident,

however, that such was not the case. I turned round, and then a

wonderful vision met my gaze. Over the second bed from mine, and

on the same side of the room, there was floating a small cloud of

light, forming a halo of the brightness of the moon on an ordinary

moonlight night.

"'I sat upright in bed, looking at this strange appearance, took

up my watch and found the hands pointing to five minutes to one.

Everything was quiet, and all the children sleeping soundly. In the

bed, over which the light seemed to float, slept the youngest of

the six children mentioned above.

"'I asked myself, "Am I dreaming?" No! I was wide awake. I was

seized with a strong impulse to rise and touch the substance, or

whatever it might be (for it was about five feet high), and was

getting up when something seemed to hold me back. I am certain

I heard nothing, yet I _felt_ and perfectly understood the

words--"No, lie down it won't hurt you." I _at once_ did what I

_felt_ I was told to do. I fell asleep shortly afterwards and rose

at half-past five, that being my usual time.

"'At six o'clock I began dressing the children, beginning at the

bed furthest from the one in which I slept. Presently I came to the

bed over which I had seen the light hovering. I took the little

boy out, placed him on my knee, and put on some of his clothes. The

child had been talking with the others; suddenly he was silent. And

then, looking me hard in the face with an extraordinary expression,

he said, "Oh, Mr. Jupp, my mother came to me last night. Did you

see her?" For a moment I could not answer the child. I then thought

it better to pass it off, and said, "Come, we must make haste, or

we shall be late for breakfast."'

"The child never afterwards referred to the matter, we are told,

nor has it since ever been mentioned to him. The Warden says it is

a mystery to him; he simply states the fact and there leaves the

matter, being perfectly satisfied that he was mistaken in no one

particular."

In answer to inquiries, the Rev. C. Jupp writes to us:--

"THE ORPHANAGE AND CONVALESCENT HOME,

ABERLOUR, CRAIGELLACHIE,

_November_ 13_th_, 1883.

"I fear anything the little boy might now say would be unreliable,

or I would at once question him. Although the matter was fully

discussed at the time, it was never mentioned in the hearing of

the child; and yet when, at the request of friends, the account

was published in our little magazine, and the child read it, his

countenance changed, and looking up, he said, 'Mr. Jupp, that

is me.' I said, 'Yes, that is what we saw.' He said, 'Yes,' and

then seemed to fall into deep thought, evidently with pleasant

remembrances, for he smiled so sweetly to himself, and seemed to

forget I was present.

"I much regret now that I did not learn something from the child at

the time.

"CHAS. JUPP."

In answer to inquiries, Mr. Jupp says that he has never had any other

hallucination of the senses; and adds:--

"My wife was the only person of _adult age_ to whom I mentioned

the circumstance at the time. Shortly after, I mentioned it to our

Bishop and Primus."

Mrs. Jupp writes, from the Orphanage, on June 23, 1886:--

"This is to certify that the account of the light seen by the

Warden of this establishment is correct, and was mentioned to me at

the time"--_i.e._, next morning.

It is to be regretted that it is not now possible to ascertain

whether the child's experience were of the nature of a dream or a

borderland hallucination. But the ambiguity does not affect either the

interpretation or the significance of the incident.

In the next case the two apparitions were not only different, but were

seen in different rooms. The time in each case appears to have been

within an hour of midnight. It will be noticed that each percipient is

doubtful whether to class her experience as a dream or a waking vision.

If dreams, they were certainly of an unusual type, since they included

in each case an impression of the room in which they occurred.

No. 86.--From SISTER MARTHA.

Account, signed by herself, which Sister Martha (Sister of the Order of

Saint Charles) gave to M. Ch. Richet at Mirecourt--

"On Friday, 6th March 1891, I was called to nurse M. Bastien. At

night, when I had been dozing for about five minutes, I had the

following dream--if I may call it a dream; I think I was sleeping.

A light, a sound came from the fireplace, and a woman stepped

out whose appearance I did not recognise, but who had a voice

like Madame Bastien's. I saw her as distinctly as I see you. She

approached the bed where Cécile was sleeping, and taking her hand,

said, 'How sweet Cécile is!' I followed her--in my dream, crossing

myself as I went. She opened the door and vanished.

"I cannot say the exact hour, but it was early in the night,

between 11 P.M. and 1 A.M.--I do not know exactly, for I had not

a watch. I awoke immediately after this dream. I did not waken

Cécile, for I did not want to say anything to her about it, but as

the dream impressed me very much, I told it to her the following

morning when I awoke. I can give no further details about the dream

except that the lady carried a candle and had coloured spots on her

garments.

"I have never had a similar dream except once, when I thought I saw

my dead mother and heard her say, 'You do not remember me in your

prayers.'"

Madame Houdaille writes:--

"MIRECOURT, 20_th March_, 1891.

"During my father's illness the Sister kept watch on the first

floor, and my brother and I passed the evening on the ground floor.

About ten o'clock I left my brother and went upstairs to bed.

Between eleven o'clock and midnight (I do not know whether I was

waking or sleeping, probably between the two) I perceived, near

my bed, a white shadow like a phantom, which I had not time to

recognise. I gave a loud cry of terror which startled my brother,

who was just going up to bed. He hastened to my room, and found me

gazing wildly around. The rest of the night passed quietly.

"Next morning Cécile told me about the Sister's dream.

"She, Cécile, had seen or heard nothing. I was almost angry with

her and her tale, and treated it as a silly dream, so terrified

was I at the occurrence of the two apparitions the same night, and

probably at the same hour. Cécile and the Sister knew nothing of

my dream. I did not tell it to the Sister till two days after M.

Richet and Octave[126] had visited the hospital."[127]

In the next case, as already said, the two percipients were many miles

apart. The impression in the first narrative should probably be classed

as a dream; in the second as an auditory hallucination.

No. 87.--From SIR LAWRENCE JONES.

"CRANMER HALL, FAKENHAM, NORFOLK,

_April_ 26_th_, 1893.

"On August 20th, 1884, I was staying at my father-in-law's house

at Bury St. Edmunds. I had left my father in perfectly good health

about a fortnight before. He was at home at this address. About

August 18th I had had a letter from my mother saying that my father

was not quite well, and that the doctor had seen him and made very

light of the matter, attributing his indisposition to the extreme

heat of the weather.

"I was not in any way anxious on my father's account, as he was

rather subject to slight bilious attacks.

"I should add, though, that I had been spending that day, August

20th, at Cambridge, and should have stayed the night there had

not a sort of vague presentiment haunted me that possibly there

would be a letter from home the next morning. My wife, too, had

a similar feeling that if I stayed the night at Cambridge I might

regret it. In consequence of this feeling I returned to Bury,

and that night woke up suddenly to find myself streaming with

perspiration and calling out: 'Something dreadful is happening; I

don't know what.' The impression of horror remained some time, but

at last I fell asleep till the morning.

"My father, Sir Willoughby Jones, died very suddenly of heart

disease about 1 A.M. on August 21st. He was not in his room at the

moment, but was carried back to his room and restoratives applied,

but in vain.

"My brother Herbert and I were the only two of the family absent

from home at the time. The thoughts of those present (my mother,

brother, and three sisters) no doubt turned most anxiously towards

us, and it is to a telepathic impression from them in their anxiety

and sorrow that I attribute the intimations we received.

"LAWRENCE J. JONES."

Lady Jones writes:--

"I have a vivid remembrance of the occurrence related above by my

husband. I was sound asleep when he awoke, and seizing me by [the]

wrist, exclaimed: 'Such a dreadful thing is happening,' and I had

much difficulty in persuading him that there was nothing wrong.

"He went to sleep again, but was much relieved in the morning

by finding a long letter from Sir Willoughby, posted the day

before, and written in good spirits. Having read this and gone to

his dressing-room, however, he soon returned with the telegram

summoning him home at once, and said as he came in: 'My impression

in the night was only too true.'

"EVELYN M. JONES."

Mr. Herbert Jones, the other percipient, describes his experience as

follows:--

"KNEBWORTH RECTORY, STEVENAGE.

"_Recollections of August_ 20_th_, 1884.

"I had spent the day at Harpenden, and returned home about 8 P.M.,

and went to bed about 10.30.

"I woke at 12 o'clock, hearing my name called twice, as I

fancied. I lit my candle, and, seeing nothing, concluded it was a

dream--looked at my watch, and went to sleep again.

"I woke again and heard people carrying something downstairs from

the upper storey, just outside my room. I lit my candle, got out of

bed, and waited till the men were outside my door. They seemed to

be carrying something heavy, and came down step by step.

"I opened my door, and it was pitch dark. I was puzzled and

dumbfounded. I went into my sitting-room and into the hall, but

everything was dark and quiet. I went back to bed convinced I had

been the sport of another nightmare. It was about 2 A.M. by my

watch. At breakfast next morning on my plate was a telegram telling

me to come home.

"This whole story may be nothing, but it was odd that I should have

twice got up in one night, and that during that night and those

hours my father was dying.

"H. E. JONES.

"_April_ 4_th_, 1893."

Sir Lawrence Jones adds:--

"My brother was then a curate in London, living at 32 Palace

Street, Westminster, where the above experience took place.

"L. J. J."

A case somewhat resembling this last is recorded by Professor Richet

(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 163, 164). On the night of the 14-15th

November 1887, when his physiological laboratory in Paris was burnt,

two of his intimate friends, M. Ferrari and M. Héricourt, dreamt of

fire; and on the evening of the 15th Madame B. (the hypnotic subject

referred to in Chapter V.) was hypnotised by M. Gibert at Havre and

"sent on a journey" [_i.e._, in imagination] to Paris to visit,

amongst others, M. Richet. Shortly afterwards she awoke herself by

crying out in great distress, "It is burning." Unfortunately, those

present contented themselves with calming her excitement, and did not

at the time inquire into the nature of her impression. But the triple

coincidence is certainly remarkable.

A case which may perhaps be referred to the same category is recorded

by the Rev. A. T. Fryer in the _Journal_ of the S.P.R. for June 1890.

Mr. C. Williams died at Plaxtol, Sevenoaks, on Sunday, April 28th,

1889, having been confined to his bed with pleuro-pneumonia since the

preceding Tuesday. On Friday the 26th his figure was seen in the street

by Mr. Hind at about 10.40 A.M., and on the day following at about 1

P.M. by two ladies, Miss Dalison and Miss Sinclair, simultaneously.

None of the percipients were aware of Mr. Williams' illness. It was

impossible that the figure seen could have been the real man, and, as

Mr. Fryer shows that a mistake of identity was under the circumstances

extremely improbable, it seems not unlikely that we have here to deal

with a case of two telepathic hallucinations originated independently

and at a considerable interval by the same agent.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 121: Thus we have a case, regarded by the narrator as

hallucinatory, in which three persons saw a figure ascending the

staircase of a country rectory. The occurrence took place shortly after

the return of the family from church, and the figure was supposed to be

that of the rector, until it was ascertained that he was at the time

in another part of the house. As, however, it was dark and the head of

the figure could not be seen, the identification could hardly have been

complete, and as no search was made in the upper part of the house, it

seems possible that the figure was that of some person who had gained

entrance to the house during the absence of the family at church.]

[Footnote 122: See the article on Spirit Photographs by Mrs. Henry

Sidgwick, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 268-289.]

[Footnote 123: This account was originally written in answer to a

series of questions on a "census" form. A few connecting words have

been inserted in order to make it read consecutively.]

[Footnote 124: With this may be compared an incident recorded by

William Bell Scott (_Autobiographical Notes_, vol. ii. pp. 117, 118).

The account is perhaps worth quoting, though the length of time which

has elapsed, and the fact that it rests upon a single memory, leave to

the narrative little value other than that derived from its literary

associations. It should be added, however, that Mr. Scott's claim to a

rational scepticism in these matters appears to be borne out by other

passages in the book.

"I have so repeatedly expressed my unbelief in all the vulgar or

popular forms of supernaturalism (says Mr. Scott), that I feel a little

hesitation in recording a circumstance resembling that class of things

which began the very evening after his [i.e., Rossetti's] departure.

I could now get a little peace to revise my _Dürer Journal_, and my

German friend Mr. Reid, who had given me an hour, stayed to dinner.

Rossetti's habit, when composing or even correcting for the press, was

to retire after dinner to the room above, the drawing-room of the old

house, to read aloud to himself, when by himself. This he did in a

voice so loud that we in the dining-room beneath could almost hear his

words. Well, as we were sitting after dinner, when he must have been

approaching London in the train, what could it be we heard? The usual

voice reading to itself in the usual place over our heads! I looked at

A. B.; she was listening intently till she could bear it no longer,

and left the room. Our learned priest found me, I fancy, to be rather

_distrait_, so he rose, saying it was about his time, and besides, he

continued, 'I hear Miss Boyd has some friend in the drawing-room, so

I won't go up. Give her my good-bye and respects.' I joined her at

once, but of course we heard nothing in the room itself. Such is the

circumstance as it took place. Mr. Reid, who knew nothing of the habit

of D. G. R., hearing the voice as well as we did, although it sounded

to him like talking rather than reading, was a sure evidence we were

not deceiving ourselves. Next night it was the same, and so it went on

till I left. When we tried to approach it was not audible, or when the

doors of the drawing-room and its small ante-room communicating with

the staircase were left open, we could make nothing of it. It gradually

tapered off when Miss Boyd was left by herself; by-and-by the whole

establishment was bolted and barred for the winter. Next season it had

entirely ceased."]

[Footnote 125: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 405-408. The reader may be

interested in comparing the ragged and possibly commonplace account

given in the text with the following spirited version of the same

incident quoted from the _Arena_, March 1892. The writer of the account

states that "the story, as I tell it, was given me by the wife." But he

does not, it will be observed, quote it as in Mrs. W. O. S.'s words.

After describing how the doctor was awakened by a strong light in the

room and saw the figure of a woman, whom he at first mistook for his

wife, the writer in the _Arena_ proceeds as follows:--

"By this time he was broad awake, and sat upright in bed staring at the

figure. He noticed that it was a woman in a white garment; and looking

sharply, he recognised it, as he thought, as one of his patients who

was very ill. Then he realised that this could not be so, and that if

any one was in the room, it must be an intruder who had no right to be

there. With the vague thought of a possible burglar thus disguised, he

sprang out of bed and grasped his revolver, which he was accustomed

to have near at hand. This brought him face to face with the figure,

not three feet away. He now saw every detail of dress, complexion, and

feature, and for the first time recognised the fact that it was not a

being of flesh and blood. Then it was that, in quite an excited manner,

he called his wife, hoping that she would get there to see it also.

But the moment he called her name, the figure disappeared, leaving,

however, the intense yellow light behind, and which they both observed

for five minutes by the watch before it faded out.

"The next day it was found that one of his patients, closely resembling

the figure he had seen, had died a few minutes before he saw his

vision,--had died _calling for him_.

"It will be seen that this story, like the first one in this article,

_is perfectly authentic in every particular. There is no question as to

the facts_."

That, no doubt, is how the thing ought to have happened. A revolver

and a watch are essential to a properly upholstered ghost-story. There

ought to have been the dramatic confrontation of the living man with

his spectral visitant; there ought to have been the instant recognition

and as instant disappearance. Above all, there ought to have been the

exquisite adjustment in the times of vision and death.]

[Footnote 126: M. Octave Houdaille.]

[Footnote 127: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.]

CHAPTER XIII.

SOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION.

The hallucinations so far dealt with belong to classes numerically

strong, and the narratives quoted could be paralleled over and over

again from our records by other narratives equally well attested. And

this fact furnishes in itself a strong presumption of the substantial

accuracy of the accounts given. For as there is little in the kind

of incident described--the bare occurrence of a hallucination

coincidentally with an external event or with another hallucination--to

suggest the work of the imagination, there is little warrant for

ascribing this consensus of testimony among the narratives to any other

cause than a common foundation in fact. The episodes consist, indeed,

of such simple elements as to leave small room for embellishment.

Moreover, by those who accept the theory of telepathy an additional

argument for the authenticity of these narratives may be found in the

consideration that in that theory they receive a simple and sufficient

explanation. But we meet occasionally with accounts of hallucinatory

experiences which do not fall readily under any of the comparatively

simple categories already discussed. The mere difficulty of explaining

the genesis of hallucinations of such aberrant types would not, in

the present stage of our knowledge, be an argument against their

authenticity. But it serves to rob them of the support which they

might otherwise have received from their affiliation with better

known forms of hallucination; whilst the recent first-hand evidence

actually available is not sufficient in itself to substantiate

them. Whilst, therefore, such cases should be duly recorded and may

legitimately be discussed, it seems best to await the receipt of

further evidence before a final judgment is passed upon them. But in

some instances there is a further reason why the question should at

most be held unproven. Some of the features which distinguish these

cases from ordinary telepathic hallucinations, whilst occurring rarely

in well-attested recent narratives, are to be found more commonly in

remote, uncorroborated, and traditional stories. This circumstance is,

of course, a strong argument against their genuineness, since it proves

that the imagination tends to create such features. But it is not a

conclusive argument. The imagination may itself have been inspired in

the first instance by fact; it may have copied, not bettered, nature.

That the legendary epics of the older world have invented winged

dragons is clearly not an argument that can weigh against positive

evidence for the existence in a still more remote past of pterodactyls.

_Reciprocal Cases._

These considerations apply with full force to the first of the

dubious types here to be considered. In publishing seven first-hand

"reciprocal" cases in 1886 (_Phantasms_, vol. ii. p. 167) Mr. Gurney

pointed out that the evidence then available was "so small that the

genuineness of the type might fairly be called in question." Still,

regarding it as probably genuine, he anticipated that we should

ultimately obtain more well-attested specimens of it. In the eight

years which have elapsed since Mr. Gurney wrote this anticipation has

met with only partial fulfilment. We have met with but two recent

well-attested cases which clearly fall under the same category as those

already given. One of these cases has already been quoted (No. 63),

and was indeed included in the supplementary chapter of _Phantasms of

the Living_; the other is as follows:--

No. 88.--From the REV. C. L. EVANS.

"FORTON, GARSTANG.

(_Received on the_ 18_th of September_ 1889.)

"Two years ago I had occasion to undergo a course of magnetism,

under the treatment of Miss ----. I was under her treatment for six

weeks, and derived considerable benefit from her treatment. A warm

friendship sprang up between us, as she had wonderfully improved my

sight. I went up to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, at the commencement of

the October term, as my eyes were so much stronger. One afternoon,

as I had just come in from the river, being rather tired, I sat

down for a minute before I changed, when, to my great surprise, the

door opened, and Miss ---- appeared to walk in.

"She was looking rather pale at the time, and looked intently

at me for about a minute, then left the room as slowly as she

had walked in. I was much alarmed, as I fancied that something

must have happened to her, and I immediately sat down and wrote

off two letters, one to Miss ----, asking if she was well, and

another to my mother, telling her of the strange occurrence. The

next day I had back the two replies. My mother said that on that

very afternoon she had called on Miss ----, and naturally they

had been discussing my case. She said that my description of Miss

----'s dress, etc., was perfectly accurate. I then read Miss ----'s

note. She stated that my mother had called, and had left at about

half-past four, she then had lain down for a few minutes, and was

thinking and wishing to see me. She had a distinct impression that

she saw me during this sleep, or trance, but when she awoke the

impression was not very vivid. The time exactly coincided, and she

said that my description of her was very accurate. At the time that

she appeared to me I was not thinking in the least of her.

"CHARLES LLOYD EVANS."

I called on Mr. Evans on the 20th April 1892, and had a long

conversation with him. The following notes of my interview were made at

the time and written out a few days later:--

"The occurrence took place in November 1887. It would be about 4.15

P.M. He was resting in his chair--in boating clothes--with the

door ajar. Heard a knock or sound as of some one entering; turned

round and saw Miss ---- come into the room and walk towards him.

She was dressed in red bodice and dark silk skirt (a not unfamiliar

dress), but with a silver filigree cross hanging from a chain round

her neck which he had never seen before. Learnt afterwards that the

cross had been given by General ---- only a few days before the

incident.

"The figure looked him straight in the face, then seemed to fade

away bit by bit.

"He was himself perfectly well and not a bit sleepy.

"He has had no other hallucinations. His age at the time was

twenty."

Mr. Evans's mother writes:--

"_April_ 27_th_, 1892.

"In reply to the questions you asked me about the apparition

of Miss ---- to my son, when at Oxford, I can fully verify his

statement. He wrote to me the same afternoon, begging me to call

upon Miss ---- and see if she was ill, detailing me the account

of what he had seen, and also describing her dress minutely and

the cross she was wearing. I called upon Miss ---- the following

day, and read her my son's letter, giving the hour at which she

had appeared to him. She told me that she had not been feeling

well, and was lying down on the couch thinking, too, of my son,

and that she went off into a sort of trance, and she saw him

distinctly looking at her and he was very pale. This made a deep

impression upon me, for I must own myself that I hardly believed

it to be possible. However, Miss ---- told me that my son had at

once written to her, fearing that she must be ill, and told her

the circumstances under which she appeared to him. When I saw Miss

---- she was then wearing the same dress and filigree cross which

Charlie had described to me in his letter, and which he had never

seen her wearing before. I fear that I cannot now find my son's

letter, but should I come across it I will forward it to you. Miss

----, however, can corroborate all that I have said.

"MARY E. EVANS."

Afterwards I saw Miss ----. The following, notes of the interview were

made the same day:--

"_July_ 17_th_, 1892.

"Her account of the matter is that Mrs. Evans (percipient's mother)

called on her on the afternoon of the vision and talked much about

her son. After Mrs. Evans left--probably about 5.30 P.M.--Miss

----, as usual, lay down to sleep for a few minutes; woke about 6

P.M. with the recollection of having seen Mr. C. L. Evans. Can

recall no details of appearance--merely the recollection of having

been in the same room with him.

"The next day she received a letter from Mr. C. L. Evans telling of

his vision, and on the same day another visit from his mother.

"Miss ---- was wearing the dress and filigree cross described. The

cross, as stated, had been given to her only a few days before.

"Miss ---- has kept Mr. Evans's letter.[128] She has had many

visions and dreams in her life, but she cannot recall another

relating to Mr. Evans.

"She is not sure of the time at which her vision or dream occurred.

It may have been earlier than 6 P.M., her hours being very

irregular.

"She had compared notes with Mr. Evans, and was under the

impression that their experiences coincided. But I think that her

first statement--6 P.M.--is probably correct. If so, her dream

would have come one and a half to two hours after Mr. Evans's

vision."

If the above account correctly describes what took place--and I know

of no ground for doubting either the accuracy or the good faith of

the narrators--it seems clear either that Mr. Evans and Miss ----

reciprocally affected each other, or that Mr. Evans, whilst impressing

Miss ---- with the idea of his presence, was able himself to attain

to a supernormal perception of her surroundings. For the latter

explanation, however, we have no support in analogy, and it seems less

unwarrantable provisionally to regard this case and others like it as

being reciprocally telepathic. It should, perhaps, be pointed out, as

bearing upon the extreme rarity of cases of the kind, that there may

be instances of reciprocal affection of which, from the very nature

of the case, we could not hope to obtain evidence. It is conceivable,

for instance, that in the ordinary case of an apparition at death,

the dying man may himself have been a percipient as well as an agent,

since circumstances rarely permit of his side of the experience

being recorded. It is conceivable also that in cases of collective

hallucination the effect may really be a reciprocal one, the two

persons concerned simultaneously affecting and being affected by each

other, until the force so generated explodes into hallucination. But in

the present state of our knowledge it would be premature to speculate

further.

_A Misinterpreted Message._

The next case also seems susceptible of more than one explanation. The

account which follows was written in 1890.

No. 89.--From MISS C. L. HAWKINS-DEMPSTER, 24 Portman Square, W.

"I ran downstairs and entered the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M.,

believing I had kept my two sisters waiting for dinner. They had

gone to dinner, the room was empty. Behind a long sofa I saw Mr.

H. standing. He moved three steps nearer. I heard nothing. I was

not at all afraid or surprised, only felt concern as [to] what he

wanted, as he was in South America. I learnt next morning that at

that moment his mother was breathing her last. I went and arranged

her for burial, my picture still hanging above the bed, between the

portraits of her two absent sons.

"I was in the habit of hearing often from [Mr. H.], and was not at

that moment anxious about Mrs. H.'s health, though she was aged.

I had had twenty-five days before the grief of losing an only

brother. No other persons were present at the time."[129]

In answer to further inquiries, we learnt from Miss Hawkins-Dempster

that the above incident occurred on New Year's Eve, 1876-77; the room

was lighted by "one bright lamp and a fire," and the figure did not

seem to go away, she merely "ceased to see it." She used to see Mrs. H.

often, and was in no anxiety as to her health at the time. Mrs. H. was

very old, but not definitely ill. Miss Hawkins-Dempster corrected her

first statement as to the exactness of the coincidence by informing

us that Mrs. H. died in the morning of the same day on which the

apparition was seen.

Miss Hawkins-Dempster mentioned what she had seen to her sister, who

thus corroborates:--

"_July_ 15_th_, 1892.

"I heard of my sister Miss C. L. Hawkins-Dempster's vision of Mr.

H. in the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M. on New Year's Eve, 1876-77,

immediately after it happened, and before hearing that Mrs. H. died

the same day, the news of which reached us later that evening.

"H. H. DEMPSTER."

We have verified the date of death at Somerset House.

Miss Hawkins-Dempster has had one other experience--an apparition seen

also by her sister and their governess. They were children at the time,

aged about fourteen and twelve respectively.

Mr. Myers had an interview with the Misses Hawkins-Dempster on July

16th, 1892, and writes as follows the next day:--

"Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster's veridical experience is well remembered

by both sisters. The decedent was a very old lady, who was on very

intimate terms with them, and had special reasons for thinking of

Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster in connection with the son whose figure

appeared. He was at the other side of the world, and most certainly

had not heard of his mother's death at the time.

"The figure was absolutely life-like. Miss Hawkins-Dempster noticed

the slight cast of the eye and the delicate hands. The figure

rested one hand on the back of a chair and held the other out. Miss

Hawkins-Dempster called out, 'What can I do for you?' forgetting

for the moment the impossibility that it could be the real man.

Then she simply ceased to see the figure.

"She was in good health at the time, and her thoughts were occupied

with business matters."

We have a parallel case amongst our records. Miss V. saw in church

the hallucinatory figure of an acquaintance looking at her, and

subsequently learned that he was at the time at the deathbed of his

mother. A few other cases are given in _Phantasms of the Living_. I

should be disposed to explain these narratives as instances of the

misinterpretation of a telepathic message. I should conjecture, that

is, that the impulse received from the dying woman, instead of giving

rise, as in an ordinary case, to a hallucination of herself, called up

in the percipient's mind, whether through the operation of associated

ideas or from some other cause, the image of a near relative. Indeed,

seeing how potent is the influence of associated ideas, it is perhaps

a matter for wonder that such miscarriages do not more often occur. It

should be stated that, beyond their rarity, there is no special reason

to mistrust stories of this type. Their distinguishing feature is not

apparently of a kind which appeals readily to the imagination. Indeed,

by most persons the want of precise correspondence would probably be

regarded as a serious blemish in the story. Certainly cases of the kind

occur rarely, if at all, among second-hand and traditional narratives.

_Heteroplastic Hallucinations._

But another possible explanation of the incident suggests itself. It

has already been conjectured that in some cases of hallucination or

other impression, the percipient's vision may have originated not

in the mind of the person primarily concerned, but in that of some

bystander.[130] Conversely, the image seen in the narrative just cited

may have been flashed directly from the dying woman's mind. In the case

which follows a picture of the past preserved in the memory of one of

two friends appears to have been spontaneously transferred to the mind

of the other.

The case was sent to Dr. Hodgson on the 18th May 1888, and was

published in the _Arena_ for February 1889.

No. 90.--From MRS. G----.

"... For nearly two weeks I have had a lady friend visiting us from

Chicago, and last Sunday we tried the cards and in every instance I

told the colour and kind; but only two or three times was enabled

to give the exact number....

"I must write you of something that occurred last night. After

this lady, whom I have mentioned above, had retired, and almost

immediately after we had extinguished the light, there suddenly

appeared before me a beautiful lawn and coming toward me a chubby,

yellow-haired little boy, and by his side a brown dog which closely

resembled a fox. The dog had on a brass collar and the child's

hand was under the collar just as if he was leading or pulling the

dog. The vision was like a flash, came and went in an instant. I

immediately told my friend, and she said, 'Do you know where there

are any matches?' and began to hurriedly clamber out of bed. I

struck a light, she plunged into her trunk, brought out a book, and

pasted in the front was a picture of her little boy and his dog.

They were not in the same position that I saw them, but the dog

looked exceedingly familiar. Her little boy passed into the beyond

about four years ago...."

Mrs. F. corroborates as follows:--

"_May_ 18_th_, 1888.

"I wish to corroborate the statements of Mrs. N. G. relative to ...

and her wonderful vision of my little boy, and my old home. Mrs.

G. never saw the place, or the little child, and never even heard

of the peculiar-looking dog, which was my little son's constant

companion out of doors. She never saw the photograph, which was

pasted in the back of my Bible and packed away.

"(Signed) I. F."

In this case, it will be noted, the vision was the direct sequel of

some partially successful experiments in thought-transference; and

the transferred impression fell short of actual hallucination. In the

following case there is no evidence of any special rapport between

the percipient and the person who, on this hypothesis, acted as the

agent; and the percipient's impression took the form of a completely

externalised hallucination.

No. 91.--From FRANCES REDDELL.

"ANTONY, TORPOINT,

_December_ 14_th_, 1882.

"Helen Alexander (maid to Lady Waldegrave) was lying here very

ill with typhoid fever, and was attended by me. I was standing

at the table by her bedside, pouring out her medicine, at about

four o'clock in the morning of the 4th October 1880. I heard

the call-bell ring (this had been heard twice before during the

night in that same week), and was attracted by the door of the

room opening, and by seeing a person entering the room whom I

instantly felt to be the mother of the sick woman. She had a brass

candlestick in her hand, a red shawl over her shoulders, and a

flannel petticoat on which had a hole in the front. I looked at

her as much as to say, 'I am glad you have come,' but the woman

looked at me sternly, as much as to say, 'Why wasn't I sent for

before?' I gave the medicine to Helen Alexander, and then turned

round to speak to the vision, but no one was there. She had gone.

She was a short, dark person, and very stout. At about six o'clock

that morning Helen Alexander died. Two days after, her parents and

a sister came to Antony, and arrived between one and two o'clock

in the morning; I and another maid let them in, and it gave me a

great turn when I saw the living likeness of the vision I had seen

two nights before. I told the sister about the vision, and she said

that the description of the dress exactly answered to her mother's,

and that they had brass candlesticks at home exactly like the one

described. There was not the slightest resemblance between the

mother and daughter.

"FRANCES REDDELL.

Frances Reddell fortunately described her vision to her mistress, Mrs.

Pole-Carew, of Antony, Torpoint, Devonport, within a few hours of its

occurrence, and before her encounter with the original. Mrs. Pole-Carew

writes as follows:--

"31_st December_ 1883.

"In October 1880, Lord and Lady Waldegrave came with their Scotch

maid, Helen Alexander, to stay with us. [The account then describes

how Helen was discovered to have caught typhoid fever, and pending

the arrival of a regular nurse, was nursed for several days by

Frances Reddell. On the Sunday week, Mrs. Pole-Carew continues],

I allowed Reddell to sit up with Helen again that night, to give

her the medicine and food, which were to be taken constantly. At

about 4.30 that night, or rather Monday morning, Reddell looked

at her watch, poured out the medicine, and was bending over the

bed to give it to Helen when the call-bell in the passage rang.

She said to herself, 'There's that tiresome bell with the wire

caught again.' (It seems it did occasionally ring of itself in

this manner.) At that moment, however, she heard the door open,

and looking round, saw a very stout old woman walk in. She was

dressed in a nightgown and red flannel petticoat, and carried an

old-fashioned brass candlestick in her hand. The petticoat had a

hole rubbed in it. She walked into the room and appeared to be

going towards the dressing-table to put her candle down. She was a

perfect stranger to Reddell, who, however, merely thought, 'This

is her mother come to see after her,' and she felt quite glad it

was so, accepting the idea without reasoning upon it, as one would

in a dream. She thought the mother looked annoyed, possibly at not

having been sent for before. She then gave Helen the medicine, and

turning round, found that the apparition had disappeared, and that

the door was shut. A great change, meanwhile, had taken place in

Helen, and Reddell fetched me, who sent off for the doctor, and

meanwhile applied hot poultices, etc., but Helen died a little

before the doctor came. She was quite conscious up to about

half-an-hour before she died, when she seemed to be going to sleep.

"During the early days of her illness Helen had written to a

sister, mentioning her being unwell, but making nothing of it, and

as she never mentioned any one but this sister, it was supposed by

the household, to whom she was a perfect stranger, that she had no

other relation alive. Reddell was always offering to write for her,

but she always declined, saying there was no need, she would write

herself in a day or two. No one at home, therefore, knew anything

of her being so ill, and it is, therefore, remarkable that her

mother, a far from nervous person, should have said that evening

going up to bed, 'I am sure Helen is very ill.'

"Reddell told me and my daughter of the apparition, about an hour

after Helen's death, prefacing with, 'I am not superstitious

or nervous, and I wasn't the least frightened, but her mother

came last night,' and she then told the story, giving a careful

description of the figure she had seen. The relations were asked

to come to the funeral, and the father, mother, and sister came,

and in the mother Reddell recognised the apparition, as I did

also, for Reddell's description had been most accurate, even to

the expression, which she had ascribed to annoyance, but which

was due to deafness. It was judged best not to speak about it to

the mother, but Reddell told the sister, who said the description

of the figure corresponded exactly with the probable appearance

of her mother if roused in the night; that they had exactly such

a candlestick at home, and that there was a hole in her mother's

petticoat produced by the way she always wore it. It seems curious

that neither Helen nor her mother appeared to be aware of the

visit. Neither of them, at any rate, ever spoke of having seen the

other, nor even of having dreamt of having done so.

"F. A. POLE-CAREW."

[Frances Reddell states that she has never had any hallucination,

or any odd experience of any kind, except on this one occasion.

The Hon. Mrs. Lyttelton, of Selwyn College, Cambridge, who knows

her, tells us that "she appears to be a most matter-of-fact person,

and was apparently most impressed by the fact that she saw a hole

in the mother's flannel petticoat, made by the busk of her stays,

reproduced in the apparition."]

The simplest explanation of this incident, and that which involves

the least departure from known forms of telepathy, is that the figure

seen by Frances Reddell was due to thought-transference from the mind

of the dying girl. And this explanation has some direct evidence in

its favour. There is, of course, abundant proof of the transference

from agent to percipient of a real or imaginary scene. (See the cases

described in Chapters II., III., XIV., and XV.) But in these cases

the percipient's impressions appear rarely to have risen to the level

of hallucination, and in the absence of direct evidence it would not

perhaps have been safe to assume that a detailed impression, such

as a scene or a human figure, transferred from another mind, would

be capable of taking complete sensory embodiment in the mind of the

percipient. The frequency, however, of collective hallucinations of

an apparently casual character seems to require such an assumption

(see _ante_, p. 273). Moreover, a case has been recorded (_Proc.

S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 434, 435) in which a hypnotically induced

hallucination appears to have been reproduced in another hypnotised

subject by telepathic suggestion from the original percipient. In the

experiments recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (pp. 368, 369) the ideas mentally

suggested by him appear in some cases to have assumed a hallucinatory

form in the subject; and, finally, Wesermann (Chapter X., p. 233),

in his fifth experiment succeeded in calling up a recognisable

hallucination of a lady personally unknown to the percipients. We have,

therefore, experimental parallels for our suggested interpretation

of Frances Reddell's experience; and when once the possibility of

thought-transference in this form is recognised, many so-called

"ghosts" or phantasms of the dead find a simple and satisfactory

explanation. The following case may be instanced:--

No. 92.--From MR. JOHN E. HUSBANDS, Melbourne House, Town Hall Square,

Grimsby.

"_September_ 15_th_, 1886.

"The facts are simply these. I was sleeping in a hotel in Madeira

in January 1885. It was a bright moonlight night. The windows

were open and the blinds up. I felt some one was in my room. On

opening my eyes, I saw a young fellow about twenty-five, dressed

in flannels, standing at the side of my bed and pointing with the

first finger of his right hand to the place I was lying in. I

lay for some seconds to convince myself of some one being really

there. I then sat up and looked at him. I saw his features so

plainly that I recognised them in a photograph which was shown me

some days after. I asked him what he wanted; he did not speak, but

his eyes and hand seemed to tell me I was in his place. As he did

not answer, I struck out at him with my fist as I sat up, but did

not reach him, and as I was going to spring out of bed he slowly

vanished through the door, which was shut, keeping his eyes upon me

all the time.

"Upon inquiry I found that the young fellow who appeared to me died

in that room I was occupying.

"If I can tell you anything more I shall be glad to, if it

interests you.

"JOHN E. HUSBANDS."

The following letters are from Miss Falkner, of Church Terrace,

Wisbech, who was resident at the hotel when the above incident

happened:--

"_October_ 8_th_, 1886.

"The figure that Mr. Husbands saw while in Madeira was that of a

young fellow who died unexpectedly months previously, in the room

which Mr. Husbands was occupying. Curiously enough, Mr. H. had

never heard of him or his death. He told me the story the morning

after he had seen the figure, and I recognised the young fellow

from the description. It impressed me very much, but I did not

mention it to him or any one. I loitered about until I heard Mr.

Husbands tell the same tale to my brother; we left Mr. H. and said

simultaneously, 'He has seen Mr. D.'

"No more was said on the subject for days; then I abruptly showed

the photograph.

"Mr. Husbands said at once, 'This is the young fellow who appeared

to me the other night, but he was dressed differently'--describing

a dress he often wore--'cricket suit (or tennis) fastened at the

neck with sailor knot.' I must say that Mr. Husbands is a most

practical man, and the very last one would expect 'a spirit' to

visit.

"K. FALKNER."

"_October_ 20_th_, 1886.

"I enclose you photograph and an extract from my sister-in-law's

letter, which I received this morning, as it will verify my

statement. Mr. Husbands saw the figure either the 3rd or 4th of

February 1885.

"The people who had occupied the rooms had never told us if they

had seen anything, so we may conclude they had not.

"K. FALKNER."

The following is Miss Falkner's copy of the passage in the letter:--

"You will see at back of Mr. du F----'s photo the date of his

decease [January 29th, 1884]; and if you recollect 'the Motta

Marques' had his rooms from the February till the May or June of

1884, then Major Money at the commencement of 1885 season. Mr.

Husbands had to take the room on February 2nd, 1885, as his was

wanted.

"I am clear on all this, and remember his telling me the incident

when he came to see my baby."

At a personal interview Mr. Gurney learnt that Mr. Husbands had never

had any other hallucination of the senses. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p.

416.)

It is, of course, conceivable that before his experience Mr.

Husbands may have heard of the death of Mr. D. and have forgotten

the circumstance. But this supposition will hardly account for the

recognition of the photograph. In any case, however, there can be no

justification for invoking other than terrestrial agencies to explain

the vision. Until such agencies are proved inadequate to account for

the facts a narrative of this kind can scarcely be held to raise a

presumption, much less to afford a proof, of the action of the dead.

Miss Falkner and her brother had known the dead man; no fact about him

was communicated which was not within their knowledge; and there is

nothing to negative the supposition that some echo of their thoughts or

dreams may have given rise to the vision. A very similar case is quoted

in the same volume (_Proc_., vol. v. p. 418). Mr. D. M. Tyre, of St.

Andrews Road, Pollokshields, Glasgow, stayed for some time in a lonely

house in Dumbartonshire. On several occasions during their occupancy

of the house Miss L. Tyre saw the figure of an old woman lying on the

bed in the kitchen. The figure lay with the face turned to the wall,

and the legs drawn up as if from cold. On her head was a "sow-backed

mutch," _i.e._, a white frilled cap of a peculiar shape common in the

Highlands. The others who were present did not see the figure. It was

subsequently ascertained from a neighbour that the description given

correctly represented the dress and attitude of a former occupant

of the house, who had died there some years before under painful

circumstances. M. Richet (_Proc._, vol. v. p. 148) gives an account

of some spiritualist séances at which the promise was given that his

grandfather, M. Charles Renouard, would appear. A figure resembling M.

Charles Renouard was actually seen some days later, not by any of those

present at the séance, but by an English lady staying in the house, who

was believed to know nothing of the expected apparition.

A similar explanation may perhaps apply to the following account, which

was communicated verbally to Mr. Myers on the 12th October 1888 by the

percipient, Mr. J., a gentleman well known in the scientific world. Mr.

Myers explains that the account which follows was written out by him

from his notes of the conversation, and was subsequently revised and

corrected by Mr. J. himself.

No. 93.--From MR. J.

"In 1880 I succeeded a Mr. Q. as librarian of the X. Library. I

had never seen Mr. Q., nor any photograph or likeness of him,

when the following incidents occurred. I may, of course, have

heard the library assistants describe his appearance, though I

have no recollection of this. I was sitting alone in the library

one evening late in March 1884, finishing some work after hours,

when it suddenly occurred to me that I should miss the last train

to H., where I was then living, if I did not make haste. It was

then 10.55, and the last train left X. at 11.5. I gathered up some

books in one hand, took the lamp in the other, and prepared to

leave the librarian's room, which communicated by a passage with

the main room of the library. As my lamp illumined this passage, I

saw apparently at the further end of it a man's face. I instantly

thought a thief had got into the library. This was by no means

impossible, and the probability of it had occurred to me before. I

turned back into my room, put down the books, and took a revolver

from the safe, and, holding the lamp cautiously behind me, I made

my way along the passage--which had a corner, behind which I

thought my thief might be lying in wait--into the main room. Here I

saw no one, but the room was large and encumbered with bookcases.

I called out loudly to the intruder to show himself several times,

more with the hope of attracting a passing policeman than of

drawing the intruder. Then I saw a face looking round one of the

bookcases. I say looking _round_, but it had an odd appearance as

if the _body_ were _in_ the bookcase, as the face came so closely

to the edge and I could see no body. The face was pallid and

hairless, and the orbits of the eyes were very deep. I advanced

towards it, and as I did so I saw an old man with high shoulders

seem to _rotate_ out of the end of the bookcase, and with his back

towards me and with a shuffling gait walk rather quickly from the

bookcase to the door of a small lavatory, which opened from the

library and had no other access. I heard no noise. I followed the

man at once into the lavatory; and to my extreme surprise found no

one there. I examined the window (about 14 in. x 12 in.), and found

it closed and fastened. I opened it and looked out. It opened into

a well, the bottom of which, 10 feet below, was a sky-light, and

the top open to the sky some 20 feet above. It was in the middle

of the building, and no one could have dropped into it without

smashing the glass nor climbed out of it without a ladder--but

no one was there. Nor had there been anything like time for a man

to get out of the window, as I followed the intruder instantly.

Completely mystified, I even looked into the little cupboard

under the fixed basin. There was nowhere hiding for a child, and

I confess I began to experience for the first time what novelists

describe as an 'eerie' feeling.

"I left the library, and found I had missed my train.

"Next morning I mentioned what I had seen to a local clergyman,

who, on hearing my description, said, 'Why, that's old Q.!'

Soon after I saw a photograph (from a drawing) of Q., and the

resemblance was certainly striking. Q. had lost all his hair,

eyebrows and all, from (I believe) a gunpowder accident. His walk

was a peculiar, rapid, high-shouldered shuffle.

"Later inquiry proved he had died at about the time of year at

which I saw the figure." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 57.)

Mr. J. states that he has seen but one other hallucination, a figure

representing his mother, which appeared to him at the time of the birth

of one of his sisters.

A hallucination of another kind was seen independently in the same

library by Mr. R., the principal assistant, and a clerk, Mr. P. Mr. R.

writes in 1889:--

"A few years ago I was engaged in a large building in the ----, and

during the busy times was often there till late in the evening. On

one particular night I was at work along with a junior clerk till

about 11 P.M., in the room marked A on the annexed sketch. All the

lights in the place had been out for hours except those in the room

which we occupied. Before leaving, we turned out the gas. We then

looked into the fireplace, but not a spark was to be seen. The

night was very dark, but being thoroughly accustomed to the place

we carried no light. On reaching the bottom of the staircase (B),

I happened to look up; when, to my surprise, the room which we had

just left appeared to be lighted. I turned to my companion and

pointed out the light, and sent him back to see what was wrong. He

went at once and I stood looking through the open door, but I was

not a little astonished to see that as soon as he got within a few

yards of the room the light went out quite suddenly. My companion,

from the position he was in at the moment, could not see the light

go out, but on his reaching the door everything was in total

darkness. He entered, however, and when he returned, reported that

both gas and fire were completely out. The light in the daytime was

got by means of a glass roof, there being no windows on the sides

of the room, and the night in question was so dark that the moon

shining through the roof was out of the question. Although I have

often been in the same room till long after dark, both before and

since, I have never seen anything unusual at any other time."

Mr. P. endorses this:--

"I confirm the foregoing statement."

In subsequent letters Mr. R. says:--

"The bare facts are as stated, being neither more nor less than

what took place. I have never on any other occasion had any

hallucination of the senses, and I think you will find the same to

be the case with Mr. P."

This incident took place after Mr. J.'s vision, but Mr. J. had

mentioned his own experience only to his wife and one other friend, and

no hint of it appears to have reached the assistants in the library, so

that the two visions would appear to have been independent.

To extend the theory of thought-transference from living minds to cover

a case such as that just quoted may seem to some extravagant. But if

there is anything beyond chance in the occurrence--and it would be a

very remarkable coincidence that three persons should independently

be the subject of hallucination in the same house, and that one of

the hallucinations should resemble a former occupant of the house,

unknown to the percipient--some explanation is required, and an

explanation which involves no novel or unproved agency is, _ceteris

paribus_, to be preferred. As regards the apparently local character

of the visitation, Mr. Gurney has suggested, with regard to some cases

quoted in _Phantasms of the Living_ (vol. ii. pp. 267-269), where the

link between agent and percipient appears to have been of a local and

not of a personal character, that a similarity of immediate mental

content between the percipient and agent may have been the condition

of the telepathic action. In the ordinary case of an apparition,

_e.g._, of a dying mother to her son, the condition of the appearance

to that particular percipient rather than to the man in the street

should on this hypothesis be sought in the community of intellectual

and emotional experiences which may be presumed to exist between near

relatives who have passed a large part of their lives in the same

environment. In the cases now under consideration the substitute for

such far-reaching community is to be found in the transitory occupation

of both percipient and agent--the one in present sensation, the other

in memory--with the same scene. Such partial community of perception,

by a kind of extended association of ideas, tends under the hypothesis

towards more complete community, and the agent thus imports into the

sensorium of the percipient the image of his own or some other's

presence in the scene which forms part of the present content of both

minds. On this view Mr. J. saw the figure of Mr. Q. in the library,

because some friend of Mr. Q.'s was at that moment vividly picturing to

himself the late librarian in his old haunts.

Cases, such as the three last quoted, of the solitary appearance of a

phantasmal figure, subsequently identified by description, photograph,

or--as in Frances Reddell's case--actual encounter with the original,

are rare; and experience shows how easy it may be for the somewhat

vague image preserved in the memory to take on definite form and colour

during the process, occasionally prolonged, of "recognition." The type

cannot, therefore, be regarded as well established. As, however, such

narratives have in some instances been regarded as affording evidence

of the action of disembodied spirits, it seemed well to suggest

that, if the facts are accepted, they are susceptible of another

interpretation.

_Haunted Houses._

But there are numerous cases to which the hypothesis of telepathic

infection may be applied with perhaps less hesitation. The form which

so-called "ghost stories" most commonly assume is the appearance

of an unrecognised phantasmal figure. When the appearance is to

one person only, or when, in the intervals of its appearance to

others, the matter has been freely discussed amongst the members of

the household, and the details of the figure described, we should

probably be justified, on the analogy of hypnotic and epidemic

religious hallucinations, in regarding the original appearance as

purely subjective and the later ones as due to verbal suggestion and

expectancy. But there are cases where, from the definite statements

of the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances, it appears at all

events extremely improbable that any mention was made of the original

hallucination. In such cases it seems permissible to conjecture

that the later apparitions, or some of them, may have been due to

telepathic suggestion from the original percipient, to whom his

solitary experience would naturally be a subject of frequent and vivid

reflection.

* * * * *

I received the following account from the ladies concerned after a

personal interview with one of them on February 27th, 1889, in the

course of which I examined the scene of the apparition, the landing

of a moderate-sized London house. The landing, though narrow, is well

lighted, and it seems impossible that the appearance could have been

a real person. The first experience, it will be seen, is a collective

hallucination, of a type discussed in the preceding chapter.

No. 94.--From MRS. KNOTT.

"LONDON, S.W.,

_March_ 5_th_, 1889.

"The incident I relate occurred at this address early in February

1889. I have lived in this house four years, and constantly _felt_

another presence was in the drawing-room besides myself, but never

_saw_ any form until last month. My cousin Mrs. R. and myself

returned from a walk at 1.30 P.M. The front door was opened for

us by my housekeeper, Mrs. E. I passed upstairs before my cousin,

and on turning to my bedroom, the door of which is beside the

drawing-room door [_i.e._, at right angles to it], I saw, as I

thought, Mrs. E. go into the drawing-room. I put a parcel into my

room and then followed her to give some order, and found the room

empty! My cousin was going up the second flight of stairs to her

room, and I called out, 'Did you open the drawing-room door as you

passed?' 'No,' she replied, 'Mrs. E. has gone in.' Mrs. R. had seen

the figure more distinctly than I; it seemed to pass her at the

top of the stairs, and she thought, 'How quietly Mrs. E. moves! "I

inquired of Mrs. E. what she did after opening the door for us, and

she said, 'Went to the kitchen to hasten luncheon, as you were in

a hurry for it.' The day was bright, and there is nothing on the

stairs that could cast a shadow. I quite hope some day I may see

the face of the figure."

From MRS. R., Malpas, Cheshire.

"_March_ 1_st_, 1889.

"In answer to your letter on the subject of the figure seen at

C. Terrace, Mrs. K. and I had just come in at about half-past

one o'clock. Mrs. E. (the housekeeper) had opened the door. We

went upstairs, and on the first landing are two rooms, one the

drawing-room, the other Mrs. K.'s bedroom. She went into her room

while I stood a minute or two talking to her. Just as I turned

to go up the next flight of stairs I thought I saw Mrs. E. pass

me quickly and go into the drawing-room. Beyond seeing a slight

figure in a dark dress I saw nothing more, for I did not look at

it, but just saw it pass me. Before I got upstairs Mrs. K. called

out, 'Did you leave the drawing-room door open?' I answered, 'I

did not go in; I saw Mrs. E. go in.' Mrs. K. answered, 'There is

nobody there.' We asked Mrs. E. if she had been up; she, on the

contrary, had gone straight down. Also, as she said, she would

not have passed me on the landing, but have waited until I had

gone upstairs; and as it struck me _afterwards_, she could not

have passed me on such a small landing without touching me, but I

never noticed that at the time. I do not know if a thought ever

embodies itself, but my idea was, and is, that as Mrs. E. ran

downstairs her thought went up, wondering if the drawing-room fire

was burning brightly. The figure I saw went into the room as if it

had a purpose of some sort. I have never seen anything of the sort

before."

In a later letter Mrs. R. adds:--

"_March_ 10_th_, 1889.

"I am afraid I cannot give any very definite reply to your

questions.

"(1) 'Had I any idea of the house being haunted?' No; and I do not

think it is supposed to be haunted. Mrs. K. has said that at times

it has seemed to her as if there was some one else in the room

beside herself, but I think that is a feeling that has come to most

people some time or other.

"(2) 'Did we see it simultaneously?' That I cannot exactly say, but

I should think yes, for we neither of us said anything until Mrs.

K. called out to me to know if I had been in the drawing-room."

In commenting on the story in November 1889 (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.

p. 250), I wrote, "Here we may almost see the story of a haunted house

in the making. The essential elements are there. We have the visionary

figure seen by two persons at once, and the mysterious feeling of

an alien presence in the room. It is quite possible that the latter

circumstance would have passed unrecorded, and even unnoticed, but

for the subsequent phantasm, through which it gained a retrospective

importance." My comments have met with unexpected justification. On

April 7th, 1893, Mrs. Knott again wrote to me as follows:--

"On Saturday, the 18th March, at 1.50 P.M., Mrs. H. and I were

going upstairs to the drawing-room, she first, I following with

some flowers, _not looking up_. I heard her say, 'Mrs. E., don't

go down until you have seen my screen.' (Mrs. H. had just finished

painting one.) I said, 'Mrs. E. isn't here.' Mrs. H. replied, 'Yes,

she is in the drawing-room.' Then I heard her say, 'Where _has_ the

woman gone?' for no one was visible in the room, and Mrs. H. said

she _distinctly_ saw a figure go in, and felt sure it was Mrs. E.

This is exactly the same impression that Mrs. R. and I had when we

each saw the figure go into the drawing-room four years ago, in

February, and it was about the same hour of the day."

In a later letter Mrs. Knott explains that Mrs. H. had heard of the

earlier apparition on the same spot, but adds that the story "most

certainly did not stay in her mind." We shall probably be justified in

assuming, however, that Mrs. H.'s hallucinatory experience was due to a

subconscious reminiscence of her friend's ghost-story.

In the case which follows, however, there is strong evidence that the

phantasms were seen independently by each percipient. The narrators

are unwilling that their names or that of the house should appear.

Mr. Gurney, however, fully discussed the circumstances with them at a

personal interview.

No. 95.--From MRS. W.

"_February_ 19_th_, 1885.

[Illustration: SKETCH PLAN OF THE GROUND-FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

=A= Piano. =B= First position of figure. =C= Second position of figure.

=D= Garden door. =E= Baize door. =F= Front door and porch. =G= Front

gate.]

"In June 1881 we went to live in a detached villa just out of the

town of C----. Our household consisted of my husband and myself,

my step-daughter, and two little boys, aged nine and six, and two

female servants. The house was between ten and twenty years old.

We had been there about three weeks, when, about 11 o'clock one

morning, as I was playing the piano in the drawing-room, I had the

following experience:--I was suddenly aware of a figure peeping

round the corner of the folding-doors to my left; thinking it must

be a visitor, I jumped up and went into the passage, but no one was

there, and the hall door, which was half glass, was shut. I only

saw the upper half of the figure, which was that of a tall man,

with a very pale face and dark hair and moustache. The impression

lasted only a second or two, but I saw the face so distinctly that

to this day I should recognise it if I met it in a crowd. It had a

sorrowful expression. It was impossible for any one to come into

the house without being seen or heard. I was startled, but not the

least frightened. I had heard no report whatever as to the house

being haunted; and am certainly not given to superstitious fancies.

I did not mention my experience to any one at the time, and formed

no theory about it. In the following August, one evening about

8.30, I had occasion to go into the drawing-room to get something

out of the cupboard, when, on turning round, I saw the same face

in the bay-window, in front of the shutters, which were closed. I

again saw only the upper part of the figure, which seemed to be in

a somewhat crouching posture. The light on this occasion came from

the hall and the dining-room, and did not shine directly on the

window; but I was able perfectly to distinguish the face and the

expression of the eyes. This time I _was_ frightened, and mentioned

the matter to my husband the same evening. I then also told him of

my first experience. On each of these occasions I was from 8 to 10

feet distant from the figure.

"Later in the same month I was playing cricket in the garden with

my little boys. From my position at the wickets I could see right

into the house through an open door, down a passage, and through

the hall as far as the front door. The kitchen door opened into the

passage. I distinctly saw the same face peeping round at me out of

the kitchen door. I again only saw the upper half of the figure.

I threw down the bat and ran in. No one was in the kitchen. One

servant was out, and I found that the other was up in her bedroom.

I mentioned this incident at once to my husband, who also examined

the kitchen without any result.

"A little later in the year, about 8 o'clock one evening, I was

coming downstairs alone, when I heard a voice from the direction,

apparently, of my little boys' bedroom, the door of which was open.

It distinctly said, in a deep sorrowful tone, 'I can't find it.' I

called out to my little boys, but they did not reply, and I have

not the slightest doubt that they were asleep; they always called

out if they heard me upstairs. My step-daughter, who was downstairs

in the dining-room with the door open, also heard the voice, and

thinking it was me calling, cried out, 'What are you looking for?'

We were extremely puzzled. The voice could not by any possibility

have belonged to any member of the household. The servants were in

the kitchen, and my husband was out.

"A short time after I was again coming downstairs after dark in the

evening when I felt a sharp slap on the back. It startled but did

not hurt me. There was no one near me, and I ran downstairs and

told my husband and my step-daughter.

"I have never in my life, on any other occasion, had any

hallucination of sight, hearing, or touch."

The following is Miss W.'s account:--

"_February_ 19_th_, 1885.

"In July, 1881, I was sitting playing the piano in our house

in C----, about 11.30 in the morning, when I saw the head and

shoulders of a man peeping round the folding-doors, in just the

same way as they had appeared to my mother, but I had not at that

time heard of her experience. I jumped up, and advanced, thinking

it was an acquaintance from a few yards off. This impression,

however, only lasted for a second; the face disappeared, but

recalling it, I perceived at once that it was certainly not that of

the gentleman whom I had for a second thought of. The resemblance

was only that they were both dark. The face was pale and

melancholy, and the hair very dark. I at once went to Mrs. W. in

the dining-room, and asked if any one had called. She said, 'No';

and I then told her what I had seen. I then for the first time

heard from her what _she_ had seen, and our descriptions completely

agreed. We had even both noticed that the hair was parted in the

middle, and that a good deal of shirt-front showed.

"A few weeks later, about 11 P.M., Mrs. W. and I were playing

bézique in the dining-room. Mr. W. was out, and the servants had

gone to bed. The door of the room was open, and I was facing it.

I suddenly had an impression that some one was looking at me, and

I looked up. There was the same face, and the upper half of the

figure, peeping round into the room from the hall. I said, 'There's

the man again!' Mrs. W. rushed to the door, but there was no one in

the hall or passage; the front door was locked, and the green baize

door which communicated with the back part of the house was shut.

The figure had been on the side of the dining-room door nearest

to the front door, and could not have got to the green baize door

without passing well in our sight. We were a good deal frightened,

and we mentioned the occurrence to Mr. W. on his return. He went

all over the house as usual before going to bed, and all windows

were fastened, and everything in order.

"A few weeks after this, about 11.30 A.M., I was upstairs playing

battledore and shuttlecock with my eldest brother in his bedroom.

The door was open. Stepping back in the course of the game, I got

out on to the landing; I looked sideways over my shoulder, in

order to strike the shuttlecock, and suddenly saw the same face

as before, and my brother called out at the same moment, 'There's

a man on the landing.' I was startled myself, but to reassure the

child I said there was no one--that he had made a mistake--and shut

the door and went on with the game. I told my father and Mrs. W. of

this as soon as I saw them.

"Later in the autumn I was sitting alone in the dining-room one

evening, with the door open. Mrs. W. had been upstairs, and I heard

her coming down. Suddenly I heard a deep, melancholy voice say, 'I

can't find it.' I called out, 'What are you looking for?' At the

same time the voice was not the least like Mrs. W.'s. She then came

in and told me she had heard exactly the same thing. My father was

out at the time, but we told him of the circumstance on his return.

"In September of 1882 I was for a week in the house with only

the two children and the servants. It was about 7.30 on Sunday

evening, and nearly dark. The others were all out in the garden. I

was standing at the dining-room window, when I caught a glimpse of

a tall man's figure slipping into the porch. I must have seen if

anybody had approached the porch by the path from the front gate,

and I should certainly have heard the latch of the gate, which

used to make a considerable noise, and I should also have heard

footsteps on the gravel-path. The figure appeared quite suddenly;

it had on a tall hat. I was very much astonished, but ran to the

door, thinking it might possibly be my father. No one was there; I

went to the gate, and looked up and down the road. No one was in

sight, and there was no possibility that anybody could have got so

suddenly out of view.

"I have never at any other time in my life had any hallucination

whatever, either of sight or hearing.

"I remember Mrs. W. telling me of her experience of the slap as

soon as she came downstairs.

"I ought to add that at the time when we were negotiating about

the house, the landlady of the lodgings where my father and I were

staying told me that all the villas of the row in which our house

was situated, ten in number, were haunted. I was with my father

when I heard this. Mrs. W. was not with us. I am certain that the

remark made no impression whatever on me, and that it did not even

recur to my mind till I saw what I have described. I did not even

mention the remark to Mrs. W."

Mrs. W. adds--

"I distinctly remember my step-daughter coming to me immediately

after her first sight of the figure, and telling me about it.

I then told her for the first time of my own experience (I had

then only had one), and our descriptions completely tallied. I

distinctly remember our agreeing about the parting of the hair

in the middle, and about the amount of white shirt-front. We

could neither of us remember whether his tie was white or black.

We agreed that we should know the face if we ever met it. And

subsequently, at an evening party, we both pitched on the same

individual as more like our strange visitor than any one else we

knew. The resemblance, however, was not extremely close.

"I distinctly remember, also, my step-daughter exclaiming, 'There's

that man again!' when we were playing bézique. I rushed at once

into the hall and found the door closed as she has described.

"I also remember her telling me at once about what she had seen,

and what her brother had exclaimed when they were playing at

battledore and shuttlecock.

"She told me about what she had seen in the porch when Mr. W. and I

returned from town on the next (Monday) morning."

The following is Surgeon-Major W.'s confirmation:--

"I was told of these various occurrences by my wife and daughter at

the times which they have specified. I only heard from my wife of

her _first_ experience after she had told me of her _second_. After

she had seen the figure during the game of cricket, I went into the

kitchen, but found everything as usual. On my return home, after my

daughter's seeing the figure peeping round the dining-room door,

I went all over the premises as my custom was, and found windows

secured and everything in order.

"My wife and daughter are as unlikely as any one I know to suffer

from causeless frights. They are completely free from nervousness,

and though these experiences were startling and bewildering to

them, they did not in the least worry themselves in consequence.

"It seems possible that the voice may have been that of one of the

children talking in sleep, and the slap some effect of imagination,

but it is not easy to account for the apparitions by any such known

causes."

In this case it seems unlikely that Mrs. W., the original percipient,

was mistaken in supposing that she had not mentioned her first

experience, and that Miss W. was also mistaken in her statement that

she had not heard of what Mrs. W. had seen until after the apparition

to herself. And it is still more unlikely that either lady would have

allowed any hint of the matter to reach the ears of the children.

Whilst, therefore, in the absence of contemporary notes, or of any

identification of the figure, the degree of resemblance between the

apparitions seen by the two ladies may have been exaggerated, we

are still confronted with the problem that three persons living in

the same house are credibly reported to have seen independently the

hallucinatory figure of a man, and that in the two instances in which

the apparitions were compared they were found to exhibit certain

resemblances. That the first figure was a subjective hallucination, and

that the later apparitions were reproductions of that hallucination

by means of telepathic suggestion, is a solution which is, at any

rate, worthy of consideration. We have in our records many cases of

the kind, in which hallucinatory figures, in some cases presenting

strong resemblances, are alleged to have been seen by two or more

independent witnesses in the same house or locality. Thus we have

accounts from Miss Kathleen Leigh Hunt, Miss Laurence, and Mr. Paul

Bird, of a woman's figure seen independently by each of them in 1881

(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 106 _et seq._). In another case (_Proc.

S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 270 _et seq._) a doctor in a provincial town,

his two daughters, and a young lady visitor saw the figure of a young

child. In other cases different hallucinatory figures have been seen

independently by successive occupants of the same house, the later

percipients appearing not to have heard of the earlier apparitions.

Thus we have accounts of figures seen during the period from 1861 to

1875 by three different families in an old Elizabethan manor-house

(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 118); and in a quite modern house in the

South of England various phantasmal figures were seen between 1882 and

1888 by two successive sets of occupants. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.

256 _et seq._[131])

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 128: She was, however, unable to find it.]

[Footnote 129: It should be explained that this account was written

on a "census" form, in the limited space provided for answers to our

printed questions.]

[Footnote 130: See, for instance, Nos. 47, 75, 87, etc.]

[Footnote 131: Those desiring to study further the evidence on

this subject are referred to the paper on "Phantasms of the Dead,"

_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii., by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, and the papers on

"Recognised Apparitions occurring after Death," and on "Phantasms

of the Dead," by Messrs. Gurney, Myers, and the present writer

respectively, in Proc. v. and vi., and the "Record of a Haunted House,"

in Proc. viii. Many cases of the kind are also printed in the monthly

journal of the Society; and there are one or two striking cases in the

_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_.]

CHAPTER XIV.

ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN TRANCE.

The word "clairvoyance" was used by the older mesmerists to denote

somewhat heterogeneous phenomena. It was applied in the first place

to a supposed faculty by which the subject was enabled to ascertain

facts not within human knowledge,[132] and in the second place to a

power of discerning facts within the knowledge of some living mind.

Of "clairvoyance" in the first sense there is not at present so much

evidence as need cause hesitation in appropriating the name for other

uses; and it is obvious that if such a faculty could be shown to exist,

a discussion of it would find no place in a work which treats only

of the affection of one human mind by another. But we have abundant

evidence of clairvoyance in the second sense, that is, of a form of

telepathy in which the transmitted idea seems to reach the mind of

the percipient no longer as the meagre result of a serious crisis,

or of a direct and often prolonged effort of attention on the part

of the agent, but spontaneously, with great fulness of detail, and

often with remarkable ease and rapidity, as the outcome of a special

receptivity on the part of the percipient. Such clairvoyance--and the

word must be understood to include the impressions of other senses than

sight--occurs in its most striking form with hypnotised percipients;

and in the present chapter I propose to deal with results obtained in

hypnotism and analogous states, reserving for the following chapter

instances of what appears to be the same faculty occurring in the

normal state.[133]

MRS. PIPER.

The phenomena of clairvoyance, as thus defined, have been observed with

great care in the case of an American lady, Mrs. Piper. Mrs. Piper had

been known for some years in the United States as a clairvoyante and

spirit medium, and her trance utterances had been carefully studied by

Professor James and Dr. Hodgson. In the winter of 1888-89 she spent

two months and a half in this country, at the invitation of certain

members of the S.P.R. She came to England as a complete stranger, and

was met on her landing at Liverpool by Professor Lodge, and during the

whole period she stayed either in the houses of Professor Sidgwick

or Mr. Myers at Cambridge, in Professor Lodge's house at Liverpool,

or in rooms in London selected by Dr. Leaf. Neither at Cambridge nor

Liverpool were there any opportunities of her acquiring knowledge of

the histories and circumstances of the persons who visited her for

experiments, other than those afforded during the actual progress

of the experiment, or by inquiries of servants and children, the

examination of books and photograph albums, or from the newspapers and

private correspondence. Practically she was under close and almost

continuous surveillance during the whole period, and, independently

of the special precautions taken to guard against the acquisition of

knowledge by any of the means above indicated (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.

pp. 438-440, 446-447, etc.), it is important to note that the sitters

were in almost every instance introduced to Mrs. Piper under an assumed

name; that some of them, and those not the least successful, were

persons in no way connected with the S.P.R., whose admission was due to

circumstances more or less accidental; and that on several occasions

she stated facts which were not within the conscious knowledge of any

person present, and which could not conceivably have been discovered by

any process of private inquiry.[134]

The actual method of experiment was as follows: Mrs. Piper would sit

in a room partially darkened, holding the hands of the sitter, whilst

some other person (generally Mr. Myers, Dr. Leaf, Professor Lodge, or

a shorthand writer) would be present to take notes. Mrs. Piper would

presently go off into a trance, attended at its outset by slight

convulsive movements resembling those of an epileptic attack, and would

after a brief interval assume the voice, gestures, and phraseology

of a man. In this guise she gave herself out as one "Dr. Phinuit," a

medical man who had studied medicine in Paris in the first quarter of

the present century. In the impersonation of this character Mrs. Piper

used occasionally broken English, pronounced some words, proper names

especially, with a French accent, and was admittedly sometimes very

successful in diagnosing and prescribing for the complaints of her

sitters and their friends. "Dr. Phinuit" would then pour out a more or

less coherent flood of conversation, questions, and remarks about the

relatives and friends of those present, their past history and personal

affairs generally, some of which was apparently mere padding, some

obviously chance shots, or "fishing" for further information; whilst,

in the midst of all the irrelevancy and incoherence, there would

occasionally be clear, detailed statements on intimate matters of which

it is inconceivable that Mrs. Piper could have attained any knowledge

by normal means; just as, to quote the apt metaphor of Professor Lodge,

in listening at a telephone "you hear the dim and meaningless fragments

of a city's gossip, till back again comes the voice obviously addressed

to you, and speaking with firmness and decision." In regard to the

trance itself, it has no doubt close analogy with the hypnotic trance,

though Mrs. Piper is not readily amenable to hypnotism by ordinary

means, and when hypnotised her condition is described by Professor

James as very different from that of the "medium trance." (_Proc._,

vol. vi. p. 653; viii. p. 56.) In the latter state Mrs. Piper is,

occasionally at least, anæsthetic in certain senses, and analgesic in

various parts of the body (viii. pp. 4-6), and her eyes are closed,

with the eyeballs turned upwards.

There is no reason to suppose that the simulacrum of "Dr. Phinuit"

is anything else than an impersonation assumed by Mrs. Piper's

subconsciousness. Such impersonations are very common amongst "spirit

mediums" everywhere, and in all forms of spontaneously induced

trance.[135] Nor is "Dr. Phinuit" the only form assumed by Mrs. Piper's

secondary consciousness. It frequently happened in the trance that "Dr.

Phinuit" gave place to an impersonation, often recognised as life-like

and characteristic, of some deceased relative of the sitter's, as in

the case of "Uncle Jerry," mentioned below.[136] Probably in many

cases the basis of these representations was supplied by unguarded

remarks of the sitters themselves, or by skilful guesses on the part

of "Phinuit," sometimes possibly eked out by telepathic drafts on the

sitters' memories. As regards Mrs. Piper's conscious share in the

matter, the persons who have observed her most closely, both in this

country and in America, agree in believing that she is a woman of

transparent simplicity, and with a marked absence of inquisitiveness or

even ordinary interest in matters outside her domestic concerns, and

that she is incapable, morally and intellectually, of carrying on a

prolonged and systematic deception, and must by all impartial persons

be fully acquitted of responsibility for "Dr. Phinuit's" proceedings.

As is almost invariably the case with entranced persons, in the normal

state she appears to know nothing of what goes on in the trance, and to

share none of the information supernormally acquired by her secondary

consciousness. As to whether "Dr. Phinuit" is equally ignorant of

Mrs. Piper's thoughts and of knowledge acquired normally by her, it

is impossible to speak with equal confidence. There can be little

doubt either that he is, or that he wishes, for the sake of effect,

to produce the impression that he is. But, as is not infrequently

the case, the second personality is markedly inferior in its moral

character to the normal consciousness. Its ruling motive in this case

appears to be a prodigious vanity, which drives "Dr. Phinuit," when

telepathy fails, into shuffling, equivocation, and all manner of

contemptible devices for eliciting information, and passing it off as

supernormally acquired. Like the Strong Man of the music-halls, to make

good his bragging he is forced continually to eke out what is genuinely

abnormal by artifices at once disingenuous and transparent.[137]