successful sittings. Mrs. Piper was at the time staying in Liverpool,
with Professor Lodge, who introduced to her on the morning of December
23rd, 1888, under the pseudonym of Dr. Jones,[138] a medical man
practising in the city. Notes were taken throughout by Professor
Lodge, who was himself ignorant of nearly all the details given. The
conversation was practically a monologue, as Dr. C. himself remained
almost entirely silent, assenting, "with a grunt, to wrong quite
as much as to right statements." It will be observed that here, as
throughout, "Dr. Phinuit" appears to gain his information in an
auditory form.
No. 96.
_Sitting No._ 42. _Monday morning, December_ 23rd.
Present: Dr. C. (introduced as Dr. Jones) and O. J. L.
[The following is an abstract of the correct, or subsequently
corrected or otherwise noteworthy, statements.]
"You have a little lame girl, lame in the thigh, aged thirteen;
either second or third. She's a little daisy. I do like her. Dark
eyes, the gentlest of the lot; good deal of talent for music.
She will be a brilliant woman; don't forget it. She has more
sympathy, more mind, more--quite a little daisy. She's got a mark,
a curious little mark, when you look closely, over eye, a scar
through forehead over left eye. The boy's erratic; a little thing,
but a little devil. Pretty good when you know him. He'll make an
architect likely. Let him go to school. His mother's too nervous.
It will do him good. [This was a subject in dispute.] You have a
boy and two girls and a baby; four in the body. It's the little
lame one I care for. There are two mothers connected with you, one
named Mary. Your aunt passed out with cancer. You have indigestion,
and take hot water for it. You have had a bad experience. You
nearly slipped out once on the water." [Dangerous yacht accident
last summer. Above statements are correct except the lameness. See
next sitting.]
_Sitting No._ 43. _Monday evening, December_ 23_rd_.
Present: Dr. and Mrs. C. and O. J. L. [Statements correct when not
otherwise noted.]
"How's little Daisy? She will get over her cold. But there's
something the matter with her head. There's somebody round you
lame and somebody hard of hearing. That little girl has got music
in her. This lady is fidgety. There are four of you, four going
to stop with you, one gone out of the body. One got irons on his
foot. Mrs. Allen, in her surroundings, is the one with iron on
leg. [Allen was maiden name of mother of lame one.] There's about
400 of your family. There's Kate; you call her Kitty. She's the one
that's kind of a crank. Trustworthy, but cranky. She will fly off
and get married, she will. Thinks she knows everything, she does.
[This is the nurse-girl, Kitty, about whom they seem to have a joke
that she is a walking compendium of information.] (An envelope with
letters written inside, N--H--P--O--Q, was here handed in, and
Phinuit wrote down B--J--R--O--I--S, not in the best of tempers.)
A second cousin of your mother's drinks. The little dark-eyed one
is Daisy. I like her. She can't hear very well. The lame one is a
sister's child. [A cousin's child, the one _née_ Allen, really.]
The one that's deaf in her head is the one that's got the music
in her. That's Daisy, and she's going to have the paints I told
you of. [Fond of painting.] She's growing up to be a beautiful
woman. She ought to have a paper ear. [An artificial drum had been
contemplated.] You have an Aunt Eliza. There are three Maries, Mary
the mother, Mary the mother, Mary the mother. [Grandmother, aunt,
and granddaughter.] Three brothers and two sisters your lady has.
Three in the body. There were eleven in your family, two passed out
small. [Only know of nine.] Fred is going to pass out suddenly. He
married a cousin. He writes. He has shining things. _Lorgnettes._
He is away. He's got a catchy trouble with heart and kidneys, and
will pass out suddenly." [Not the least likely.]
NOTES.--The most striking part of this sitting is the prominence
given to Dr. C.'s favourite little daughter, Daisy, a child very
intelligent and of a very sweet disposition, but quite deaf;
although her training enables her to go to school and receive
ordinary lessons with other children. At the first sitting she is
supposed erroneously to be lame, but at the second sitting this
is corrected and explained, and all said about her is practically
correct, including the cold she then had. Mrs. Piper had had no
opportunity whatever of knowing or hearing of the C. children by
ordinary social means. We barely know them ourselves. Phinuit
grasped the child's name gradually, using it at first as a mere
description. I did not know it myself.
The following is a summary of the false assertions:--
ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS.
_At Sitting_ 42:--
"Your lady's Fanny; well, there is a Fanny. [No.] Fred has light
hair, brownish moustache, prominent nose. [No.] Your thesis was
some special thing. I should say about lungs." [No.]
_At Sitting_ 43:--
"Your mother's name was Elizabeth. [No.] Her father's lame. [No.]
Of your children there's Eddie and Willie and Fannie or Annie and
a sister that faints, and Willie and Katie (no, Katie don't count)
[being the nurse], and Harry and the little dark-eyed one, Daisy.
[All wrong except Daisy.] One passed out with sore throat. [No.]
The boy looks about 8. [No, 4.] Your wife's father had something
wrong with leg; one named William. [No.] Your grandmother had a
sister who married a Howe--Henry Howe. [Unknown.] There's a Thomson
connected with you [no], and if you look you will find a Howe too.
Your brother the captain [correct], with a lovely wife, who has
brown hair [correct], has had trouble in head [no], and has two
girls and a boy." [No, three girls.]
In this case it will be seen that no details were given which could not
have been derived from the conscious knowledge of the sitter. Apart
from the fact that the agent made no effort to impress his thought, it
resembles a case of ordinary telepathy. Of much the same character are
the following details, quoted from Professor James's account of his
interviews with Mrs. Piper (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 658, 659):--
No. 97.--From Professor W. JAMES.
"The most convincing things said about my own immediate household
were either very intimate or very trivial. Unfortunately the former
things cannot well be published. Of the trivial things, I have
forgotten the greater number, but the following, _raræ nantes_, may
serve as samples of their class: She said that we had lost recently
a rug, and I a waistcoat. [She wrongly accused a person of stealing
the rug, which was afterwards found in the house.] She told of my
killing a grey-and-white cat, with ether, and described how it had
'spun round and round' before dying. She told how my New York aunt
had written a letter to my wife, warning her against all mediums,
and then went off on a most amusing criticism, full of _traits
vifs_, of the excellent woman's character. [Of course no one but
my wife and I knew the existence of the letter in question.] She
was strong on the events in our nursery, and gave striking advice
during our first visit to her about the way to deal with certain
'tantrums' of our second child, 'little Billy-boy,' as she called
him, reproducing his nursery name. She told how the crib creaked
at night, how a certain rocking-chair creaked mysteriously, how my
wife had heard footsteps on the stairs, etc., etc. Insignificant as
these things sound when read, the accumulation of a large number
of them has an irresistible effect. And I repeat again what I
said before, that taking everything that I know of Mrs. P. into
account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I
am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her
trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state,
and that the definitive philosophy of her trances is yet to be
found. The limitations of her trance-information, its discontinuity
and fitfulness, and its apparent inability to develop beyond a
certain point, although they end by rousing one's moral and human
impatience with the phenomenon, yet are, from a scientific point
of view, amongst its most interesting peculiarities, since where
there are limits there are conditions, and the discovery of these
is always the beginning of an explanation.
"This is all that I can tell you of Mrs. Piper. I wish it were more
'scientific.' But, _valeat quantum!_ it is the best I can do."
But there are many cases (Professor Lodge enumerates forty-one
instances, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 649, 650) in which details were
faithfully given by "Phinuit," which had either been forgotten by the
sitters, or could not at any time have been within their knowledge.
The instances clearly falling under the last head are perhaps too
few to justify any inference being founded on them, although in view
of some of the cases to be quoted later, telepathy from persons at a
distance from the percipient seems a not impossible explanation. The
following case, given by Professor Lodge, which at first sight seems
to involve some such hypothesis, may perhaps be explained by the
telepathic filching from his mind of the memories of incidents heard
in his boyhood and long forgotten. It is right to say that Professor
Lodge has no recollection of ever having heard of these incidents, and
regards this explanation (or indeed any other which has been suggested)
as extremely improbable. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 458-460.)
No. 98.--From PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.
"It happens that an uncle of mine in London, now quite an old man,
and one of a surviving three out of a very large family, had a twin
brother who died some twenty or more years ago. I interested him
generally in the subject, and wrote to ask if he would lend me some
relic of this brother. By morning post on a certain day I received
a curious old gold watch, which this brother had worn and been
fond of; and that same morning, no one in the house having seen it
or knowing anything about it, I handed it to Mrs. Piper when in a
state of trance.
"I was told almost immediately that it had belonged to one of my
uncles--one that had been mentioned before as having died from the
effects of a fall--one that had been very fond of Uncle Robert,
the name of the survivor--that the watch was now in possession of
this same Uncle Robert, with whom he was anxious to communicate.
After some difficulty and many wrong attempts Dr. Phinuit caught
the name, Jerry, short for Jeremiah, and said emphatically, as if
a third person was speaking, 'This is my watch, and Robert is my
brother, and I am here. Uncle Jerry, my watch.' All this at the
first sitting on the very morning the watch had arrived by post,
no one but myself and a shorthand clerk who happened to have been
introduced for the first time at this sitting by me, and whose
antecedents are well known to me, being present.
"Having thus ostensibly got into communication through some means
or other with what purported to be a deceased relative, whom I had
indeed known slightly in his later years of blindness, but of whose
early life I knew nothing, I pointed out to him that to make Uncle
Robert aware of his presence it would be well to recall trivial
details of their boyhood, all of which I would faithfully report.
"He quite caught the idea, and proceeded during several successive
sittings ostensibly to instruct Dr. Phinuit to mention a number of
little things such as would enable his brother to recognise him.
"References to his blindness, illness, and main facts of his life
were comparatively useless from my point of view; but these details
of boyhood, two-thirds of a century ago, were utterly and entirely
out of my ken. My father was one of the younger members of the
family, and only knew these brothers as men.
"'Uncle Jerry' recalled episodes such as swimming the creek when
they were boys together, and running some risk of getting drowned;
killing a cat in Smith's field; the possession of a small rifle,
and of a long peculiar skin, like a snake-skin, which he thought
was now in the possession of Uncle Robert.
"All these facts have been more or less completely verified. But
the interesting thing is that his twin brother, from whom I got
the watch, and with whom I was thus in a sort of communication,
could not remember them all. He recollected something about
swimming the creek, though he himself had merely looked on. He had
a distinct recollection of having had the snake-skin, and of the
box in which it was kept, though he does not know where it is now.
But he altogether denied killing the cat, and could not recall
Smith's field.
"His memory, however, is decidedly failing him, and he was good
enough to write to another brother, Frank, living in Cornwall,
an old sea captain, and ask if he had any better remembrance of
certain facts--of course not giving any inexplicable reasons for
asking. The result of this inquiry was triumphantly to vindicate
the existence of Smith's field as a place near their home, where
they used to play, in Barking, Essex; and the killing of a cat by
another brother was also recollected; while of the swimming of the
creek, near a mill-race, full details were given, Frank and Jerry
being the heroes of that foolhardy episode.
"Some of the other facts given I have not yet been able to get
verified. Perhaps there are as many unverified as verified. And
some things appear, so far as I can make out, to be false. One
little thing I could verify myself, and it is good, inasmuch as no
one is likely to have had any recollection, even if they had any
knowledge, of it. Phinuit told me to take the watch out of its case
(it was the old-fashioned turnip variety) and examine it in a good
light afterwards, and I should see some nicks near the handle which
Jerry said he had cut into it with his knife.
"Some faint nicks are there. I had never had the watch out of its
case before; being, indeed, careful neither to finger it myself nor
to let any one else finger it.
"I never let Mrs. Piper in her waking state see the watch till
quite towards the end of the time, when I purposely left it lying
on my desk while she came out of the trance. Before long she
noticed it, with natural curiosity, evidently becoming conscious of
its existence then for the first time."[139]
There are many other cases of clairvoyance on record of the same type
as Mrs. Piper's, but none which have been studied by so many observers
with equal care, and through so prolonged a period. In the more usual
form of trance clairvoyance, however, the percipient's impressions are
of a visual character. He describes scenes which he appears to himself
to _see_. In the pages of the _Zoist_ and elsewhere vision of the kind
is commonly called "travelling clairvoyance," it having generally been
suggested to the hypnotised subject that he was actually present at
the scene which he was desired to describe. It is possible that this
suggestion, almost universally given, may have had some influence in
determining the pictorial form which the telepathic impressions assume
in such cases, as it has certainly led the percipient himself and the
bystanders in many cases to believe in an extra-corporeal visitation of
the scenes described. Often no details are given which were not within
the knowledge, if not consciously present to the thoughts, of one of
the bystanders. Such, for instance, is the case quoted by Dr. Backman,
of Kalmar, in his paper on clairvoyance (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp.
205, 206; viii. 405-407), in which the Director-General of Pilotage for
Sweden, M. Ankarkrona, records how, when absent from home, he received
from a maid-servant hypnotised by Baron Von Rosen an extremely detailed
description of the interior of his own house and its inmates. Hardly a
detail was incorrect, but no single detail was given which could not
have been extracted from M. Ankarkrona's mind. To such a case there is
no difficulty in applying the telepathic explanation.
No. 99.--From A. W. DOBBIE.
In the case to be next quoted, however, the information given by the
hypnotised subject transcends the conscious knowledge, at all events,
of those present. The account comes from Mr. A. W. Dobbie, of Adelaide,
South Australia, who has for some years studied the phenomena of
hypnotism on a number of subjects, and has observed some striking
manifestations of telepathy and clairvoyance. I quote from a letter
written to me in July 1886, containing a copy of his notes made at the
time of the experiment, "the moment the words were uttered." The Hon.
Dr. Campbell, M.L.C., who had lost a gold sleeve-link, brought its
fellow on the 28th May 1886 to Mr. Dobbie, who placed it in the hand of
one of his subjects. Then
"Miss Martha began by first accurately describing Dr. Campbell's
features, then spoke of a little fair-haired boy who had a stud,
or sleeve-link, in his hand, also of a lady calling him 'Neil';
then said that this little boy had taken the link into a place
like a nursery where there were some toys, especially a large toy
elephant, and that he had dropped the link into this elephant
through a hole which had been torn or knocked in the breast;
also that he had taken it out again, and gave two or three other
interesting particulars. We were reluctantly compelled to postpone
further investigation until two or three evenings afterwards.
"On the next occasion (in the interval, however, the missing
sleeve-link had been found, but left untouched), I again placed
the link in her hand and the previous particulars were at once
reproduced; but as she seemed to be getting on very slowly, it
occurred to Dr. Campbell to suggest placing his hand on that of
the clairvoyant, so I placed him _en rapport_ and allowed him to
do so, he simply touching the back of her hand with the points of
his fingers. As she still seemed to have great difficulty (she is
always much slower than her sister) in proceeding, it suddenly
occurred to me that it would be an interesting experiment to place
Miss Eliza Dixon _en rapport_ with Miss Martha, so I simply joined
their disengaged hands, and Miss Eliza immediately commenced as
follows, viz.:--
"'I'm in a house, upstairs, I was in a bathroom, then I went into
another room nearly opposite, there is a large mirror just inside
the door on the left hand, there is a double-sized dressing-table
with drawers down each side of it, the sleeve-link is in the corner
of the drawer nearest the door. When they found it they left it
there. I know why they left it there, it was because they wanted
to see if we would find it. I can see a nice easy-chair there, it
is an old one, I would like it when I am put to sleep, because it
is nice and low. The bed has curtains, they are a sort of brownish
net and have a fringe of darker brown. The wall paper is of a light
blue colour. There is a cane lounge there and a pretty Japanese
screen behind it, the screen folds up. There is a portrait of an
old gentleman over the mantelpiece, he is dead, I knew him when
he was alive, his name is the same as the gentleman who acts as
Governor when the Governor is absent from the colony,[140] I will
tell you his name directly--it is the Rev. Mr. Way. It was a little
boy who put the sleeve-link in that drawer, he is very fair, his
hair is almost white, he is a pretty little boy, he has blue eyes
and is about three years old. The link had been left on that table,
the little boy was in the nursery, and he went into the bedroom
after the gentleman had left. I can see who the gentleman is, it is
Dr. Campbell. Doesn't that little boy look a young Turk, the link
is quite a handful for his little hand, he is running about with it
very pleased; but he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. (A.)
[Dr. Campbell was not present from this point.]
"'Now I can hear some one calling up the stairs, a lady is calling
two names, Colin is one and Neil is the other, the other boy is
about five years old and is darker than the other. The eldest,
Colin, is going downstairs now, he is gone into what looks like a
dining-room, the lady says, "Where is Neil?" "Upstairs, ma." "Go
and tell him to come down at once." The little fair-haired boy
had put the link down; but when he heard his brother coming up,
he picked it up again. Colin says--"Neil, you are to come down at
once." "I won't," says Neil. "You're a goose," replies Colin, and
he turned and went down without Neil. What a young monkey! now
he has gone into the nursery and put the link into a large toy
elephant, he put it through a hole in front, which is broken. He
has gone downstairs now, I suppose he thinks it is safe there.
"'Now that gentleman has come into the room again and he wants that
link; he is looking all about for it, he thinks it might be knocked
down: the lady is there now too, and they are both looking for it.
The lady says, "Are you sure you put it there?" The gentleman says,
"Yes."
"'Now it seems like next day, the servant is turning the carpet up
and looking all about for it; but can't find it.
"'The gentleman is asking that young Turk if he has seen it, he
knows that he is fond of pretty things. The little boy says, "No."
He seems to think it is fine fun to serve his father like that.
"'Now it seems to be another day and the little boy is in the
nursery again, he has taken the link out of the elephant, now he
has dropped it into that drawer, that is all I have to tell you
about it, I told you the rest before.'"
Dr. Campbell, after reading through the above account, writes:--
"ADELAIDE, _July_ 9_th_, 1886.
"At the point (A) the séance was discontinued till the next
sitting, when I was absent. The conversation reported as passing
between the children is correct. The description of the room is
accurate in every point. The portrait is that of the late Rev.
James Way. The description of the children and their names are
true. The fact that the link was discovered in the drawer, in the
interval between one sitting and the final one, and that the link
was left there, pending the discovery of it by the clairvoyant,
is also correct, as this was my suggestion to Mrs. Campbell when
she showed it to me in the corner of the drawer. In fact, every
circumstance reported is absolutely correct. I know, further, that
neither of the clairvoyants has ever been inside of my door. My
children are utterly unknown to them, either in appearance or by
name. I may say also that they had no knowledge of my intention to
place the link in their possession, or even of my presence at the
séance, as they were both on each occasion in the mesmeric sleep
when I arrived."
In a later letter, dated December 16th, 1887, Dr. Campbell writes:--
"With respect to the large toy elephant, I certainly knew of its
existence, but was not thinking of it at the time the clairvoyant
was speaking. I did not know even by suspicion that the elephant
was so mutilated as to have a large opening in its chest, and on
coming home had to examine the toy to see whether the statement was
correct. I need hardly say that it was absolutely correct."
Mr. Dobbie tells us that "neither he nor his clairvoyants had
any opportunity, directly or indirectly, of knowing any of the
particulars brought out by the clairvoyant." He afterwards saw the
room described, and says "the description is simply perfect in
every particular."
This narrative presents us, at any rate, with a case of
thought-transference of a very remarkable kind, an accurate and
detailed description being given of a room wholly unknown to the
clairvoyantes. But it is doubtful whether even here more was stated
by the percipients than could have been extracted from the minds of
those present. The statement as to the child placing the sleeve-link
in the toy elephant could not, unfortunately, be verified, and the
conversation described was natural enough under the circumstances,
and may have been the result of a happy conjecture. It is unfortunate
that a detailed description of the room was not given until the
second sitting, since that lessens the improbability, in any case
considerable, that some information as to the details given might have
reached the ears of the clairvoyantes.[141] The most remarkable feature
in the case is the statement, subsequently verified, as to the hole
in the front of the elephant. We must suppose either that this detail
was derived from the mind of the child, or that Dr. Campbell had once
observed the hole but had forgotten its existence at the time of the
experiment. Mr. Dobbie gives other instances of clairvoyance, by one of
which the hypothesis of thought-transference from a distant and unknown
person is strongly suggested. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 63, etc.)
No. 100.--From DR. WILTSE.
We next quote two cases out of several recorded by Dr. A. S. Wiltse,
of Skiddy, Kansas (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 72 _et seq._). The
percipient was Fannie G., a servant of about fifteen years, who
was frequently hypnotised by Dr. Wiltse in the summer of 1882, and
developed clairvoyant powers of a very remarkable kind. Dr. Wiltse
unfortunately took no notes at the time of the experiments, but he
appears to be an accurate reporter, and it will be seen that his
account of the incidents quoted is confirmed in each case by other
observers. The first experiment was recorded with others in 1886, in a
paper read before the Owosso Academy of Medicine; the second was not
apparently written down until the account was sent to us in 1890:--
"Miss Florence F., now Mrs. R., a neighbour, was invited to attend
one evening with tests which she was to arrange during the day. She
came and told the subject to go to her kitchen and tell her what
she saw. It was about twenty rods to Miss F.'s kitchen. Subject
was led to suppose she had gone to the kitchen, and being asked
what she saw, readily answered: 'The table sits in the centre of
the room, and upon it is a box covered with a cloth.' 'What is
in the box, Fannie?' I asked. 'Oh, I daren't look in the box!
Miss Florence might be mad.' 'Miss Florence is willing you should
look; raise the cloth, Fannie, and tell me what is there.' She
immediately answered, 'There are seven loaves of bread and sixteen
biscuits in it.' (Correct.)
"I set this down as telepathy because Miss Florence F. was in the
room, and undoubtedly the facts were prominently in her mind,
having been purposely so arranged by her for a test; but what
follows is not so plainly telepathy.
"Miss Florence asked Fannie to tell her what was in her stable. She
answered, 'Two black horses, one grey horse, and one red horse'
(meaning a bay horse). Miss Florence: 'That is wrong, Fannie; there
are only my black horses in the stable.' Ten or fifteen minutes
later, a brother of Miss Florence came to the house and told Miss
Florence that there were travellers at the house, and upon inquiry
we learned that the grey and 'red' horse belonged to them, and that
they had been in the stable half-an-hour when Fannie's clairvoyant
eye scanned it."
Mrs. Roberts, the Miss Florence F. of the narrative, writes to Dr.
Wiltse:--
"CARDIFF, TENN., _January_ 13_th_, 1891.
"Your letter was received late last night, and I hasten to reply.
Your statement[142] is correct as far as it goes. But if you
remember we asked, or rather you asked Fannie, to go into our
store-room and see what was in there, and she said a hind quarter
of beef, which was true, we had got it late that evening. You also
asked her to go in the kitchen and see how many loaves of bread she
could find, which she told, and on counting them after returning
home, she was correct. It was in the winter of '81 or '82, I think,
either December '81, or in the January or February of '82, I cannot
remember the month; I know it was cold weather. If you remember
when old Julian Scott was drowned, it was about that time, for
if I remember right you were trying that same night to get her to
find his body. I think, as well as I remember, that she located
his saddle, and a few days after it was found in a place that she
described, but she could not find the body.
"MRS. FLORENCE F. ROBERTS."
In the second of the incidents above described, and in the account
which follows, the percipient's statements included facts which were
not within the knowledge of any of those present, and we are forced to
the conclusion that the percipient in some way derived her knowledge
from persons at a distance. The case presents a curious experimental
parallel to the dream (No. 60) recorded in Chapter VIII., and to case
No. 107 below. In the present instance, however, the persons whom we
may perhaps call the agents, though unconscious of their agency in the
matter, do not appear to have been personally unknown to the percipient.
No. 101.--From DR. WILTSE.
"Mr. Howard lived six miles from me. He had just built a large
frame house; our subject had never seen the house, although, I
presume, she may have heard it talked of. Mr. Howard had not been
home for some days, and asked that Fannie should go there and see
if all were well. She exclaimed at the size of the house, but
railed at the ugliness of the front fence, saying she would not
have 'such an old torn-down' fence in front of so nice a house.
'Yes,' said Howard, laughing, 'my wife has been worrying the life
out of me about the fence and the front steps.' 'Oh,' interrupted
Fannie, 'the steps are nice and new!' 'She is off there,' said
Howard, 'the steps are worse than the fence.' 'Don't you see,'
exclaimed Fannie, impatiently, 'how new and nice the steps are?
Humph!' (And she seemed absolutely disgusted, judging by the tone.)
'I think they are real nice.'
"Changing the subject, Howard asked her how many windows were in
his house. Almost instantly she gave a number (I think it was
twenty-six). Howard thought it was too many, but upon carefully
counting, found it exact.
"From my house he went directly home, and, to his great surprise,
found that during his absence his wife had employed a carpenter
who had built new front steps, and they had been completed a day
or two before Fannie had scanned the premises for him with her
invisible telescope.
"Mr. Howard's son, a youth, had gone into an adjoining county
and was not expected back for some days. Fannie was acquainted
with the young man (Andrew). Mr. Howard, having business back at
the station, was with us again the next night. His faith in our
'oracle' had assumed larger proportions, and he suggested a visit
home by means of Fannie's wonderful faculty. She described the
rooms excellently, even to a bouquet on one of the tables, and said
that several young people were there. Asked who they were, she
replied that she did not know any of them except Andrew. 'But,' I
said, 'Andrew is not at home.' Fannie: 'Why, don't you see him?'
Q. 'Sure, Fannie?' F. 'Oh, don't I know Andrew? Right there, he
is.' Mr. Howard returned home the next morning, where he found that
Andrew had returned late the day before, and that several young
people in the neighbourhood had passed the evening with him."
The following are copies of questions addressed to Mr. Howard, and his
replies to them:--
"'Did she describe your new doorsteps to you before you knew they
were built?' 'Yes.'
"_Question._--'Did she describe your house and tell you Andrew was
there when you thought he was away, and, if so, was he actually at
home as she stated?'
"_Answer._--'Yes.'
"_Question._--'From what you saw, were you satisfied that Fannie
had, when mesmerised, powers of imparting knowledge unknown to
others about her?'
"_Answer._--'Yes.'
"WILLIAM HOWARD,
Kismet, Tenn., Morgan Co."
"We testify to these questions, asked William Howard, to be facts.
We were present at the same time Mr. Howard was when Miss G. was
mesmerised by Dr. A. S. Wiltse. We further state that when any of
us would prick the doctor with a pin, she would flinch with the
same part of her body. Miss G. was not in the habit of the use of
tobacco. The doctor was in a different room, with a wall between
them. When he would smoke, she grew nauseated and seemed to taste
the same as he did.
"W. T. HOWARD AND LIZZIE HOWARD."
No. 102.--From MR. WILLIAM BOYD.
A remarkable case has been recorded, from contemporary knowledge, by
Mr. William Boyd, of Peterhead, N.B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 49
_et seq._). The events occurred as far back as 1850, but a full account
of them was contributed by Mr. Boyd to the _Aberdeen Herald_ for May
8th and 18th of that year, from which it appears that the statements
made by the percipient were written down and communicated to Mr. Boyd
and others before their correspondence with the facts was known. The
incident attracted much notice at the time, from its connection with
the whaling fleet, the chief topic of local interest. The following is
an extract from the original notes made by Mr. Reid, the hypnotiser,
published in the _Aberdeen Herald_, May 18th, 1850:--
"On the evening of April 22nd I put John Park, tailor, aged
twenty-two, into a state of clairvoyance, in presence of twelve
respectable inhabitants of this town. (Here follows a description
of certain statements regarding the fate of Franklin's expedition
and the ships _Erebus_ and _Terror_, which in the light of
information subsequently received proved to have been inaccurate.)
He (the clairvoyant) then visited Old Greenland, as was desired,
and having gone on board the _Hamilton Ross_, a whale-ship
belonging to this port, saw David Cardno, second mate, getting
his hand bandaged up by the doctor in the cabin, having got it
injured while sealing. He was then told by the captain that they
had upwards of 100 tons of oil. I again, on the evening of the
23rd, put him into a clairvoyant state. (Here follow some further
particulars regarding Sir John Franklin's expedition, which also
are proved to have been inaccurate.) I again directed him to Old
Greenland, and he again visited the _Hamilton Ross_, and found
Captain Gray, of the _Eclipse_, conversing with the captain about
the seal fishing being up.
"(Signed) WILLIAM REID."
It appears from the _Herald_ of May 8th that the _Hamilton Ross_ did
come to port first out of eleven ships, that she brought 159 tons of
oil, that Cardno had injured his hand, and arrived with his arm in a
sling, and that on the 23rd April the captain of the _Hamilton Ross_
was conversing with the captain of the _Eclipse_. Mr. Boyd points out,
however, that Cardno had some years before lost the tip of one finger,
so that the clairvoyant's statement of the accident may have been
simply a reminiscence. It is worth noting that here, as generally in
visions of the kind, the false was mingled with the true, and that the
percipient appears quite unable to distinguish between pictures which
are obviously the work of his own imagination, and those which are
apparently due to inspiration from without.
The next case is also remote in date, but we have received the evidence
of several persons still living who were conversant with the facts at
the time of their occurrence, and the account given below is taken from
contemporary notes. "Jane" was the wife of a pit-man in County Durham,
who for many years, from 1845 onwards, was hypnotised for the sake of
her health by Mrs. T. Myers, of Twinstead Rectory, Mrs. Fraser, her
sister, and other members of the same family. In the hypnotic sleep
she appears to have been sensible to telepathic influences of the
same kind as those described at the beginning of Chapter III. But she
also gave remarkable demonstrations of "travelling clairvoyance," and
frequently described correctly the interior of houses she had never
seen. Occasionally she went beyond this, and stated facts not within
the knowledge of those present, and opposed to their preconceptions. A
good instance is the following, taken from notes made in the summer of
1853:--
No. 103.--From DR. F.[143]
"Before commencing the sitting, I fixed to take her to a house,
without communicating my intentions to any of the parties present.
In the morning of the day I stated to a patient of my own, Mr.
Eglinton, at present residing in the village of Tynemouth, that I
intended to visit him. He stated that he would be present between
8 and 10 P.M. in a particular room, so that there might be no
difficulty in finding him. He was just recovering from a very
severe illness, and was so weak that he could scarcely walk. He was
exceedingly thin from the effects of his complaint.
"After the usual state had been obtained, I said, 'We are standing
beside a railway station, now we pass along a road, and in front of
us see a house with a laburnum tree in front of it.' She directly
replied, 'Is it the red house with a brass knocker?' I said, 'No,
it has an iron knocker.' I have since looked, however, and find
that the door has an old-fashioned brass handle in the shape of a
knocker. She then asked, 'Shall we go up the steps? Shall we go
along this passage, and up these stairs? Is this a window on the
stair-head?' I said, 'You are quite right, and now I want you to
look into the room upon the left-hand side.' She replied, 'Oh, yes,
in the bedroom. There is no one in this room; there is a bed in
it, but there is no person in it.' I was not aware that a bedroom
was in the place I mentioned, but upon inquiry next day I found
she was correct. I told her she must look into the next room, and
she would see a sofa. She answered, 'But there is here a little
gallery. Now I am in the room, and see a lady with black hair lying
upon the sofa.' I attempted to puzzle her about the colour of her
hair, and feeling sure it was Mr. Eglinton who was lying there,
I sharply cross-questioned her, but still she persisted in her
story. The questioning, however, seemed to distract her mind, and
she commenced talking about a lady at Whickham, until I at last
recalled her to the room at Tynemouth, by asking whether there
was not a gentleman in the room. 'No,' she said; 'we can see no
gentleman there.'
"After a little she described the door opening, and asked, with a
tone of great surprise, 'Is that a gentleman?' I replied, 'Yes; is
he thin or fat?' 'Very fat,' she answered; 'but has he a cork leg?'
I assured her that he had no cork leg, and tried to puzzle her
again about him. She, however, assured me that he was very fat and
had a great corporation, and asked me whether I did not think such
a fat man must eat and drink a great deal to get such a corporation
as that. She also described him as sitting by the table with papers
beside him, and a glass of brandy and water. 'Is it not wine?' I
asked. 'No,' she said, 'it's brandy.' 'Is it not whisky or rum?'
'No, it is brandy,' was the answer; 'and now,' she continued, 'the
lady is going to get her supper, but the fat gentleman does not
take any.' I requested her to tell me the colour of his hair, but
she only answered that the lady's hair was dark. I then inquired
if he had any brains in his head,[144] but she seemed altogether
puzzled about him, and said she could not see any. I then asked her
if she could see his name upon any of the letters lying about. She
replied, 'Yes'; and upon my saying that the name began with E, she
spelt each letter of the name 'Eglinton.'
"I was so convinced that I had at last detected her in a complete
mistake that I arose, and declined proceeding further in the
matter, stating that, although her description of the house and the
name of the person were correct, in everything connected with the
gentleman she had guessed the opposite from the truth.
"On the following morning Mr. E. asked me the result of the
experiment, and after having related it to him, he gave me the
following account:--He had found himself unable to sit up to
so late an hour, but wishful fairly to test the powers of the
clairvoyante, he had ordered his clothes to be stuffed into the
form of a figure, and to make the contrast more striking to his
natural appearance, had an extra pillow pushed into the clothes so
as to form a 'corporation.' The figure had been placed near the
table, in a sitting position, and a glass of brandy and water and
the newspapers placed beside it. The name, he further added, was
spelt correctly, though up to that time I had been in the habit of
writing it 'Eglington,' instead of as spelt by the clairvoyante,
'Eglinton.'"
In this case it will be seen that the only person from whom knowledge
of the facts given could have been derived was personally unknown to
the percipient, the only apparent link of connection being their common
acquaintance with Dr. F.
In the last case to be mentioned there are again some indications of
thought-transference from the mind of a person at a distance. On April
8th, 1890, Dr. Backman, at Kalmar, received a letter from Dr. Kjellman,
at Stockholm, asking that on the following day Dr. Backman should
request one of his subjects, Alma Radberg, to "find" Dr. von B. (known
to Alma), and describe the apartment (Dr. Kjellman's own) in which he
would be sitting, adding that something would be hung on the chandelier
for her to describe. The percipient in the trance gave a description
of the room, and when asked to look at the chandelier she said there
was no chandelier, something more like a lamp, and described something
long and narrow, of white metal, hanging from it, with some red stuff
round it. When awake she said that what she saw was probably a pair
of scissors for cutting paper, or a paper-knife. Dr. Backman sent his
notes to Dr. Kjellman, who replied, showing that the description of
the room, though in some respects accurate (_e.g._, she mentioned a
long stuffed easy-chair, a glass bookcase, three doors in the lobby,
etc.), was in other features incorrect, and should on the whole be
regarded as inconclusive. "But," he adds, "her statement that the
object was hanging in a lamp, not a chandelier, was right. It is both
a lamp and a chandelier, and the lamp was drawn down a long way under
the chandelier," and that the object hanging there was "a large pair of
paper scissors, fixed by an india-rubber otoscope, and with a tea-rose
and some forget-me-nots in one of the handles of the scissors." It will
thus be seen that on the one point to which her attention had been
specially directed, the hypnotic's description was strikingly accurate;
and the articles described were hardly within the range of conjecture.
Dr. Backman has made other experiments with the same subject, in which
he obtained further indications of clairvoyance of this kind. (_Proc.
S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 207, etc.)
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 132: For instance, Gregory and others record that the
clairvoyant subjects of a certain Major Buckley were able to read
the mottoes enclosed in nuts (the equivalent of the modern Christmas
crackers) purchased at random from a confectioner's shop, and still
unopened. The recent evidence of the kind is quite inconsiderable, and
is perhaps hardly sufficient to allow of the existence of a faculty of
independent clairvoyance being treated as an open question. Experiments
with Mrs. Piper in this direction have yielded negative results, and
Professor Richet's trials with Madame B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp.
77 and 149) are neither sufficiently numerous nor sufficiently striking
to justify any conclusions being drawn from them. Some curious results
have, however, been obtained by M. J. Ch. Roux (_Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 198 _et seq._), and somewhat similar results
have been obtained in this country by two Associates of the S.P.R. But
it is possible that all these instances may be susceptible of another
explanation. See, however, Mr. Myers' article on "Sensory Automatism,"
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 436 _et seq._]
[Footnote 133: The definition of clairvoyance given in the text differs
somewhat from that adopted by Mrs. Sidgwick (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.
p. 30)--viz., "A faculty of acquiring supernormally, but not by reading
the minds of persons present, a knowledge of facts such as we normally
acquire by the use of our senses." Whether such a faculty exists or
not, it is certain that the phenomena which suggest it occur under the
same conditions and inextricably mingled with others which can, with
some plausibility, be explained as due to thought-transference from the
conscious or unconscious memory of persons actually present. And as the
two sets of phenomena are found together in fact, it seemed best as a
matter of practical convenience that they should not be separated in
discussion. Moreover, the suggested application of the word finds ample
justification in popular usage.]
[Footnote 134: It should be added that during the progress of similar
investigations in the United States of America, Dr. Hodgson employed
private detectives to shadow Mr. and Mrs. Piper for some weeks, and
that nothing was discovered to intimate that any steps were taken by
either, whether by personal inquiry or by correspondence, to ascertain
facts relating to the history of actual or possible sitters. Mr. Piper
did not accompany his wife to this country.]
[Footnote 135: Independently of the fact that "Dr. Phinuit" is
as obviously untrustworthy as Mrs. Piper in her natural state is
apparently the reverse, the inquiries which have been made have
entirely failed to corroborate the accounts, in themselves not always
concordant, which "Dr. Phinuit" has given of his birth, his education,
and other circumstances in his "earth-life." His knowledge of his
native language is confined to a few simple phrases and a slight
accent, frequently found useful in disguising a bad shot at a proper
name; and the careful investigations conducted by Dr. Hodgson into Mrs.
Piper's antecedents as a "medium" have made it almost certain that "Dr.
Phinuit" is an invention, borrowed from the person through whose agency
Mrs. Piper first became entranced, and who purported himself to be
controlled by a French doctor named Albert Finnett (pronounced Finné).
It should be added that "Dr. Phinuit" possesses apparently no knowledge
of the medical names of drugs, nor any more intimate acquaintance with
their properties than could be gathered from a manual of domestic
medicine. (Vol. viii. pp. 47, 50, 51, etc.)]
[Footnote 136: At the present time (May 1894) "Dr. Phinuit" has, I
understand, almost entirely ceased to "control" Mrs. Piper; his place
being taken by the _soi-disant_ spirit of a young American, recently
deceased, who has given remarkable proofs of his identity.]
[Footnote 137: I am glad to be able to append the following testimonial
to Phinuit's good qualities. An investigator who has had unusual
facilities for observing both Dr. Phinuit and Mrs. Piper, after reading
the account given in the text, writes to me: "I suppose the account
of Phinuit is true as far as it goes, but all the same.... I suppose
because he is more sympathetic, I am rather fond of Phinuit."]
[Footnote 138: At the evening sitting a servant unfortunately
introduced the sitters by their real names, but the circumstance will
hardly, I think, be held materially to affect the evidence.]
[Footnote 139: It is impossible by means of a few short extracts
to give a fair idea either of the strength of the evidence for
telepathy afforded by the phenomena observed with Mrs. Piper, or of
the variety and complexity of the problems there presented. Readers
who are interested in the subject are referred to the record of the
observations made by the S.P.R., occupying nearly 400 closely-printed
octavo pages. (_Proc._, vol. vi. pp. 436-660; vol. viii. pp. 1-167.)
Further observations have been made during the year 1893 in the United
States by Dr. Hodgson and others, the records of which have not yet
been published.]
[Footnote 140: Chief Justice Way is the gentleman who acts as Deputy
for his Excellency when absent from the colony.--A. W. D.]
[Footnote 141: It is hardly necessary to say that such an
interpretation in no way reflects upon the good faith of the hypnotics.
Hints derived from conversation overheard unconsciously might be quite
sufficient.]
[Footnote 142: The statement sent to Mrs. Roberts was substantially a
copy of the last nine lines only of the preceding account. No reference
was made to the visit to the kitchen.]
[Footnote 143: Dr. F., who is still living, is disinclined to have his
name published, as he does not wish to be troubled with correspondence
on the subject.]
[Footnote 144: On a previous occasion she had described a skull in a
surgery as a head, but "not a live head, and with no brains in it."]
CHAPTER XV.
ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN THE NORMAL STATE.
There is probably no sharp line to be drawn between the cases just
described and those to be dealt with in the first part of the present
chapter. Both present the common feature that the percipient receives
a clear and detailed telepathic impression of an incident or scene in
the experience of some other person, and in both the condition of that
impression is manifestly not an effort of attention or an exceptional
state on the part of the person whose experience is thus represented,
but a specially stimulated receptivity on the part of the percipient.
But in some cases the conditions of this special receptivity are
found in trance, whilst in others the percipient is apparently in the
normal state. This would seem indeed to constitute only a superficial
difference, for in the majority of cases hitherto observed the waking
clairvoyance does not occur spontaneously, but requires special
preparation for its induction, and sometimes the percipient appears to
pass into a state resembling the earlier stages of a hypnotic trance.
Thus Mr. Keulemans, the well-known scientific draughtsman, who has had
many experiences of telepathic clairvoyance,[145] has noticed in the
course of his work, which consists largely of making drawings of birds
for lithographic reproduction, that, in his own words,
"Whenever strong impressions had got hold of my mind they had a
tendency to develop themselves into a vivid mind-picture as soon as
my eye and attention were concentrated upon the eye in the drawing;
and that whenever I began darkening the iris, leaving the light
speck the most prominent part, I would slowly pass off into a kind
of dream-state. The mere act of drawing the eye is not enough to
bring me into this state, or I should experience such a state at
least once a day, which I do not. But if a strong mental impression
takes hold of me I begin drawing an eye.... The drawing will then
convey to me the news, either in the form of a vague, imperfect
representation of the person indicated in the impression, or by a
correct hallucinatory picture of the event as it actually occurred,
both as regards the person and the surroundings. Sometimes I cannot
get at the vision at once; other thoughts and scenes interfere.
But when I begin to feel drowsy I know I shall have it right in
a second; and here I lose normal consciousness. That there is an
actual loss of consciousness I know from the fact that on one
occasion my wife had been in the room talking to me, and not
receiving a reply thought that something was wrong with me and
shook my shoulder. The shake brought me back to my waking state."
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 517.)
But this would seem to be an extreme case, as under ordinary
circumstances there is no apparent loss of consciousness; and the
essential condition appears to be freedom from interruption and
preoccupation. But the percipient generally finds it helpful, if not
absolutely necessary, to employ a crystal, or some other object, for
the full development of the impression. The exact part played by the
crystal, glass of water, shell, or other object, in facilitating the
hallucination, it is not easy to determine. In some cases, no doubt, it
acts by furnishing a _point de repère_, or nucleus of actual sensation,
round which the hallucination may develop. It is probable also that the
mere act of fixing the eyes on one particular point may, by shutting
out other sources of sensation, help to bring about the state of
quietude necessary for the experiments; and yet again it is likely that
the intrinsic virtue of the act, whatever that may be, is enhanced by
the self-suggestion that it will prove beneficial; if indeed its virtue
may not in some cases be altogether due to that cause. It should be
remembered in this connection that fixation of the eye on a small
bright object is one of the readiest means of inducing hypnosis.[146]
_Induced Clairvoyance._
No. 104.--From MISS X.
Miss X., some of whose experiments have already been quoted, has been
amongst the most constant and successful of crystal seers. The bulk of
her visions, as she has pointed out (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 505),
consist either of mere after-images, recrudescent memories of things
seen and heard, or of fancy pictures built out of a rearrangement of
existing materials. But occasionally there occur visions of events
then taking place, or representations of the past experience of some
friend. Space will not permit of illustrations being given of the
first two classes, though the first especially has some bearing on
our researches. The following account of what appears to have been a
telepathic vision is included by Mr. Myers in a paper on the subliminal
consciousness (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 491). D. is the friend
mentioned in Chapter V., p. 122.
"On August 10th of this year [1892] D. went with her family to
spend the autumn at a country house which they had taken furnished,
and which neither of us had ever seen. I was also away from home,
the distance between us being at least 200 miles.
"On the morning of the 12th I received a pencil note from her,
evidently written with difficulty, saying that she had been very
fiercely attacked by a savage dog, from which she and our own
little terrier had defended themselves and each other as best they
could, receiving a score or so of wounds between them before they
could summon any one to their assistance. She gave me no details,
assuming that, as often happens between us, I should have received
intimation of her danger before the news could reach me by ordinary
methods.
"D. was extremely disappointed on hearing that I had known nothing.
I had not consulted the crystal on the day of the accident, and
had received no intimation. Begging her to tell me nothing further
as to the scene of her adventure, I sought for it in the crystal
on Sunday, 14th, and noted the following details:--The attacking
dog was a large black retriever, and our terrier held him by the
throat while D. beat at him in the rear. I saw also the details of
D.'s dress. But all this I knew or could guess. What I could not
know was that the terrier's collar lay upon the ground, that the
struggle took place upon a lawn beyond which lay earth--a garden
bed probably--overshadowed by an aucuba bush.
"On September 9th I had an opportunity of repeating all this to Mr.
Myers, and on the 10th I joined D. at their country house. The rest
of the story I give in her own words:--
From D.
"'As we were somewhat disappointed that no intimation of the
accident which had occurred to me had reached Miss X., she
determined to try to call up a mental picture of the scene where it
had occurred, and if possible to verify it when visiting us later
on.
"'On the night of her arrival at C----, we were not able to go over
the whole of the grounds alone, and it was therefore not until the
following morning that we went together for the special purpose of
fixing on the exact spot. Miss X. was in front, as I feared some
unconscious sign of recognition on my part might spoil the effect
of her choice. The garden is a very large one, and we wandered for
some time without fixing on a spot, the sole clue given by Miss X.
being that she "could not get the right place, it wanted a _light_
bush." I pointed out several, silver maples, etc., in various
directions, but none would do, and she finally walked down to the
place where the accident had occurred, close to a large aucuba
(the _only_ one, I believe, in the shrubbery), and said, "This must
be it; it has the path and the grass and the bush, as it should,
but I expected it to be much farther from the house."
"'I may add that I was not myself aware of this bush, but as I was
studying them all at the time we were attacked by the dog, and as
this one is close to the spot where I was knocked down, it seems
possible that it was the last I noticed, and it may therefore have
influenced me more than I knew.'"
Mr. Myers adds:--
"I understand that there are a good many acres of ground round the
house in question, and that the dog's attack was made within fifty
yards of the house--plainly an unlikely place for a struggle so
long protracted without the arrival of help."
As the crystal picture was described to Mr. Myers before its
verification, there was no room for the reading back of details from
the actual scene.
No. 105.--From MISS X.
Miss X. has also succeeded on several occasions in obtaining telepathic
information by holding a shell to her ear. Of one such case she writes
(_ibid._, p. 494):--
"On Saturday, June 11th, Mr. G. A. Smith spent some time with us
attempting some thought-transference experiments, which were fairly
successful, and interested me greatly. Mr. Smith left the house
soon after seven. After dinner, I took up the shell which had
played some part--not very successfully--in our experiments. What
occurred is best given in the following extracts:--
"'[_June_ 11_th_, 1892] _Saturday Evening_, 8.30. [X. to G. A. S.]
"'Why--when the shell was repeating to me just now what you said
about clambering over rocks at Ramsgate--did it stop suddenly to
ask, still in your voice, "Are you a vegetarian then?"... Perhaps
you dined at [your next appointment], and declined animal food? Do
tell me whether you are responsible for this irrelevance.'
"'_June_ 13_th_, _Monday_. [G. A. S. to X.]
"'... Without doubt the shell spoke the truth.... As you know,
I left you soon after seven. After walking fifteen minutes I
suddenly met Mr. M.... I was thinking about points in connection
with the experiments we had been engaged in, and am afraid I did
not follow his remarks very closely ... but he made some allusion
to little dishes at a vegetarian restaurant somewhere, and
immediately feeling an interest in the question whether he was a
champion of the vegetarian cause, I interrupted him with _"Are you
a vegetarian then?"_ I believe these are the exact words I used. He
will be sure to remember this, and must be questioned.'
"'_June_ 23_rd_. [G. A. S. to X.]
"'I have to-day walked over the course which I took on June 11th,
from [Miss X.'s house] to the spot where I met Mr. M. It took just
eleven minutes. If I left you at 7.15, it was probably about 7.30,
or a very few minutes later, that I put the query to Mr. M.'"
Mr. M. was away from home, and though at once applied to for
corroboration, did not send a written statement till June 22nd,
when he writes to Mr. Smith (after failing to recall the exact
particulars of the previous conversation):--
"The main fact remains that you asked me, to the best of my
belief--bearing on my strong praise of the cooking at the Oxford
Street Café--whether 'I was a vegetarian.' That is the core of the
whole matter, and that is _sound_."
From Mr. Smith's statement it would appear that the voice in the
shell reproduced words actually spoken about three-quarters of an
hour before. That is, as is very generally the case, the clairvoyante
perceived, not the events actually happening at the moment, but events
already passed and chronicled in the memories of those who took part
in them. This fact, which seems to have been commonly overlooked
by the earlier writers on the subject, is in itself a very strong
argument for the telepathic explanation of clairvoyance. Knowledge of a
contemporaneous scene might be conceived as due to independent vision
on the part of the percipient; knowledge of what is already past can
most readily be explained as derived from other minds.[147]
No. 106.--From DR. BACKMAN.
This explanation is very clearly indicated in the following case,
quoted from the paper already referred to (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.
p. 216). Dr. Backman, after describing how occasionally he asked his
subject, while awake, to look in the crystal, writes:--
"I told the clairvoyant, Miss Olsen, to see in the crystal what
Miss ----, who was present, had been doing the night before. After
a few moments she said that she saw a meadow in the crystal, and
in it a certain number (giving the number correctly) of ladies and
gentlemen, who were dancing and drinking champagne. This seemed to
her very improbable, because it was then November, a season that
is not chosen in this country [Sweden] for picnics. She described
minutely several other things which were not written down, but were
quite correct, according to what Miss ---- said later on."
In a letter dated December 19th, 1890, Dr. Backman adds:--
"Several persons were present. No notes were taken, but the story
made so much sensation that it has not been forgotten. Miss ----
supplemented the account to-day by reminding me that on looking
into the crystal Miss Olsen first gave a perfect description of a
lady with whom Miss ---- had talked on meeting her in the street
the day before; she described her face, her dress, etc., very
accurately, and said besides that she had two gold rings on the
fourth finger of her left hand (a sign of marriage). After that
Miss Olsen suddenly began to laugh and said: 'Miss ---- is in a
merry company--they are dancing--the corks of the champagne bottles
are jumping,' etc. Miss ---- cannot remember that any wrong detail
was given by Miss Olsen, except that she thinks the number of
persons present was not correctly given."
With Dr. Backman's permission we wrote to Miss ---- asking for her
confirmation of these incidents, and she replied as follows, on March
8th, 1891:--
"I am very willing to give you a description of what I saw and
heard at Dr. Backman's the day he has mentioned in his letter to
you.
"When I came to him, he made a hypnotic experiment with Miss Olsen,
who should endeavour to find some papers lying somewhere in Dr.
Backman's apartment, and, to my great surprise, she succeeded in
finding them. After her being awakened, Dr. Backman gave her a
large glass button and asked her to look in it and see if she could
find out what I had done the day before. She succeeded even in this
to an astonishing degree."
No. 107.--From SIR JOSEPH BARNBY.
In the next case, however, the vision appears to have been as nearly
as possible contemporaneous with the event. Miss A. is a lady who has
had many telepathic experiments of a striking kind. She is extremely
short-sighted and a bad visualist, but her crystal visions she
describes as being clear and well defined, as if she were looking
on a real scene through strong glasses. The following account of an
incident in Miss A.'s experience is given by Sir Joseph Barnby, who
was a witness before the verification. His account has been revised
throughout by Lady Radnor, who has interpolated an explanatory note.
Sir Joseph writes, in November 1892:--
"I was invited by Lord and Lady Radnor to the wedding of their
daughter, Lady Wilma Bouverie, which took place August 15th, 1889.
"I was met at Salisbury by Lord and Lady Radnor and driven to
Longford Castle. In the course of the drive, Lady Radnor said
to me: 'We have a young lady staying with us in whom, I think,
you will be much interested. She possesses the faculty of seeing
visions, and is otherwise closely connected with the spiritual
world. Only last night she was looking in her crystal and described
a room which she saw therein, as a kind of London dining-room.
[The room described was not in London but at L., and Miss A.
particularly remarked that the floor was in large squares of black
and white marble--as it is in the big hall at L., where family
prayers are said.--H. M. RADNOR.] With a little laugh, she added,
'And the family are evidently at prayers, the servants are kneeling
at the chairs round the room and the prayers are being read by a
tall and distinguished-looking gentleman with a very handsome, long
grey beard.' With another little laugh, she continued: 'A lady
just behind him rises from her knees and speaks to him. He puts
her aside with a wave of the hand, and continues his reading.'
The young lady here gave a careful description of the lady who had
risen from her knees.'
"Lady Radnor then said: 'From the description given, I cannot help
thinking that the two principal personages described are Lord and
Lady L., but I shall ask Lord L. this evening, as they are coming
by a later train, and I should like you to be present when the
answer is given.'
"The same evening, after dinner, I was talking to Lord L. when Lady
Radnor came up to him and said: 'I want to ask you a question. I am
afraid you will think it a very silly one, but in any case I hope
you will not ask me why I have put the question?' To this Lord L.
courteously assented. She then said: 'Were you at home last night?'
He replied, 'Yes.' She said: 'Were you having family prayers at
such a time last evening?' With a slight look of surprise he
replied, 'Yes, we were.' She then said: 'During the course of the
prayers did Lady L. rise from her knees and speak to you, and did
you put her aside with a wave of the hand?' Much astonished, Lord
L. answered: 'Yes, that was so, but may I inquire why you have
asked this question?' To which Lady Radnor answered: 'You promised
you wouldn't ask me that!'"
In commenting on the account, Mr. Myers adds:--
"This incident has been independently recounted to me both by Lady
Radnor and by Miss A. herself. Another small point not given by Sir
J. Barnby is that Miss A. did not at first understand that family
prayers were going on, but exclaimed: 'Here are a number of people
coming into the room. Why, they're smelling their chairs!' This
scene may have been exactly contemporaneous." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol.
viii. pp. 502, 503.)
_Spontaneous Clairvoyance._
This incident was unquestionably very odd, but its evidential value is
not lessened by that fact. Instances of a similar detailed perception
of events at a distance are occasionally found to occur spontaneously.
Two or three cases coming under this category have indeed already been
quoted in Chapters VII. and VIII. The type, however, is interesting and
important, and it is perhaps worth while citing a few more illustrative
cases. It should be noted, however, that whereas in the cases of
induced clairvoyance so far considered there is little evidence of any
active contribution on the part of other persons to the percipient's
impression, in the majority of the spontaneous instances the central
figure in the vision was undergoing, or had just emerged from, some
unusual experience, and his condition appears to have contributed
to bring about the result. In the case which follows the vision
represented a dying man. It is noteworthy that, as in other cases
already given (_e.g._, No. 46), the percipient's impression presented
a substantially accurate picture of the scene of the drama, but of a
scene which preceded its telepathic representation by some hours. It
seems probable, therefore, that the vision was merely the reflection
of the thoughts of one of the bystanders. And, indeed, in any case it
would be difficult to attribute the impression to the mind of the dying
man, who could scarcely be supposed to have a mental picture of himself
in the act of falling overboard. In the present instance it does not
appear that the percipient was personally acquainted with any of the
witnesses of the scene, amongst whom, on this interpretation, the agent
must be sought, and in this respect the case presents a parallel to
Miss A.'s vision.
No. 108.--From MRS. PAQUET.
The case comes to us through the American Branch of the S.P.R. The
evidence has been prepared by Mr. A. B. Wood, who received an account
of the incident from Mrs. Paquet at a personal interview. Mr. Wood
writes on April 29th, 1890:--[148]
"On October 24th, 1889, Edmund Dunn, brother of Mrs. Agnes Paquet,
was serving as fireman on the tug _Wolf_, a small steamer engaged
in towing vessels in Chicago Harbour. At about 3 o'clock A.M.,
the tug fastened to a vessel, inside the piers, to tow her up the
river. While adjusting the tow-line Mr. Dunn fell or was thrown
overboard by the tow-line, and drowned."
_Mrs. Paquet's Statement._
"I arose about the usual hour on the morning of the accident,
probably about six o'clock. I had slept well throughout the night,
had no dreams or sudden awakenings. I awoke feeling gloomy and
depressed, which feeling I could not shake off. After breakfast my
husband went to his work, and, at the proper time, the children
were gotten ready and sent to school, leaving me alone in the
house. Soon after this I decided to steep and drink some tea,
hoping it would relieve me of the gloomy feelings aforementioned. I
went into the pantry, took down the tea canister, and as I turned
around my brother Edmund--or his exact image--stood before me
and only a few feet away. The apparition stood with back towards
me, or, rather, partially so, and was in the act of falling
forward--away from me--seemingly impelled by two ropes or a loop
of rope drawing against his legs. The vision lasted but a moment,
disappearing over a low railing or bulwark, but was very distinct.
I dropped the tea, clasped my hands to my face, and exclaimed, 'My
God! Ed. is drowned.'
"At about 10.30 A.M. my husband received a telegram from Chicago,
announcing the drowning of my brother. When he arrived home he said
to me, 'Ed. is sick in hospital at Chicago; I have just received
a telegram,' to which I replied, 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go
overboard.' I then gave him a minute description of what I had
seen. I stated that my brother, as I saw him, was bareheaded, had
on a heavy, blue sailor's shirt, no coat, and that he went over
the rail or bulwark. I noticed that his pants' legs were rolled
up enough to show the white lining inside. I also described the
appearance of the boat at the point where my brother went overboard.
"I am not nervous, and neither before nor since have I had any
experience in the least degree similar to that above related.
"My brother was not subject to fainting or vertigo.
"AGNES PAQUET."
_Mr. Paquet's Statement._
"At about 10.30 o'clock A.M., October 24th, 1889, I received
a telegram from Chicago, announcing the drowning of my
brother-in-law, Edmund Dunn, at 3 o'clock that morning. I went
directly home, and, wishing to break the force of the sad news I
had to convey to my wife, I said to her: 'Ed. is sick in hospital
at Chicago; I have just received a telegram.' To which she replied:
'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go overboard.' She then described to
me the appearance and dress of her brother as described in her
statement; also the appearance of the boat, etc.
"I started at once for Chicago, and when I arrived there I found
the appearance of that part of the vessel described by my wife
to be exactly as she had described it, though she had never seen
the vessel; and the crew verified my wife's description of her
brother's dress, etc., except that they thought that he had his
hat on at the time of the accident. They said that Mr. Dunn had
purchased a pair of pants a few days before the accident occurred,
and as they were a trifle long before, wrinkling at the knees, he
had worn them rolled up, showing the white lining as seen by my
wife."
Visions of this kind are of rare occurrence with waking percipients.
The preoccupations of the daytime are probably in themselves sufficient
to prevent the emergence of telepathic impressions under ordinary
circumstances. But in the present instance it will be observed that
the vision occurred in an interval of comparative rest after a period
of active occupation. The feeling of gloom and depression mentioned
by Mrs. Paquet may have marked the period of incubation, so to speak,
of a latent impression of calamity. But a comparison of the case with
those which follow suggests that this feeling of depression may have
been not the effect, but the necessary condition of the transmission of
the agent's thought, and that a slight degree of fatigue or ill-health
may under certain circumstances facilitate the emergence of impressions
of this kind. It is, at all events, noteworthy that in two of the
three cases quoted the percipient was suffering from unusual fatigue
or depression, and in the third was recovering from a long illness. In
the next two cases the percipient's experience may have been actually
synchronous with the events perceived.
No. 109.--From MR. F. A. MARKS.
The accounts, from which extracts are given below, were published in
the _Oneida Circular_ (U.S.A.) for January 19th, 1874. The percipient,
Mr. F. A. Marks, writes:--
W. C., _January_ 14_th_, 1874.
"You wish the simple facts of my dream. They are these:--One
afternoon in October [1873], being tired, I lay down to rest. I
soon fell asleep; at least I have no reason for thinking that I did
not sleep. I was not on the bed more than a few minutes. During
this time I dreamed of being near a large body of water. I knew
it to be the Oneida Lake. The wind was blowing violently, and the
waves ran exceedingly high. While standing near the lake I felt
under a strong disposition to sleep. My eyes were heavy, they would
close themselves. It was with an exertion that I kept them open.
I was like a man under nightmare; struggling to rouse myself, yet
only partially successful. Darkness was settling over me. Suddenly,
when the wind was blowing a gale and the waves seemed rolling one
over the other, a small sail-boat broke upon my sight, driven
wildly before the storm. For the moment it seemed as if it would
be lost. It appeared to be at the mercy of the waves, for they
rose high above its sides and almost concealed it at times. It was
manned by two persons--one in the after part; the other _trying to
pull down the sail!_ Their situation was critical. At this moment a
feeling of horror shot through me as I recognised in the man whose
full length I saw standing near the mast and struggling with the
sail my brother Charles! The man in the stern I did not recognise.
In the time of the greatest peril, something--I can scarcely tell
what; I dare not call it an apparition--gave me the impression that
good beings were interested and watchful over the voyagers.
"The shock I received on seeing my brother did not allow me
to sleep long. On awaking I was troubled, and thought I would
immediately write to Charles, entreating him to be careful.
Afterwards, thinking it merely a dream, I turned my attention from
writing, but I mentioned to Frank Smith that I had a troubled dream
about Charles. After this experience, perhaps three or four days, a
letter was received from Mrs. Mallory giving an account of Charles'
condition when he returned to the Joppa station.
"This letter recalled the dream; and the coincidence of time and
circumstances made a deep impression on me, though I was unable
then, and am now, to accurately identify the time of my vision with
the time of actual peril described in Mrs. Mallory's letter. (The
letter, however, came so soon as to make it certain that the peril
and the vision were nearly, if not exactly, _simultaneous_.)"
Mr. C. R. Marks explains that on a beautiful day in October he and a
friend sailed eighteen miles down the lake in a small open boat. They
started for the return voyage on the day following, at 2.45 P.M., in
threatening weather. They had gone but a short distance when a violent
storm came on, and they were in a position of considerable peril:--
"To add to our apprehensions it began raining, and the wind instead
of slacking was evidently increasing. We had gone about two miles
when I was startled by a cry from Arthur to 'look out for the
sail!' as it was shifting to the other side. I lay down to let the
sail pass over me, and got on to the other side of the boat to
counteract the effect of the sail. This is told in a few words,
but the actual event seemed to take a long time. When down in the
boat I heard and felt the swash of the waves coming in, and for a
moment I had the impression that Arthur was already in the water
and that it would soon be my turn. But on looking round I saw he
was still in his place, and also that we had shipped considerable
water. The next thing was to take in sail, and that quickly. I let
go the halyards, but the sail would not come down, as it was held
by a miserable toggle at the top. In the excitement of the moment
I jumped upon the seat at the imminent risk of capsizing the boat,
and pulled down the sail as far as it would go, which left it
about six feet high. This was still dangerous, as the slack of the
sail was distended, looking like a huge bag. This was remedied by
cutting away the rings in the lower part of the sail and winding up
the lower yard. After this, with considerable baling, we got along
tolerably well."
Appended is an extract from a letter written by Mr. B. Bristol,
with whom Mr. F. A. Marks was working at the time of the vision,
corroborating the accounts given above:--
"I was living in Wallingford at that time, raising small fruit. My
principal helper was a young man named Frederic Marks, a graduate
of Yale Scientific School. Frederic had a brother named Charles,
who was living then in Central New York, near Oneida Lake. One
rainy afternoon Frederic went upstairs to his room and lay down on
a lounge. An hour or so after he came back and said he had just
seen his brother Charles in vision, he thought, as he was not
conscious of having been asleep. Charles was in a small sail-boat,
and a companion with him, who sat in the stern steering. There
seemed to be a wild storm prevailing, for the sea ran high. Charles
stood in the bow grasping the mast with one arm, with the other
he had hold of the boom, which appeared to have broken loose. His
dangerous position so frightened Frederic that he awoke, or the
vision departed."
In the next case the coincidence was not of itself a striking one, nor,
as the account was not sent to the American S.P.R. until six years
after the event, is the evidence as good as in the last narrative.
But as an incident in itself trivial has remained in the memories of
the other persons concerned, as well as in that of the percipient, it
may be presumed to have made some impression at the time. The case is
quoted from the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 464-467).
No. 110.--From MRS. L. Z.
"_June_ 6_th_, 1887.
"About the end of March 1881, after recovering from severe illness,
while I was yet confined to my bed, I had the following experience.
I was staying at the time at 172 Benefit Street, Providence, R.I.
"I had been asleep and suddenly became, as it were, half awake,
being conscious of some of the objects in the room. I then heard
a voice as if from the room adjoining, and made an effort to see
the speaker, but I found myself unable to move. Then appeared,
as though in a mist, an ordinary sofa, and behind it the vague
outline of a woman's figure. I did not recognise the figure, but
I recognised the voice which I heard; it was the voice of my
hostess, Mrs. B., who was at that time not in the house. She was
saying, 'I am ill and all worn out. Mrs. Z. has been so nervous,
and in such a peculiar mental state, that it has quite affected my
health' (or words to that effect), 'but I wouldn't for the world
have her know it.' I then made a stronger effort to distinguish
the figure, and woke completely to find myself in my room with my
nurse. I inquired of the nurse who was in the other room, which was
used as a sleeping-room by my child and her nurse. She said that
no one was there; but I was so convinced that the voice had come
from there that I insisted upon her going and looking. She went,
but found no one there, and the door into the hall was latched. I
then looked at the clock, which was opposite my bed. It was about 5
P.M. In the evening, about 8 P.M., Mrs. B. came up to see me, and
I asked her where she had been that afternoon at 5 o'clock. She
said that she had been at Mrs. G.'s (about two miles off). I said,
'You were talking about me.' She said, 'Yes, I was,' looking very
much surprised. I repeated to her what I had seemed to hear her
say, word for word. She was much astonished, and was very curious
as to what else I had heard or seen. I told her that it was all
very vague, except the appearance of the sofa, which I described
in detail as being covered with a peculiar striped linen cloth,
green stripes about two inches wide, alternating with pale-drab
stripes, somewhat wider, which appeared to be the natural colour of
the unbleached linen. She said that she had spoken the words which
I had heard, and that she was at the time reclining on a sofa, but
she said that the sofa was covered with green velvet.
"Next day Mrs. G. paid me a visit, and after hearing my story she
exclaimed, 'You're right. The sofa had at the time the covering
which you describe; it had just been put on. There is green velvet
under the covering. I suppose Mrs. B. didn't notice the cover.'"
Mrs. B. writes:--
"In the year 1881, while living in Providence, on Benefit Street,
No. 272, Mrs. Z. was with me, and during the winter of 1880 and
the spring of 1881 she was in a peculiar mental state, and on
two occasions read my thoughts and heard my voice. I remember
distinctly on one occasion, when I returned from a visit to a
friend, Mrs. Z. repeated the conversation that had passed between
my friend and myself, and spoke of my lying on a lounge that had
a striped covering. I said, 'No, it was a green plush,' but found
afterwards she was right, as the summer covering had been put on.
"ELIZABETH L. B.
"BROOKLYN, N.Y., _June_ 1887."
Mrs. G. writes from Providence, July 12th, 1887:--
"When I received your note I could not at all recall the
circumstances of the vision you referred to, but afterwards Mrs.
B. refreshed my memory upon the subject, and I distinctly recalled
it. It was as Mrs. Z. related it to you. At the time it occurred, I
remember, I thought it quite marvellous.
"Sickness had prevented my writing you these few lines before.
"C. B. Y. G."
Even if the conversation was correctly reported, it is probably not
beyond the range of conjecture by a morbidly sensitive invalid;
but the details given of the appearance of the sofa cover seem to
indicate a telepathic faculty, like Dr. Phinuit's, of drawing on the
agent's unconscious perceptions. Mrs. L. Z. gives also an account of
a voluntarily induced clairvoyant dream, in connection with the same
friend, which occurred about this time, and this account also Mrs. B.
is able to corroborate. The whole case is interesting as serving to
indicate that some conditions of disease may be favourable to this
form of telepathy, and as being the only case which I am able to quote
of spontaneous clairvoyance in which the impressions transferred were
of quite trivial incidents. Mrs. Z. appears to have been in a state
between sleeping and waking.
The next case occurred in a dream at night. The dream, it will be
noted, caused the percipient to awake.
No. 111.--From MRS. FREESE.
"GRANITE LODGE, CHISELHURST,
_March_ 1884.
"In September 1881 I had another curious dream, so vivid that I
seemed to _see_ it.
"My two boys of eighteen and sixteen were staying in the Black
Forest, under the care of a Dr. Fresenius. I must say here that I
always supposed the boys would go everywhere together, and I never
should have supposed that in that lonely country, so new to them,
they would be out after dark. My husband and I were staying at St.
Leonards, and one Saturday night I woke at about 12 o'clock (rather
before, as I heard it strike) having just seen vividly a dark night
on a mountain, and my eldest boy lying on his back at the bottom of
some steep place, his eyes wide open, and saying, 'Good-bye, mother
and father, I shall never see you again.' I woke with a feeling of
anxiety, and the next morning when I told it to my husband, though
we both agreed it was absurd to be anxious, yet he would write and
tell the boys we hoped they would never go out alone after dark. To
my surprise my eldest boy, to whom I wrote the dream, wrote back
expressing his great astonishment, for on that Saturday night he
was coming home over the mountains, past 11 o'clock; it was pitch
dark, and he slipped and fell down some 12 feet or so, and landed
on his back, looking up to the sky. However, he was not much hurt,
and soon picked himself up and got home all right. He did not say
what thoughts passed through his mind as he fell."
In answer to inquiries, Mrs. Freese adds:--
"_Before_ my son wrote about his fall in the Black Forest, I
related my dream to my husband, and as he seemed a little moved
by it, I wrote an account of it to my boy, saying his father did
not wish them to be out after dark alone. I had not told my boy
_when_ it was, deeming that immaterial, but when in his letter,
received days after, he said, 'Was it Saturday night, because then
so-and-so?' I remembered what I should not otherwise have noted,
that it was Saturday night; for on the Sunday morning my husband,
being much worried about some business matter, elected to spend the
morning with me in the fields instead of going to church, and as
much to divert his mind as anything I related to him my dream of
the night before."
Mrs. Freese sent us the letter from her son, which contained the
following passage:--
"With regard to your dream: did you dream it on September 3rd? if
so it was on that night, coming home rather late, that I fell down
a precipice of 8 feet, or perhaps more, in the dark, and might have
broken my neck, but didn't. However, I don't think you will find
me walking about after dark more than I can help, as the roads are
very dark, and the fogs in the village awful.
"FRED. E. FREESE."
[September 3rd, 1881, was a Saturday.]
Mr. Freese wrote on March 7th, 1884, to confirm his wife's account of
the dream.
An account by Dr. Gibotteau, given in the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, Nov.-Dec. 1892, deserves consideration in this connection.
It is the record of a series of unusually successful experiments in the
transfer of visual images. But the success obtained was apparently due
to a condition of spontaneous clairvoyant perceptivity on the part of
the subject. The percipient, who was throughout in a state not clearly
distinguishable from that of normal wakefulness, was a head-nurse
at the hospital to which Dr. Gibotteau was attached. The occurrence
took place in 1888. Madame R. has now remarried and Dr. Gibotteau has
lost sight of her, so that her testimony cannot be obtained, and
unfortunately Dr. Gibotteau appears not to have committed the incident
to writing until 1892. The account therefore represents merely the
general impression left after the lapse of some years upon the memory
of a trained observer by a very unusual and striking experience.
Briefly, Dr. Gibotteau reports that he succeeded in inducing in
Madame R., by the mere silent will, an immense number of striking
hallucinatory, or rather semi-hallucinatory mental pictures. The ideas
thus transferred included transformations and imaginary movements of
objects actually present in the room; the appearance of human figures
and animals, a serpent, a rabbit, a dog, horses, a bear rampant; and
the disappearance of Dr. Gibotteau himself, leaving behind him an empty
arm-chair. The séance lasted for nearly three hours, with very few
failures of any kind, and left the narrator much exhausted.[149]
The experience, as described, it will be seen, was of an almost
unprecedented kind. It is by no means clear that under a natural
classification either this or others of the somewhat heterogeneous
phenomena described in the present and preceding chapters would be
grouped under the same genus, or that any of them are rightly called
telepathic. They are provisionally ascribed to telepathy, in the sense
already explained (p. 326, Chapter XIV.), because if we accept the
facts at all, that appears to be the cheapest solution. The writer is
not committed to telepathy as the true explanation; he has adopted
it provisionally, as an alternative to some hypothetical faculty of
direct intuition beyond the range of sense. If to any reader who
accepts the writer's estimate of the alleged facts as beyond chance
or misrepresentation, the hypothesis of telepathy appears in such
cases to be strained, it may be replied that when the choice of
explanation seems to lie between telepathy and some faculty even more
dubious and more remote from ordinary analogies, it is right that
the hypothesis of telepathy should be strained--if necessary, to the
breaking-point--before we invoke a stage-deity to cut the knot.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 145: Several instances of Mr. Keulemans' telepathic
experiences are given in _Phantasms of the Living_ (cases 21, 38, 56,
184).]
[Footnote 146: It should perhaps be said that there is nothing in the
experience of the many persons who have so far tried crystal gazing,
at the instance of the S.P.R., to indicate risk of injury to health.
It is no doubt not advisable for an invalid, or for any one suffering
from headache, or undue fatigue, to try the experiment. Indeed, the
experience of Mrs. Verrall and others is that success under such
conditions is unattainable. But with ordinary care to avoid straining
the eyes, no evil effect, it is thought, need be apprehended; and
there is probably no form of experiment which at the cost of so
little trouble may be expected to yield results of so great interest
and value. There is of course no magic in the crystal; a glass
paper-weight, a mirror, or a glass of water will serve the purpose
equally well. Records of experiments will be welcomed by Mr. F. W. H.
Myers, from whose suggestive article many of the illustrations quoted
in the text are taken. (See _Proc._, vol. viii., p. 436, etc.)]
[Footnote 147: Of course in this case there is an alternative
explanation--viz., that Miss X. received the impression at the time
the words were spoken, and that the shell merely developed it for her
conscious self.]
[Footnote 148: _S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 33, 34.]
[Footnote 149: A translation of Dr. Gibotteau's account is given by Mr.
Myers, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 468, 469.]
CHAPTER XVI.
THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS.
Consideration more or less adequate has now been given to the various
phenomena in which there is proof apparent of the action of telepathy.
The experimental evidence has shown that a simple sensation or idea may
be transferred from one mind to another, and that this transference
may take place alike in the normal state and in the hypnotic trance.
It has been shown also that the transferred idea may be reproduced in
the percipient's organism under various disguises; at one time, for
instance, it may cause vague distress or terror, or a blind impulse
to action; under other circumstances it may inspire definite and
complicated movements, as those involved in writing. Again, it may
induce sleep or even more deep-seated organic effects, such as hysteria
or local anæsthesia. Once more, it may be embellished with imagery
presumably furnished by the percipient's own mind, and may appear as
a dream or hallucination representing the distant agent. And these
various results may be obtained either by deliberate experiment; as the
result of some crisis affecting another mind; or, lastly, as following
on some peculiar state of receptivity established, under conditions not
yet clearly ascertained, in the percipient's mind.
But it would not be reasonable to infer that the few hundreds or
thousands of examples collected during the last twelve years by a
few groups of investigators exhaust the possibilities or indicate
the limits of telepathic action. By those, at least, who accept
the demonstration of telepathy as a real agency it will hardly be
anticipated that its action should be confined to the comparatively
few cases which present a coincidence sufficiently striking to be
quoted as ostensive instances. That the distribution, indeed, of
telepathic sensitiveness at the present time should be sporadic--as
the distribution of a musical ear or the power of visualisation is
sporadic--may appear not improbable. But we should be prepared to
find instances of its presumptive operation which fall below the
level of demonstration, and might with almost equal plausibility be
referred to some other cause. And such instances we do certainly
find, in simultaneous dreams and in vague presentiments, and in
innumerable coincidences of thought and expression in ordinary life.
And the suggestion that the same power may serve as an auxiliary to
more completely systematised modes of expression, though incapable of
proof, may yet be thought worthy of consideration. It is conceivable,
for instance, that it may aid the intercourse of a mother with her
infant child, that the influence of the orator may be due not only
to the spoken word, and that even in our daily conversation thoughts
may pass by this means which find no outward expression. The personal
influence of the operator in hypnotism may perhaps be regarded as a
proof presumptive of telepathy. When all the phenomena of "mesmerism"
were attributed, by the few who believed in them, to the passage of
a fluid from the mesmerist to his patient, it was easy to credit the
successful operator with as large an endowment of available fluid as
the facts might seem to require. But from those who assert that the
results are not merely explicable, but are in practice to be explained,
as due to suggestion alone, no entirely satisfactory explanation has
ever been forthcoming of the observed differences between one operator
and another. It is difficult to believe that Liébeault, Bernheim,
Schrenck-Notzing, Van Eeden, Lloyd Tuckey, Bramwell, etc., have
succeeded where so many others have failed, merely through the exercise
of greater patience, or the possession of an established reputation,
which after all is based on the successes which it is now invoked
to explain.[150] And the fact that a large proportion of well-known
hypnotists have acted as agents in successful telepathic experiments
of an unusual kind is a further argument in the same direction. There
are, moreover, some more dubious beliefs, for the most part discredited
by educated persons, yet persisting with a singular vitality, which
receive in telepathy a simple and perhaps sufficient explanation. It
has already been shown that some of the marvels of Dr. Dee and the
Specularii have been paralleled by recent visions in "the crystal,"
revealing events then passing at a distance unknown to the seer; and
that the nucleus of fact in some legends of ghosts and haunted houses
is probably to be sought in a telepathic hallucination. And many of the
alleged wonders of witchcraft and of ancient magic in general, when
disentangled from the accretions formed round them by popular myth
and superstition, present a marked resemblance to some of the facts
recorded in this book. It is obvious, for instance, that the same power
which inhibited Mr. Beard's utterance (p. 83) could have prevented
the witch's victim from repeating the Lord's Prayer. And Mr. Godfrey
(p. 228), in the sixteenth century, might have found that to appear
in two places at once would be perilously strong evidence of unlawful
powers.[151]
But there are two special kinds of marvels, whose occurrence has been
widely vouched for within quite recent times by men of proved ability
and trained in the experimental methods of the modern laboratory,
which deserve to be considered in this connection--the influence of
metals and magnets on the human organism, and the physical phenomena of
Spiritualism. Baron von Reichenbach in the last generation published
the results of numerous observations on various sensitives, who alleged
that they could see flame-like emanations from crystals, from the poles
of a magnet, from the bodies of the sick, and from newly-made graves,
and that they experienced various sensations from contact with magnets
and metals. On the evidence of Reichenbach's prolonged and laborious
researches the existence of this supposed magnetic sense obtained a
certain degree of credence. Accordingly the S.P.R., shortly after its
foundation in 1882, conducted a series of control experiments on a
number of persons with a powerful electro-magnet, which was alternately
magnetised and demagnetised by a commutator in an adjoining room. Of
forty-five persons tested three professed to see luminous appearances
on the poles of the magnet; and on two or three occasions they were
able to indicate with surprising accuracy throughout a whole evening
the exact moment at which the current was switched on or off--the
light, as they alleged, appearing or disappearing simultaneously. But
these isolated successes were not repeated, and the very conditions
of the experiment implied that it was known to some of those present
whether or not the magnet was charged. Now it is obvious that unless
special precautions are taken to guard against the telepathic[152]
communication of this knowledge all experiments of the kind must be
inconclusive; and other investigators have failed to detect any trace
of the so-called magnetic sense.[153]
Within the last few years this supposed sensitiveness has appeared
in another form. M. Babinski of the Salpetrière claims to have shown
that certain ailments--such, for example, as hemiplegia and hysterical
mutism--can be transferred by the influence of a magnet from one side
of the body to another, or from one patient to another. MM. Binet and
Féré[154] find that unilateral hallucinations can be shifted by the
same influence from one side of the body to the other, and that in
general memories and sensations--real or imaginary--can be modified
and destroyed by the magnet. And MM. Bourru, Burot, Luys, and others
have published whole treatises dealing with the alleged influence
of various drugs and metals on certain patients. A few drops of
laurel-water enclosed in a flask and brought near to the patient, will,
according to these writers, induce ecstasy; ipecacuanha will cause
vomiting; alcohol intoxication, and so on; each drug, though securely
stoppered and sealed, giving rise to the appropriate physical symptoms
in the patient. However, MM. Bernheim,[155] Delboeuf,[156] and Jules
Voisin[157] showed some time since, and Mr. Ernest Hart[158] has lately
repeated the demonstration, that the same results can be made to
follow if the patient is led to believe that an inert piece of wood is
a magnet, or that an empty flask contains a powerful drug. It may be
fairly assumed therefore that when special precautions are not shown to
have been taken--and there is little evidence that such precautions
were as a rule taken--suggestion by word or look would be sufficient
to account for the phenomena observed. But it is obvious that negative
experiments of this kind are not in themselves conclusive; and it is
difficult to believe that all the results recorded by investigators
of such experience as Babinski, Féré, and others could have been due
simply to carelessness on their part, or hypnotic cunning on the part
of the subject. Indeed, in commenting on the counter experiments
made by M. Jules Voisin, MM. Bourru and Burot expressly state that
if the results obtained by them are to be attributed to suggestion,
as he proposes, it is "_une suggestion sans parole, sans geste,
sans pensée même_."[159] But a suggestion without word, gesture, or
conscious thought is an accurate description of one form of telepathic
suggestion; and if such suggestion has indeed been at work we have an
explanation of the otherwise inexplicable reliance placed by these
French investigators upon experiments so much controverted, and their
faith in an interpretation so little supported by scientific analogy.
That in general the so-called physical phenomena of Spiritualism are
due to self-deception and exaggeration on the one hand, and to fraud on
the other, is a proposition which to most readers, it is likely, will
seem to need little demonstration. And there are of course many cases,
such as the recent experiments with Eusapia Palladino[160] at Milan,
where, though competent observers--Richet, Schiaparelli, Lombroso,
Brofferio--have seen things beyond their power to explain, yet the
line between what was possible to fraudulent ingenuity and what was
not possible cannot be drawn with sufficient sharpness to warrant the
invocation of any new agency. But there are other records which cannot
be so summarily dismissed. Thus Mr. Crookes, F.R.S.,[161] has described
the movements of a balance, specially constructed for the purpose of
the experiments, in the presence of himself and other observers, under
conditions which seemed to render it impossible for the effects to
have been produced by the muscular force of any of those present. Lord
Lindsay has testified to having seen Home's stature elongated to the
extent of 11 inches, and heavy tables and other articles of furniture
rise in the air without visible support, and to having himself, at
Home's instance, handled, and seen others handle, red-hot coals with
impunity. Other witnesses of repute have testified to the appearance
of strange luminous bodies, the raining down of liquid scent, the
production of inexplicable musical sounds and other phenomena equally
marvellous.[162]
Now it is difficult to believe that Mr. Crookes and those with
him could in their normal senses have imagined movements of a
self-registering balance which never really took place, or have failed
to detect actual movements on Home's part; or that Home could have
seemed to Lord Lindsay and others to add some fraction of a cubit to
his stature or to float unsupported in the air, when he was really
only stretching cramped muscles, or supporting himself on a captive
balloon, or by unseen wires; or that when he was seen to carry hot
coals about the room, and to place them, still glowing, upon the bare
head of Mr. S. C. Hall, he relied upon the observers overlooking
such inconspicuous objects as a pair of tongs and an asbestos
skull-cap--alternatives which must have been at least as obvious
at the time to the observers who, by recording these things, have
imperilled their reputation for scientific acumen, and even for common
sense, as now to their irresponsible critics. But it is certainly not
less difficult to believe, on such grounds as these, in the discovery
of a new physical force--or rather new forces; for the energy which
could move a balance cannot properly be assumed to be identical with
the energy which could increase Home's stature, or restrain the action
of fire; or, as elsewhere recorded, bring delicate flowers uninjured
through closed doors. But fortunately we are not compelled to choose
between the alternatives of such almost incredible stupidity and a
multiplicity of new modes of energy. It has been plausibly suggested
that the observers in such cases are the subjects of a collective
hallucination. It is true that we have no precise analogy to support
such a hypothesis. The hallucinations of hypnotism can be imposed upon
several subjects simultaneously by dint of repeated verbal suggestions.
But here there were none of the recognised preliminaries to the
hypnotic trance: in many of the recorded cases the observers did not
know what to expect, and it is clear that verbal suggestion was not
essential to the results; while there is no trace of that break in the
continuity of consciousness which elsewhere marks the passage from the
hypnotic to the normal state. Moreover, in some of the best-attested
cases it was the presumed operator, and not the witnesses, who was
entranced. Assuredly if the phenomena described were due to hypnotic
hallucination, it was hallucination without any of the characteristic
features of hypnotism. But if we assume--as in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary we are entitled, if not bound, to assume--that
the observers were in their normal state, we can find no nearer
parallel to this supposed hallucination than the collective telepathic
hallucinations of which examples have been given in Chapter XII.[163]
It is true that the parallel is by no means exact. The hypothesis
requires us to suppose not merely that investigators of spiritualistic
phenomena are liable to see, by hallucination, things which are not
there, but also that they are occasionally withheld, by hallucination,
from seeing actual movements and objects. For Mr. Crookes' automatic
balance recorded a real movement; flowers and other objects have
actually been brought into locked rooms; furniture has been
demonstrably displaced, or has even moved before the eyes of the
investigators, and been found at the conclusion of the experiment in
its new position; an actual blister was raised on Lord Lindsay's skin
by the touch of a live coal which Home held in a hand apparently bare.
Now if these results were due to the action of known forces, muscular
and other, it seems clear that some of the medium's movements and
appliances escaped observation. We have, however, no record, so far as
I know, of collective negative hallucination telepathically caused. But
it may be pointed out that whilst it is only in unusual circumstances
that a hallucination of the kind could attract sufficient attention to
be recorded, negative hallucinations can be imposed without difficulty
on a hypnotic subject. So that their telepathic origination in the
circumstances suggested presents no greater _à priori_ difficulty than
that of positive hallucinations. There are, however, other differences
between the collective hallucinations recorded in Chapter XII. and
those which the hypothesis requires. For the former were for the most
part vague and transitory, and were rarely shared by more than two
persons; whilst the hypothetical hallucinations of the spiritualistic
séance are persistent, and may affect several persons simultaneously
and to an equal extent. It may be suggested, however, that the
different conditions in the latter case--the common expectancy, the
attunement of the minds of all present to a common mood, the absence of
external solicitation to the senses--may be sufficient to account for
the differing characteristics of the phenomena observed.
It may be objected that the problem does not require the intervention
of such a _Deus ex machina_ as collective hallucination; that fraud
and malobservation are adequate to account for all the facts reported.
I confess that I am unable so lightly to set aside the deliberate
testimony of men of proved scientific distinction, whose word is still
regarded as authoritative in observations not less delicate, and for
results to the layman hardly less dubious. But I do not suggest that
the phenomena, however interpreted, are likely to add anything to the
proof of telepathy. I would merely urge that, as until the possibility
of thought-transference in its various forms has been patiently and
rigorously excluded, odylic flames and magnetic influences must remain
unproven, so, in dealing with that residuum of evidence for the
physical phenomena called spiritualistic which appears inexplicable by
fraud and malobservation, the possibility of collective hallucination
telepathically caused should be kept in view.[164]
It should be observed that the treatment of telepathy by those
responsible for the word involves as little of theory as Newton's
conception of gravitation. What Newton did was to find the simplest
general expression for the observed facts by saying that the heavenly
bodies acted upon each other with a certain measurable force. He
did not attempt to explain the mode of this action. And whilst
succeeding astronomers have for the most part been content to follow
Newton's example, the science has, nevertheless, advanced in a
steady and continuous progression. So the conception of telepathy
simply colligates the observed facts of spontaneous and experimental
thought-transference, as instances of the action of one mind upon
another. The nature of the action the theory does not discuss; it
merely defines it negatively, as being outside the normal sensory
channels. In accordance with this view, Mr. Gurney, and the English
investigators generally, have consistently employed psychical terms in
their discussion of the subject: they have spoken of the transmission
of ideas, not neuroses, and of the affection of mind by mind, rather
than of brain by brain.[165] This treatment involves no prejudgment
of the question. Whatever may be the nature of the cause, we know the
effects at present only in their psychical aspect, and in default of
a physical theory, as psychical it seemed convenient to discuss them.
This mode of speech is of course as legitimate as the popular usage
which permits us, when the sun's rays strike upon our retina, to ignore
the intervening physical processes, and to express only the psychical
result, "I see the sun." But Mr. Gurney and his colleagues were further
influenced in adopting and maintaining this usage by a conviction
that the advancement of the subject has not hitherto been dependent
upon the discovery of physical correlates for the observed psychical
action, and that the energy which would be diverted to the search for
explanations, could be more fruitfully employed on the still imperfect
demonstration that there is something to be explained.
But it is obvious that this attitude of reserve cannot be maintained
indefinitely. Since Mr. Gurney wrote the sum-total of observations
and experiments has steadily increased, and there is hardly any
longer room for doubt that we have something here which no physical
processes at present known can adequately account for. It is not
possible to observe facts without speculating on the underlying law:
it is the law indicated by the facts, more than the facts themselves,
which is of permanent interest to the human mind. Nor indeed can any
fruitful observation be long maintained, which is not accompanied,
guided, and stimulated by theoretical speculation. Professor Lodge has
called upon us, in this matter, to "press the doctrine of ultimate
intelligibility;"[166] and in so saying he has at once given articulate
expression to an impulse from whose blind urgency no student of nature
can escape, and has formulated what is after all the _differentia_ of
the scientific mind. The average man accepts things as they are; the
man of science presses the doctrine of ultimate intelligibility.
But however legitimate at the present stage of the inquiry theoretical
speculation might seem, such speculation has for the most part been
conspicuously wanting in the treatment of the subject by those best
qualified to deal with it. At any rate the attitude of most continental
investigators, like that of their English colleagues, has been a
purely positive one. They have contented themselves with describing
in psychical terms the psychical phenomena which they have observed.
There are, indeed, some competent inquirers at the present time who
incline to attribute thought-transference to the direct action of
mind upon mind, or to some process yet more transcendent, just as in
the last generation there were some who thought they were able to
discern, in such instances as came under their notice, proof of the
agency of disembodied spirits. And Von Hartmann, boldly accepting the
facts wholesale, ascribes them to a communication between finite minds
effected through the inter-mediation of the Absolute.[167] But until
we have exhausted the resources of the world which we know, we should
perhaps conclude, with Mistress Quickly, that there is no need to
trouble ourselves with any such thoughts yet.
Any attempt at a physical explanation is, of course, beset with
many difficulties. To begin with, there is no sense-organ for
our presumed new mode of sensation; nor at the present stage of
physiological knowledge is there likelihood that we can annex any
as yet unappropriated organ to register telepathic stimuli, as the
semicircular canals are supposed to register the movements of the body
in space. In lacking an elaborate machinery specially adapted for
receiving its messages and concentrating them on the peripheral end
of the nerves, telepathy would thus seem to be on a par with radiant
energy affecting the general surface of the body. But the sensations of
heat and cold are without quality or difference, other than difference
of degree; whereas telepathic messages, as we have seen, purport often
to be as detailed and precise as those conveyed by the same radiant
energy falling on the organs of vision.
As regards the mode of transmission, we find first the theory of a
fluid, which owes its origin to Mesmer, and was in vogue at a time when
fluids were still fashionable in scientific circles. Dr. Baréty[168]
has recently revived this theory in a new form. He alleges that
there is a nerve-energy (_force neurique rayonnante_) which radiates
from the eyes, the fingers, and the breath of the operator, and is
capable of producing various effects upon hypnotised subjects. He
finds that a knitting-needle acts as a conductor for this force, and
water as a non-conductor; that the nerve-rays can be focussed by a
magnifying-glass, refracted by a prism, and reflected from a mirror
or other plane surface at an angle equal to the angle of incidence.
Dr. Baréty has omitted to state whether in the latter case the rays
are polarised, nor has he shown whether the force varies inversely to
the square of the distance. But the consideration of these remarkable
results need hardly detain us long, since they can all readily be
explained by suggestion, verbal or telepathic.
If we leave fluids and radiant nerve-energy on one side, we
find practically only one mode suggested for the telepathic
transference--viz., that the physical changes which are the
accompaniments of thought or sensation in the agent are transmitted
from the brain as undulations in the intervening medium, and thus
excite corresponding changes in some other brain, without any
other portion of the organism being necessarily implicated in the
transmission. This hypothesis has found its most philosophical champion
in Dr. Ochorowicz, who has devoted several chapters of his book, _De
la Suggestion mentale_, to the discussion of the various theories on
the subject. He begins by recalling the reciprocal convertibility of
all physical forces with which we are acquainted, and especially draws
attention to what he calls the law of reversibility, a law which he
illustrates by a description of the photophone. The photophone is an
instrument in which a mirror is made to vibrate to the human voice.
The mirror reflects a ray of light, which, vibrating in its turn,
falls upon a plate of selenium, modifying its electric conductivity.
The intermittent current so produced is transmitted through a
telephone, and the original articulate sound is reproduced. Now in
hypnotised subjects--and M. Ochorowicz does not in this connection
treat of thought-transference between persons in the normal state--the
equilibrium of the nervous system, he sees reason to believe, is
profoundly affected. The nerve-energy liberated in this state, he
points out, "cannot pass beyond" the subject's brain "without being
transformed. Nevertheless, like any other force, it cannot remain
isolated; like any other force it escapes, but in disguise. Orthodox
science allows it only one way out, the motor nerves. These are the
holes in the dark lantern through which the rays of light escape....
Thought remains in the brain, just as the chemical energy of the
galvanic battery remains in the cells, but each is represented outside
by its correlative energy, which in the case of the battery is called
the electric current, but for which in the other we have as yet no
name. In any case there is some correlative energy--for the currents
of the motor nerves do not and cannot constitute the only dynamic
equivalent of cerebral energy--to represent all the complex movements
of the cerebral mechanism."[169]
Considered purely in its physiological aspect, such a theory appears
to present no special difficulty; or rather, to put the matter more
exactly, our ignorance of the ultimate nature of nerve-processes is
so nearly complete as to permit us to theorise _in vacuo_, with
little risk of encountering any insuperable obstacle. It is true that
Professor G. Stanley Hall,[170] in commenting on such physical theories
of telepathy, maintains that they contravene well-established physical
laws:--"The law of 'isolated conductivity,' formulated fully by
Johannes Müller, which Helmholtz compares in importance to the law of
gravity, first brought order into the field of neurology by insisting
that impressions never jump from one fibre to another.... Is it likely
that a neural state should jump from one brain to another, through a
great interval, when intense stimuli on one nerve cannot affect another
in the closest contact with it?" But it is clear that the "law" in
question is merely a generalisation from observed facts, and from
facts, moreover, not of the same order as those now under discussion.
For the question here is not of the affection of another nerve-fibre
in the same organism, but of a nerve-centre in another organism. And
whilst it must have seemed _à priori_ probable that between nerves
belonging to the same system induction would not take place, because
the alternative could hardly fail to be injurious to the organism,
and that the susceptibility to such induction, if originally present,
would have been eliminated in the course of evolution, it is at least
theoretically conceivable that between different organisms induction
might have persisted as innocuous, or even have been developed as
positively beneficial.
In current theories it is assumed that there are changes in
brain-substance correlated with psychical events, and that these
changes, in their ultimate analysis, are of the nature of vibrations.
That these vibrations should be capable of in some way propagating
themselves through the surrounding medium would seem therefore a
natural corollary. The real objections to such physical theories appear
to be of a more general kind--viz., the improbability that any such
capacity of nervous induction should have remained unobserved until
now; and the difficulty of supposing vibrations so minute to be capable
of producing effects at so great a distance, and to have a selective
capacity so finely adjusted that out of all the thousands of persons
within the radius, say, of such a brain-wave as that set a-going by
Mr. Cleave (p. 234), only one set of brain-molecules should be stirred
to sympathetic vibration. The first difficulty in its psychical aspect
has already been touched upon at the commencement of this chapter, and
need not here be further considered. The second is more serious. It
is difficult to find an exact parallel for the transmission across a
considerable intervening space of energy at once so minute in quantity
and so highly specialised. Mr. W. H. Preece has indeed shown that
a current can be induced in a closed circuit at a distance of some
three miles or more, and Professor Lodge has reminded us (_loc. cit._)
that "all magnets are sympathetically connected, so that, if suitably
suspended, a vibration from one disturbs others, even though they be
distant ninety-two million miles." But the forces engaged are in the
one case on a commercial, in the other on a cosmic scale. Yet the
difficulty is not, perhaps, insuperable. The amount of energy which
has been proved capable, at the distance of half a mile, of inducing
sleep in a French peasant woman may be readily conceived as not more
attenuated than those "sweet influences" which are yet potent enough to
summon up before us the vision of the Pleiades or the glowing nebula of
Orion. Nor need the difficulty of selection trouble us much; for, after
all, one of the chief characteristics of organic life in general is the
power--a power ever more differentiated in the higher organisms--of
reacting only to selected stimuli. In short, it is too soon to say that
any physical communication between living beings of the kind suggested
is inconceivable. We shall be justified in affirming or denying its
possibility on the day when we have guessed the secret of our own
existence, and are able to explain how some fraction of a millegramme
of albumen can contain not merely the promise of life, but the germ
of a particular and individual organism, which shall reveal its own
pedigree and contain in itself an epitome of life on our planet.
Until, therefore, we know more of the nature of the cerebral changes
which are presumed to be the physical concomitants of thought,
we are at most entitled to suggest that some kind of vibrations,
propagated somehow through a conjectural medium from an unspecified
nerve-centre, may possibly explain the transference of thought. Our
main justification at the present time for discussing theories which
aim at some solution is that they may indicate the lines on which
experiment and observation may be usefully directed. Thus, it is not
known how far the results depend on the state of health of the parties
to the experiments, on their occupations and state of consciousness at
the time; whether blood-relationship or familiar intimacy between agent
and percipient is conducive to success; or whether the transmission
is in any way affected by the introduction of more than one agent.
And though some progress has been made in tracing the development
of the transmitted idea after it has reached the percipient's mind,
observations on the relation of the agent's impression to that of
the percipient are at present few and isolated. The difficulties of
systematic experiment in this direction are considerable, as will be
apparent to any one who carefully studies the reports of the Brighton
experiments (pp. 65-80); but it would seem that further investigation
might be expected to throw light upon such questions as whether the
percipient's original impression is necessarily of the same kind as the
agent's; whether in the case of visual impressions lateral inversion
or complementary colours can be detected, and so on.
Once more, but little has been learnt of the purely mechanical
conditions under which the transmission is effected. There are indeed
indications that contact facilitates the transference;[171] but from
the difficulty of discriminating, when contact is permitted, between
thought-transference and muscle-reading, even thus much can hardly be
affirmed with certainty. On the analogy of the known physical forces
it is of course to be anticipated that the difficulty of effecting
telepathic communication would increase very rapidly with the distance.
Yet even here experimental verification is difficult to obtain. It
is obvious, indeed, in our experiments, that an increased interval
between agent and percipient, especially if a wall or floor is made
to intervene, has affected the results prejudicially. But it is by no
means clear, as already said, how far the observed effects are to be
attributed, not to the physical obstacle of the intervening space,
but to the psychical effect produced thereby on the parties to the
experiment.