IV. A. From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. viii. p. 389; related by Mr.
Herbert J. Lewis, 19 Park Place, Cardiff.
In September 1880, I lost the landing order of a large steamer
containing a cargo of iron ore, which had arrived in the port of
Cardiff. She had to commence discharging at six o'clock the next
morning. I received the landing order at four o'clock in the
afternoon, and when I arrived at the office at six I found that I
had lost it. During all the evening I was doing my utmost to find
the officials of the Custom House to get a permit, as the loss was
of the greatest importance, preventing the ship from discharging. I
came home in a great degree of trouble about the matter, as I
feared that I should lose my situation in consequence.
That night I dreamed that I saw the lost landing order lying in a
crack in the wall under a desk in the Long Room of the Custom
House.
At five the next morning I went down to the Custom House and got
the keeper to get up and open it. I went to the spot of which I had
dreamed, and found the paper in the very place. The ship was not
ready to discharge at her proper time, and I went on board at seven
and delivered the landing order, saving her from all delay.
HERBERT J. LEWIS.
I can certify to the truth of the above statement.
THOMAS LEWIS
(Herbert Lewis's father),
H. WALLIS.
_July 14th, 1884_.
[Mr. E. J. Newell, of the George and Abbotsford Hotel, Melrose, adds the
following corroborative note:--]
_August 14th, 1884._
I made some inquiries about Mr. Herbert Lewis's dream before I left
Cardiff. He had been searching throughout the room in which the
order was found. His theory as to how the order got in the place in
which it was found, is that it was probably put there by some one
(perhaps with malicious intent), as he does not see how it could
have fallen so.
The fact that Mr. H. Lewis is exceedingly short-sighted adds to the
probability of the thing which you suggest, that the dream was
simply an unconscious act of memory in sleep. On the other hand he
does not believe it was there when he searched.
E. J. NEWELL.
Can there have been a momentary unnoticed spasm of the ciliary muscle,
with the result of extending the range of vision? It may suffice here to
quote--that my suggestion may not seem too fantastic--a few lines from a
personal observation of a somnambule by Dr. Dufay.[217]
"It is eight o'clock: several workwomen are busy around a table, on
which a lamp is placed. Mdlle. R. L. directs and shares in the work,
chatting cheerfully meantime. Suddenly a noise is heard; it is her head
which has fallen sharply on the edge of the table. This is the beginning
of the access. She picks herself up in a few seconds, pulls off her
spectacles with disgust, and continues the work which she had
begun;--having no further need of the concave glasses which a pronounced
myopia renders needful to her in ordinary life;--and even placing
herself so that her work is less exposed to the light of the lamp."
Similarly, and yet differently, Miss Goodrich-Freer has had an
experience where the title of a book quite unknown to her, which she had
vainly endeavoured to read where it lay at some distance from her,
presented itself in the crystal. In such a case we can hardly suppose
any such spasmodic alteration in ocular conditions as may perhaps occur
in trance.
IV. B. This case was recorded by Professor W. Romaine Newbold of the
University of Pennsylvania, in a paper entitled "Subconscious
Reasoning," in the _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. xii. pp. 11-20.
I give the following extracts:--
For [these] cases I am indebted to another friend and colleague,
Dr. Herman V. Hilprecht, Professor of Assyrian in the University of
Pennsylvania. Both occurred in his own experience, and I write the
account of the first from notes made by me upon his narrative.
During the winter, 1882-1883, he was working with Professor
Friedrich Delitzsch, and was preparing to publish, as his
dissertation, a text, transliteration, and translation of a stone
of Nebuchadnezzar I. with notes. He accepted at that time the
explanation given by Professor Delitzsch of the name
Nebuchadnezzar--"_Nabû-kudûrru-usur_," "Nebo protect my mason's
pad, or mortar board," _i.e._, "my work as a builder." One night,
after working late, he went to bed about two o'clock in the
morning. After a somewhat restless sleep, he awoke with his mind
full of the thought that the name should be translated "Nebo
protect my boundary." He had a dim consciousness of having been
working at his table in a dream, but could never recall the details
of the process by which he arrived at this conclusion. Reflecting
upon it when awake, however, he at once saw that _kudûrru_,
"boundary," could be derived from the verb _kadâru_, to enclose.
Shortly afterwards he published this translation in his
dissertation, and it has since been universally adopted.
I quote this experience, in itself of a familiar type, on account
of its interest when viewed in connection with the more curious
dream next to be related. I was told of the latter shortly after it
happened, and here translate an account written in German by
Professor Hilprecht, August 8th, 1893, before the more complete
confirmation was received.
"One Saturday evening, about the middle of March, 1893, I had been
wearying myself, as I had done so often in the weeks preceding, in
the vain attempt to decipher two small fragments of agate which
were supposed to belong to the finger-rings of some Babylonian. The
labour was much increased by the fact that the fragments presented
remnants only of characters and lines, that dozens of similar small
fragments had been found in the ruins of the temple of Bel at
Nippur with which nothing could be done, that in this case
furthermore I had never had the originals before me, but only a
hasty sketch made by one of the members of the expedition sent by
the University of Pennsylvania to Babylonia. I could not say more
than that the fragments, taking into consideration the place in
which they were found and the peculiar characteristics of the
cuneiform characters preserved upon them, sprang from the Cassite
period of Babylonian history (_circa_ 1700-1140 B.C.); moreover, as
the first character of the third line of the first fragment seemed
to be KU, I ascribed this fragment, with an interrogation point, to
King Kurigalzu, while I placed the other fragment, as
unclassifiable, with other Cassite fragments upon a page of my book
where I published the unclassifiable fragments. The proofs already
lay before me, but I was far from satisfied. The whole problem
passed yet again through my mind that March evening before I placed
my mark of approval under the last correction in the book. Even
then I had come to no conclusion. About midnight, weary and
exhausted, I went to bed and was soon in deep sleep. Then I dreamed
the following remarkable dream. A tall, thin priest of the old
pre-Christian Nippur, about forty years of age and clad in a simple
abba, led me to the treasure chamber of the temple, on its
south-east side. He went with me into a small, low-ceiled room
without windows, in which there was a large wooden chest, while
scraps of agate and lapis-lazuli lay scattered on the floor. Here
he addressed me as follows: 'The two fragments which you have
published separately upon pages 22 and 26, belong together, are not
finger-rings, and their history is as follows. King Kurigalzu
(_circa_ 1300 B.C.) once sent to the temple of Bel, among other
articles of agate and lapis lazuli, an inscribed votive cylinder of
agate. Then we priests suddenly received the command to make for
the statue of the god Ninib a pair of earrings of agate. We were in
great dismay, since there was no agate as raw material at hand. In
order to execute the command there was nothing for us to do but cut
the votive cylinder into three parts, thus making three rings, each
of which contained a portion of the original inscription. The first
two rings served as earrings for the statue of the god; the two
fragments which have given you so much trouble are portions of
them. If you will put the two together you will have confirmation
of my words. But the third ring you have not yet found in the
course of your excavations, and you never will find it.' With this,
the priest disappeared. I awoke at once and immediately told my
wife the dream that I might not forget it. Next morning--Sunday--I
examined the fragments once more in the light of these disclosures,
and to my astonishment found all the details of the dream precisely
verified in so far as the means of verification were in my hands.
The original inscription on the votive cylinder read: 'To the god
Ninib, son of Bel, his lord, has Kurigalzu, pontifex of Bel,
presented this.'
"The problem was thus at last solved. I stated in the preface that
I had unfortunately discovered too late that the two fragments
belonged together, made the corresponding changes in the Table of
Contents, pp. 50 and 52, and, it being not possible to transpose
the fragments, as the plates were already made, I put in each plate
a brief reference to the other. (Cf. Hilprecht, 'The Babylonian
Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania,' Series A, Cuneiform
Texts, Vol. I., Part I, 'Old Babylonian Inscriptions, chiefly from
Nippur.')
"H. V. HILPRECHT."
Upon the priest's statement that the fragments were those of a votive
cylinder, Professor Hilprecht makes the following comment:--
"There are not many of these votive cylinders. I had seen, all told, up
to that evening, not more than two. They very much resemble the
so-called seal cylinders, but usually have no pictorial representations
upon them, and the inscription is not reversed, not being intended for
use in sealing, but is written as it is read."
The following transliteration of the inscription, in the Sumerian
language, will serve to give those of us who are unlearned in cuneiform
languages an idea of the material which suggested the dream. The
straight vertical lines represent the cuts by which the stone-cutter
divided the original cylinder into three sections. The bracketed words
are entirely lost, and have been supplied by analogy from the many
similar inscriptions.
Line 1. Dingir N inib du (mu) To the god Ninib, child
" 2. dingir En- (lil) of the god Bel
" 3. luga l-a-ni (ir) his lord
" 4. Ku-r (i- galzu) Kurigalzu
" 5. pa- (tesi dingir Enlil) pontifex of the god Bel
" 6. (in- na- ba) has presented it.
I translate also the following statement which Mrs. Hilprecht kindly
made at my request.
"I was awakened from sleep by a sigh, immediately thereafter heard a
spring from the bed, and at the same moment saw Professor Hilprecht
hurrying into his study. Thence came the cry, 'It is so, it is so.'
Grasping the situation, I followed him and satisfied myself in the
midnight hour as to the outcome of his most interesting dream.[218]
"J. C. HILPRECHT."
At the time Professor Hilprecht told me of this curious dream, which was
a few weeks after its occurrence, there remained a serious difficulty
which he was not able to explain. According to the memoranda in our
possession, the fragments were of different colours, and therefore could
have scarcely belonged to the same object. The original fragments were
in Constantinople, and it was with no little interest that I awaited
Professor Hilprecht's return from the trip which he made thither in the
summer of 1893. I translate again his own account of what he then
ascertained.
"_November 10th_, 1895.
"In August 1893, I was sent by the Committee on the Babylonian
Expedition to Constantinople, to catalogue and study the objects
got from Nippur and preserved there in the Imperial Museum. It was
to me a matter of the greatest interest to see for myself the
objects which, according to my dream, belonged together, in order
to satisfy myself that they had both originally been parts of the
same votive cylinder. Halil Bey, the director of the museum, to
whom I told my dream, and of whom I asked permission to see the
objects, was so interested in the matter, that he at once opened
all the cases of the Babylonian section, and requested me to
search. Father Scheil, an Assyriologist from Paris, who had
examined and arranged the articles excavated by us before me, had
not recognised the fact that these fragments belonged together, and
consequently I found one fragment in one case, and the other in a
case far away from it. As soon as I found the fragments and put
them together, the truth of the dream was demonstrated _ad
oculos_--they had, in fact, once belonged to one and the same
votive cylinder. As it had been originally of finely veined agate,
the stone-cutter's saw had accidentally divided the object in such
a way that the whitish vein of the stone appeared only upon the one
fragment and the larger grey surface upon the other. Thus I was
able to explain Dr. Peters's discordant description of the two
fragments."
Professor Hilprecht is unable to say what language the old priest used
in addressing him. He is quite certain that it was not Assyrian, and
thinks it was either English or German.
There are two especial points of interest in this case, the character of
the information conveyed, and the dramatic form in which it was put. The
apparently novel points of information given were:--
1. That the fragments belonged together.
2. That they were fragments of a votive cylinder.
3. That the cylinder was presented by King Kurigalzu.
4. That it was dedicated to Ninib.
5. That it had been made into a pair of earrings.
6. That the "treasure chamber" was located upon the south-east side of
the temple.
A careful analysis reveals the fact that not one of these items was
beyond the reach of the processes of associative reasoning which
Professor Hilprecht daily employs. Among the possible associative
consequents of the writing upon the one fragment, some of the
associative consequents of the writing on the other were sub-consciously
involved; the attraction of these identical elements brings the separate
pieces into mental juxtaposition, precisely as the pieces of a
"dissected map" find one another in thought. In waking life the
dissimilarity of colour inhibited any tendency on the part of the
associative processes to bring them together, but in sleep this
difference of colour seems to have been forgotten--there being no
mention made of it--and the assimilation took place. The second point is
more curious, but is not inexplicable. For as soon as the fragments were
brought into juxtaposition mentally, enough of the inscription became
legible to suggest the original character of the object. This is true
also of the third and fourth points. The source of the fifth is not so
clear. Upon examining the originals, Professor Hilprecht felt convinced
from the size of the hole still to be seen through the fragments that
they could not have been used as finger-rings, and that they had been
used as earrings, but the written description which he had before him at
the time of his dream did not bring these points to view. Still, such
earrings are by no means uncommon objects. Such a supposition might well
have occurred to Professor Hilprecht in his waking state and, in view of
the lack of positive confirmation, it would be rash to ascribe it to any
supernormal power. The last point is most interesting. When he told me
this story, Professor Hilprecht remembered that he had heard from Dr.
John P. Peters, before he had the dream, of the discovery of a room in
which were remnants of a wooden box, while the floor was strewn with
fragments of agate and lapis-lazuli. The walls, of course, and ceiling
have long since perished. The location, however, of the room he did not
know, and suggested I should write to Dr. Peters and find out whether it
was correctly given in his dream, and whether Dr. Peters had told him of
it. Dr. Peters replied that the location given was correct, but, he
adds, he told Professor Hilprecht all these facts as long ago as 1891,
and thinks he provided him with a drawing of the room's relation to the
temple. Of this Professor Hilprecht has no recollection. He thinks it
probable that Dr. Peters told him orally of the location of the room,
but feels sure that if any such plan was given him it would now be found
among his papers. This is a point of no importance, however. We
certainly cannot regard the location as ascertained by supernormal
means.
IV. C. From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. xi. p. 505.
From Mr. Alfred Cooper, of 9 Henrietta Street, Cavendish Square, W.
[This account was orally confirmed by him to Mr. E. Gurney, June 6th,
1888. It is written by Mr. Cooper, but attested also by the Duchess of
Hamilton.]
* * * * *
A fortnight before the death of the late Earl of L----, in 1882, I
called upon the Duke of Hamilton, in Hill Street, to see him
professionally. After I had finished seeing him we went into the
drawing-room, where the Duchess was, and the Duke said to me, "Oh,
Cooper; how is the Earl?"
The Duchess said, "What Earl?" and on my answering, "Lord L----," she
replied, "That is very odd. I have had a most extraordinary vision. I
went to bed, but after being in bed a short time, I was not exactly
asleep, but thought I saw a scene as if from a play before me. The
actors in it were Lord L----, in a chair, as if in a fit, with a man
standing over him with a red beard. He was by the side of a bath, over
which bath a red lamp was distinctly shown."
I then said, "I am attending Lord L---- at present; there is very little
the matter with him; he is not going to die; he will be all right very
soon."
Well, he got better for a week and was nearly well, but at the end of
six or seven days after this I was called to see him suddenly. He had
inflammation of both lungs.
I called in Sir William Jenner, but in six days he was a dead man. There
were two male nurses attending on him; one had been taken ill. But when
I saw the other the dream of the Duchess was exactly represented. He was
standing near a bath over the Earl and, strange to say, his beard was
red. There was the bath with the red lamp over it. It is rather rare to
find a bath with a red lamp over it, and this brought the story to my
mind.
The vision seen by the Duchess was told two weeks before the death of
Lord L----. It is a most remarkable thing.
This account, written in 1888, has been revised by the [late] Duke of
Manchester, father of the Duchess of Hamilton, who heard the vision from
his daughter on the morning after she had seen it.
(Signed) MARY HAMILTON.
ALFRED COOPER.
Her Grace had been reading and had just blown out the candle. Her
Grace has had many dreams which have come true years after.
ALFRED COOPER.
[The Duchess only knew Lord L---- by sight, and had not heard that he
was ill. She knew she was not asleep, for she opened her eyes to get rid
of the vision and, shutting them, saw the same thing again.]
An independent and concordant account has been given to me (F. W. H. M.)
orally by a gentleman to whom the Duchess related the dream on the
morning after its occurrence.
IV. D. From _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. p. 383. The following
account, which first appeared in a letter in the _Religio-Philosophical
Journal_, is from Dr. Bruce, of Micanopy, Fla., U.S.A. The case might be
called "collective," but for the fact that one of the dreams, though
vivid and alarming, was probably not so distinctive as was afterwards
imagined, and, moreover, was possibly dreamt on the night _preceding_
that on which the tragic event took place.
_February 17th, 1884._
On Thursday, the 27th of December last, I returned from Gainesville
(twelve miles from here) to my orange grove, near Micanopy. I have
only a small plank house of three rooms at my grove, where I spend
most of my time when the grove is being cultivated. There was no
one in the house but myself at the time, and being somewhat
fatigued with my ride, I retired to my bed very early, probably 6
o'clock; and, as I am frequently in the habit of doing, I lit my
lamp on a stand by the bed for the purpose of reading. After
reading a short time, I began to feel a little drowsy, put out the
light, and soon fell asleep. Quite early in the night I was
awakened. I could not have been asleep very long, I am sure. I felt
as if I had been aroused intentionally, and at first thought some
one was breaking into the house. I looked from where I lay into the
other two rooms (the doors of both being open), and at once
recognised where I was, and that there was no ground for the
burglar theory; there being nothing in the house to make it worth a
burglar's time to come after.
I then turned on my side to go to sleep again, and immediately felt
a consciousness of a presence in the room, and, singular to state,
it was not the consciousness of a live person, but of a spiritual
presence. This may provoke a smile, but I can only tell you the
facts as they occurred to me. I do not know how to better describe
my sensations than by simply stating that I felt a consciousness of
a spiritual presence. This may have been a part of the dream, for I
felt as if I were dozing off again to sleep; but it was unlike any
dream I ever had. I felt also at the same time a strong feeling of
superstitious dread, as if something strange and fearful were about
to happen. I was soon asleep again, or unconscious, at any rate, to
my surroundings. Then I saw two men engaged in a slight scuffle:
one fell fatally wounded--the other immediately disappeared. I did
not see the gash in the wounded man's throat, but knew that his
throat was cut. I did not recognise him, either, as my
brother-in-law. I saw him lying with his hands under him, his head
turned slightly to the left, his feet close together. I could, from
the position in which I stood, see but a small portion of his face;
his coat, collar, hair, or something partly obscured it. I looked
at him the second time a little closer to see it I could make out
who it was. I was aware it was some one I knew, but still could not
recognise him. I turned, and then saw my wife sitting not far from
him. She told me she could not leave until he was attended to. (I
had got a letter a few days previously from my wife, telling me she
would leave in a day or two, and was expecting every day a letter
or telegram telling me when to meet her at the depôt.) My attention
was struck by the surroundings of the dead man. He appeared to be
lying on an elevated platform of some kind, surrounded by chairs,
benches, and desks, reminding me somewhat of a schoolroom. Outside
of the room in which he was lying was a crowd of people, mostly
females, some of whom I thought I knew. Here my dream terminated. I
awoke again about midnight; got up and went to the door to see if
there were any prospect of rain; returned to my bed again, and lay
there until nearly daylight before falling asleep again. I thought
of my dream, and was strongly impressed by it. All strange,
superstitious feelings had passed off.
It was not until a week or ten days after this that I got a letter
from my wife, giving me an account of her brother's death. Her
letter, which was written the day after his death, was mis-sent.
The account she gave me of his death tallies most remarkably with
my dream. Her brother was with a wedding party at the depôt at
Markham station, Fauquier Co., Va. He went into a store near by to
see a young man who kept a bar-room near the depôt, and with whom
he had some words. He turned and left the man, and walked out of
the store. The bar-room keeper followed him out, and without
further words deliberately cut his throat. It was a most brutal and
unprovoked murder. My brother-in-law had on his overcoat, with the
collar turned up. The knife went through the collar and clear to
the bone. He was carried into the store and laid on the counter,
near a desk and show case. He swooned from loss of blood soon after
being cut. The cutting occurred early Thursday night, December
27th. He did not die, however, until almost daylight, Saturday
morning.
I have not had a complete account of my sister-in-law's dream. She
was visiting a young lady, a cousin, in Kentucky. They slept
together Friday night, I think, the night of her brother's death.
She dreamed of seeing a man with his throat cut, and awoke very
much alarmed. She awoke her cousin, and they got up and lighted the
lamp and sat up until daylight. That day she received a telegram
announcing her brother's death.
I cannot give you any certain explanation of these dreams. I do not
believe that they are due to ordinary causes, but to causes of
which science does not at present take cognisance.
WALTER BRUCE.
In reply to inquiries, Dr. Bruce says:--
_July 9th, 1884._
I have never had another dream similar to the one related in the
letter. I have at times had dreams that were vivid, or from some
cause impressed themselves upon my mind for a time, such as any one
would be likely to have. I cannot call to mind, though, any of
special importance, or with any bearing upon the dream in question.
I did not mention the dream to any one before receiving the letter
confirming it. I live in rather a retired place in the country, and
if I saw any one during that time to whom I would care to relate
the dream, it did not occur to me to do so.
You ask me how my wife knew of the circumstances of her brother's
death. She was visiting her relatives in Va. at the time, and was
present when her brother died.
The following account is from Dr. Bruce's sister-in-law, Mrs.
Stubbing:--
_March 28th, 1885._
Whilst in Kentucky on a visit in the year 1883, I had a dream, in
which I saw two persons--one with his throat cut. I could not tell
who it was, though I knew it was somebody that I knew, and as soon
as I heard of my brother's death, I said at once that I knew it was
he that I had seen murdered in my dream; and though I did not hear
how my brother died, I told my cousin, whom I was staying with,
that I knew he had been murdered. This dream took place on Thursday
or Friday night, I do not remember which. I saw the exact spot
where he was murdered, and just as it happened.
ANNIE S. STUBBING.
The Thursday and Friday night mentioned in this account are
December 26th and 27th [27th and 28th], 1883. It was upon the
Thursday night my dream occurred.
WALTER BRUCE.
In reply to questions, Mrs. Stubbing says:--
Yes, I saw one man cut the other. The wound was told to me to be
just like what I had seen in my dream. I received a telegram
announcing the death of my brother on Saturday morning. No, I never
had any such dream as that before.
IV. E. I quote the following case from _Phantasms of the Living_, vol.
i. p. 425. The account was written by Mrs. T---- in 1883.
On November 18th, 1863, I was living near Adelaide, and not long
recovered from a severe illness at the birth of an infant, who was
then five months old. My husband had also suffered from neuralgia,
and had gone to stay with friends at the seaside for the benefit of
bathing. One night during his absence the child woke me about
midnight; having hushed him off to sleep, I said, "Now, sir, I hope
you will let me rest!" I lay down, and instantly became conscious
of two figures standing at the door of my room. One, M. N. (these
are not the real initials), whom I recognised at once, was that of
a former lover, whose misconduct and neglect had compelled me to
renounce him. Of this I am sure, that if ever I saw him in my life,
it was then. I was not in the least frightened; but said to myself,
as it were, "You never used to wear that kind of waistcoat." The
door close to which he stood was in a deep recess close to the
fireplace, for there was no grate; we burnt logs only. In that
recess stood a man in a tweed suit. I saw the whole figure
distinctly, but not the face, and for this reason: on the edge of
the mantelshelf always stood a morocco leather medicine chest,
which concealed the face from me. (On this being stated to our
friends, the Singletons, they asked to go into the room and judge
for themselves. They expressed themselves satisfied that would be
the case to any one on the bed where I was.) I had an impression
that this other was a cousin of M. N.'s, who had been the means of
leading him astray while in the North of England. I never saw him
in my life; he died in India.
M. N. was in deep mourning; he had a look of unutterable sorrow
upon his face, and was deadly pale. He never opened his lips, but I
read his heart as if it were an open book, and it said, "My father
is dead, and I have come into his property." I answered, "How much
you have grown like your father!" Then in a moment, _without
appearing to walk_, he stood at the foot of the child's cot, and I
saw _distinctly_ the blueness of his eyes as he gazed on my boy,
and then raised them to Heaven as if in prayer.
All vanished. I looked round and remarked a trivial circumstance,
viz., that the brass handles of my chest of drawers had been rubbed
very bright. Not till then was I conscious of having seen a spirit,
but a feeling of awe (not fear) came over me, and I prayed to be
kept from harm, although there was no reason to dread it. I slept
tranquilly, and in the morning I went across to the parsonage and
told the clergyman's wife what I had seen. She, of course, thought
it was merely a dream. But no--if it were a dream should I not have
seen him _as I had known him_, a young man of twenty-two, without
beard or whiskers? But there was all the difference that sixteen
years would make in a man's aspect.
On Saturday my husband returned, and my brother having ridden out
to see us on Sunday afternoon, I told them both my vision as we sat
together on the verandah. They treated it so lightly that I
determined to write it down in my diary and see if the news were
verified. And from that diary I am now quoting. Also I mentioned it
to at least twelve or fourteen other people, and bid them await the
result.
And surely enough, at the end of several weeks, my sister-in-law
wrote that M. N.'s father died at C---- Common on November 18th,
1863, which exactly tallied with the date of the vision. He left
£45,000 to be divided between his son and daughter, but the son has
never been found.
Many people in Adelaide heard the story before the confirmation
came, and I wrote and told M. N.'s mother. She was much distressed
about it, fearing he was unhappy. She is now dead. My husband was
profoundly struck when he saw my diary corresponding _exactly_ to
the news in the letter I had that moment received in his presence.
Gurney adds the following note:--
Mr. T. has confirmed to us the accuracy of this narrative, and Mrs.
T. has shown to one of us a memorandum of the appearance of two
figures, under date November 18th, in her diary of the year 1863,
and a newspaper obituary confirms this as the date of the death. We
learn from a gentleman who is a near relative of M. N.'s, that M.
N., though long lost sight of, was afterwards heard of, and
outlived his father.
I should not now take it for granted (as we did at the time when
_Phantasms of the Living_ was compiled) that the agent here "can
apparently only have been the dying man." I think it possible, in the
light of our now somewhat fuller knowledge, that M. N.'s spirit was
aware of his father's death,--even though possibly M. N.'s supraliminal
self may not have heard of it;--so that the invading presence in this
case may have been the discarded lover himself,--dreaming on his own
account at a distance from Mrs. T. The second figure I regard as having
been an object in M. N.'s dream;--symbolical of his own alienation from
Mrs. T. All this sounds fanciful; but I may remark here (as often
elsewhere), that I think that we gain little by attempting to enforce
our own ideas of simplicity upon narratives of this bizarre type.
IV. F. From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. vi. p. 341.
Communicated by Fräulein Schneller, sister-in-law of the percipient, and
known to F. W. H. M., January 1890.
DOBER UND PAUSE, SCHLESIEN, _December 12th, 1889_.
About a year ago there died in a neighbouring village a brewer
called Wünscher, with whom I stood in friendly relations. His death
ensued after a short illness, and as I seldom had an opportunity of
visiting him, I knew nothing of his illness nor of his death. On
the day of his death I went to bed at nine o'clock, tired with the
labours which my calling as a farmer demands of me. Here I must
observe that my diet is of a frugal kind; beer and wine are rare
things in my house, and water, as usual, had been my drink that
night. Being of a very healthy constitution, I fell asleep as soon
as I lay down. In my dream I heard the deceased call out with a
loud voice, "Boy, make haste and give me my boots." This awoke me,
and I noticed that, for the sake of our child, my wife had left the
light burning. I pondered with pleasure over my dream, thinking in
my mind how Wünscher, who was a good-natured, humorous man, would
laugh when I told him of this dream. Still thinking on it, I hear
Wünscher's voice scolding outside, just under my window. I sit up
in my bed at once and listen, but cannot understand his words. What
can the brewer want? I thought, and I know for certain that I was
much vexed with him, that he should make a disturbance in the
night, as I felt convinced that his affairs might surely have
waited till the morrow. Suddenly he comes into the room from behind
the linen press, steps with long strides past the bed of my wife
and the child's bed; wildly gesticulating with his arms all the
time, as his habit was, he called out, "What do you say to this,
Herr Oberamtmann? This afternoon at five o'clock I have died."
Startled by this information, I exclaim, "Oh, that is not true!" He
replied: "Truly, as I tell you; and, what do you think? They want
to bury me already on Tuesday afternoon at two o'clock,"
accentuating his assertions all the while by his gesticulations.
During this long speech of my visitor I examined myself as to
whether I was really awake and not dreaming.
I asked myself: Is this a hallucination? Is my mind in full
possession of its faculties? Yes, there is the light, there the
jug, this is the mirror, and this the brewer; and I came to the
conclusion: I am awake. Then the thought occurred to me, What will
my wife think if she awakes and sees the brewer in our bedroom? In
this fear of her waking up I turn round to my wife, and to my great
relief I see from her face, which is turned towards me, that she is
still asleep; but she looks very pale. I say to the brewer, "Herr
Wünscher, we will speak softly, so that my wife may not wake up, it
would be very disagreeable to her to find you here." To which
Wünscher answered in a lower and calmer tone: "Don't be afraid, I
will do no harm to your wife." Things do happen indeed for which we
find no explanation--I thought to myself, and said to Wünscher: "If
this be true, that you have died, I am sincerely sorry for it; I
will look after your children." Wünscher stepped towards me,
stretched out his arms and moved his lips as though he would
embrace me; therefore I said in a threatening tone, and looking
steadfastly at him with a frowning brow: "Don't come so near, it is
disagreeable to me," and lifted my right arm to ward him off, but
before my arm reached him the apparition had vanished. My first
look was to my wife to see if she were still asleep. She was. I got
up and looked at my watch, it was seven minutes past twelve. My
wife woke up and asked me: "To whom did you speak so loud just
now?" "Have you understood anything?" I said. "No," she answered,
and went to sleep again.
I impart this experience to the Society for Psychical Research, in
the belief that it may serve as a new proof for the real existence
of telepathy. I must further remark that the brewer _had_ died that
afternoon at five o'clock, and was buried on the following Tuesday
at two.--With great respect,
KARL DIGNOWTTY
(Landed Proprietor).
The usual time for burial in Germany, adds Fräulein Schneller, is three
days after death. This time may be prolonged, however, on application.
There are no special _hours_ fixed.
In conversation Fräulein S. described her brother-in-law as a man of
strong practical sense and of extremely active habits.
We have received the "Sterbeurkunde" from the "Standesbeamte"
Siegismund, Kreis Sagan, certifying that Karl Wünscher died Saturday,
September 15th, 1888, at 4.30 P.M., and was buried Tuesday, September
18th, 1888, at 2 P.M.
* * * * *
Herr Dignowity writes again, January 18th, 1890:--
Frau Wünscher told me that the time of the burial was settled in
the death-room immediately after Wünscher's death, because
relations at a distance had to be summoned by telegram. Wünscher
had suffered from inflammation of the lungs, which ended in spasm
of the heart. During his illness his thoughts had been much
occupied with me, and he often wondered what I should say if I knew
how ill he was.
Finally, Frau Dignowity (born Schneller) writes from Pause, January
18th, 1890:--
I confirm that my husband told me on the morning of September 16th,
1888, that the brewer Wünscher had given him intimation of his
death.
APPENDICES
TO