VIII. A. Some early experiments in thought-transference through
table-tilting were published by Professor Richet in the _Revue
Philosophique_ for December 1884. A critical discussion of these by
Gurney appeared in the _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. ii. pp. 239-64, and a
briefer report in _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 72-81. I quote
from the latter a description of the method used:--
The place of a planchette was taken by a table, and M. Richet
prefaces his account by a succinct statement of the orthodox view
as to "table-turning." Rejecting altogether the three theories
which attribute the phenomena to wholesale fraud, to spirits, and
to an unknown force, he regards the gyrations and oscillations of
séance-tables as due wholly to the unconscious muscular
contractions of the sitters. It thus occurred to him to employ a
table as an indicator of the movements that might be produced by
"mental suggestion." The plan of the experiments was as follows.
Three persons (C, D, and E) took their seats in a semi-circle, at a
little table on which their hands rested. One of these three was
always a "medium"--a term used by M. Richet to denote a person
liable to exhibit intelligent movements in which consciousness and
will apparently take no part. Attached to the table was a simple
electrical apparatus, the effect of which was to ring a bell
whenever the current was broken by the tilting of the table. Behind
the backs of the sitters at the table was another table, on which
was a large alphabet, completely screened from the view of C, D,
and E, even had they turned round and endeavoured to see it. In
front of this alphabet sat A, whose duty was to follow the letters
slowly and steadily with a pen, returning at once to the beginning
as soon as he arrived at the end. At A's side sat B, with a
note-book; his duty was to write down the letter at which A's pen
happened to be pointing whenever the bell rang. This happened
whenever one of the sitters at the table made the simple movement
necessary to tilt it. Under these conditions, A and B are
apparently mere automata. C, D, and E are little more, being
unconscious of tilting the table, which appears to them to tilt
itself; but even if they tilted it consciously, and with a
conscious desire to dictate words, they have no means of
ascertaining at what letter A's pen is pointing at any particular
moment; and they might tilt for ever without producing more than
an endless series of incoherent letters. Things being arranged
thus, a sixth operator, F, stationed himself apart both from the
tilting table and from the alphabet, and concentrated his thought
on some word of his own choosing, which he had not communicated to
the others. The three sitters at the first table engaged in
conversation, sang, or told stories; but at intervals the table
tilted, the bell rang, and B wrote down the letter which A's pen
was opposite to at that moment. Now, to the astonishment of all
concerned, these letters, when arranged in a series, turned out to
produce a more or less close approximation to the word of which F
was thinking.
VIII. B. The correspondent, Mr. G. E. Long, was known to Dr. Hodgson.
From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 65.
JERSEY CITY, N. J., _October 22nd, 1888_.
...I think I wrote you once that about two years ago I had received
what was said to be a most convincing test of spirit-return,
convincing to all except myself. A young lady, a Spiritualist and
medium, though not a professional, nor one that ever received one
cent in pay, by means of a lettered board and toy chair, she
holding one leg of the chair and I another, while a third leg of
the chair served as a pointer, gave the following by means of the
chair:--
First the chair spelt out my name and showed a disposition to get
in my lap; then it spelled out "CARY," and when I asked for the
name of the "spirit" it spelt out "George (my name), you ought to
know me as I am Jim." But I didn't, and said so. Then, without my
looking at the board, it spelt out "Long Island, Jim Rowe," and
"Don't you remember I used to carry you when you were a little
fellow," or words to that effect. I had to acknowledge the truth of
it and also to say that as he was an ignorant man he possibly
intended "Cary" for carry. I must own I was puzzled for the moment.
To make sure of his power I asked that he count the pickets in the
fence outside of the house and I would go out and confirm his
statement. Somehow he couldn't agree to this, and even the medium
objected. As a last resort I asked how long he had been in the
spirit land and the answer came, between thirteen and fourteen
years.
Now to the sequel. First it occurred to me a day or two after, that
while all the incidents given were correct, the name should have
been given as ROE instead of ROWE. Second, I was upon Long Island
this summer, and the matter coming to my mind I inquired how long
Jim Roe had been dead, and was informed he died last winter; so
when I received this test so convincing to the believers _the man
was not dead_.
Yours truly,
GEO. E. LONG.
On October 26th, 1888, Mr. Long adds:--
I do not think that the medium was fraudulent. Her family consists
of Mr. S. and three daughters, she being the youngest. I have found
all to be hypnotic subjects, with the exception of the eldest
daughter. They are all believers in Spiritualism, the youngest
having been the medium. They do not sit now, as it is claimed that
the sittings, while rich in spiritualistic satisfaction, were
productive of a state of poor health in the medium.
As I myself have obtained information supposed to have been
impossible for me to have reached, I cannot say for certainty that
she had not obtained information about Jim, but I don't believe she
had. As the name Rowe was being spelled I sat with my eyes turned
from the board and had in mind the name Scudder, and mentally
followed the taps of the chair to S C U D--when the medium said,
"The name Rowe is given," etc. This would seem to leave out any
involuntary muscular action. Why Rowe should have been given
instead of Roe is still another phase. I wonder whether, if any
question of the Roe family had arisen, I would have had in mind the
name of Rowe? If so, then she produced that which I had long while
before been conscious of, but was at the time unconscious of, and
had it coupled with an error in spelling that I might have been
guilty of had I myself been called upon at that moment to spell it.
Had she been fraudulent the probability is she would have spelt it
correctly.
It seems to me that the basis of Spiritualism rests mainly upon
this phenomenon which men and women in a supernormal condition
produce, without understanding it, and credit it to spiritual
agencies.
[A general corroboration of Mr. Long's memory of the incident is
added from a lady present at the time, who does not now recall the
details.]
VIII. C. The following case, received from Dr. Liébeault, is quoted from
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. p. 293:--
NANCY, _September 4th, 1885_.
I hasten to write to you as to that case of thought-transference of
which I spoke to you when you were present at my hypnotic séances
at Nancy. The incident occurred in a French family from New
Orleans, who had come to stay for some time at Nancy for business
reasons. I had become acquainted with this family from the fact
that M. G., its head, had brought to me his niece, Mlle. B., to be
treated by hypnotism. She suffered from slight anæmia and from a
nervous cough, contracted at Coblentz, in a High School where she
was a teacher. I easily induced somnambulism, and she was cured in
two sittings. The production of this hypnotic state suggested to
the G. family (Mrs. G. was a spirit medium) and to Mlle. B. herself
that she might easily become a medium. She set herself to the
evocation of spirits (in which she firmly believed) by the aid of
her pen, and at the end of two months she had become a remarkable
writing medium. I have myself seen her rapidly writing page after
page of what she called "messages,"--all in well-chosen language
and with no erasures,--while at the same time she maintained
conversation with the people near her. An odd thing was that she
had no knowledge whatever of what she was writing. "It must be a
spirit," she would say, "which guides my hand; it is certainly not
I."
One day,--it was, I think, February 7th, 1868, about 8 A.M., when
just about to seat herself at table for breakfast, she felt a kind
of need, an impulse which prompted her to write;--it was what she
called a _trance_,--and she rushed off at once to her large
note-book, where she wrote in pencil, with feverish haste, certain
undecipherable words. She wrote the same words again and again on
the pages which followed, and at last, as her agitation diminished,
it was possible to read that a person called Marguérite was thus
announcing her death. The family at once assumed that a young lady
of that name, a friend of Mlle. B.'s and her companion and
colleague in the Coblentz High School, must have just expired. They
all came immediately to me, Mlle. B. among them, and we decided to
verify the announcement of death that very day. Mlle. B. wrote to a
young English lady who was also a teacher in that same school. She
gave some other reason for writing;--taking care not to reveal the
true motive of the letter. By return of post we received an answer
in English, of which they copied for me the essential part. I found
this answer in a portfolio hardly a fortnight ago, and have mislaid
it again. It expressed the surprise of the English lady at the
receipt of Mlle. B.'s unexpected and apparently motiveless letter.
But at the same time the English correspondent made haste to
announce to Mlle. B. that their common friend, Marguérite, had died
on February 7th, at about 8 A.M. Moreover, the letter contained a
little square piece of printed paper;--the announcement of death
sent round to friends.
I need not say that I examined the envelope, and that the letter
appeared to me to have veritably come from Coblentz. Yet I have
since felt a certain regret. In the interests of science I ought to
have asked the G. family to allow me to go with them to the
telegraph office to inquire whether they had received a telegram
early on February 7th. Science should feel no shame; truth does not
dread exposure. My proof of the fact is ultimately a moral one: the
honour of the G. family,--which has always appeared to me to be
absolutely above suspicion.
A. A. LIÉBEAULT.
Upon these last sentences Gurney remarks that, apart from the
improbability that the whole family would join in a conspiracy to
deceive their friend, the nature of the answer received from Coblentz
shows that the writer of it cannot have been aware that any telegraphic
announcement had been sent. And it is in itself unlikely that the
authorities of the school would have felt it necessary instantly to
communicate the news to Mdlle. B.
VIII. D. From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. vi. pp. 349-53. The narrative
is a translation from an article in _Psychische Studien_, December 1889,
pp. 572-77, by the Editor, the Hon. Alexander Aksakoff.
The case belongs not to the category of _facts which are known only
to the deceased_, but to the category of those which _could only be
imparted by the deceased_, for it relates to a political secret
concerning a living person, which was revealed by an intimate
friend of that living person for the purpose of saving him. I
shall set forth this case in all possible detail, because I
consider it a most convincing one in support of the Spiritualistic
hypothesis. I will even express myself still more strongly. I
consider that it affords as absolute a proof of identity as it is
possible for evidence of this kind to present.
My readers are already acquainted with my sister-in-law, Mrs. A.
von Wiesler, from the part she took in the family séances held with
me in the years 1880-1883, after the decease of my wife. She has an
only daughter, Sophie, who at the time of those séances was
completing her studies. She had taken no part, either at our
séances or at any others, and she had not read anything about
Spiritualism. Her mother also had not joined in any séances except
our own. One evening in October 1884, during the visit of a distant
relative, the conversation turned upon Spiritualism, and in order
to please him a trial with the table was arranged. This séance,
however, gave no satisfactory result. It only showed that the two
ladies were able to get something. On Tuesday evening, January 1st,
1885, Mrs. von Wiesler being alone with her daughter, in order to
divert her mind from some matters which made her anxious, proposed
to hold a little séance. An alphabet was written out on a sheet of
paper, a saucer with a black line as pointer served as a
planchette, and, behold, the name Andreas was indicated. This was
quite natural, for Andreas was the name of Sophie's father, the
deceased husband of Mrs. von Wiesler. The communication presented
nothing remarkable, but it was nevertheless resolved to continue
the séances once a week, on every Tuesday. For three weeks the
character of the communications remained unchanged. The name
Andreas was continually repeated.
But on the fourth Tuesday--January 22nd--in place of the customary
name, Andreas, the name "Schura" was spelt out, to the great
astonishment of both sitters. Then, by quick and precise movements
of the pointer, these words were added:--
"It is given to thee to save Nikolaus."
"What does this mean?" asked the astonished ladies.
"He is compromised as Michael was, and will like him go to ruin. A
band of good-for-nothing fellows are leading him astray."
"What can be done to counteract it?"
"Thou must go to the Technological Institute before three o'clock,
let Nikolaus be called out, and make an appointment with him at his
house."
This being all addressed to the young lady, Sophie, she replied
that it would be difficult for her to carry out these directions on
account of the slight acquaintanceship which existed between her
and Nikolaus's family.
"Absurd ideas of propriety!" was "Schura's" indignant reply.
"But in what way shall I be able to influence him?" asked Sophie.
"Thou wilt speak to him in my name."
"Then your convictions no longer remain the same?"
"Revolting error!" was the reply.
I must now explain the meaning of this mysterious communication.
"Schura" is the Russian pet name for Alexandrine. Nikolaus and
Michael were her cousins. Michael, quite a young man, had
unfortunately allowed himself to become entangled by the
revolutionary ideas of our Anarchists or Socialists. He was
arrested, tried, and condemned to imprisonment at a distance from
St. Petersburg, where he lost his life in an attempt to escape.
"Schura" loved him dearly, and fully sympathised with his political
convictions, making no secret of it. After his death, which
occurred in September 1884, she was discouraged in her
revolutionary aspirations, and ended her life by poison, at the age
of seventeen, on the 15th of January 1885, just one week before the
séance above described. Nikolaus, Michael's brother, was then a
student at the Technological Institute.
Mrs. von Wiesler and her daughter were aware of these
circumstances, for they had long been acquainted with "Schura's"
parents, and with those of her cousins, who belong to the best
society of St. Petersburg. It will be obvious that I cannot publish
the names of these families. I have also changed those of the young
people. The acquaintanceship was, however, far from being ultimate.
They saw each other occasionally, but nothing more. Later I will
give further details. We will now continue our narrative.
Naturally, neither Mrs. von Wiesler nor her daughter knew anything
as to the views or secret conduct of Nikolaus. The communication
was just as unexpected as it was important. It involved a great
responsibility. Sophie's position was a very difficult one. The
literal carrying out of "Schura's" demands was, for a young lady,
simply impossible, merely from considerations of social propriety.
What right could she have, on the ground of simple
acquaintanceship, to interfere in family affairs of so delicate a
character? Besides, it might not be true; or, quite simply and most
probably, Nikolaus might deny it. What position would she then find
herself in? Mrs. von Wiesler knew only too well, from the séances
she had taken part in with me, how little dependence can be placed
on Spiritualistic communications. She counselled her daughter, in
the first place, to convince herself of "Schura's" identity. This
advice was followed without any hesitation as one way out of the
difficulty.
On the following Tuesday "Schura" manifested at once, and Sophie
asked for a proof of her identity, to which "Schura" forthwith
replied:--
"Invite Nikolaus, arrange a séance, and I will come."
It will be seen from this reply that "Schura," who during her life
had learnt to despise the conventionalities of society, as is the
custom among the Socialists, remained true to her character, and
again demanded what was an impossibility. Nikolaus had never been
in Mrs. von Wiesler's house. Sophie then asked for another proof of
her identity, without Nikolaus being brought in at all, and
requested that it might be a convincing one.
"I will appear to thee," was the reply.
"How?"
"Thou wilt see."
A few days later Sophie was returning home from a soirée; it was
nearly 4 A.M. She was just retiring, and was at the door between
her bedroom and the dining-room, there being no lights in the
latter, when she saw on the wall of the dining-room, in sight of
the door at which she stood, a luminous round spot, with, as it
were, shoulders. This lasted for two or three seconds, and
disappeared, ascending towards the ceiling. Sophie immediately
assured herself that it was not the reflection of any light coming
from the street.
At the séance on the following Tuesday, an explanation of this
appearance being asked for, "Schura" replied:--
"It was the outline of a head with shoulders. I cannot appear more
distinctly. I am still weak."
Many other details, which I have passed over, tended to convince
Sophie of the reality of "Schura's" identity, yet she could not
bring herself to carry out that which "Schura" desired her to do.
She therefore proposed as a suitable compromise that she should
acquaint Nikolaus's parents with what had occurred.
This proposal aroused "Schura's" strongest displeasure, expressed
by violent movements of the saucer, and by the sentence:--
"That will lead to nothing";--after which disparaging epithets
followed, impossible to repeat here, especially applicable to
persons of weak and irresolute character, with whom the energetic
and decisive "Schura" had no patience--epithets which are not found
in dictionaries, but which were expressions used by "Schura" in her
lifetime, and characteristic of her. This was confirmed in the
sequel.
Nevertheless Sophie continued to hesitate, and at each successive
séance "Schura" insisted more and more imperatively that Sophie
must act at once. This is very important to notice, as we shall see
later. This want of resolution on the part of Sophie was ascribed
by "Schura" to the influence of Mrs. von Wiesler. From the
beginning "Schura" had seemed to bear a grudge against Mrs. von
Wiesler. From the first séance she addressed Sophie only. She never
permitted Mrs. von Wiesler to ask a question. Whenever she
attempted to do so, she met with a--"Be silent--be silent!" Whereas
in addressing Sophie she overwhelmed her with the tenderest
expressions.
How great was the astonishment and consternation of the ladies,
when at the séance on the 26th of February the first words were:--
"It is too late. Thou wilt repent it bitterly. The pangs of remorse
will follow thee. Expect his arrest!"
These were "Schura's" last words. From this time she was silent. A
séance was attempted on the following Tuesday, but there was no
result. The séances of Mrs. von Wiesler and her daughter were from
that time entirely given up.
While these séances were being held, Mrs. von Wiesler naturally
kept me informed of what transpired, and consulted with me as to
what was to be done in view of the extraordinary character of
"Schura's" requests. Some time after they had ceased, Mrs. von
Wiesler, to satisfy her own conscience and to comfort her daughter,
resolved to communicate the whole episode to the parents of
Nikolaus. They paid no attention to it. Nothing was elicited that
any fault could be found with. The family were quite satisfied in
regard to Nikolaus's conduct. But it is important to bear in mind
the fact that these Spiritualistic communications were made known
to the parents before the final issue. When during the remainder of
the year everything went on happily, Sophie became fully convinced
that all the communications were only lies, and formed a resolution
that she would never again occupy herself with Spiritualistic
séances.
Another year passed without any special event. But on the 9th of
March, 1887, the secret police suddenly searched Nikolaus's rooms.
He was arrested in his own house, and within twenty-four hours was
exiled from St. Petersburg. It came out later that his crime was
taking part in anarchical assemblies--assemblies which were held in
the months of January and February 1885, exactly corresponding with
the time when "Schura" was insisting that steps should _then_ be
taken to dissuade Nikolaus from taking part in such meetings. Only
now were the communications of "Schura" estimated at their true
value. The notes which Mrs. von Wiesler had made were read again
and again by the families both of "Schura" and of Nikolaus.
"Schura's" identity in all those manifestations was recognised as
incontestably demonstrated, in the first place, by the main fact in
relation to Nikolaus, by other intimate particulars, and also by
the totality of the features which characterised her personality.
This mournful occurrence fell like a fresh thunderclap on
Nikolaus's family, and they had only to thank God that the errors
of the young man were not followed by more fatal results.
In order to estimate this incident aright, it is of great
importance to establish the relations which existed between the two
young ladies. I have requested Madame and Mdlle. von Wiesler to
give me on this, as on the previous points, a written memorandum in
full detail; and from that memorandum I extract what follows
[somewhat abridged here]:--
In December 1880 Madame von Wiesler and her daughter paid a
Christmas visit to "Schura's" grandfather, Senator N., where Sophie
saw "Schura" for the first time. Sophie was then about thirteen
years old, and "Schura" even younger. Sophie was astonished to see
"Schura's" writing-table covered with books [and had a talk with
her about favourite authors]. The two girls often saw each other at
a distance in the recreation-room of their school during the
winter, but "Schura" was soon transferred to another school. [They
met once at a country-house without exchanging a word, and saw each
other once across a theatre. Sophie, in fact, had had one childish
talk with "Schura"; Madame von Wiesler had never had any real talk
with her.] Hence it is clear that the relations of these ladies
with "Schura" were of the most distant kind, and that they could
not know anything of her political secrets.
VIII. E. From _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. viii. pp. 248-51.[230]
The following letters were received from the principal witness, Mrs.
Finney:--
ROCKLAND, MASS., _April 19th, 1891_.
MR. HODGSON,--DEAR SIR,--Some weeks ago I received from you a few
lines asking me to give you an account of the communication
received from Cousin Benja in spirit-life, some twenty-five years
ago.
For weeks and months before my brother left the form we conversed
freely on the subject of spirit communion and such matters, and one
morning he requested me to bring him a small piece of brick, also
pen and ink; he then made two marks on one side, and one on the
other with the ink, then breaking the brick in two, gave me one
piece, telling me at the time to take care of it, and some day he
would hide the other piece away where no one but himself would
know, and after leaving the form, if possible, would return in some
way and tell me where it was. I could then compare them together,
and it would be a test that he could return and communicate, and
_my mind_ could not have any influence over it, as I did not know
where he put it.
After he left the form our anxiety was _very great_ to hear and
learn all we could of communicating with spirits, and for months we
got nothing satisfactory.
We then commenced sitting at the table at home (mother and myself),
which we did for some little time; at last it commenced tipping,
and by calling the alphabet spelled out where we could find the
piece of brick that he put away,--that was the way we got the test.
To us that was truth that spirits can and do communicate with us,
and nothing but the influence and power of Benja could tell us that
test.--Truly yours,
MRS. WM. A. FINNEY.
ROCKLAND, _May 3rd, 1891_.
MR. R. HODGSON,--DEAR SIR,--Yours of April 21st received, and I
will add a few more lines as to statement of brother Benja's
communication.
By calling the alphabet we spelled out:--
"You will find that piece of brick in the cabinet under the
tomahawk.--BENJA."
I went to that room and took the key, unlocked the cabinet, which
had not been touched by any one after he locked it and put away the
key. There I found that piece of brick just as it had spelled out,
and it corresponded with the piece I had retained, fitting on
exactly where he broke it off the piece I had. It was wrapped in a
bit of paper and tucked into a shell, and placed in the bottom of
the cabinet _exactly under_ the tomahawk, as was spelled out by the
alphabet.
This is truth, and no power but Benja's could tell that.
Mother is not living; I am the only one of the family that is
living.--Yours respectfully,
MRS. WM. A. FINNEY.
ROCKLAND, _May 11th, 1891_.
MR. R. HODGSON,--DEAR SIR,--Yours of 6th received. I will continue
to say, in answer to your questions, that the piece of brick was
entirely concealed in the shell, so that it could not be seen from
outside of cabinet. It was wrapped in a piece of paper stuck
together with mucilage and tucked into the end of the shell, then a
piece of paper gummed over that, so that nothing was visible from
the shell. The shell was on the lower shelf of the cabinet, and
only the top of the shell was visible outside the cabinet.
One more little incident I will mention, for to me it is as
valuable as the other. He wrote me a letter (about the time he gave
me the piece of brick) and sealed it, saying at the time it was not
to be answered, but the contents of the letter to be told. I got
that in the same way I did the other, by calling the alphabet and
the table tipping. It was these words:--
"Julia! do right and be happy.--BENJA."
That was correct. Just the contents of my letter. I have no
particular objection as to giving my name, for I have stated
nothing but the truth.
At my home in Kingston I have that little shell with the piece of
brick, and if you would like them I will send them to you. Will
place the brick into the shell as it was when I found it. Of
course, the paper that was around it then is worn out years ago.
The cabinet is disposed of.
JULIA A. FINNEY.
Mrs. Finney further writes:--
ROCKLAND, _June 26th, 1891_.
I send you by express a box containing the letter and shell with
the piece of brick. I have placed one piece in the shell just as it
was when I found it, so you can see how nicely it was concealed in
the shell. The papers that were around it then are worn out. You
can retain them if you like, as I do not care for them now.
To me it is a positive truth that he did communicate to us, and our
minds could have nothing to do with it.
J. A. FINNEY.
ROCKLAND, _July 19th, 1891_.
...The shell was placed on the same shelf with the tomahawk, and no
other shells on that shelf. It was placed with the open side down,
and the tomahawk stood directly over it. I cannot say why he did
not tell us to look inside of the shell. We started to look as soon
as he told us. It was in the cabinet under the tomahawk. We did not
wait for any more to be said.
I am not intimately acquainted with many public people. As to my
integrity, will refer you to Rev. C. Y. de Normandie, of Kingston.
J. A. FINNEY.
Dr. Hodgson writes:--
The shell is a large Triton, about ten inches long. The piece of
brick was wrapped in folds of soft paper and tucked deeply into the
recess. Another piece of paper was then gummed around the sides of
the shell in the interior, so as absolutely to prevent the piece of
brick from falling out. When I received the shell from Mrs. Finney
and looked into the interior and shook the shell violently, there
was nothing to indicate that the shell contained anything but the
piece of gummed paper.
The piece of brick in the shell weighs one and a half ounces, and
the piece of brick retained by Mrs. Finney weighs about two and a
quarter ounces. The shell with the piece of brick and paper
wrapping weighs about eleven and a half ounces.
Mrs. Finney also forwarded me the letter written by her brother.
The shell and the pieces of brick and the letter are now all in my
possession.
R. HODGSON.
We have a letter (in original) from the Rev. C. Y. de Normandie, of
Kingston, Canada, to Mrs. Finney. "I expressed then," he says,
speaking of a former note to Dr. Hodgson, which accidentally went
astray, "that to the best knowledge I had of you and to my firm
belief your word could be implicitly relied on. I felt confident
that you would state a matter as you understood it, as you regarded
it, without reference to the consequences; and that you would not
be any more likely to be misled and deceived about a matter of that
kind than others similarly situated."
APPENDICES
TO