It is supposed by those who hold this theory, or rather hypothesis,
that the assumed floating, ambient mentality is an aggregate emanation
from the minds of those present in the circle; that this mentality is
clothed, by some mysterious process, with a force analogous to what it
possesses in the living organism, by which force it is enabled, under
certain conditions, to move physical bodies and write or otherwise
express its thoughts; and that in its expression of the combined
intelligence of the circle, it generally follows the strongest mind, or
the mind that is otherwise best qualified or conditioned to give current
to the thought. Although the writer of the interesting article, entitled
"_Planchette in a New Character_," in _Putnam's Monthly_ for December,
1868, disclaims, at the commencement of his lucubration, all theories on
the subject, yet, after collating his facts, he shows a decided leaning
to the foregoing theory as the nearest approach to a satisfactory
explanation. "Floating, combined intelligence brought to bear upon
an inanimate object," "active intellectual principle afloat in the
circumambient air," are the expressions he uses as probably affording
some light on the subject. This is a thought on which, as concerns its
main features, many others have rested, not only in this country but in
Europe, especially in England, as I am told by a friend who recently
visited several sections of Great Britain where forms of these
mysterious phenomena prevail.
The first difficulty that stands in the way of this hypothesis is
that it supposes a thing which, if true, is quite as mysterious and
inexplicable as the mystery which it purports to explain. How is it
that an "intellectual principle" can detach itself from an intellectual
being, of whose personality it formed the chief ingredient, and become
an outside, objective, "floating," and "circumambient" entity, with a
capability of thinking, willing, acting, and expressing thought, in
which the original possessor of the emanated principle often has no
conscious participation? And after you have told us this, then tell us
how the "intellectual principle," not only of _one_, but of _several_
persons can emanate from them, become "floating" and "ambient," and
then, losing separate identity, _conjoin_ and form _one_ active
communicating agent with the powers aforesaid? And after you have
removed from these _mere assumptions_ the aspect of physical and moral
impossibility, you will have another task to perform, and that is to
show us how this emanated, "combined," "floating," "circumambient"
intelligence can sometimes assume an individual and seemingly _personal_
character of its own, totally distinct from, and, in some features, even
_antagonistic_ to, all the characters in the circle in which the
"emanation" is supposed to have its origin?
It is not denied now that the answers and communications of Planchette
(and of the influence acting through other channels) often do exhibit
a controlling influence of the mind of the medium or of other persons
in the circle. But no theory should ever be considered as explaining
a mystery unless it covers the _whole ground_ of that mystery. Even,
therefore, should we consider the theory of the "floating intelligence"
of the circle reproducing itself in expression, as explaining that part
of the phenomenon which identifies itself with the minds of the circle
(which it does not), what shall be said of those cases in which the
phenomena exhibit characteristics which are _sui generis_, and can not
possibly have been derived from the minds of the circle?
That phenomena of the latter class are sometimes exhibited is not
only proved by many other facts that might be cited, but is clearly
exemplified by this same writer in _Putnam's Magazine_. The intelligence
whose performances and communications he relates seems to stand out with
a character and individuality as strongly marked and as distinct from
any and all in the circle as any one of them was distinct from another.
This individuality was first shown by giving its own pet names to the
different persons composing the circle--"Flirt," "Clarkey," "Hon.
Clarke," "The Angel," and "Sassiness." The young lady designated by the
last _sobriquet_, after it had been several times repeated, petitioned
to be indicated thereafter "only by the initial 'S,'" which the
impertinent scribbler accorded only so far as omitting all the letters
except the five S's, so that she was afterward recognized as
"S.S.S.S.S."
The writer further says:
"It is always respectful to 'Hon. Clarke,' and when pressed to state
what it thought of him, answered that he was 'a good skipper,' a
reputation fairly earned by his capacity for managing a fleet of
small boats. But we were not contented with so vague an answer, and
our urgent demand for an analysis of his character produced the
reply: 'A native crab apple, but spicy and sweet when ripe.' * * *
When asked to go on, it wrote: 'Ask me Hon. Clarke's character
again, and I will flee to the realms of imperishable woe; or, as
Tabitha is here, say I'll pull your nose;' and on being taunted with
its incapacity to fulfill the threat, it wrote: 'Metaphorically
speaking, of course.' Not satisfied with this rebuff, on another
occasion the subject was again pursued, and the answer elicited as
follows: 'Yes, but you can't fool me. I said nay once, and when I
says nay I means nay.' [A mind of _its own_, then.] More than once
it has lapsed into the same misuse of the verb, as: 'I not only
believes it, but I knows it;' and again: 'You asks and I answers,
because I am here.' * * *
"Again, on being remonstrated with for illiteracy, it defended
itself by saying: 'I always was a bad speler' (_sic_); an
orthographical blunder that no one in the room was capable of
making. But on the whole, our Planchette is a scientific and
cultivated intelligence, of more than average order, though it may
be, at times, slightly inaccurate in orthography, and occasionally
quote incorrectly; I must even confess that there are moments when
its usual elegance of diction lapses into slang terms and abrupt
contradictions. But, after all, though we flatter ourselves that as
a family we contain rather more than ordinary intelligence, still it
is more than a match for us."
Who can fail to perceive, from these quotations and admissions, the
marked and distinctive _individuality_ of the intelligence that was
here manifested, as being of itself totally fatal to the idea of
derivation from the circle?
But not only was this intelligence _distinctive_, but in several
instances even _antagonistic_ to that existing in the circle, as in the
case reported as follows:
"Some one desiring to pose this ready writer, asked for its theory
of the Gulf Stream; which it announced without hesitation to be
'Turmoil in the water produced by conglomeration of icebergs.'
Objection was made that the warmth of the waters of the natural
phenomenon rather contradicted this original view of the subject;
to which Planchette tritely responded: 'Friction produces heat.'
'But how does friction produce heat in this case?' pursued the
questioner. 'Light a match,' was the inconsequent answer--Planchette
evidently believing that the pupil was ignorant of first principles.
'But the Gulf Stream flows north; how, then, can the icebergs
accumulate at its source?' was the next interrogation; which
elicited the contemptuous reply: 'There is as much ice and snow at
the south pole as at the north, ignorant Clarkey.' 'But it flows
from the Gulf of Mexico?' pursued the undismayed. 'You've got me
there, unless it flows underground,' was the cool and unexpected
retort; and it wound up by declaring, sensibly, that, after all,
'it is a meeting of the north and south Atlantic currents, which
collide, and the eddie (_sic_) runs northward.' [At another time,]
on being twice interrogated in regard to a subject, it replied
tartly: 'I hate to be asked if I am sure of a fact.'"
Now, what could have been this intelligence which thus insisted upon
preserving and asserting its individuality so distinctly as to forbid
all reasonable hypothesis of a compounded derivation from the minds of
the circle, even were such a thing possible? A fairy, perhaps, snugly
cuddled up under the board so as to elude observation. Friend "Clarkey,"
try again, for surely _this_ time you are a little befogged, or else the
present writer is _more_ so.
"TO DAIMONION" (THE DEMON).
There was published, several years ago, by Gould & Lincoln, Boston,
a little work entitled: "TO DAIMONION, OR THE SPIRITUAL MEDIUM.
_Its nature illustrated by the history of its uniform mysterious
manifestations when unduly excited._ By TRAVERSE OLDFIELD." This author
deals largely in quotations from ancient writers in illustration of his
subject; and as an attempt to explain the mysteries of clairvoyance,
trance, second-sight, "spirit-knockings," intelligent movements of
physical bodies without hands, etc., his work has claims to our
attention which do not usually pertain to the class of works to which it
belongs. "_To Daimonion_" (the demon), or the "spiritual medium," he
supposes to be the _spiritus mundi_, or the spirit of the universe,
which formed so large an element in the cosmological theories of many
ancient philosophers; and this, "when unduly excited" (whatever that
may mean), he supposes to be the medium, not only of many psychic and
apparently preternatural phenomena described in the writings of all
previous ages, but also of the similar phenomena of modern times, of
which it is now admitted that Planchettism is only one of the more
recently developed phases. For some reason, which seemed satisfactory to
him, but which we fear he has not made clear or convincing to the mass
of his readers, this writer assumes it as more than probable that this
_spiritus mundi_--a living essence which surrounds and pervades the
world, and even the whole universe--is identical with the "nervous
principle" which connects the soul with the body,--in all this
unconsciously reaffirming nearly the exact theory first propounded by
Mesmer, in explanation of the phenomena of "animal magnetism," so
called. Quotations are given from Herodotus, Xenophon, Cicero, Pliny,
Galen, and many others, referring to phenomena well known in the times
in which these several writers lived, and which he supposes can be
explained only on the general hypothesis here set forth; and in the same
category of marvels, to be explained in the same way, he places the
performances of the snake-charmers, clairvoyants, thought-readers, etc.,
of modern Egypt and India.
This _spiritus mundi_, or "nervous principle," to which he supposes the
ancients referred when they spoke of "the demon," is, according to his
theory, the medium, or menstruum, by which, under certain conditions
of "excitement," the thoughts and potencies of one mind, with its
affections, emotions, volitions, etc., flow into another, giving rise to
reflex expressions, which, to persons ignorant of this principle, have
seemed possible only as the utterances of outside and supermundane
intelligences. And as this same _spiritus mundi_, or demon, pervades and
connects the mind equally with all _physical_ bodies, in certain _other_
states of "excitement" it moves those physical bodies, or makes sounds
upon them, expressing intelligence--that intelligence always being a
reflex of the mind of the person who, consciously or unconsciously,
served as the exciting agent.
Whatever elements of truth this theory, in a _different_ mode of
application, might be found to possess, in the form in which it is here
presented it is encumbered by two or three difficulties which altogether
seem fatal. In the first place, it wears upon its face the appearance of
a thing "fixed up" to meet an emergency, and which would never have been
thought of except by a mind pressed almost to a state of desperation by
the want of a theory to account for a class of facts. Look at it: "The
spirit of the world identical with the nervous principle"!--the same,
"when unduly _excited_," the medium by which a mind may _unconsciously_
move other minds and organisms, or even dead matter, in the expression
of its own thoughts! Where is the shadow of proof? Is it anything more
than the sheerest assumption?
Then again: even if this mere assumption were admitted for truth, it
would not account for that large class of facts referred to in the
course of our remarks on the "Electrical theory," unless this _spiritus
mundi_, demon, nervous principle, or spiritual medium, is made at once
not only the "medium," but the intelligent and designing _source_ of
the communication; for, as we have said before, it would be perfectly
useless to deny that thoughts are sometimes communicated through the
Planchette and similar channels, which positively never had any
existence in the minds of any of the persons visibly present.
And then, too, in relation to the nature of the demon, or demons: the
theory of the ancients, from whose representative minds this writer has
quoted, was notoriously quite different from that which he has given.
The ancients recognized good demons and evil demons. The demon of
Socrates was regarded by him as an invisible, individual intelligence. A
legion of demons were in one instance cast out by Christ from the body
of a man whom they had infested; we can hardly suppose that these were
simply a legion of "nervous principles" or "souls of the world." What
those demons were really understood to be in those days, may be learned
from a passage in the address of Titus to his army, when encamped before
Jerusalem, in which, in order to remove from their minds the fear of
death in battle, he says:
"For what man of virtue is there who does not know that those souls
which are severed from their fleshy bodies in battles by the sword,
are received by the ether, that purest of elements, and joined to
that company which are placed among the stars; that they become
_good demons_ and propitious heroes, and show themselves as such to
their posterity afterward?"--_Josephus, Wars of the Jews, B. VI.,
chap. 1, sec. 5._
Hesiod and many others might be quoted to the same purpose; but let
this suffice as to the character and origin of these demons; and it may
suffice also for the theory of _To Daimonion_, as to the particular
mystery here to be explained.