The "influence" again--Other incidents--Statistics.
At this point I must return to a fact which is surprising on any
hypothesis we may prefer: the utility of presenting to the medium
objects which have belonged to the person from whom we wish to obtain
the supposed communications. Phinuit used to say that he found the
"influence" of the dead persons on these objects, and the "influence"
was all the stronger if the object had been worn or carried long, and if
it had passed through few hands; different successive "influences" seem
to weaken one another. I have said that we are totally ignorant of the
nature of this "influence," but I have also said that it might not
improbably be supposed to consist of vibrations left by our thoughts and
feelings upon material objects. However this may be, Phinuit seemed to
read this "influence," and draw from it the greater part of the
information he gave. Generally, in spite of his affirmations to the
contrary, he did not appear to be in direct relation with the
communicators at all. Since the disappearance of the Phinuit _regime_
and the appearance of that of Imperator, the presentation of small
objects is still of use; but it must be remarked that it has never been
indispensable, and that communicators often appear without having been
attracted by any "influence." But under the present system the
information received appears to be much less read from the "influence";
there is much more sense of the real presence of the communicators. Of
what use, then, are the small objects given to the medium? Neither the
controls nor the communicators have explained, which is a pity. Under
the new system managed by Imperator and his helpers such small articles
seem chiefly useful for "holding" the communicator, for preventing his
going away, and for maintaining a certain cohesion in his thoughts.
Rector constantly repeats, "Give me something to keep him and clear up
his ideas." The communicator would apparently need a _point de repere_
in order to remain at the desired place, and this _point de repere_
would be furnished him by some object he has often used, the "influence"
left on which he seems to perceive more clearly than anything else.
According to George Pelham, we may also suppose that the communicator
somehow perceives the mind of the sitter, but this mind is imprisoned in
matter, and greatly clouded by it; the communicator only recognises the
mind of the sitter when it is functioning actively, if I may thus
express it; when the sitter is thinking, and, above all, thinking of the
communicator. This is why, when the communicator perceives that his
ideas are becoming confused, he constantly says reproachfully to the
sitter, "Oh! why don't you speak? Say something to me, help me. You want
me to work for you, but you will not do anything for me." The dead
cousin of Professor Hyslop, Robert MacClellan, says to him, for example,
"Speak to me, for Heaven's sake. Help me to reach you." Analogous
passages are very numerous.
I return to Professor Hyslop's report. The most important communicator
after his father during the sittings was his uncle Carruthers, whose
name, however, was always mangled by Rector, and given as _Clarke_ or
_Charles_. This uncle had died only twenty days before the first
sitting.[80] At his first communication he inquires anxiously about his
wife Eliza, Robert Hyslop's sister, whom his death had left desolate.
"It is I, James," he says to the inquirer. "Give my love to Eliza; tell
her not to get discouraged, she will be better soon. I see her often in
despair." Professor Hyslop asks, "Do you know why she grieves?" "Yes,
because I left her; but I did not really leave her. I wish I could tell
you all I would like ... you would not think I had left entirely. Will
you comfort her? She ought not to be left lonely." "Yes, I will comfort
her." "I am so glad!" At that time Professor Hyslop did not guess that
his aunt was so completely alone and in such deep despair. He only found
this out on inquiry.
I will quote another incident of "Uncle Carruthers'" communications,
because on account of its stamp of vivid realism it is one of those
which the telepathic hypothesis does not explain satisfactorily. Mr
Carruthers suddenly perceives the presence of Dr Hodgson and says, "You
are not Robert Hyslop's son, are you? You are not George."[81] Dr
Hodgson replies, "No, I am not George." "No, James, I know you very
well, but this one" (speaking again to Dr Hodgson), "Did you know the
boys? Did you know me?"
I shall only quote one more incident of these interesting sittings. The
communicator this time is Professor Hyslop's brother Charles, who died
in 1864 aged four and a half. Robert Hyslop's last child had been born
long after Charles's death. "James, I am your brother Charles. I am
happy. Give my love to my new sister Henrietta. Tell her I shall know
her some day. Our father often talks of her." A little further comes
this curious phrase, "Our father would much like you to have his
pictures, _if you are still in the body, James_."
I have said there were some inexact statements, but they are very few. I
will quote two concerning proper names.
The family name of "Uncle Carruthers" could never be given properly. He
was always called Uncle Charles or Clarke. The error is probably
attributable to Rector, to whom the name Carruthers was not familiar.
The other mistake is odder still, though it may also be attributed to
Rector. Robert Hyslop's second wife was named Margaret, familiarly
called Maggie. Now, although it was impossible to misunderstand when
Robert Hyslop was talking of his wife, this name Maggie never came
correctly. Professor Hyslop waited a long time without rectifying the
mistake; he waited for the communicator to perceive it and correct it
himself, but this spontaneous correction was not made. At last he wanted
the matter cleared up, and Dr Hodgson explained that the name of
Professor Hyslop's step-mother had not been given. Rector, failing to
understand, gave up his place to George Pelham, who began by
administering a tolerably sharp scolding to the sitters. "Well, why do
you not come out and say, Give me my step-mother's name, and not confuse
him about anything except what you really want? By Jove! I remember how
you confused me, and I don't want any more of it. I am going to find
out, and if your step-mother has a name you shall have it." George
Pelham went out of the "machine" and returned shortly, saying, "I do not
see any reason for anxiety about _Margaret_." Margaret was really the
name asked for, but one would have expected to obtain it in its more
habitual form, Maggie. However, it is easy to understand that Robert
Hyslop should not have given the familiar name of his wife to a stranger
like George Pelham.
While Professor Hyslop was preparing his report, a number of his friends
who knew of his researches asked him what proportion of truth and error
he had met with in these manifestations. This frequently-repeated
question suggested to him the idea of making tables in which this
proportion should be made clear at a glance. This kind of statistics
would be important for the class of persons who think themselves
stronger-minded than the rest, and who tell you, "I only believe in the
eloquence of figures." Such people do not realise that battalions of
figures are like battalions of men, not always so strong as is supposed.
However, Professor Hyslop took all the "incidents" or statements made
by the communicators and classed them according to the amount of truth
or error they contained. He then divided the incidents into factors. I
will give an example which will help me to define later on what
Professor Hyslop means by _incident_ and _factor_[82]: "My Aunt Susan
visited my brother." This is an incident, or statement of a complete
fact. This incident is composed of four factors which are not
necessarily connected with one another. The first is _my aunt_, the
second the name _Susan_, the third the _visit_, the fourth _my brother_.
Therefore an incident may be defined as a name, a conception or a
combination of conceptions forming an independent fact; it may be again
a combination of possibly independent facts forming a single whole in
the mind of the communicator. The factors would be the facts, names,
actions, or events which do not necessarily suggest each other, or which
are not necessarily suggested by a given name or fact.
Naturally, in tables constructed on these lines, the facts cannot be
classified according to their importance as _proofs_; they can only be
reckoned as true or false. Thus incidents which have only a restricted
value as proofs are on a level with others which are in themselves very
valuable as proofs. This is really the weak point of these statistics.
The proofs need to be examined one by one, and not as a whole.
However, the tables have one advantage; the greatest sceptic, after a
glance at them, can no longer invoke chance, the great _Deus ex machina_
of the ignorant and indolent.
Professor Hyslop has constructed a table for each sitting, and a table
of the sittings as a whole. I cannot reproduce these tables for the
readers, who would require the notes of the sittings to understand them.
I shall only give the definite results.
Thus, out of 205 incidents, 152 are classed as true, 37 as
indeterminate, and only 16 as false. Out of the 927 factors composing
these incidents, 717 are classed as true, 167 as indeterminate, and 43
as false.[83]
It should be said that Professor Hyslop has perhaps overestimated the
number of false and unverifiable incidents. Many incidents or factors
classed as false or unverifiable have been later found to be exact. And
besides, the incidents of a transcendental and consequently unverifiable
nature might have been omitted from these tables. But in this case again
it has been thought better to give the false and doubtful facts full
play. The reader must draw from these results whatever conclusion seems
to him the most correct.
FOOTNOTES:
[80] _See_ Professor Hyslop's Report, _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p.
90, etc., for "Carruthers."
[81] Name of one of Professor Hyslop's brothers.
[82] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 115.
[83] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 121.