THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).
Various Classes of Phenomena.--Clairvoyance.--Its Field not yet
clearly defined.--Telepathy invades its Ancient Domain.--Simple
Experiments in Telepathy.--Their Significance.--Telepathic Power
in Mediums.--Telepathic Visions.--A Typical Séance.--Wonderful
Exhibition of Telepathic Power.--An Affecting Interview of
the Sitter with Himself.--Deductions.--Visions of Inanimate
Things as well as of Deceased Persons.--Spirit of the Jack of
Clubs.--Subjective Memory.--Spirit Identity.--Allan Kardec's
Observations.--His Illogical Conclusions.--His Supreme
Test.--Telepathic Explanation.--Four Ways of explaining his Test
Case.
There are several ways by which the operations of the subjective mind
can be brought above the threshold of consciousness. When this is done
by any one of the various methods, a phenomenon is produced. Each of
these phenomena has been, at some time in the history of mankind,
attributed to the agency of disembodied spirits.
The leading phenomena above alluded to are clairvoyance, clairaudience,
telepathy, mesmerism, or hypnotism, automatic writing, percussive
sounds (spirit-rapping), movement of ponderable bodies (table-tipping),
and phantasmic appearances.
Of these, clairvoyance, telepathy, and hypnotism have generally ceased
to be regarded as proceeding from supernatural agencies. They are now
recognized as powers inherent in mankind, and, as will be seen, are
largely employed to explain other phenomena.
Of clairvoyance little will be said, for the reason that it is still
an open question among scientists who have been, and are still,
investigating the subject, whether independent clairvoyance exists as
a power of the human mind. Sufficient evidence has not been brought to
my attention to demonstrate its existence. Certainly the great bulk of
phenomena which are popularly regarded as evincing clairvoyant power
must now be referred to telepathy. It must be said, however, that many
phenomena have been produced which cannot at present be accounted
for on any other hypothesis than that of independent clairvoyance.
Yet it is not impossible that, when the laws of telepathy are better
understood, all so-called clairvoyant phenomena may be referred to that
agency. For the purposes of our argument, however, it is not specially
important that the distinction should be clearly drawn between the two,
inasmuch as telepathy, which is an undoubted power of the subjective
mind, sufficiently explains all the so-called spiritistic phenomena
involving the perception by the medium of facts not within his own
experience or his previous knowledge. I will therefore first treat
of those phenomena the mysteries of which are directly and primarily
referable to telepathy.
A very simple experiment will enable almost any one to demonstrate
telepathic power. Let a person be securely blindfolded, by taking a
pair of kid gloves, folding them into pads, placing them over his eyes,
and binding them on by means of a handkerchief. Then let a circle
be formed by a few persons, with their hands joined, the percipient
forming one of the circle. Let a card be selected at random from a
pack, taking care that no one sees any other card of the pack, even for
an instant, until the experiment is over. Then place the card in plain
sight of all but the percipient, and let them fix their minds and gaze
upon the card, and in silence await the result. In the mean time the
percipient should be and remain in a perfectly passive and tranquil
frame of mind, and simply watch for visions. He will soon begin to see
indistinct objects floating in the darkness, and these objects will
presently begin to form themselves into shapes more distinct. They may
be evanescent, and disappear at intervals; but they will soon return
in still more definite form, and will eventually assume some shape
that will suggest the card selected. It may be that a vision of the
whole card will be presented, exactly as it is, or it may be that there
will be a sort of allegorical representation of it. For instance, in
an experiment tried in presence of the author the ten of diamonds had
been selected. Instead of seeing a vision of the card, there was an
appearance of ten real diamonds, arranged in rows corresponding to the
rows of spots on the card, each one sending forth rays of light and
scintillations of color. As it was the first experiment the percipient
had ever tried, he was at a loss to know the meaning, if it had any,
of the vision; but as it persisted in coming, he finally ventured
to remark, hesitatingly, that he had an "impression of the ten of
diamonds." The applause which followed told him that his subjective
mind had conveyed to his consciousness by means of an allegorical
vision the information it had telepathically received. It may here be
remarked parenthetically that the subjective mind of man appears to be
fond of allegory as a means of conveying its thoughts or information
above the threshold of consciousness. The history of mankind is full of
illustrations of this fact.
When the next card was selected, the percipient saw the vision of a
single heart spot floating in the darkness, unattached to anything like
a card; whereupon he ventured to name the ace of hearts, which was
correct. In all, five cards were selected at this sitting, and each one
was named correctly, with the exception of the last, which was the five
of spades. The five of clubs was named; but the percipient explained
his mistake by saying that one-half of each spot was concealed from
his view, namely, the points of the spade spots, which appeared to be
thrust into the darkness, so to speak, leaving only the handle end of
the spades exposed to view. As that half of the spade spot corresponds
exactly to the corresponding half of a club spot, the mistake was
natural, and was really of as great, if not greater, evidential value
than if the card had been correctly named.
Others of the company tried the same experiment, generally without
physical contact with any one else, and each one was able to name some
of the cards correctly. But no one was able to name correctly a card
which was not seen by some one else,--which showed clearly that the
power to see the card resulted from telepathy, and not from independent
clairvoyance. It should be here stated that there were six in the
company, each one of whom tried the experiment, and each scored a
sufficient number of successes to remove the result from the domain of
coincidence.
These experiments were as simple as could well be devised, and to the
unreflecting mind may seem trifling. But I shall endeavor to show that
they possess unmeasured significance.
Before proceeding to do so, it may be well to state that visions
resulting from telepathic communion are as varied as is the character
of the communicants or the subjects of the messages. They are often
seen by the percipient as plainly as the objective reality could be
seen; and events are depicted by means of visions that re-enact the
scenes, with all the characters and actors represented, as perfectly as
the reality itself.[35]
It now remains to show how this faculty of reading the minds of others
is unconsciously employed by spirit mediums to impart to their clients
information regarding persons and events of which the medium has no
previous knowledge.
We will consider, for this purpose, the case of a medium who develops
no physical phenomena, but who simply receives his visitor, tells
him of the events of his past life, describes his spirit-friends,
conveys oral communications from them, and occasionally drops into
prophecy. The visitor may or may not be a professed believer in
spiritism; but the fact that he is there to consult a medium shows a
faith sufficient for the purpose in view, and propinquity places his
subjective mind _en rapport_ with that of the medium. We will suppose
that this is the first time that the two have met, and that the medium
is entirely unacquainted with the character, the antecedents, or the
deceased friends of the sitter. The first thing that the medium does
is to become wholly or partially self-hypnotized. He may go into the
state only partially, and appear to the visitor to be in his normal
condition. He may, and probably does, believe that his "control" takes
possession of his body and talks through him; he has, as we have
already seen, every reason for this belief. He is taken possession
of by some unseen force, is guided by some unseen intelligence which
possesses powers and attributes of which he is not conscious in his
normal condition. He has no other hypothesis to account for the
extraordinary manifestations of which that intelligence is the source.
To make assurance doubly sure, the intelligence tells him that it is
the spirit of some deceased person, and gives him a detailed and very
plausible account of itself. He is forced to believe the statements of
his subjective entity, for he knows no reason for believing otherwise,
and it, in turn, is compelled by the laws of its being to believe
itself to be what it represents; for the suggestion has been made to
it that it is the spirit of a deceased person. That suggestion having
been made in a general way, to begin with, his subjective mind will
proceed to fill in the details in some way with marvellous acumen, and
with such logical circumstantiality of detail as to deceive "the very
elect." It is just as it is in the case of a hypnotized person, who, in
pursuance of a post-hypnotic suggestion, having done some absurd act,
when questioned as to why he did it, will, on the instant, invent some
reason so plausible that the act will seem perfectly natural to one who
does not know its origin.
Again, the subjective mind of the sitter is also controlled by a
suggestion, more or less strong, that spirits of the dead are about
to be invoked; and it is also ready with its logical deductions from
the premises suggested, and will perform its part in the séance with
the same alacrity and acumen. Here, then, we have two subjective minds
_en rapport_, and the telepathic conditions for a successful séance
are established. The shrewd and successful medium usually begins by
making some very complimentary remarks concerning the character and
mental attributes of the sitter. This puts the latter at his ease,
and gives him an exalted opinion of the good sense and judgment of
the medium. Some incidents of the sitter's life may then be related,
and his occupation indicated. It will generally be done in terms such
as indicate the fact that the medium obtains his impressions by means
of visions. For instance, the writer once heard a medium in New York
city describe the occupation of an examiner in the United States
Patent Office. The two had never met before, and did not know of each
other's existence ten minutes before the séance. Even the name of the
sitter had been withheld from the medium, for the purpose of testing
her telepathic powers, and for the further purpose of convincing one
of those present that spirits of the dead had nothing to do with the
manifestations. The members of the party introduced each other by
fictitious names, and talked spiritism to the medium until "harmonious
conditions" were established, when the séance began. "I see an immense
building," she began, "with a great number of rooms in it. In one of
these rooms I see you, seated at a large desk, with a great many papers
upon it. I see drawings, apparently of machinery, spread out upon the
desk before you. It seems to me that you must have something to do
with patent rights." She was informed that her conjecture was thus far
correct. It should here be remembered that a medium should always be
encouraged by a frank acknowledgment when he is correct. It encourages
him, puts him at his ease, and constitutes a suggestion that he is able
to perceive the truth in reference to that particular person; and,
consequently, helps him to proceed correctly with other manifestations.
"But," continued the lady, "this is not your only occupation. I see
you in your library at home, surrounded by books and manuscripts. You
appear to be writing a book."
She then went on to describe correctly all the bookcases and other
furniture in the room, and then said,--
"I see the pathway by which you have arrived at your present conclusion
in reference to the subject of your book. It is all strewn with
rubbish and weeds, all of which you have thrown aside. But you see a
great light ahead, and are pursuing that with perfect confidence and
steadiness of purpose."
"Am I in the right path?" inquired the examiner.
"I cannot tell, for I cannot perceive the subject on which you are
writing. I think you are, however, for the light ahead seems so clear."
After a pause she added,--
"You are making one mistake. You think that you are doing it all
yourself. But you are not. You are constantly guided by a great spirit."
"Who is he?" was asked, with all the greater interest because the
gentleman _was_ writing a book, and, like every other author, felt that
he had perceived "a great light;" moreover, if he was sure of anything
connected with it, he was sure that he was doing it himself, without
the aid of any spirit or spirits. "Give me the name of my spirit friend
and guide," he added.
"I cannot do that to-day," she replied, with the true commercial
instinct of the professional medium; "come to-morrow, and I will try to
give you the name."
Accordingly, the same party visited her the next day, when she made
every effort to obtain the name, but without success. It should be
stated here that the lady was a slate-writing medium. Communication
after communication was written, but without signature, and all efforts
to obtain the name were futile. Finally the gentleman said, in an aside
apparently not intended for the ears of the medium, "I think I know who
it is. It must be either A B [naming a living friend in Washington],
or my brother, C D [giving his own name]," for he had no brother,
living or dead. Immediately a communication was written out, signed
by the supposed spirit brother, announcing the fact that he, and he
alone, was the inspiring power in charge of the literary work named,
that he was the "guardian spirit" of the gentleman, over whom he was
"constantly watching," etc.
The emotions created by the affecting terms of the communication can be
imagined when it is stated that all present, save the medium, knew that
the name was that of the sitter, and that he never had a brother. But
these emotions quickly gave place to wonder and admiration when it was
discovered that the signature was an almost exact reproduction of his
own, with all its salient peculiarities faithfully reproduced.
Comment upon this wonderful admixture of genuine telepathic power
and conscious or unconscious fraud will not be indulged in, save to
remark that the first day's proceedings exhibited marvellous telepathic
power under the most perfect test conditions. As to the second day's
performance, it need only be said that if the communication had
been from a genuine spirit, struggling in vain to remember his own
name, it shows that even spirits are controlled by the subtle power
of suggestion; for he had no hesitation in assuming the name of the
sitter when that name was suggested, and he so completely identified
himself with that person as to reproduce his signature with marvellous
accuracy. It may be said that a fraud was perpetrated upon the medium.
To this the plea of guilty must be entered, together with a plea of
extenuating circumstances, in that it was done in pursuit of scientific
truth. Whether the interests of truth were subserved, the reader must
judge for himself. To that end he must ask himself the question whether
it is not more probable that this manifestation was of the subjective
entity of the medium rather than of an independent, disembodied
spirit. Conceding the inherent power in mankind to convey and receive
telepathic communications, it must be evident that telepathy is a
sufficient explanation of what occurred the first day. It is true that
the medium thought that the information thus obtained was conveyed to
her by disembodied spirits. But that does not change the facts; and
when a phenomenon is explicable by reference to known natural laws,
we have neither occasion nor logical right to seek an explanation in
the realm of the supernatural. The second day's performance is as
easily explicable under the well-known laws of hypnotism. The medium
was in a partially hypnotic state, her subjective mind was active
and in control of her physical powers, and was necessarily perfectly
amenable to control by suggestion from any source. In obedience to the
law of auto-suggestion, it believed itself to be a disembodied spirit.
It acted in that capacity far enough to write communications of the
standard, indefinite character common to such productions, but could
give no name, for the simple reason that there was no name to give, and
none had been suggested. But the instant a name was suggested it seized
upon it, and, in pursuance of the suggestion that it represented the
sitter's brother, wrote just such a communication as the logic of the
situation dictated, believing, without a doubt, that it was actually
the spirit of the deceased brother of the sitter. It may be asked why,
if the medium was possessed of such wonderful telepathic power, did
she not perceive the fact that she was being imposed upon, that the
sitter was not sincere in his professions of a belief in spiritism,
and that he had not a brother in the spirit-land. Simply because
she was controlled by the universal law of suggestion, and the oral
suggestions had been made that he was a believer, and that he had a
brother deceased. If she had disbelieved the statement, it would have
constituted an exception to the operation of a natural and universal
law,--a suspension, in fact, of the laws of nature.
On the other hand, if we are to discard the foregoing explanation and
hold that it was actually a disembodied spirit controlling the medium,
we must presuppose a spirit without a name, or without sufficient
intelligence to remember his name. Either supposition, if it does
no violence to common-sense, is contrary to all the teachings of
spiritists, who have led us to believe that the law of spirit-life
is that of eternal progress; that all truth stands revealed to the
perception of the disembodied soul. It would cause one to lose
confidence in his guardian angels if he were forced to believe that a
short residence in the spirit-land could reduce the immortal mind to
such a state of imbecility.
This digression is indulged in for the purpose of illustrating the fact
that one of the means by which telepathic impressions are conveyed from
one to another is by visions. The percipient sees a vision representing
the incident sought to be communicated by the agent. He sees the image
of the object or person which the agent desires him to see. Thus, when
a person consults a medium he generally expects and desires to learn
something of his deceased friends. The medium goes into the subjective
condition for that purpose. The visitor's mind is full of anticipation
and hope that he will be put into direct communication with the loved
and lost. Presently the medium sees a vision of some person. He
believes that he sees a spirit. He describes it, and it is found to
correspond with one of the visitor's deceased friends. The visitor
recognizes the description, and says so. He asks for the name, and it
is given. Then the medium sees a vision representing some incident
known only to the visitor and the deceased. He describes the incident,
not, perhaps, as a vision which he sees, but as a statement of fact
imparted to him by the spirit. The visitor very likely knows that the
medium knew nothing of him or of the deceased before that hour. He is
convinced that the medium has seen and conversed with the spirit of
his dead friend, and he is a convert to spiritism from that moment.
Now, has the medium actually seen a spirit, or has he merely read the
sitter's subjective mind? Is there any more reason for supposing that
he has seen a spirit of a dead man than there is for supposing that a
mind-reader sees the spirit of the Jack of clubs when the image of that
card is telepathed to him? Obviously not. The conditions are precisely
the same in both cases. The percipient sees the image of that which is
in the mind of the agent. In the one case, it is a card; in the other
it is an individual. If it is the spirit of the individual that is
seen in the one case, it is the spirit of the card that is seen in the
other. In the case of the New York medium, did she see the spirit of
the Patent Office, the spirits of the papers, the drawings, the desks,
and the spirit of the examiner seated at the spirit of one of the
desks, examining the spirits of the drawings and of the specifications?
I repeat it, the percipient sees the image of that which is in
the mind of the agent, and he never sees more than that. It often
happens that the image of some one is seen, of whom the agent is not
consciously thinking at the moment. This has been already explained,
on the obvious ground that it is the subjective, or unconscious, mind
of the agent that is read. It sometimes happens that some fact is
related, some scene described, which the sitter cannot recall to mind,
and he conscientiously declares that he never knew the fact related,
nor witnessed the incident depicted. But when it is remembered that
the subjective mind of man retains all that he has ever seen, heard,
or read, and that he retains comparatively little in his objective
recollection, it is extremely unsafe for him to declare that any one
fact has never been known to him. It is merely negative evidence
at best, and amounts only to a declaration that he does not recall
the fact. When we consider how little we retain, in our objective
recollection, of what we have seen, heard, or read, we may well wonder
that it does not oftener happen that so-called spirits tell us of
circumstances which we do not remember. On the whole, it may be safely
assumed that no medium has ever yet been able to impart any information
that is not known either to the medium or to some living person with
whom he is _en rapport_. There is certainly nothing but the merest
negative evidence, such as has been described, that such a thing ever
happened. On the other hand, there is the strongest possible evidence
to the contrary, in the fact that there is room for a doubt on that
question. It is self-evident that if facts, known neither to the
medium nor those surrounding him,--that is, facts not known to him nor
obtainable by means of telepathy,--can be perceived or obtained by him
from independent sources, the evidence of that fact would be thrust
upon us from ten thousand different sources every hour. This is also
negative evidence, it is true, but it is all but conclusive. Thus, the
question of spirit identity has given spiritists no end of trouble.
Their ablest writers have sought in vain for a solution of the question
why it is that spirits constantly fail to give conclusive evidence of
their identity by means which could not be referred to the knowledge of
the medium or to telepathy.
On this subject Allan Kardec, one of the ablest writers on the subject,
discourses as follows:--
"The identity of contemporaneous spirits is much more easily
proved,--those whose character and habits are known; for it is
precisely these habits, which they have not yet had time to throw
aside, by which they can be recognized."[36]
This may be true; but it is also true that where the "character and
habits" of a supposed spirit are known to the medium, or to those who
are in telepathic rapport with him, simulation of that character and
those habits is perfectly easy to the expert medium. The more generally
the character and habits are known, the less evidential value is to be
attached to their reproduction.
Our author then proceeds:--
"Without doubt the spirit can give the proofs if asked, but he does
not always do so, unless it is agreeable to him, and generally
the asking wounds him; for this reason it should be avoided. In
leaving his body the spirit has not laid aside his susceptibility;
he is wounded by any question tending to put him to the proof.
_It is such questions as one would not dare to propose to him,
were he living_, for fear of overstepping the bounds of propriety;
why, then, should there be less regard after his death? Should a
man enter a drawing-room and decline to give his name, should
we insist, at all hazards, that he should prove his identity by
exhibiting his titles, under the pretext that there are impostors?
Would he not, assuredly, have the right to remind his interrogator
of the rules of good breeding? This is what the spirits do, either
by not replying or by withdrawing. Let us make a comparison.
Suppose the astronomer Arago during his life had presented himself
in a house where no one knew him, and he had been thus addressed;
'You say you are Arago; but as we do not know you, please prove it
by answering our questions; solve this astronomical problem; tell
us your name, your Christian name, those of your children, what you
did such and such a day, at such an hour, etc.' What would he have
answered? Well, as a spirit he will do just what he would have done
during his lifetime; and other spirits do the same."
The above is considered the best reason that can be given for
the fact that spirits whose character and habits in life are not
generally known, or not known to the medium or to those surrounding
him, invariably refuse to give proofs of their identity. But is his
comparison pertinent? I think not. It might be considered impertinent,
nay, the very height of ill-breeding, if one should insist on proofs
of identity when a stranger is casually introduced, or introduces
himself, in a drawing-room. But let us make another comparison.
Suppose a stranger--we, too, will say Arago the astronomer--calls
us up by telephone, and makes a statement of the most transcendent
interest and importance to us,--a statement which, if true, will change
the whole course of our lives and our habits of thought. He states
that his special mission is to make this portentous announcement to
us, and that his name is Arago, the astronomer. We know Arago the
astronomer by reputation, but have never had the honor of his personal
acquaintance. We know enough of him, however, to be certain that he
would tell us the exact truth as he understood it; and we would stake
our dearest interests upon a statement of his regarding that about
which he professed to have positive personal knowledge. Under such
circumstances would it be likely to wound his feelings or shock his
sense of propriety if we should reply through the telephone something
like this:--
"Sir, your message is of portentous import to us, and we cannot
hesitate to believe it if we can be assured that you are Arago the
astronomer, as you represent. We can hear you, but we cannot see you,
and you are not vouched for by any one we know. Please give us some
proof of your identity."
Would Arago the astronomer, or any other sensible man, wrap himself in
the mantle of offended dignity and treat us with silent contempt, or
remind us of "the rules of good-breeding"? Certainly not, especially if
the object of his existence was to make the communication, not only for
our individual benefit, but for the purpose of giving to all mankind
that direct and positive assurance, that tangible evidence, for which
all humanity has sought in vain since the dawn of creation.
Our author then continues:--
"While spirits refuse to answer puerile and impertinent questions
which a person would have hesitated to ask during their lives,
they often spontaneously give irrefutable proofs of their
identity by their character, revealed in their language, by
the use of words that were familiar to them, by citing certain
facts,--particularities of their life sometimes unknown to the
assistants, and whose truth has been verified. Proofs of identity
will spring up in many unforeseen ways, which do not present
themselves at first sight, but in the course of conversations.
It is better, then, to wait for them, without calling for them,
observing with care all that may flow from the nature of the
communications. (See the fact given, No. 70.)"
Turning now to page 82 of the volume, we find the statement above
alluded to, and it reads as follows:--
"On a vessel of the Imperial French navy, stationed in the Chinese
seas, the whole crew, from the sailors up to the staff-major, were
occupied in making tables talk. They hit upon the idea of invoking
the spirit of a lieutenant of this same vessel, some two years
dead. He came, and after various communications, which astonished
every one, he said, by rapping, what follows: 'I pray you instantly
to pay the captain the sum of (he mentioned the sum), which I owe
him, and which I regret not having been able to repay before my
death.' No one knew the fact; the captain himself had forgotten the
debt,--a very small one; but on looking over his accounts, he found
there the lieutenant's debt, the sum indicated being perfectly
correct. We ask, of whose thought could this be the reflection?"
Here, then, we find the supreme test applied,--the best conditions
possible, as prescribed by one of the ablest and most thoughtful
writers on the subject. It will be observed that he is not blind to the
possibilities of telepathy, and counts it as a factor in the case. "Of
whose thought could this be the reflection?" he asks triumphantly. "No
one knew the fact; the captain himself had forgotten the debt." It must
be admitted that if this test is conclusive, their case has been proved
a thousand times over. But in view of what is now known of the laws
of telepathy, it is self-evident that it proves nothing. Telepathy,
as we have again and again repeated, is the communion of two or more
subjective minds. It is not that of which we are consciously thinking
that the subjective mind of the medium perceives. Doubtless the captain
had forgotten, objectively, all about the loan. It was a very small
amount, and the lieutenant had been dead two years. But the subjective
mind of the captain, which remembers all things, great and small, could
not forget it, and it was telepathed to the subjective mind of the
medium. Besides, there was another very potent agency at work to bring
this loan into prominence. We have already seen, in former chapters,
that the normal function of the subjective mind is to watch over and
protect the life of the individual. It is the strongest instinct of
all animate nature. The protection of the material interests of the
individual is as much a part of the function of the subjective mind as
the protection of his life. Indeed, the promotion of the one is but a
means to secure the other. It was, therefore, simple obedience to the
first law of nature that prompted the subjective mind of the captain to
thrust this loan upon the attention of those present and thus secure
its payment.
It may be said, however, that there was no evidence that the captain
was present at the séance; and it may be assumed by some that
telepathic communion with his mind was impossible in his absence
from the circle. The former supposition is possibly correct, but the
latter is not probable, in view of the well-known facts of telepathy.
But assuming both to be true,--that the captain was absent from the
immediate circle, and that the circumstance would prevent telepathic
communion with his mind,--there still remain two or three other ways
of accounting for the phenomenon. In the first place, it is extremely
probable that the captain's accounts were kept by a subordinate, who
was present, and who, subjectively at least, remembered the account.
It is distinctly stated that all the subordinates were present, "from
the sailors up to the staff-major." This would necessarily include the
one whose duty it was to keep the books. His subjective mind would be
just as available as that of the captain for the production of what, in
those days, was considered a test case. Again, supposing that the entry
of the account was made by the captain's hand, it is extremely probable
that some one else had access to the books; and however superficially
the knowledge was impressed upon his consciousness, it was forever
fixed upon the tablets of his subjective memory, and was instantly
available for use when a test case was needed. To those who regard
independent clairvoyance as an established principle, or faculty,
of the human mind, the explanation is easy; for there would be no
difficulty in supposing the mind of the independent clairvoyant to be
capable of taking cognizance of all that was to be found in the ship's
records.
It is extremely improbable, however, that any third party figured in
the transaction, or that it is necessary to assume that any third party
knew of the loan. It is sufficient to know that the captain was aboard
the ship, and that everyone on the vessel was necessarily _en rapport_
with him. Besides, if any one in the circle was in telepathic rapport
with the captain, it would be an all-sufficient explanation of the
phenomenon; for it is well known that specific information, not known
to any one in the circle, can be obtained from some one having the
knowledge who happens to be _en rapport_ with any person in the circle.
Thus it will be seen that there are at least four ways of accounting
for the phenomenon, on well-established principles, without the
necessity of resorting to the assumption of supernatural agencies.
The subtle _rôle_ which telepathy plays in so-called spirit
manifestations must now be apparent. It is not only in the class
of phenomena to which we have alluded that its power is manifest,
but it reappears in all classes and phases of phenomena popularly
attributed to spirits. The greater part of the mystery which surrounds
these manifestations, aside from the purely physical phenomena, is
directly traceable to telepathy; and it explains that which, without
its aid, would be inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that the
manifestations proceed from disembodied spirits.
In concluding the discussion of this branch of the subject, I desire
distinctly to impress upon the mind of the reader an important
proposition which seems to have been lost sight of by many who are
otherwise inclined to give full credit to telepathy as a means of
explaining many so-called spirit phenomena. It is this:--
_It is not necessary that any member of a circle should be in
possession of objective knowledge of a fact in order to be able to
communicate it telepathically to the medium._
The reason will be obvious, after a moment's reflection, to any one
who admits the existence of the power of telepathy. If the power is
possessed by A to communicate a telepathic message to B, it follows
that B can communicate the same message to C, and C can convey it to
D, and so on, _ad infinitum_. This proposition will not be gainsaid by
any one who admits that A can convey a telepathic message to B. D may
have no objective knowledge of A or of B, but is _en rapport_ with C.
Now, we will suppose that a disaster happens to A. He is missing; he
is drowned; but no one possesses any objective knowledge of the fact,
and his friends institute a vain search, no one having the remotest
idea of what has happened to him. B, his mother, receives a telepathic
message, conveyed by A at the moment of his death to her subjective
mind, informing her of the sad accident. But not being sensitive to
subjective impressions, it is impossible for her subjective mind to
convey the message above the threshold of her consciousness. She is,
therefore, objectively ignorant of the fact, although her subjective
mind is fully cognizant of all its sad details. In the mean time, C, a
sympathetic neighbor, _en rapport_ with B, subjectively perceives that
which is so strongly impressed upon the subjective mind of the mother.
C is also unable to elevate the knowledge above the threshold of her
consciousness; but she is a believer in spiritism, and volunteers
to visit a neighboring city and consult a medium. She does so; and
the moment she becomes _en rapport_ with the medium, the telepathic
message is delivered, and the medium perceives, objectively as well as
subjectively, the details of the disaster which befell A. He describes
the whole transaction, and locates the exact spot where the body may
be found. Subsequent investigation demonstrates the exact knowledge
possessed by the medium, for the whole environment is found to be
exactly as described, and the body is found in the very spot indicated.
Now, the spiritists say that this occurrence cannot be explained by
reference to telepathy, for the reason that D was not _en rapport_
with A, nor with B. Nor was C _en rapport_ with A, for the latter was
dead before C could have become cognizant of the facts. The obvious
answer to this is, as before indicated, that if the power exists in
man to convey a telepathic message to his fellow-man, it presupposes
the existence of the power in the percipient to repeat the message to
a third person, and so on indefinitely, until some one receives it who
has the power to elevate the information above the threshold of his
consciousness, and thus convey it to the objective intelligence of the
world. Nor is the element of time necessarily an adverse factor in the
case; for there is no reason to suppose that such messages may not be
transmitted from one to another for generations. Thus, the particulars
of a tragedy might be revealed many years after the event, and in such
a way as to render it difficult, if not impossible, to trace the line
through which the intelligence was transmitted. For the spiritist the
easy and ever-ready explanation of such a phenomenon is to ascribe it
to the intervention of spirits of the dead. But to those who have kept
pace with the developments of modern scientific investigation, and who
are able to draw the legitimate and necessary conclusions from the
facts discovered, the explanation is obvious, without the necessity of
entering the domain of the supernatural.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 35: See "Phantasms of the Living," and the Proceedings of the
London Society for Psychical Research, for full confirmation of this
statement.]
[Footnote 36: Book on Mediums, pp. 331-2.]
[Illustration]