When, some months since, M. Bergson delivered his inaugural address as
President of the Society for Psychical Research, the circumstance was
considered of enough importance to justify many cablegrams in the
American papers, and much editorial comment. Had the address not been
in French, it probably would have been reproduced here. Yet the event
was not exceptional enough for that feature to explain the attention
of the press. Men to be named in the same breath with Professor
Bergson, for instance Professor William James and Mr. Arthur Balfour,
had already been presidents of the Society. Therefore the importance
attached to M. Bergson's acceptance of the presidency may indicate not
merely an interest in his views of the subjects attacked by the
Society, but a growing interest in the subjects themselves--perhaps an
interest that may lead such of our readers as have not already studied
them, to welcome some account of both. The information is doubly worth
giving, as there is such a wide belief that the Society is but a group
of cranks, while in fact it has always included some of the best minds
of the age. This account, however, despite the disproportionate space
we venture to allot to it, can give but a pitifully inadequate idea of
the Society's work, and has been prepared mainly on the chance that it
may lead a few readers to seek adequate knowledge elsewhere.
There is also a better reason for attention to the subject. No
argument is needed to convince thinking people that this age stands in
peculiar need of a revival, from some source, of that interest in the
mysteries surrounding our little experience, without which no age has
been really great.
The work hardly seemed worth doing at all unless on the present scale.
If any reader begrudges the space, we can pretty safely promise that
the subject will not call for so large a proportion in future
[Editor].
In 1882 a group of friends who had been meeting occasionally at
Cambridge for the discussion of mysterious phenomena, formed the
Society for Psychical Research, and took rooms in London. The best
known of the early members were Professor (now Sir William) Barrett,
Professor Henry Sidgwick, Frederick W. H. Myers, Fellow of Cambridge,
Arthur J. Balfour, Richard Holt Hutton (Editor of _The Spectator_);
Professor Balfour Stewart, Hensleigh Wedgwood, Lord Houghton and
Archbishop Trench. They were soon joined by, among others, Professor
(now Sir William) Crookes, Alfred Russel Wallace, Lord Raleigh,
Ruskin, Tennyson, William James, Edmund Gurney, Richard Hodgson, Frank
Podmore, Professor (now Sir Oliver) Lodge, and Professor Schiller.
The Society's Proceedings now fill twenty-six octavo volumes, and it
has also published a Journal for its members which has reached fifteen
large twelvemo volumes.
All were originally published in "parts," of which, in all but two or
three cases, several composed a volume. Any portion of the material
can be obtained from the Society's American agents, the W. B. Clarke
Co. of Boston.
The topic first reported on by the society was thought-transference.
Experiments were made with cards, words, pictures and all sorts of
objects. The Society published scores, possibly hundreds, of pairs of
drawings, one of each pair having been made by a person not seeing the
original, who had copied it closely enough to be recognized, in
consequence of willing to copy it, and being similarly willed by
another person drawing or gazing at it. Some of the duplicates would
have been very fair performances even if the originals had been in
sight.
The conviction before existing that all sorts of impressions could be
conveyed at the will of a hypnotist, was abundantly confirmed, and a
strong conviction was aroused in some minds, and it seems to be
increasing, that all transference of thought without visible means has
a hypnotic element, and is much more frequent than yet generally
recognized.
Pictures were of course conveyed as subjective visions, and the
Society began very early to collect and classify accounts of visions
of all kinds, applying rigid canons of verification.
In 1886 the Society published a collection of "Phantasms of the
Living" compiled by Gurney, Myers and Podmore. Seven hundred cases
were thought sufficiently verified to be worth including.
This work was severely criticised by Mr. Charles Pearce in the
Proceedings of a short-lived American society, and he was there
answered by Mr. Gurney.
Gurney died while preparing a work on Phantasms of the Dead. His
material was put in shape by Myers, and published in the Proceedings
of the Society, Vol. V, pp. 403f. "Phantasms of the Living" is now out
of print but much of its material is obtainable in Journal I and the
Reports of the Literary Committee in the early volumes of the
Proceedings.
Space does not admit of enough citation and discussion from these
works to be of value. It may be said in general, however, that with
one class of partial exceptions, there is hardly any ghost story that
one has ever heard of which does not find its parallel here, confirmed
by excellent witnesses and often by considerable supplementary
investigation. The partial exceptions are the stories of freezing
horror which, the evidence now suggests, would appear to have little,
if any, basis in actual experience, but to be mainly the products of
imagination--often of deliberate imagination laboring for dramatic
effect. The authenticated phenomena are generally of gentle and
innocuous character--appearance of dying friends, etc. There are some
apparently of troubled souls, but hardly ever of malevolent ones.
The vast majority of the experiences have taken place in bed, and
therefore are presumably dreams, and there is much reason to believe
that the others come in some sort of a dream state, the whole business
probably being associated, as before indicated, with telepathy, and
telepathy probably being associated with hypnotism, not always
voluntary or conscious.
The experiences are apparently of sight, sound, touch--all the
senses. And yet in connection with visions, there have been few
changes in objective Nature to account for them.
* * * * *
Much regarding hypnotism was published in the early volumes, but that
subject is now so much a part of the knowledge of the medical world,
and even the world in general, that we will not enlarge upon it here.
* * * * *
As there have "always" been stories of visions and hypnotic control,
so there have been stories of objects moved by human beings without
the exercise of muscular force, and indeed without contact. Years
before the foundation of the S. P. R., the present writer saw a
conclusive illustration of the first. It was an exhibition of
something to which it might be well to transfer the name of
zoömagnetism, which was originally suggested by Dr. Liebault for the
force assumed to act in hypnotism. That assumption is now abandoned.
For the effects of the force--the manifestations to the senses, the
name telekinesis is accepted by the Society.
This zoömagnetic force with telekinetic effects seems quite plainly a
mode of the cosmic energy. Putting it forth generally leaves the agent
much exhausted, although very strangely in one of the best accounts,
in Pr. S. P. R. VII, 175f. by Professor Alexander, of the University
of Rio Janiero, regarding his neighbors the Davis children's
performance, he says that they were not fatigued. This seems like a
denial of the persistence of force. But there may be a force
manifested by the human system and yet not generated in it (or
appropriated by it from food and air), but merely passing through it,
as some classes of thoughts are held by some students to be entirely
independent of human origination. If so, there are _two_ modes of
force as yet uncorrelated with our knowledge, which produce
telekinetic effects: for there is certainly one which exhausts human
energies. (See Pr. VI, VII, IX, XII.)
Perhaps a more certain correlation of the zoömagnetic force with the
modes of force already well correlated, is that, if the evidence
collected by the S. P. R. is reliable, it is, like them, mutable into
the production of light--including the alleged magnetic aura, even
around persons--sound, electricity and the other modes of force
already well known. (See Pr. IV, VIII, IX, XI.) These modes possibly
include that which moves the dowser's rod. But as we know of no case
where a dowser has manifested any of the more definitely correlated
modes of zoömagnetic force, the chance of dowsing being one is small.
Much information regarding dowsing, which convinced several eminent
scientists--Sir William Barrett among them, is published by the
Society in Pr. II, XIII, XV. Moreover, there is evidence (Jour. IX,
Pr. XV), so far as it goes, that the zoömagnetic force can _resist_
heat, not only in the Fijian "fire walk," but in London drawing-rooms
in the person of the medium Home, but in him alone--that it has
enabled him and many others to counteract the effects of gravity upon
their own persons; and to "materialize," that is to produce on the
senses of other people, possibly by hypnotizing several at once,
without the aid of matter as we know it, the impressions of light,
sound, resistance and pressure which ordinarily indicate the presence
of the living human body, when no such object in the ordinary sense is
actually present. (For all this see Jour. VI, Pr. VI, IX.)
The Society investigated the display of these phenomena by many
agents, among them the notorious Eusapia Palladino. Her working in the
dark and with a "cabinet" and other apparatus favorable for fraud, was
of course against her, but it seems the unescapable conclusion that of
her phenomena some were genuine--and some fraudulent. With
unintelligent and uneducated mediums, the doctrine "falsus in uno
falsus in omnibus" does not hold: for such mediums, often, sometimes
involuntarily, eke out the lion's skin with the fox's.
* * * * *
The records of the Society contain much evidence of a connection
between telekinetic power and the telepsychic power of conveying
thought already described. Perhaps Mrs. Piper is the only well known
medium not manifesting both. The two powers are shown together in
tipping furniture or producing sounds or lights to signal yes and no;
and while the alphabet is being enunciated, to mark letters so as to
spell out significant words and sentences. There is strong reason to
believe that the intelligence in these indications has been generally
that of the operator, often acting involuntarily and entirely
honestly, and sometimes, especially in the case of "planchette," that
of some other person present, acting telepathically through the
operator. (Pr. VII, IX, XI.)
Of course there has not been the slightest necessity of attributing
any of these queer manifestations of zoömagnetism to "spirits," and,
despite one or two exceptions (notably the late Stainton Moses), the
members of the Society for Psychical Research have not so attributed
them. But the average man has attributed all mysterious things to
spirits, ever since the primitive times when everything was
mysterious.
* * * * *
Unfortunately, two of the most remarkable mediums, perhaps the most
remarkable, Foster and Home, were too early to come directly under the
investigation of the S. P. R. as a body; but fortunately Sir William
Crookes did come into association with Home in the early Seventies
before the foundation of the Society, tested his zoömagnetism many
times in the laboratory, with entirely satisfactory results, and later
gave the Society the results of his observations, which were published
in Journals VI and IX, and Pr. VI, IX and XV. Of course his testimony
to a laboratory experiment is the last word, but many of his accounts
of social sittings with Home stagger belief, and tempt an impression
that there must have been hypnosis somewhere. But the Proceedings
contain considerable collateral evidence. And Myers and Sir William
Barrett applied "the higher criticism" to Home's autobiography and his
wife's accounts of him, and published the results, which were
favorable, in Jour. IV, VI.
* * * * *
But while the evidence for the things already recounted here was
pouring in, there came evidence too strong to be thrown aside without
examination, of things harder to attribute to any incarnate power.
Home's accordeon, we are told by no less an authority than Sir William
Crookes, and by several others (Pr. Vol. VI), was often played
intelligently and beautifully without the apparent agency of human
hands; and the inspirational writing which in earlier times had come
from overwrought religious mystics, began to appear from people who
were by no means overwrought or mystical, or even religious, though
the most noted of them was. This was the Rev. W. Stainton Moses, the
first remarkable medium who associated freely with the members of the
Society. It is alleged that he manifested movement of objects without
contact, lights, sounds in both the air and material objects,
levitation and materialization--all the modes of zoömagnetism except
resistance to heat--assuming that to be one of them. His molecular
telekineses indicated intelligence.
Myers says (Pr. IX, 250f.):
"In 1882 he aided in the foundation of the Society for Psychical
Research; but he left that body in 1886, on account of its
attitude towards Spiritualism, which he regarded as unduly
critical.... Many members of the Society held an intellectual
position widely differing from that of Mr. Moses, and although
his own published records were of a kind not easily credible, no
suspicion as to his personal probity and veracity was ever, so
far as I know, either expressed or entertained.
"... [Moses] was very reticent about exhibiting his powers, and
consequently almost the only records are his own and those of his
physician, Dr. Stanhope Speer, Mrs. Speer, and their son, Mr.
Charlton T. Speer, Associate of the Royal Academy of Music--all
persons of undoubted capacity and probity.... Dr. Speer's cast of
mind was thoroughly materialistic, and it is remarkable that his
interest in Mr. Moses' phenomena was from first to last of a
purely scientific, as contrasted with an emotional or religious
nature."
There are half a dozen other good witnesses, however.
Despite Moses' telepsychic telekineses, his principal alleged
communications with the spirit world were by automatic (we prefer to
call it heteromatic) writing. Of this he left twenty-four note books.
The writings in these were in several different hands and bore the
marks of as many different characters, that were never mixed up. They
signed the names, Imperator, Rector, Doctor, etc., and declared their
earthly selves to have been various eminent persons in the remote
past.
* * * * *
We shall find later that after Moses' death, his alleged spirit gave
an entirely different set of names for the earthly originals of these
alleged personalities. Myers, having seen all the heteromatic writing,
tacitly endorses Moses' statements regarding its visible qualities.
Moses continues:
"By degrees I found that many spirits who were unable to
influence my hand themselves sought the aid of a spirit 'Rector'
[a gentleman whom we shall meet often. Editor of this article],
who was apparently able to write more freely and with less strain
on me;
He says that they differed from him and criticised him severely, but
ultimately converted him to a higher faith than the Anglicanism he had
previously preached.
* * * * *
Myers comments (Pr. XI, 69):
"The tone of the spirits towards Mr. Moses himself is habitually
courteous and respectful. But occasionally they have some
criticism which pierces to the quick, and which goes far to
explain to me Mr. Moses's unwillingness to have the books fully
inspected during his lifetime."
We have no space for any of this script, and it probably would not
tend much to edification if we had. After a good deal of reading and
pondering, I find the proportion of Moses' self in all these
proceedings looming in my apprehension larger and larger. The benefits
he got from them look to me like that portion--how large a portion I
am not saying--of the benefits of prayer which are independent of
external results, and consist in the effect upon character of intense
absorption in an inspiring subject.
Myers testifies that Moses' heteromatic writing announced the death of
a friend of Myers before it could have been known by other means, and
that the writing closely resembled hers. Moses himself declares, and
many fairly judicious people believed him, that among other marvels,
the writing told him, in advance of any other possible agency, of the
death of President Garfield, and of a suicide in London under a steam
roller. The latter statement has several confirmatory witnesses.
The account of Moses is given here, not so much because of himself, as
to prepare for later appearances of Imperator, Rector, Doctor & Co.,
which will be of more interest.
* * * * *
In America there was of course not leisure enough to continue the Am.
S. P. R., which had been started a couple of years after the English
one, and it was merged with the English Society, becoming a "branch."
In 1887 Dr. Richard Hodgson, who had been lecturing at Cambridge, was
sent over as secretary to take charge of it, and soon began a set of
experiences which immeasurably surpass all others in connection with
the subject.
In 1886, Professor William James had found a remarkable medium in Mrs.
Piper, a New England woman of average position and education, and Dr.
Hodgson devoted himself to her phenomena. In trance she spoke as a
self-alleged French physician who called himself Dr. Jean Phinuit
Schliville, and who professed to be in the other world in association
with friends of people who came to sit with Mrs. Piper. Dr. Phinuit
professed to give messages from them, and to deliver the sitters'
messages to them. The only thing apparently unprecedented in these
proceedings was the consistently dramatic character of Dr. Phinuit
himself, and the verisimilitude, varying but often astounding, between
the utterances, dramatic characterizations and recollections of the
alleged message senders, and the persons as known in life.
Mrs. Piper's career with Dr. Phinuit was an inheritance by her from a
Dr. Cocke, who was controlled by a Dr. Finney. Dr. Cocke was an
"inspirational healer" and in 1884 Mrs. Piper went to consult him
about some physical ailment. A circle was being held, and she joined
it. On a second visit she experienced a sensation as of a blinding
flash, and then fainted, and on recovering began to talk in trance as
somebody else.
Hodgson says (Pr. VIII, 46f.):
"She was said to have been controlled by an Indian girl who gave
the name 'Chlorine,' and to have given a remarkable test to a
stranger who was present. She had several more sittings with Mr.
Cocke, and was again controlled, apparently on each occasion by
'Chlorine.'
This name is evidently pitched upon on account of its euphony and
apparent femininity, by some consciousness--we can't tell whose,
perhaps Mrs. Piper's subliminal (whatever that may mean)--unaware of
the meaning of the word, which I hardly need tell the reader usually
refers to a rather fetid gas. Hodgson continues:
"She was also ostensibly controlled at occasional times by Mrs.
Siddons, Bach, Longfellow, Commodore Vanderbilt, and Loretta
Ponchini. It was said that 'Mrs. Siddons' recited a scene from
Macbeth, Longfellow was said to have written some verses, and
Loretta Ponchini (who purported to be an Italian girl) to have
made some drawings....
"Dr. Phinuit only came at first to give medical advice. He
'didn't care to come for other matters,' as he thought them 'too
_trivial_.'
"Finally Sebastian Bach said they were going to concentrate all
their powers on Phinuit, and he became ultimately the chief
control.
"Mr. Piper says that there is no question but that it is the same
Phinuit or personality who controls Dr. Cocke, no matter how
their names are spelt."
All this seems clap-trap, but wait.
* * * * *
The questions regarding Phinuit are different from those regarding
most of the other controls in the Society's records: for, with the
exception of the Imperator group, they, in ordinary life, were
generally known, personally or historically, to the sitters; while
Phinuit has loomed upon the world as free from origins as Melchizedek,
and some people think, despite his lack of priestly ways, with as
important a mission. But he has alleged a lot of origins that, so far,
cannot be traced. Even, however, if they never can be, the fact would
not prove that he never existed.
After a while the communications began to be occasionally in writing,
and at times the voice would be speaking as Phinuit, and the hand
writing as somebody else. There was at least one occasion (Pr. XIII,
293) when Phinuit was joking with a lot of young girls, and the hand
writing on other subjects with Dr. Hodgson.
The records of the S. P. R. contain the most contradictory accounts of
Phinuit's character and attainments. Several habitual sitters are very
fond of him. He and Sir Oliver Lodge were intimate friends, and while
I have had but one conversation with him, I find reading him as
delightful as reading Falstaff. Yet Professor Shaler calls him a
preposterous scoundrel, as was Falstaff; but I can't find serious
dishonesty in Phinuit.
Professor William James, who went to school in French Switzerland, and
was entirely at home in French, says Phinuit knew none. Other sitters
agree with him. Mr. Rogers Rich, who was equally at home in the
language, says he and Phinuit talked French together a good deal, to
Mr. Rich's entire satisfaction. Other sitters indicate the same. Mrs.
Piper knew no French. Mr. Rich and many sitters, including Sir Oliver
Lodge, in whose family Dr. Phinuit practiced extensively, found
benefit in his prescriptions; he successfully gave one treatment which
seems to the lay mind the opposite of reasonable, and yet I myself
found prompt relief through a similar one given by an eminent New York
physician. Nevertheless there are those who call Phinuit a shameless
quack. While in the Pr. S. P. R. there are several prescriptions by
him in correct technical language, there are also several statements
that he does not know the ordinary terms of the pharmacopeia.
The following particulars are taken from a report on Mrs. Piper's
trance which Hodgson made to the S. P. R. in 1892 published in Vol.
VIII of their Proceedings. Although the messages generally went
through Dr. Phinuit, sometimes the alleged personages themselves took
control and carried on conversations with their friends through the
vocal organs and gestures of Mrs. Piper. The voices of the controls
varied with the alleged personalities.
_R. Hodgson. First Sitting. May 4th, 1887._ (Pr. VIII, 60.)
[From notes made on return to my rooms immediately after the
sitting.]
"Phinuit began, after the usual introduction, by describing
[correctly] members of my family....
"Phinuit mentioned the name 'Fred.' ... 'He says you went to
school together. He goes on jumping-frogs, and laughs.... He had
convulsive movements before his death, struggles. He went off in
a sort of spasm.... [My cousin Fred far excelled any other person
that I have seen in the games of leap-frog, fly the garter,
etc.... He injured his spine in a gymnasium ... lingered for a
fortnight, with occasional spasmodic convulsions, in one of which
he died.] Phinuit described a lady, in general terms, dark hair,
dark eyes, slim figure, etc., and said she was much closer to me
than any other person: that she 'died slowly.' ... She had two
rings; one was buried with her body; the other ought to have gone
to you. The second part of her first name is--sie.' [True, with
the exception of the statement about the rings, which may or may
not be true.... No ring ever passed between the lady and
myself.... After trying in vain to 'hear distinctly' the first
part of the name, Phinuit gave up the attempt, and asked me what
the first name was. I told him. I shall refer to it afterwards as
'Q.']"
All this could well have been involuntary telepathy from Hodgson to
the medium. But again, wait.
At Hodgson's second sitting, November 18th, 1887, Phinuit referred to
the beautiful teeth of "Q." and Hodgson says: "'Q.'s' teeth were not
beautiful."
* * * * *
Here is something better (Pr. VIII):
"5, Boylston-place, _March 6th, 1889_.
"Mr. Robertson James has just called here on return from a
sitting with Mrs. P., during which he was informed by Mrs.
P.--entranced--that 'Aunt Kate' had died about 2 or 2.30 in the
morning. Aunt Kate was also referred to as Mrs. Walsh.
"Mrs. Walsh has been ill for some time and has been expected
during the last few days to die at any hour. This is written
before any despatch has been received informing of the death, in
presence of the following:--
"RICHARD HODGSON.
"WILLIAM JAMES.
"ROBERTSON JAMES.
"On reaching home an hour later I found a telegram as
follows:--'Aunt Kate passed away a few minutes after
midnight.--E. R. WALSH.'
"(Signed) WM. JAMES.
"Mrs. William James, who accompanied Mr. Robertson James to the
sitting on March 6th, writes as follows:--
"18, Garden-street, CAMBRIDGE, _March 28th, 1889_.
"Concerning the sitting mentioned above on March 6th, I may add
that the 'control' said, when mentioning that Aunt Kate had died,
that I would find 'a letter or telegram' when I got home, saying
she was gone.
"ALICE H. JAMES."
Now all this seems quite possibly telepathy and coincidence. But how
about this?
"_July, 1890._
"Early at this sitting I inquired, 'How is Aunt Kate?' The reply
was, 'She is poorly.' This reply disappointed me, from its
baldness. Nothing more was said about Aunt Kate till towards the
close of the sitting, when I again said, 'Can you tell me nothing
more about Aunt Kate?' The medium suddenly threw back her head
and said in a startled way, 'Why, Aunt Kate's here. All round me
I hear voices saying, "Aunt Kate has come."' Then followed the
announcement that she had died very early that morning, and on
being pressed to give the time, shortly after two was named.
"A. H. J."
And here is a manifestation eight months after Mrs. Walsh's death:
_R. Hodgson. November 7th, 1889._ (Pr. VIII, 93-4.)
[From a letter written to Professor W. James on the day of the
sitting.]
"Mrs. D. and I had sitting to-day at Arlington Heights, and the
usurpation by 'Kate Walsh' was extraordinary. The personality
seemed very intense, and spoke in effortful whispers.
"'William--William--God bless you.' Sitter: 'Who are you?'
'Kate--Walsh.' (S. 'I know you.') 'Help me--help me----' [Taking
(_i. e._, Mrs. Piper "taking," &c. Ed.) my right hand with her
right, and passing it to her left and making me take hold of her
left hand.] 'That hand's dead--dead--this one's alive' [_i. e._,
the right]--'help me.'
"The left hand ... was cooler than either of my hands, while the
right hand was warmer than either of my hands [the implication
being that Mrs. Piper was possessed by Mrs. Walsh. Ed.]
"I'm alive--I'm alive--Albert's coming over soon. He can't
stay--poor boy--poor boy--Albert--Albert--Alfred--Albert--I know
you--Alice--Alice--William--Alice----' (S. 'Yes, I know. I'll
tell them. You remember me. I stayed with you in New York.')
'Yes, I know. But, oh, I can't remember. I'm so cold--I'm so
cold. Oh, help me--help me'--[making tremulous movements of
hands]. (S. 'I know. I'll tell them. You remember me; my name's
Hodgson.') 'Yes. Mr. Hodgson. Where are the girls? Yes. You had
fish for breakfast on the second day, didn't you?' (S. 'I don't
remember very well.') 'And the tea--who was it spilt the cup of
tea? Was it you or William?' [I think I remember something about
the tea, but not very clearly. R. H.] 'You were in the corner
room--bedroom--upstairs. Were you cold? Then there was some
blancmange--you didn't like that. No. It was cream--Bavarian
cream. [Is all this Mrs. Piper, or is it Shakspere, or is it the
spirit of a fussy old lady? Ed.] Albert--poor boy; he's coming
soon. William--[something about arranging the
property]--William--God bless him.'
"The above was much less than was really said. But that was the
sort of thing, and nothing _à la mode_ Phinuit at all. It was the
most strikingly personal thing I have seen."
This, some commentators want us to believe, was still "another
personality" of Mrs. Piper--if Phinuit was. Four in the case of Sallie
Beauchamp are well established, and nine in the case of Dr. Wilcox's
patient. I wonder how many Dr. Prince would consider a probable
number, and at what number the spiritistic hypothesis would begin to
appear easier than the divided personality one. All unquestionable
cases of secondary personality that I know of do not cross the sex,
and are the results of brain injury or disease. Mrs. Piper and most of
the mediums are normal people, and do their best when physically at
their best.
The following report (Pr. VIII, 126f.) by Mr. T. Rogers Rich, a well
known artist of Boston, made from contemporary notes of the sittings,
is among the best:
"My first sitting with her was on September 6th, 1888. With
little trouble she went into the trance ... and after a moment's
silence ... I was startled by the remarkable change in her
voice--an exclamation, a sort of grunt of satisfaction, as if the
person had reached his destination and gave vent to his pleasure
thereat by this sound, uttered in an unmistakably male voice, but
rather husky. I was at once addressed in French with, 'Bonjour,
Monsieur, comment vous portez vous?' to which I gave answer in
the same language, with which I happen to be perfectly familiar.
My answer was responded to with a sort of inquiring grunt, much
like the French 'Hein?'.... Nearly all my interviews were begun
in the same manner.... I was quite unwell with nervous
troubles.... The first thing told me was of a 'great light behind
me, a good sign,' &c. Then suddenly all my ills were very clearly
and distinctly explained and so thoroughly that I felt certain
that Mrs. Piper herself would have hesitated to use such plain
language! Prescriptions were given to me...."
"_Second Sitting on October 5th._--... The 'Doctor' told me of my
niece being frequently 'in my surroundings,' and that she was
then at my side. Up to this time I had not heard my name
mentioned, so I asked for it from my niece. The 'Doctor' was
again puzzled and said, 'What a funny name--wait, I cannot go so
fast!' Then my entire name was correctly spelt out but entirely
with the French alphabet, each separate letter being clearly
pronounced in that language. My niece had been born, lived most
of her short life, and died in France. Then the attempt to
pronounce my name was amusing--finally calling me 'Thames
Rowghearce Reach.' The 'Doctor' never called me after that
anything but 'Reach.'"
The spelling of a name "entirely with the French alphabet, each
separate letter being clearly pronounced in that language," is a feat
that few English-speaking students could accomplish, because the
matter is of little consequence, and generally neglected. I have been
in France some, and have translated two French books without incurring
critical censure that I am aware of, and yet that feat would be far
beyond me.
"One day Mrs. Piper pointed to a plain gold ring on my finger and
said: 'C'est une alliance, how you call that? A wedding ring,
n'est-ce pas?' This was true. Now if Mrs. Piper had learned
French at school here [which she did not or anywhere else. Ed.]
she would most probably have called this ring 'un anneau de
marriage,' and not have given it the technical name 'alliance.'"
There are many cases of mediums speaking in languages which they did
not know, but which the control, when incarnate, did. Mr. Rich
continued:
"Breaking into the run of conversation, the 'Doctor' of a sudden
said, 'Hullo, here's Newell!' [pseudonym] (mentioning the name of
a friend who had died some months before).... 'Newell' had
frequently purported to communicate directly with his mother
through Mrs. Piper at previous sittings, but this was the first
time that any intimation of his presence was given to me. I was
totally unprepared for this, and said, 'Who did you say?' The
name was repeated with a strong foreign accent, and in the
familiar voice and tone of the 'Doctor.' Then there seemed for a
moment to be a mingling of voices as if in dispute, followed by
silence and heavy breathing of the medium. All at once I was
astonished to hear, in an entirely different tone and in the
purest English accent, 'Well, of all persons under the sun,
Rogers Rich, what brought you here? I'm glad to see you, old
fellow! How is X and Y and Z, and all the boys at the club?' Some
names were given which I knew of, but their owners I had never
met, and so reminded my friend 'Newell,' who recalled that he
followed me in college by some years and that all his
acquaintances were younger than I. I remarked an odd movement of
the medium while under this influence; she apparently was
twirling a mustache, a trick which my friend formerly practised
much."
Now if all this drama is telepathy, it certainly is not of the "common
or garden variety," and if "Newell" is a secondary personality of Mrs.
Piper, it is one of hundreds of instances of that woman having
secondary personalities who are men. I have read accounts of a good
many undoubted cases of secondary personality, and have yet to read of
one where the sex was crossed. Aren't these interpretations growing to
look a little absurd? Mr. Rich goes on:
"_June 3rd, 1889._--This time I asked to communicate with my
friend 'Newell.' ... The 'Doctor' said, 'I'll send for him,' and
kept on talking with me for a while. Then he said, 'Here's
Newell, and he wants to talk with you "Reach," so I'll go about
my business whilst you are talking with him, and will come back
again later.' ... My name was called clearly as 'Rogers, old
fellow!' without a sign of accent [Remember that 'Phinuit'
always pronounced it with an accent. Ed.] and the same questions
put as to how were the 'fellows at the club.' My hand was
cordially shaken [by the medium. Ed.], and I remarked the same
movement of twisting the mustache, ... When 'Newell' left me
there was the usual disturbance in the medium's condition, and
then the resumption of the familiar voice, accent and mannerisms
of Dr. Phinuit...."
Mr. Rich continues (Pr. VIII, 130):
"I produced a dog's collar. After some handling of it [by the
medium] the 'Doctor' recognized it as belonging to a dog which I
had once owned. I asked 'If there were dogs where he was?'
'Thousands of them!' and he said he would try to attract the
attention of my dog with this collar. In the midst of our
conversation he suddenly exclaimed, 'There! I think he knows you
are here, for I see [him] coming from away off!' He then
described my collie perfectly, and said, '_You_ call him, Reach,'
and I gave my whistle by which I used to call him. 'Here he
comes! Oh, how he jumps! There he is now, jumping upon and around
you. So glad to see you! Rover! Rover! No--G-rover, Grover!
That's his name!' The dog was once called Rover, but his name was
changed to Grover in 1884, in honor of the election of Grover
Cleveland."
The knowledge here may have been telepathic, but how about the
dramatization?
* * * * *
Mrs. Piper's English Sittings of 1889-90 were held under the
supervision of Sir Oliver Lodge and Dr. Walter Leaf, and the report of
them has an introduction by Myers, and is followed by a statement of
impressions of Mrs. Piper by James. All these experts expressed
perfect confidence in the honesty of the medium, and that the
phenomena were not explicable by any agency yet known to science.
Sir Oliver Lodge says (Pr. VI, 445):
"The details given of my family are just such as one might
imagine obtained by a perfect stranger surrounded by the whole of
one's relations in a group and able to converse freely but
hastily with one after the other; not knowing them and being
rather confused with their number and half-understood messages
and personalities, and having a special eye to their physical
weaknesses and defects. [Phinuit was (?) a doctor. Ed.] A person
in a hurry thus trying to tell a stranger as much about his
friends as he could in this way gather, would seem to me to be
likely to make much the same kind of communication as was
actually made to me."
Here is an episode explaining a nickname that Phinuit habitually
applied to Sir Oliver (Pr. VI, 471f.):
"Cousin married, and the gentleman passed out at sea, round the
sea.... Hullo, he's got funny buttons, big, bright.... A uniform.
He has been a commander, an officer, a leader; not military, but
a commander.... [A little further on Phinuit suddenly brings out
the word Cap'n in connection with him, but, in a curious and half
puzzled way, applies it to me. It remained my Phinuit nickname to
the end, though quite inapplicable.] Your mother has got a good
picture of him taken a long time ago, pretty good, old-fashioned,
but not so bad of him. Yes, pretty good. He looks like that now.
He looks younger than he did...."
As in this vision, so it was in one of my own dreams which I suspect
was in several respects veridical; and in two other dreams where I
cannot trace any veridicity: the persons had grown young.
This recalls Peter Ibbetson's statement that he and his beloved kept
themselves about twenty-seven. There are reports that Peter Ibbetson
is not all fancy, but even if it were, such reports would be
inevitable.
But in another dream which I fully believe to have been veridical, the
person had grown older in proportion to the time since "passing over,"
but there was a peculiar reason for such a manifestation: I fancy that
my friend may have wanted to appear to "grow old with me."
There are some things to suggest that if there are post-carnate souls,
they can appear as of any age in their experience--and so show their
history since separation, to anyone rejoining them.
* * * * *
Edmund Gurney, author of "Phantasms of the Living," and a very active
member of the S. P. R. died in 1888. In December, 1889, his ostensible
spirit communicated at several sittings with Sir Oliver Lodge through
Mrs. Piper. Sir Oliver says (Pr. XXIII, 141f.):
"I learned in this way more about the life and thoughts of Edmund
Gurney than I had known in his lifetime."
And Mrs. Piper knew less. Then where did it come from? These Gurney
sittings are very interesting and suggestive, but we can use our
limited space to better advantage.
* * * * *
Here are some characteristic Phinuit Touches (Pr. VI, 484):
"She remembers more than you do. What do you think she says to
me? She says, don't swear, doctor; she did, sure as you live....
"Dr.: 'Do you know who Jerry--J--E--R--R--Y--is?' O. L.: 'Yes.
Tell him I want to hear from him.' U[ncle] J[erry. Ed.]: 'Tell
Robert, [his brother] Jerry still lives. I will be very glad to
hear from me. This is my watch. Uncle Jerry--my watch.'...
"P.: 'I say, Captain, your friends have a lot to tell you,
they're just clamoring to get at you. Why the devil don't you
give them a chance?' O. L.: 'Well, I will next time.' (Watch
handled again. It was a repeater, and happened to go off.) P.:
'Hullo, I didn't do that. Jerry did that, to remind you of him.
Here, take it away--it goes springing off--it's alive.' ... 'It
was Uncle Jerry, the one that had the fall. I'll bring you some
more news of him. Give me back his nine-shooter.' (Meaning the
watch.)"
Phinuit and the Lodge family and their next-door neighbors, the
Thompsons, got to be great friends. Phinuit had given them much good
advice, professional and other, and had really been of considerable
service to them, even if only through their imaginations.
At the end of their second series of sittings, Feb. 23, 1890, he said:
"Now, all you people come here. Good-by, Susie. Good-by, Ike.
Good-by, Nelly. Now, all clear out and let me talk to Marie.
(Long conversation of a paternal kind, with thoroughly sensible
advice. Then O. L. returned.) Captain, it's not good-by, it's _au
revoir_, and you shall hear of me when I've gone away.' O. L.:
'How can I?' P.: 'Oh, I will tell some gentleman a message and he
will write it for me. You'll see.
"_Au revoir, au revoir, &c._"
Hodgson's inclination while writing his report, was to attribute the
phenomena to telepathy from the sitter. This might account for a part
of the knowledge which the medium displayed, but it did not account
for knowledge which the sitter never had, but left such knowledge to
be accounted for by the vastly less probable hypothesis of
teloteropathy from absent persons, which begins to approach the
improbability of spiritism itself. But after the medium's possession
of the knowledge is accounted for, the main problem is yet to be
approached. Knowledge of a particular circumstance is virtually the
same in all minds possessing it. But after a medium, say Mrs. Piper,
has obtained an item of knowledge from, let it be granted for
argument's sake, the sitter's mind, what makes her emotional attitude
regarding it not that of the sitter or of herself, but of some
departed friend of the sitter? What makes her rejoice in it or regret
it as this departed friend, alone among all intelligences, would? What
makes the play of her mind regarding it--suggestion, response,
appreciation or depreciation, comment and discussion of all kinds,
just what would be that of the departed soul which professes to be
speaking through her? And what makes all this occur with a fidelity to
the character and situation worthy of the greatest dramatists? And how
comes that average New England woman to display that supreme dramatic
genius virtually every day for a generation? This is not telepathy or
teloteropathy. When Hodgson wrote his first report, he and the
researchers generally had not got as far as the questions raised by
the dramatic features. But he closed with the following mysterious
paragraph:
"The foregoing report is based upon sittings not later than 1891.
Mrs. Piper has given some sittings very recently which materially
strengthen the evidence for the existence of some faculty that
goes beyond thought-transference from the sitters, and which
certainly _primâ facie_ appear to render some form of the
'spiritistic' hypothesis more plausible. I hope to discuss these
among other results in a later article."
The occasion for this paragraph was made plain in his next report,
issued in 1898, and published in Pr. S. P. R., Vol. XIII.
A young man alluded to in the S. P. R. reports as George Pelham, had
died. He was a member of a very prominent English family, and on the
distaff side, of an equally prominent family in New York. He had
graduated at Harvard and spent some years as a housemate with the
Howards (pseudonym) in Boston, though he died in New York, after some
later years passed there. He was well known to the present writer, who
finds the utterances of his alleged post-carnate self entirely in
character. He was of a very philosophic bent, and no mean writer in
both prose and verse. Psychical research was by no means his most
prominent interest, or Hodgson his most intimate friend, though he had
discussed the subject several times with Hodgson, and been introduced
by him, under a pseudonym, for a single sitting with Mrs. Piper. For a
month after G. P.'s death Hodgson's regular sittings with Mrs. Piper
went on without there being any manifestation professing to come from
G. P., when Mr. John Hart (pseudonym) who had been much more intimate
with G. P. than Hodgson had, was sitting, in Hodgson's presence, with
Mrs. Piper, and after Phinuit had announced a "George," an uncle of
Mr. Hart, he went on, as Hodgson reports (Pr. XIII, 297f.):
"There is another George who wants to speak to you. How many
Georges are there about you any way? [Hodgson continues. Ed.]
"The rest of the sitting, until almost the close, was occupied by
statements from G. P., Phinuit acting as intermediary. George
Pelham's real name was given in full, also the names, both
Christian and surname, of several of his most intimate friends,
including the name of the sitter. Moreover, incidents were
referred to which were unknown to the sitter or myself. One of
the pair of studs which J. H. was wearing was given to Phinuit
[_i. e._ to the medium. Ed.].... '(Who gave them to me?)
[Throughout these sittings, the sitters' remarks are in
parentheses. Ed.] That's mine. Mother gave you that. (No.) Well,
father then, father and mother together. You got those after I
passed out. Mother took them. Gave them to father, and father
gave them to you. I want you to keep them. I will them to you.'
Mr. Hart notes: 'The studs were sent to me by Mr. Pelham as a
remembrance of his son....
"James and Mary [Mr. and Mrs.] Howard [Pseudonyms. Ed.] were
mentioned with strongly specific references, and in connection
with Mrs. Howard came the name Katharine. 'Tell her, she'll know.
I will solve the problems, Katharine.' Mr. Hart notes: 'George,
when he had last stayed with [the Howards], had talked frequently
with Katharine (a girl of fifteen years of age) upon such
subjects as Time, Space, God, Eternity, and pointed out to her
how unsatisfactory the commonly accepted solutions were. He added
that some time he would solve the problems.' Mr. Hart added that
he was entirely unaware of these circumstances. I was myself
unaware of them, and was not at that time acquainted with the
Howards.
No telepathy then. Phinuit continues:
"'Who's Rogets? [Phinuit tries to spell the real name.] (Spell
that again.) [At the first attempt afterwards Phinuit leaves out
a letter, then spells it correctly.] Rogers.... Rogers has got a
book of mine. (What is he going to do with it?)'
"[Both Hart and G. P. knew Rogers, who at that time had a certain
MS. book of G. P. in his possession. The book was found after G.
P.'s death and given to Rogers to be edited. G. P. had promised
during his lifetime that a particular disposition should be made
of this book after his death. This action ... was here, and in
subsequent utterances which from their private nature I cannot
quote, enjoined emphatically and repeatedly, and had it been at
once carried out, as desired by G. P., much subsequent
unhappiness and confusion might have been avoided.]
"During the latter part of the sitting, and without any relevance
to the remarks immediately before and after, which were quite
clear as expressions from G. P. came the words, 'Who's James?
Will--William.' [It must be remembered that Phinuit was reporting
G. P. throughout.] This was apparently explained by Phinuit's
further remarks at the close of the sitting.
"Phinuit: 'Who's Alice? (What do you want me to say to her?) [To
R. H.] Alice in spirit. Alice in spirit says it's all over now
and tell Alice in the body all is well. Tell Will I'll explain
things later on. He [George] calls Alice, too, in the body. I
want her to know me, too, Alice and Katharine.... He won't go
till you say good-by. [The hand then wrote: George Pelham. Good
day (?) John.] ...'
"[Alice James, the sister of Professor William James, had
recently died in England. The first name of Mrs. James is also
Alice. Alice, the sister of Katharine, is the youngest daughter
of Mr. Howard and was very fond of G. P.]
"As I have already said, the most personal references made at the
sitting cannot be quoted; they were regarded by J. H. as
profoundly characteristic of Pelham.
This was followed by the most remarkable experiences of the kind that
ever occurred before Hodgson himself passed over to the majority and
was ostensibly manifested to his surviving friends through Mrs. Piper
and other mediums. G. P. sent for his friends the Howards (pseudonym)
with whom he had been a housemate in Boston, for his parents, and for
other friends. All of these came, very skeptical regarding the
genuineness of the manifestations, but Mr. Howard--an eminent scholar
of wide experience of the world, became convinced that he was in
converse with the postcarnate intelligence of his old friend; the
majority of the relatives, who were of a more orthodox habit than Mr.
Howard, were brought at least to a condition of agnosticism on the
subject, and the arch-critic Hodgson who had exposed more
"spiritualistic" frauds than all other men put together, was turned
into a militant spiritualist. G. P. was asked.
"(Can't you tell us something he or your mother has done?) 'I saw
her brush my clothes and put them away. I was by her side as she
did it. I saw her take my sleeve buttons from a small box and
give them to my father. I saw him send them to John Hart. I saw
her putting papers, etc., into a tin box.'
"The incident of the 'studs' was mentioned at the sitting of
Hart. G. P.'s clothes were brushed and put away, as Mrs. Pelham
wrote, not by herself, but by 'the man who had valeted George.'"
This incident is used by Mrs. Sidgwick in Pr. XV, 31, in support of
the thesis that a medium's communications are influenced by education
and social habits. I am disposed entirely to endorse this. The
communications seem to me to come from a blending of the control, the
medium, and the sitter. Perhaps this utterance will seem less Delphic
as we go on.
The following (Pr. XIII, 416f.) does not seem much like telepathy.
"Mrs. Piper [on coming out of the trance. Ed.]: 'There is the man
with the beard' [whom she saw in the trance. Ed.] Mrs. Piper then
described what she thought was a dream. 'I saw a bright light and
a face in it, a gentleman with a beard on his face, and he had a
very high forehead and he was writing.' R. H.: 'Would you know it
again if you saw it?' Mrs. Piper: 'Oh, yes. I would know it, I
think.' R. H.: 'Well, try and recall it....'
"After Mrs. Piper comes out of [a second. Ed.] trance she is
shown a collection of thirty-two photographs, nine of them being
of men, from which she selects the picture of the person whom she
saw when coming out of trance the first time. The photograph that
she first picked out was an excellent likeness of G. P. She
afterwards picked out another photograph of him. She stated that
she never knew the gentleman when living."
Within twenty-four hours of this experience, or some other reported
elsewhere, the dream recollection had, like dream recollections
generally, faded away: she could not recognize the photograph. We can
talk about telopsis here, if we want to, but telopsis of what? Of that
photograph? Nonsense! And as strange as anything else about it, is
that there is nothing strange about it. In my own dreams I see any
number of people I never saw before, just as plainly as I see any
number on the street, and if photographs were handed me, as those were
to Mrs. Piper, immediately on awaking, I could identify them. This
identification is nothing out of the ordinary course of nature, only
the wit to see that it is, has but just come.
But with any sitter, Mrs. Piper _may_ have had telepathically just as
definite an idea as the sitter has, or she _may_ always have been
telepathically impressed in her dream by the post-carnate man himself.
Each one of us will have to fumble to his own conviction, if he ever
reaches one.
Hodgson continues (Pr. XIII, 321-2):
"It was during this sitting [Dec. 22, 1892] that perhaps the most
dramatic incident of the whole series occurred....
"Mr. Howard: 'Tell me something that you and I alone know,
something in our past that you and I alone know.' G. P.: 'Do you
doubt me, dear old fellow?' Mr. H.: 'I simply want something--you
have failed to answer certain questions that I have asked--now I
want you to give me the equivalent of the answers to those
questions in your own terms....' G. P.: 'You used to talk to me
about....'
"The writing which followed ... contains too much of the personal
element in G. P.'s life to be reproduced here. Several statements
were read by me, and assented to by Mr. Howard, and then was
written 'private' and the hand gently pushed me away. I retired
to the other side of the room, and Mr. Howard took my place close
to the hand where he could read the writing. He did not, of
course, read it aloud, and it was too private for my perusal. The
hand, as it reached the end of each sheet, tore it off from the
block-book, and thrust it wildly at Mr. Howard, and then
continued writing. The circumstances narrated, Mr. Howard
informed me, contained precisely the kind of test for which he
had asked, and he said that he was 'perfectly satisfied,
perfectly.'
"Characteristic also of the living G. P. was the remark made to
me later, apparently with reference to the circumstances of the
private statements:
"'Thanks, Hodgson, for your kind help and reserved manners, also
patience in this difficult matter.'"
All this, I suppose, is mere telepathy or the subliminal self, or
divided self, or some other self, of an average New England housewife!
In this report the sittings take up some two hundred pages, and
Hodgson devoted about fifty pages to his reasons for accepting the
spiritistic hypothesis regarding them. James said: "I know of no more
masterly handling anywhere of so unwieldy a mass of material"; and yet
he never squarely agreed with Hodgson, though he often says he was
tempted to.
Hodgson's reasons cannot be fairly understood without familiarity with
the evidence. They are very ingenious and interesting, and would give
the most skeptical reader pause, but we have space for only a few
generalizations.
"The manifestations of this G. P. communicating have not been of
a fitful and spasmodic nature, they have exhibited the marks of a
continuous living and persistent personality ... what change has
been discernible is a change not of any process of
disintegration, but rather of integration and evolution...."
"That G. P. could get into some closer relation with his father
and the Howards than with Miss M. or myself is intelligible; but
it is not so obvious why Mrs. Piper's _secondary personality_
should...."
"... The mixtures of truth and error bear no _discernible_
relation to the consciousness of the sitters, but suggest the
action of another intelligence groping confusedly among its own
remembrances."
"We get all varieties of communication; some of them, purporting
to come from persons who when living were much mentally
disturbed, suggesting the incoherency of delirium; others of
them, purporting to come from persons who have been dead very
many years, suggesting a fainter dreaminess [or more remoteness.
Ed.]; others purporting to come from persons recently deceased
whose minds have been clear, showing a corresponding clearness.
My own conclusion ... is forced upon me by experience, and
strengthened by various statements of the communicators
themselves concerning the causes of confusion."
"Again, that persons just 'deceased' should be extremely confused
and unable to communicate directly, or even at all, seems
perfectly natural after the shock and wrench of death.
"Of such confusions as I have indicated above I cannot find any
satisfactory explanation in 'telepathy from the living,' but they
fall into a rational order when related to the personalities of
the 'dead.'"
"In cases where we should _a priori_ be led to expect that the
communicators would certainly not be confused, or, if they were
confused, the confusion would not make much difference, Phinuit
was particularly successful. The cases I refer to are those of
little children recently deceased."
This seems to me a very strong point. Its force will be realized by
most of those who read the Sutton and Thaw sittings in Pr. XIII.
Phinuit, the "preposterous old scoundrel," is eminently "the
children's friend." Hodgson continues:
"Having tried the hypothesis of telepathy from the living for
several years, and the 'spirit' hypothesis also for several
years, I have no hesitation in affirming with the most absolute
assurance that the 'spirit' hypothesis is justified by its
fruits, and the other hypothesis is not."
"Since Phinuit's 'departure' [explained below. Ed.] the voice has
been used on a few rare occasions only, and almost exclusively by
communicators who purported to be relatives of the sitters, and
who had used the voice before Phinuit's 'departure.' ... But
there never seemed to be any confusion between the personality
using the hand, whether this was 'clear' or not, and the
personality using the voice."
This consideration and those before associated with it seem to me more
for the spiritistic hypothesis than any others which we have met so
far.
G. P. soon developed into the Mercury of the spiritistic Pantheon,
turned up at almost all sittings, went to seek the friends of the
sitters in the "spirit-world," and acted as intermediary for those who
were new to the conditions of communication or had not enough of the
psychokinetic power which was alleged to be necessary to use them
effectively.
* * * * *
It should be noted that during G. P.'s life, telepathy from the sitter
had been reluctantly conceded as a defense against the spiritistic
hypothesis, but it was not till after his death that teloteropathy
from persons at a distance had been conceded; and it was not until
1909--seven years later, that James, one of the most steadfast holders
of the conservative fort, in his report on the communications from
Hodgson's alleged spirit, in Pr. XXIII, admitted, as among the
possible "sources other than R. H.'s surviving spirit for the
veridical communications from the Hodgson control," "access to some
cosmic reservoir, where the memory of all mundane facts is stored and
grouped around personal centers of association."
James had a subtler mind than mine or almost anybody's. Mine is not
subtle enough to be very seriously impressed by the difference between
"memory of mundane facts stored and grouped around personal centers of
association," and a surviving personality; and what difference does
impress me, is pretty well filled up when the "personal center" also
has "grouped around" it, the initiative, response, repartee and
emotional and dramatic elements that, as shown not only by the G. P.
control, but, years later, by the Hodgson control, and by hundreds of
others, make a gallery of characters more vivid than those depicted by
all the historians. But even claiming them to be historical, as in a
sense they are, would not be claiming them to be surviving. Many
historical characters have put in that claim through Mrs. Piper and
other mediums, and while our greatest psychologist knew as much as
anybody about the claims, and seemed somewhat on the road to admitting
them to be from surviving personalities, he did not live to go farther
than memories "stored and grouped around personal centers of
association."
But _à bas_ the "memories"! one is tempted to say; credit them all to
telepathy if you will: what are they beside the active and spontaneous
emotions and responses?
* * * * *
Meantime in 1892 our old acquaintance Stainton Moses had "passed
over," and in 1895 had ostensibly appeared through Mrs. Piper to
Professor Newbold of the University of Pennsylvania, and Professor
Newbold asked him to bring his friends Imperator, Rector, etc. These
high-toned personages--none high-toneder, as John Hay of blessed
memory, puts it--nor more bombastic or long-winded, had manifested
before only through Moses (for convenience I am using the simple
phraseology that would attend their genuineness, but do not mean to
convey any opinion), and when they came through Mrs. Piper, they
professed to find her in a very bad way because of the "earth-bound"
Phinuit, and they professed to remove him to a higher sphere where he
would be purified and disinfected and sanctified and turned from a
genial sympathetic, humorous and, it must be admitted, occasionally
slangy and profane soul, into a prig of purest ray serene. Rector now
generally took his place with Mrs. Piper, which he had done to some
extent before. The gang was very well satisfied with G. P., however,
and he appeared for some years as their valued friend and
collaborator, until in 1897 they declared his work done, and his
proper place a "higher sphere." He bade his friends here affectionate
farewells, but has occasionally sent back messages, and has once or
twice spoken himself. Mind, I am throughout speaking only
provisionally; but I would defy any writer to escape the
verisimilitude, and even if that were possible, it would involve
intolerable verbiage.
Imperator & Co. now proposed to do most of the talking themselves, and
they did a frightful amount of it; and occasionally really said
something.
Moreover, they took charge of Mrs. Piper and Hodgson too, in their
goings and comings and all their ways, dictated their diet and
exercise, and even whom they should have at sittings, giving the
preference to people of exceptionally high character, and to those in
deep distress from loss of friends, and eager to communicate with
them.
The present writer and some others are tempted to think that these
autocratic personages are products telepathically conveyed to Mrs.
Piper from the unconscious imagination of Hodgson and his recollection
of Moses' writings, with perhaps a little involuntary dash of Prof.
Newbold. But if they are, the imagination is expanded to a degree
entirely outside of ordinary experience, and its study must enlarge
our conception of the range of human faculty. Whatever they were, if
only an allegorized form of faith cure, there is no question about
their beneficial effect on the clearness of the sittings, and on the
health and happiness of Mrs. Piper and Hodgson.
* * * * *
James says something which goes to the root of the whole business, and
which, though it is episodic to the Hodgson narrative, may as well be
considered here (Pr. XXIII, 3):
"Dr. Hodgson was disposed to admit the claim to reality of Rector
and of the whole Imperator-Band, ... while I have rather favored
the idea of their all being dream-creations of Mrs. Piper.... I
can see no contradiction between Rector's being on the one hand
an improvised creature of this sort, and his being on the other
hand the extraordinarily impressive personality which he
unquestionably is.... Critical and fastidious sitters have
recognized his wisdom, and confess their debt to him as a moral
adviser. With all due respect to Mrs. Piper, I feel very sure
that her own waking capacity for being a spiritual adviser, if
it were compared with Rector's, would fall greatly behind."
"With all due respect" for Professor James's opinion, I think I do
"see [a] contradiction," and I see the contradiction because, with
Professor James, "I feel very sure that her own waking capacity for
being a spiritual adviser, if it were compared with Rector's, would
fall greatly behind." If the Imperator band were merely, as James
suggests, "dream creations," ... and if "her own waking capacity ...
compared with Rector's, would fall greatly behind," how could she make
anything so superior to herself? How can she do better as Rector than
she can as herself? The whole scheme seems to me akin to the Du-Prel
and Myers scheme of making a man lift himself higher than his head by
his own boot-straps; and beside it the spiritistic hypothesis seems
simplicity and probability themselves.
The simplest individual, incarnate (or discarnate?), of course
manifests _himself_ in a way that the most skillful dramatist could
not equal, and it may well be questioned whether it is not more
rational to assume that the hundreds of alleged personalities
dramatized in the words and gestures of Mrs. Piper are manifestations
by the personalities themselves, than that they are creations of some
as yet unknown kind of genius residing in some layer of Mrs. Piper's
consciousness, and getting its material from fragments among her own
memories or by telepathy from those of other living persons, present
or remote.
Hodgson closes his report (Pr. XIII, 409):
"It has been stated repeatedly that the 'channel is not yet
clear,' that the machine is still in process of repair; and it
has been prophesied that I shall myself return eventually to
America and spend several years further in the investigation of
Mrs. Piper's trance, and that more remarkable evidence of
identity will be given than any heretofore obtained."
He did return and continue his beloved work for several years. But the
next time we meet him it will be as an alleged denizen of the spirit
world, and perhaps his testimony in that capacity was part of the
"more remarkable evidence of identity" promised.
* * * * *
These influences, whatever their fundamental character, having made a
saint of Hodgson, as was alleged by a friend who did not believe that
the influences were from a post-carnate world, the drama took a new
turn on December 20, 1905, in the death which Hodgson had eagerly
awaited, and his ostensible reappearances through Mrs. Piper and other
mediums. The principal report of them is made by his friends Professor
William James, Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, Mr. J. G. Piddington and Sir
Oliver Lodge in Pr. XXIII, and occupies some 170 octavo pages, most of
them literal reports of sittings. Other manifestations appear in the
heteromatic writing of Mrs. Holland (Pr. XX) and elsewhere. Of course
but a few entirely inadequate scraps can be given here.
As in the case of G. P., the first appearance did not take place
until, on Dec. 28th, a peculiarly close and congenial friend of
Hodgson happened to have a sitting--an argument of course for
telepathy from the friend, but an equal argument for a genuine
communication that had to await a congenial sitter.
To avoid constant circumlocution, I will provisionally write as if
Hodgson were really speaking. Indeed, I doubt if I could persistently
do otherwise: for the utterances are so natural that all the editors
of the Pr. S. P. R. unconsciously fall into that way of expression.
James says (Pr. XXIII, 7) that the first alleged appearance of
Hodgson:
"was at Miss Theodate Pope's sitting on Dec. 28th, 1905 [the
eighth day after Hodgson's death. Ed.] ... Rector had been
writing, when the hand dropped the pencil and worked convulsively
several seconds in a very excited manner.
"Miss P.: 'What is the matter?' [The hand, shaking with
apparently great excitement, wrote the letter H, ... bearing down
so hard on the paper that the point of the pencil was broken. It
then wrote 'Hodgson.']
Was all this a "put-up job?" And if so, who put it up, and why?
"Miss P.: 'God bless you!' [The hand writes 'I am'--followed by
rapid scrawls, as if regulator of machine were out of order.]
Miss P.: 'Is this my friend?' [Hand assents by knocking five
times on paper-pad.] (Rector): 'Peace, friends, he is here, it
was he, but he could not remain, he was so choked. He is doing
all in his power to return.... Better wait for a few moments
until he breathes freer again.'"
Do spirits require a supply of oxygen, or is the expression
metaphorical for something not accurately communicable to our
intelligence? It occurs several times. Frequently the "spirits" say
they are tired, especially in the transition from the body. The
expression "choked" may be purely metaphorical, yet it hardly
reinforces the argument for spiritism.
James says (Pr. XXIII, 13f.):
"The R. H. control suddenly wrote: 'Give ring to Margaret back to
Margaret.' [Mrs. Lyman's name [pseudonym. Ed.] is not Margaret.]
Miss P.: 'Who is Margaret?' R. H.: 'I was with her in summer.'
Miss P.: 'All right, but the ring has not been found yet. Can you
find out where it is?' R. H.: 'The undertaker got it....'"
"On January 24th, Mrs. Lyman had her first sitting. As soon as
Hodgson appeared he wrote: 'The ring. You gave it me on my
fiftieth birthday. When they asked I didn't want to say you gave
it me.... Two palm-leaves joining each other--Greek. [Here
followed an illegible word. The palms truly described the ring,
which Mrs. Piper probably had seen; but it bore no Greek
inscription....]' Mrs. L.: 'Yes, Dick, where is it now?' R. H.:
'... They took it off my finger after I was gone.' Mrs. L.: 'No,
they didn't find it on your finger.' R. H.: 'Pocket, it was in my
pocket. I'll find it, you shall have it.'
"On January 29th, Mrs. L. had another sitting. The Hodgson
control wrote: 'I have been trying to make clear about that ring.
It is on my mind all the time. I thought if I could get Margaret
B. to get it for me, I would get it to you through her, then no
one would understand. I could not tell Miss Pope about you.'
[Then a possible attempt to draw a symbol engraved on the ring.]
'No one living knows this but myself and yourself.' [Note the
term 'living' as applied to himself. Ed.] Mrs. L.: 'That is true,
but what was the motto in the ring?' R. H.: 'All will be clear
to me in time. Do not ask me test questions now....'"
His failure to remember it is one of the most knock-down
anti-evidential arguments, but it is equally anti-telepathic. His
never speaking of the ring to other friends, the Jameses, and Mr.
Dorr, seems very evidential.
* * * * *
Hodgson (or the control, if you prefer, whatever that may mean), kept
worrying about the ring through several sittings, and got so far as to
imagine that he had seen it on the finger of a man who stole it. It
was eventually found in Hodgson's waistcoat pocket. James comments on
the case:
"The whole incident lends itself easily to a naturalistic
interpretation. Mrs. Piper or her trance-consciousness may
possibly have suspected the source of the ring. Mrs. Lyman's
manner may have confirmed the suspicion. The manner in which the
first misleading reference to 'Margaret' was afterwards explained
away may well have been the cunning of a 'control' trying
plausibly to cover his tracks and justify his professed
identity."
But, please, what is a "control"? And why does one want to be taken
for somebody else? Is this explanation "naturalistic"? It seems to my
poor wits to grant the whole case, and reminds me of the deniers of
telepathy availing themselves of it to explain away spiritism. Or does
James mean a control faked by Mrs. Piper? If he had not already grown
past that, he gave indications that he had later. He continues:
"The description of the house and of the man to whom he ascribes
its [the ring's. Ed.] present possession sounds like vague
groping, characteristic also of control-cunning."
But why should there be "control-cunning"? Is it anything like
commentator-cunning?