anaesthesia had ceased, her pulse rose to 120, and at the end of half an
hour she was herself. "Our first visit ended here. At half-past eleven
we made another. The poor child had resumed her attitude of extreme
suffering, against which she contended with all the energy that remained
to her. The wounds in the hands still continued to bleed. M. Verriest
auscultated with care the lungs, heart, and great vessels, and found the
_bruit de souffle_, which he had detected in the morning at the apex of
the heart and over the carotids. The handle of a spoon pressed against
the velum, the base of the tongue, and the pharynx, provoked no effort
at vomiting. The glasses of our spectacles, as they came in contact with
the air expired, were covered with vapor. As the patient appeared to
suffer from our presence, we went away.
"We made our third visit at two o'clock. There were still fifteen
minutes before the beginning of the ecstatic crisis, which always took
place punctually at a quarter past two and ended at about half past
four. The pupils at this time were slightly contracted, the eyelids were
almost entirely closed; the eyes, looking at nothing, were veiled from
our view. We tried in vain to attract her attention; her mind was
otherwise engaged, and her pains were evidently becoming more intense.
At exactly a quarter past two her eyes became fixed in a direction above
and to the right. The ecstasy had begun.
"The time had now come to introduce those who were prompted by
curiosity. This could now be done without inconvenience, for the
ecstatic, for the ensuing two hours, would be lost to the appreciation
of what might be passing around her. The room crowded, could hold about
ten persons, but enough were allowed to enter to make the total
twenty-five. These placed themselves in two ranks, of which the front
one kneeling, allowed the rear ones to see all that was going on. All
this was done under the direction of M. le Cure, who took every pains to
give us a good view of what was going to happen.
"Louise was seated on the edge of her chair; her body, inclined forward,
seemed to wish to follow the direction of her eyes, which did not look,
but were fixed on vacancy. Her eyes were opened to their fullest
extent, of a dull, lustreless appearance, turned above and to the right,
and of an absolute immobility. A few workings of the lids were now
observed and became more frequent if the eyelids were touched. The
pupils, largely dilated, showed very little sensibility to light, and
all that remained of vision was shown by slight winking when the hand
was suddenly brought close to the eyes. The whole face lacked
expression. At certain moments, either spontaneously or as a consequence
of divers provocations, a light smile, to which the muscles of the face
generally did not contribute, wandered over her lips. Then the face
resumed its primitive expression, and thus she remained for the
half-hour which constituted the 'first station.'
"The 'second station' was that of genuflection. It had failed at one
time, but had again appeared. The young girl fell on her knees, clasped
her hands, and remained for about a quarter of an hour in the attitude
of contemplation. Then she arose and again resumed her sitting posture.
"The 'third station' began at three o'clock. Louise inclined herself a
little forward, raised her body slowly, and then extended herself at
full length, face downward, on the floor. There was neither rigidity nor
extreme precipitation; nothing in fact, calculated to produce injuries.
The knees first supported her body, then it rested on these and the
elbows, and finally her face was brought in actual close contact with
the tiled floor. At first the head rested on the left arm, but very soon
the patient made a quick and sudden movement, and the arms were extended
from the body in the form of a cross. At the same time the feet were
brought together so that the dorsum of the right was in contact with
the sole of the left foot. This position did not vary for an hour and a
half. When the end of the crisis approached, the arms were brought close
to the sides of the body, then suddenly the poor girl rose to her knees,
her face turns to the wall, her cheeks become colored, her eyes have
regained their expression, her countenance expands, and the ecstasy is
at an end."
Further particulars are given, and an apparatus was constructed and
applied to Louise's hand and arm so as to prevent any external
excitation of the haemorrhage. It was apparently shown that there was no
such interference, for the blood began to flow at the usual time on
Friday.
In addition to the stigmata and the paroxysms of ecstasy, Louise
declared that she did not sleep, had eaten or drank nothing for four
years, had had no faecal evacuation for three years and a half, and that
the urine was entirely suppressed.
M. Warlomont examined the blood and products of respiration chemically,
and satisfied himself of their normal character, except that the former
contained an excessive amount of white corpuscles.
When being closely interrogated, Louise admitted that, though she did
not sleep, she had short periods of forgetfulness at night. On M.
Warlomont suddenly opening a cupboard in her room, he found it to
contain fruit and bread, and her chamber communicated directly with a
yard at the back of the house. It was therefore perfectly possible for
her to have slept, eaten, defecated, and urinated, without any one
knowing that she did so.
The conclusions arrived at by M. Warlomont were, that the
stigmatizations and ecstasies of Louise Lateau were real and to be
explained upon well-known physiological and pathological principles,
that she "worked, and dispensed heat, that she lost every Friday a
certain quantity of blood by the stigmata, that the air she expired
contained the vapor of water and carbonic acid, that her weight had not
materially altered since she had come under observation. She consumes
carbon and it is not from her own body that she gets it. Where does she
get it from? Physiology answers, 'She eats.'"
Relative to the assumed abstinence in the cases of Palma d'Oria, Louise
Lateau and other subjects of ecstasy and stigmata, it is not necessary,
in view of the remarks already made on this subject in a previous
chapter, to devote further consideration to it here. The conclusion
arrived at by M. Warlomont is the only one which science can tolerate.
Should Louise Lateau or Palma d'Oria ever be subjected to as close
watching as was the poor little Welsh Fasting Girl, Sarah Jacob, it will
certainly terminate as badly for them as for her, unless they yield to
the demands of nature and take the food which the organism requires.
FOOTNOTES:
[11] Les Stigmatisees; Palma d'Oria, etc. 2d Edition, Paris, 1873, p.
263.
[12] Op. cit., t. ii.
[13] For the theological view of this remarkable case the reader is
referred to the following works, a part only of those written in support
of her pretensions. "Louise Lateau de Bois-d'Haine, sa vie, ses extases,
ses stigmates: etude Medicale," par le Dr. Lefebvre, Louvain, 1873. "Les
stigmatisees; Louise Lateau, etc.," par le Docteur A. Imbert-Gourbeyre,
Paris, 1873. "Biographie de Louise Lateau," par H. Van Looy, Tournai,
Paris and Leipzig, 1874. "Louise Lateau de Bois-d'Haine etc.," par le
Dr. A. Rohling, Paris, 1874. "Louise Lateau, ihr Wunderleben u.s.w.,"
Von Paul Majunke, Berlin, 1875.
Among the treatises in which the miracle is denied, and the phenomena
attributed to either disease or fraud are; "Louise Lateau; Rapport
Medical sur la stigmatisee de Bois-d'Haine, fait a l'academie royale de
medecine de Belgique," par le Dr. Warlomont, Bruxelles and Paris, 1875.
"Science et miracle, Louise Lateau, ou la stigmatisee Belge," par le Dr.
Bourneville, Paris, 1875. "Les Miracles," par M. Virchow, Revue des
cours scientifiques, January 23rd 1875.
IV.
THE BROOKLYN CASE.
For several years past there have been rumors more or less definite in
character that a young lady in Brooklyn was not only living without
food, but was possessed of some mysterious faculty by which she could
foretell events, read communications without the aid of the eyes, and
accurately describe occurrences in distant places, through clairvoyance
or whatever other name may be applied to the influence.
Finally, in the _New York Herald_ of October 20th, 1878, appeared an
account, headed "Life without Food. An Invalid Lady who for fourteen
years has lived without nourishment." As this account is apparently
authentic, and as the statements made have never been contradicted, I do
not hesitate to quote from it. Some of the letters which have appeared
in response to a proposition I offered, and to which fuller reference
will presently be made, have accused me of dragging the young lady
before the public. It will be seen, however, that her friends and
physicians are responsible for all the publicity given to the case.
Leaving out of consideration for the present the alleged marvellous
endowments of this young lady, as regards seeing without her eyes,
second sight, etc., I quote from the _Herald_ the essential points
relative to her clinical history and abstinence from food:
"In a modest, secluded house at the corner of Myrtle Avenue and Downing
Street, Brooklyn, lives an invalid lady afflicted with paralysis, with a
history so remarkable and extraordinary that, notwithstanding it is
vouched for by physicians of standing, it is almost incredible. It is
claimed that for a period of nearly fourteen years she has lived
absolutely without food or nourishment of any kind. The case has been
kept by the family of the patient a well guarded secret, it having led
them to a strict seclusion as the only means of protection against the
visits of the curious and incredulous.
"The name of the remarkable person is Miss Mollie Fancher. To the half
dozen medical gentlemen who have seen and attended her, her case is
inexplicable. To learn the history of the strange case a _Herald_
reporter yesterday called on several persons familiar with the facts.
The first person seen was Dr. Ormiston, of No. 74 Hanson Place,
Brooklyn, who attended her. He said:--'It seems incredible, but from
everything I can learn Mollie Fancher never eats. The elder Miss
Fancher, her aunt, who takes care of her, is a lady of the highest
intelligence. She was at one time quite wealthy, and she has at present
a comfortable income. I have every reason to believe that her statements
are in every detail reliable. During a dozen visits to the sick chamber
I have never detected evidence of the patient having eaten a morsel.'"
After interviewing a lady intimate with the family, the reporter sought
out Dr. Speir, the attending physician of the patient, and thus details
his experience with that gentleman:
"Dr. Speir was found in his comfortable little office, and the errand of
the writer made known:--
"'Is it true, Doctor, that a patient of yours has lived for fourteen
years without taking food?'
"'If you refer to Miss Fancher, yes. She became my patient in 1864. Her
case is a most remarkable one.'
"'But has she eaten nothing during all these years?'
"'I can safely say she has not.'
"'Are the family also willing to vouch for the truth of this
extraordinary statement?'
"'You will find them very reticent to newspaper men and to strangers
generally. I do not believe any food--that is, solids--ever passed the
woman's lips since her attack of paralysis, consequent upon her mishap.
As for an occasional teaspoonful of water or milk, I sometimes force her
to take it by using an instrument to pry open her mouth, but that is
painful to her. As early as 1865 I endeavored to sustain life in this
way, for I feared that, in obedience to the universal law of nature, she
would die of gradual inanition or exhaustion, which I thought would
sooner or later ensue; but I was mistaken. The case knocks the bottom
out of all existing medical theories, and is, in a word, miraculous.'
"'Did you ever,' asked the reporter, 'make an experiment to satisfy your
professional accuracy in regard to her abstinence?'
"'Several times I have given her emetics on purpose to discover the
truth; but the result always confirmed the statement that she had taken
no food. It sounds strangely, but it is so. I have taken every
precaution against deception, sometimes going into the house at eleven
or twelve o'clock at night, without being announced, but have always
found her the same, and lying in the same position occupied by her for
the entire period of her invalidity. The springs of her bedstead are
actually worn out with the constant pressure. My brethren in the medical
profession at first were inclined to laugh at me, and call me a fool and
spiritualist when I told them of the long abstinence and keen mental
powers of my interesting patient. But such as have been admitted to see
her are convinced. These are Dr. Ormiston, Dr. Elliott and Dr.
Hutchison, some of the best talent in the city, who have seen and
believed.'"
And then the following account is given of the accident from which the
young lady suffered, and to which the remarkable phenomena she is said
to exhibit are ascribed:
"The story of Miss Fancher's accident and its melancholy consequences is
quite affecting. It is collected from the various statements given by
half a dozen friends of the family to the _Herald_ reporter. Interwoven
with it is a thread of romance, a tale of early love and courtship, of a
life embittered by a cruel accident, of patient waiting, and a final
release of the suitor from his engagement to marry another.
"Mary's parents live in a sumptuous dwelling on Washington Avenue,
Brooklyn, and were reported to be wealthy. Their favorite daughter
Mollie, as she was called, was sent to Prof. West's High School in
Brooklyn at an early age, and here developed many brilliant qualities of
mind and heart, which augured well for her future. At seventeen she was
pretty, petite and well cultivated. As a member of the Washington Avenue
Baptist Sunday School, she met and learned to love a classmate, named
John Taylor. An engagement followed the intimacy of the Sunday School
class, and the young people looked forward with buoyant spirits to the
bright life so soon to dawn upon them.
"But fate decreed differently. While getting off a Fulton Street car one
day in 1864, on her return from school, the young lady slipped and fell
backward. Her skirt caught on the step unseen by the conductor, who
started the car on its way again. The poor girl was dragged some ten or
fifteen yards before her cries were heard and the brake applied. When
picked up she was insensible and was carried, suffering intense agony
from an injured spine, to her home near by. Forty-eight hours afterward
she was seized with a violent spasm which lasted for over two days. Then
came a trance, when the sufferer grew cold and rigid, with no evidence
of life beyond a warm spot under the left breast, where feeble
pulsations of her heart were detected by Dr. Speir. Only this gentleman
believed she was alive, and it was due to his constant assertion of the
girl's ultimate recovery that Miss Fancher was not buried. Despite the
best medical help and the application of restoratives, no change was
brought about in the patient's condition until the tenth week, when the
strange suspension of life ceased and breath was once more inhaled and
breathed forth from her lungs.
"To their dismay the doctors then found that Mollie had lost her sight
and the power of deglutition, the latter affliction rendering it
impossible for her to swallow food or even articulate by the use of
tongue or lip. Previous to her trance a moderate quantity of food had
been given her each day; but since then she has not taken a mouthful of
life-sustaining food. Spasms and trances alternated with alarming
frequency since Miss Fancher was first attacked. First her limbs only
became rigid and disturbed at the caprice of her strange malady; but as
time passed her whole frame writhed as if in great pain, requiring to be
held by main force in order to remain in the bed. She could swallow
nothing, and lay utterly helpless until moved."
In the _Sun_, of November 24th, 1878, a fuller account of this young
lady was given, mainly however, in regard to her "clairvoyant," or
"second-sight" power. Relative to her abstinence from food, I quote the
following conversation between the reporter and Dr. Speir.
"'Is it true that she has not partaken of food in all these thirteen
years?'
"'No: I cannot say that she has not; I have not been constantly with her
for thirteen years; she may have taken food in my absence. Her friends
have used every device to make her take nourishment. Food has been
forced upon her, and artificial means have been resorted to that it
might be carried to her stomach. Nevertheless, the amount in the
aggregate must have been very small in all these years.'
"'You have considered the case of such extraordinary importance as to
take many physicians to see it?'
"'I have, and it has excited very much of attention. I have letters
about it from far and near, and the medical journals have asked for
information.'"
And this with Dr. Ormiston:
"Dr. Robert Ormiston, who has been one of Miss Fancher's physicians from
the first, who has seen her constantly in all the different conditions
of her system, said yesterday that he was convinced that there could be
no deception. He could find no motive for it, and he did not believe
that she had attempted it. As to her not partaking of food, he had with
Dr. Speir made tests that satisfied him that she ate no more than she
pretended to, and in the aggregate it had not, in all these years,
amounted to more than the amount eaten at a single meal by a healthy
man. Dr. Ormiston narrated many curious incidents of the girl's illness,
and verified the facts of her physical condition as narrated elsewhere."
In order that no injustice may be done to these gentlemen, I quote the
following from the _Sun_ of November 26th:
"Dr. R. Fleet Speir, one of Miss Fancher's physicians, smiled last
evening when the _Sun_ reporter asked him what he thought of Dr.
Hammond's opinions on the case. 'I probably have just as high an opinion
of Dr. Hammond's opinions as Dr. Hammond has of mine,' he said. 'My
opinion on the case of Miss Fancher I have always refused to give to any
one. When I first took the case, years ago, I told the family that I
would not give them an opinion on it; that I would do what I could with
it, and that I hoped to bring about a cure. I do not believe in
clairvoyance or second sight, or anything of the kind. I think I stand
with the most rigid school on that subject.'
"'But do you think Miss Fancher deceives or endeavors to?'
"The Doctor smiled again. 'Now I do not want you to interview me on
that. My theory has along been to do nothing to irritate my patient; I
humored her, and have endeavored in that way to get her confidence, to
get complete control of her, if possible. In that way I may get her
mind diverted, and by and by get her out of bed. I have hoped to see her
cured. I do not see what earthly good a scientific investigation would
do her. On the contrary, it would harm her. Put a relay of physicians to
watch her, and she would undoubtedly do her best to beat them. She would
hold out against them, and likely as not die.'
"Dr. Robert Ormiston said that he thought that the Brooklyn physicians
knew quite as much about the case as their New York brethren, and that
their opinions were of as much weight. 'It has become a most interesting
case from a medical standpoint, because during her long illness, she has
gone through all the different phases of hysteria that have heretofore
been observed in many different cases. I think I am correct in this
statement.'"
From all that can be ascertained therefore, it appears that the young
lady in question received a severe injury to the spinal cord, in
consequence of which she became paralyzed in the lower extremities, in
which members contractions also took place. It is probable also that the
great sympathetic nerve and brain were involved in the injury.
Confined to her bed, her bodily temperature being low, and passing a
good of her time in trances or periods of insensibility, the
requirements of the system as regarded food would necessarily be
limited. But this is the most that can be said. She _did_ breathe, her
heart _did_ beat, she required _some_ bodily heat, and the various other
functions of her organism could not have been maintained without the
expenditure of matter of some kind. During abstinence from food the body
itself is consumed for these purposes, and there being no renovation,
no supplies from without, it loses weight with every instant of time
until death finally ensues. An emaciated person can withstand this drain
less effectually than one who is stout and fat.
Again, it is said that the food taken by Miss Fancher was at once
rejected. That it was _all_ rejected, is in the highest degree
improbable; a portion remained, and this portion, small as it was, did
good service when very little was required.
Another point: that Miss Fancher was hysterical admits of no doubt.
Hysteria is a disease as much in some cases beyond the control of the
patient as inflammation of the brain or any other disease. A proclivity
to simulation and deception is just as much a symptom of hysteria as
pain is of pleurisy. To say, therefore, that she simulated abstinence
and deceived us to the quantity of food she took, is no imputation on
her honesty, or questioning her possession of as high a degree of honor
and trust, as can be claimed by any one. Other women naturally as moral
as she, have under the influence of hysteria perpetrated the grossest
deceptions, and they are not unfrequently manifested in the very same
way that hers apparently are. Her case is by no means an isolated one;
it is not such as has never been seen before; it does not "knock the
bottom out of all existing medical theories, and is in a word
miraculous," as one of the physicians is reported to have said. On the
contrary, similar ones are often met with as we have seen, and the
following which I quote from Millingen,[14] is so like it in many
respects, that the two might have been formed after a common model, as
in fact they were, just as two or more cases of pneumonia follow a well
defined type.
"Another wonderful instance of the same kind is that of Janet McLeod,
published by Dr. McKenzie. She was at the time thirty-three years of
age, unmarried, and from the age of fifteen had had various attacks of
epilepsy, which had produced so rigid a lock-jaw that her mouth could
rarely be forced open by any contrivance; she had lost very nearly the
power of speech and deglutition, and with this all desire to eat or
drink. Her lower limbs were contracted towards her body; she was
entirely confined to her bed, and had periodical discharges of blood
from the lungs, which were chiefly thrown out by the nostrils. During a
few intervals of relaxation she was prevailed upon with great difficulty
to put a few crumbs of bread comminuted in the hand, into her mouth,
together with a little water sucked from her one hand, and, in one or
two instances, a little gruel, but even in these attempts almost the
whole was rejected. On two occasions also, after a total abstinence of
many months, she made signs of wishing to drink some water, which was
immediately procured for her. On the first trial the whole seemed to be
returned from the mouth, but she was greatly refreshed in having it
rubbed upon the throat. On the second occasion she drank off a pint at
once, but could not be prevailed upon to drink any more, although her
father had now fixed a wedge between her teeth. With these exceptions,
however, she seemed to have passed upwards of four years without either
liquids or solids of any kind, or even an appearance of swallowing; she
lay for the most part like a log of wood, with a pulse scarcely
perceptible for feebleness, but distinct and regular. Her countenance
was clear and pretty fresh; her features neither disfigured nor sunk;
her bosom round and prominent, and her limbs not emaciated. Dr. McKenzie
watched her, with occasional visits, for eight or nine years, at the
close of which period she seemed to be a little improved."