{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12674/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12674","id":"gutenberg_12674","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12674","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Ghosts","Parapsychology -- Early works to 1900"],"text":"Transcribed by David Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk\n\n\n\n\n\nCOCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTO JAMES PAYN, Esq.\n\n\nDear Payn,\n\nSpirits much more rare and valuable than those spoken of in this\nbook are yours.  Whatever 'Mediums' may be able to do, you can\n'transfer' High Spirits to your readers; one of whom does not hope\nto convert you, and will be fortunate enough if, by this work, he\ncan occasionally bring a smile to the lips of his favourite\nnovelist.\n\nWith more affection and admiration than can be publicly expressed,\n\nBelieve me,\n\nYours ever,\n\nANDREW LANG.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nSince the first publication of Cock Lane and Common-Sense in 1894,\nnothing has occurred to alter greatly the author's opinions.  He has\ntried to make the Folklore Society see that such things as modern\nreports of wraiths, ghosts, 'fire-walking,' 'corpse-lights,'\n'crystal-gazing,' and so on, are within their province, and within\nthe province of anthropology.  In this attempt he has not quite\nsucceeded.  As he understands the situation, folklorists and\nanthropologists will hear gladly about wraiths, ghosts, corpse-\ncandles, hauntings, crystal-gazing, and walking unharmed through\nfire, as long as these things are part of vague rural tradition, or\nof savage belief.  But, as soon as there is first-hand evidence of\nhonourable men and women for the apparent existence of any of the\nphenomena enumerated, then Folklore officially refuses to have\nanything to do with the subject.  Folklore will register and compare\nvague savage or popular beliefs; but when educated living persons\nvouch for phenomena which (if truly stated) account in part for the\norigin of these popular or savage beliefs, then Folklore turns a\ndeaf ear.  The logic of this attitude does not commend itself to the\nauthor of Cock Lane and Common-Sense.\n\nOn the other side, the Society for Psychical Research, while\nanxiously examining all the modern instances which Folklore rejects,\nhas hitherto neglected, on the whole, that evidence from history,\ntradition, savage superstition, saintly legend, and so forth, which\nFolklore deigns to regard with interest.  The neglect is not\nuniversal, and the historical aspect of these beliefs has been dealt\nwith by Mr. Gurney (on Witchcraft), by Mr. Myers (on the Classical\nOracles), and by Miss X. (on Crystal-Gazing).  Still, the savage and\ntraditional evidence is nearly as much eschewed by psychical\nresearch, as the living and contemporary evidence is by Folklore.\nThe truth is that anthropology and Folklore have a ready-made theory\nas to the savage and illusory origin of all belief in the spiritual,\nfrom ghosts to God.  The reported occurrence, therefore, of\nphenomena which suggest the possible existence of causes of belief\n_not_ accepted by anthropology, is a distasteful thing, and is\navoided.  On the other hand, psychical research averts its gaze, as\na rule, from tradition, because the testimony of tradition is not\n'evidential,' not at first hand.\n\nIn Cock Lane and Common-Sense an attempt is made to reconcile these\nrather hostile sisters in science.  Anthropology ought to think\nhumani nihil a se alienum.  Now the abnormal and more or less\ninexplicable experiences vouched for by countless living persons of\nhonour and sanity, are, at all events, _human_.  As they usually\ncoincide in character with the testimony of the lower races all over\nthe world; with historical evidence from the past, and with rural\nFolklore now and always, it really seems hard to understand how\nanthropology can turn her back on this large human province.  For\nexample, the famous affair of the disturbances at Mr. Samuel\nWesley's parsonage at Epworth, in 1716, is reported on evidence\nundeniably honest, and absolutely contemporary.  Dr. Salmon, the\nlearned and acute Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, has twice\ntried to explain the phenomena as the results of deliberate\nimposture by Hetty Wesley, alone, and unaided. {0a}  The present\nwriter examined Dr. Salmon's arguments (in the Contemporary Review,\nAugust, 1895), and was able, he thinks, to demonstrate that scarcely\none of them was based on an accurate reading of the evidence.  The\nwriter later came across the diary of Mr. Proctor of Wellington,\nnear Newcastle (about 1840), and found to his surprise that Mr.\nProctor registered on occasion, day by day, for many years,\nprecisely the same phenomena as those which had vexed the Wesleys.\n{0b}  Various contradictory and mutually exclusive theories of these\naffairs have been advanced.  Not one hypothesis satisfies the\nfriends of the others:  not one bears examination.  The present\nwriter has no theory, except the theory that these experiences (or\nthese modern myths, if any one pleases), are part of the province of\nanthropology and Folklore.\n\nHe would add one obvious yet neglected truth.  If a 'ghost-story' be\nfound to contain some slight discrepancy between the narratives of\ntwo witnesses, it is at once rejected, both by science and common-\nsense, as obviously and necessarily and essentially false.  Yet no\nstory of the most normal incident in daily life, can well be told\nwithout _some_ discrepancies in the relations of witnesses.  None\nthe less such stories are accepted even by juries and judges.  We\ncannot expect human testimony suddenly to become impeccable and\ninfallible in all details, just because a 'ghost' is concerned.  Nor\nis it logical to demand here a degree of congruity in testimony,\nwhich daily experience of human evidence proves to be impossible,\neven in ordinary matters.\n\nA collection of recent reports of 'fire-walking' by unscorched\nministrants, in the South Seas, in Sarawak, in Bulgaria, and among\nthe Klings, appeals to the present writer in a similar way.\nAnthropology, he thinks, should compare these reports of living\nwitnesses, with the older reports of similar phenomena, in Virgil,\nin many books of travel, in saintly legends, in trials by ordeal,\nand in Iamblichus. {0c}  Anthropology has treasured the accounts of\ntrials by the ordeal of fire, and has not neglected the tales of old\ntravellers, such as Pallas, and Gmelin.  Why she should stand aloof\nfrom analogous descriptions by Mr. Basil Thomson, and other living\nwitnesses, the present writer is unable to imagine.  The better, the\nmore closely contemporary the evidence, the more a witness of the\nabnormal is ready to submit to cross-examination, the more his\ntestimony is apt to be neglected by Folklorists.  Of course, the\nwriter is not maintaining that there is anything 'psychical' in\nfire-walking, or in fire-handling.  Put it down as a trick.  Then as\na trick it is so old, so world-wide, that we should ascertain the\nmodus of it.  Mr. Clodd, following Sir B. W. Richardson, suggests\nthe use of diluted sulphuric acid, or of alum.  But I am not aware\nthat he has tried the experiment on his own person, nor has he\nproduced an example in which it was successfully tried.  Science\ndemands actual experiment.\n\nThe very same remarks apply to 'Crystal-Gazing'.  Folklore welcomes\nit in legend or in classical or savage divination.  When it is\nasserted that a percentage of living and educated and honourable\npeople are actually hallucinated by gazing into crystals, the\nPresident of the Folklore Society (Mr. Clodd) has attributed the\nfact to a deranged liver. {0d}  This is a theory like another, and,\nlike another, can be tested.  But, if it holds water, then we have\ndiscovered the origin of the world-wide practice of crystal-gazing.\nIt arises from an equally world-wide form of hepatic malady.\n\nIn answer to all that has been urged here, anthropologists are wont\nto ejaculate that blessed word 'Survival'.  Our savage, and\nmediaeval, and Puritan ancestors were ignorant and superstitious;\nand we, or some of us, inherit their beliefs, as we may inherit\ntheir complexions.  They have bequeathed to us a tendency to see the\nviewless things, and hear the airy tongues which they saw and heard;\nand they have left us the legacy of their animistic or\nspiritualistic explanation of these subjective experiences.\n\nWell, be it so; what does anthropology study with so much zest as\nsurvivals?  When, then, we find plenty of sane and honest people\nready with tales of their own 'abnormal' experiences,\nanthropologists ought to feel fortunate.  Here, in the persons of\nwitnesses, say, to 'death-bed wraiths,' are 'survivals' of the\nliveliest and most interesting kind.  Here are parsons, solicitors,\nsoldiers, actors, men of letters, peers, honourable women not a few,\nall (as far as wraiths go), in exactly the mental condition of a\nMaori.  Anthropology then will seek out these witnesses, these\ncontemporary survivals, these examples of the truth of its own\nhypothesis, and listen to them as lovingly as it listens to a\ngarrulous old village wife, or to an untutored Mincopi.\n\nThis is what we expect; but anthropology, never glancing at our\n'survivals,' never interrogating them, goes to the Aquarium to study\na friendly Zulu.  The consistency of this method laisse a desirer!\nOne says to anthropologists:  'If all educated men who have had, or\nbelieve they have had \"psychical experiences\" are mere \"survivals,\"\nwhy don't you friends of \"survivals\" examine them and cross examine\nthem?  Their psychology ought to be a most interesting proof of the\ncorrectness of your theory.  But, far from studying the cases of\nthese gentlemen, some of you actually denounce, for doing so, the\nSociety for Psychical Research.'\n\nThe real explanation of these singular scientific inconsistencies is\nprobably this.  Many men of science have, consciously or\nunconsciously, adopted the belief that the whole subject of the\n'abnormal,' or, let us say, the 'psychical,' is closed.  Every\nphenomenon admits of an already ascertained physical explanation.\nTherefore, when a man (however apparently free from superstitious\nprejudice) investigates a reported abnormal phenomenon, he is\ninstantly accused of _wanting to believe_ in a 'supernatural\nexplanation'.  Wanting (ex hypothesi) to believe, he is unfit to\ninvestigate, all his conclusions will be affirmative, and all will\nbe worthless.\n\nThis scientific argument is exactly the old argument of the pulpit\nagainst the atheist who 'does not believe because he does not want\nto believe'.  The writer is only too well aware that even scientific\nminds, when bent on these topics, are apt to lose balance and\nsanity.  But this tendency, like any other mental bad habit, is to\nbe overcome, and may be vanquished.\n\nManifestly it is as fair for a psychical researcher to say to Mr.\nClodd, 'You won't examine my haunted house because you are afraid of\nbeing obliged to believe in spirits,' as it is fair for Mr. Clodd to\nsay to a psychical researcher, 'You only examine a haunted house\nbecause you want to believe in spirits; and, therefore, if you _do_\nsee a spook, it does not count'.\n\nWe have recently seen an instructive example.  Many continental\nsavants, some of them bred in the straitest sect of materialists,\nexamined, and were puzzled by an Italian female 'medium'.  Effects\napparently abnormal were attested.  In the autumn of 1895 this woman\nwas brought to England by the Society for Psychical Research.  They,\nof course, as they, ex hypothesi, 'wish to believe,' should, ex\nhypothesi, have gone on believing.  But, in fact, they detected the\nmedium in the act of cheating, and publicly denounced her as an\nimpostor.  The argument, therefore, that investigation implies\ncredulity, and that credulity implies inevitable and final\ndeception, scarcely holds water.\n\nOne or two slight corrections may be offered here.  The author\nunderstands that Mr. Howitt does not regard the Australian conjurers\ndescribed on p. 41, as being actually _bound_ by the bark cords\n'wound about their heads, bodies, and limbs'.  Of course, Mr.\nHowitt's is the best evidence possible.\n\nTo the cases of savage table-turning (p. 49), add Dr. Codrington's\ncurious examples in The Melanesians, p. 223 (Oxford, Clarendon\nPress, 1891).\n\nTo stories of fire-handling, or of walking-uninjured through fire\n(p. 49), add examples in The Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol.\nii., No. 2, June, 1893, pp. 105-108.  See also 'At the Sign of the\nShip,' Longman's Magazine, August, 1894, and The Quarterly Review,\nAugust, 1895, article on 'The Evil Eye'.\n\nMr. J. W. Maskelyne, the eminent expert in conjuring, has remarked\nto the author that the old historical reports of 'physical\nphenomena,' such as those which were said to accompany D. D. Home,\ndo not impress him at all.  For, as Mr. Maskelyne justly remarks,\ntheir antiquity and world-wide diffusion (see essays on 'Comparative\nPsychical Research,' and on 'Savage and Classical Spiritualism') may\nbe accounted for with ease.  Like other myths, equally uniform and\nwidely diffused, they represent the natural play of human fancy.\nInanimate objects are stationary, therefore let us say that they\nmove about.  Men do not float in the air.  Let us say that they do.\nThen we have the 'physical phenomena' of spiritualism.  This\nobjection had already occurred to, and been stated by, the author.\nBut the difficulty of accounting for the large body of respectable\nevidence as to the real occurrence of the alleged phenomena remains.\nConsequently the author has little doubt that there is a genuine\nsubstratum of fact, probably fact of conjuring, and of more or less\nhallucinatory experience.  If so, the great antiquity and uniformity\nof the tricks, make them proper subjects of anthropological inquiry,\nlike other matters of human tradition.  Where conditions of darkness\nand so on are imposed, he does not think that it is worth while to\nwaste time in examination.\n\nFinally, the author has often been asked:  'But what do you believe\nyourself?'\n\nHe believes that all these matters are legitimate subjects of\nanthropological inquiry.\n\nLondon, 27th October, 1895.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nNature of the subject.  Persistent survival of certain Animistic\nbeliefs.  Examples of the Lady Onkhari, Lucian, General Campbell.\nThe Anthropological aspect of the study.  Difference between this\nAnimistic belief, and other widely diffused ideas and institutions.\nScientific admission of certain phenomena, and rejection of others.\nConnection between the rejected and accepted phenomena.  The\nattitude of Science.  Difficulties of investigation illustrated.\nDr. Carpenter's Theory of unconscious Cerebration.  Illustration of\nthis Theory.  The Failure of the Inquiry by the Dialectical Society.\nProfessor Huxley, Mr. G. H. Lewes.  Absurdity and charlatanism of\n'Spiritualism'.  Historical aspect of the subject.  Universality of\nAnimistic Beliefs, in every stage of culture.  Not peculiar to\nsavagery, ignorance, the Dark Ages, or periods of Religious crisis.\nNature of the Evidence.\n\nIt is not without hesitation that this book is offered to the\nreader.  Very many people, for very various reasons, would taboo the\nsubjects here discoursed of altogether.  These subjects are a\ncertain set of ancient beliefs, for example the belief in\nclairvoyance, in 'hauntings,' in events transcending ordinary\nnatural laws.  The peculiarity of these beliefs is, that they have\nsurvived the wreck of faith in such elements of witchcraft as\nmetamorphosis, and power to cause tempest or drought.  To study such\nthemes is 'impious,' or 'superstitious,' or 'useless'.  Yet to a\npathologist, or anthropologist, the survivals of beliefs must always\nbe curious and attractive illustrations of human nature.\n\nAges, empires, civilisations pass, and leave some members even of\neducated mankind still, in certain points, on the level of the\nsavage who propitiates with gifts, or addresses with prayers, the\nspirits of the dead.\n\nAn example of this endurance, this secular survival of belief, may\nbe more instructive and is certainly more entertaining than a world\nof assertions.  In his Etudes Egyptiennes (Tome i. fascic. 2) M.\nMaspero publishes the text and translation of a papyrus fragment.\nThis papyrus was discovered still attached to a statuette in wood,\nrepresenting 'the singer of Ammen, Kena,' in ceremonial dress.  The\ndocument is a letter written by an ancient Egyptian scribe, 'To the\nInstructed Khou of the Dame Onkhari,' his own dead wife, the Khou,\nor Khu, being the spirit of that lady.  The scribe has been\n'haunted' since her decease, his home has been disturbed, he asks\nOnkhari what he has done to deserve such treatment:  'What wrong\nhave I been guilty of that I should be in this state of trouble?\nwhat have I done that thou should'st help to assail me? no crime has\nbeen wrought against thee.  From the hour of my marriage till this\nday, what have I wrought against thee that I need conceal?'\n\nHe vows that, when they meet at the tribunal of Osiris, he will have\nright on his side.\n\nThis letter to the dead is deposited in the tomb of the dead, and we\nmay trust that the scribe was no longer annoyed by a Khou, which\nbeing instructed, should have known better.  To take another ancient\ninstance, in his Philopseudes Lucian introduces a kind of club of\nsuperstitious men, telling ghost stories.  One of them assures his\nfriend that the spectre of his late wife has visited and vexed him,\nbecause he had accidentally neglected to burn one of a pair of gilt\nshoes, to which she was attached.  She indicated the place where the\nshoe was lying hidden, and she was pacified.  Lucian, of course,\ntreats this narrative in a spirit of unfeeling mirth, but, if such\ntales were not current in his time, there would have been no point\nin his banter.  Thus the belief in the haunting of a husband by the\nspirit of his wife, the belief which drives a native Australian\nservant from the station where his gin is buried, survived old\nEgypt, and descended to Greece.  We now take a modern instance,\nclosely corresponding to that of the Instructed Khou of the Dame\nOnkhari.\n\nIn the Proceedings of the Psychical Society (part xiv. p. 477) the\nlate General Campbell sends, from Gwalior House, Southgate, N.,\nApril 27, 1884, a tale of personal experiences and actions, which\nexactly reproduces the story of the Egyptian Scribe.  The narrative\nis long and not interesting, except as an illustration of survival,--\nin all senses of the word.\n\nGeneral Campbell says that his wife died in July, 1882.  He\ndescribes himself as of advanced age, and cautious in forming\nopinions.  In 1882 he had never given any consideration to 'the\nsubject of ultra-mundane indications'.  Yet he recounts examples of\n'about thirty inexplicable sounds, as if inviting my attention\nspecially, and two apparitions or visions, apparently of a carefully\ncalculated nature, seen by a child visitor, a blood relation of my\nlate wife, whom this child had never seen, nor yet any likeness of\nher'.  The general then describes his house, a new one, and his\nunsuccessful endeavours to detect the cause of the knocks, raps,\ncrashes, and other disturbances.  Unable to discover any ordinary\ncause, he read some books on 'Spiritualism,' and, finally, addressed\na note, as the Egyptian Scribe directed a letter, to the 'agent':\n{4} _Give three raps if from my deceased wife_!\n\nHe was rewarded by three crashing sounds, and by other peculiar\nphenomena.  All these, unlike the scribe, he regarded as sent 'for\nmy particular conviction and comfort'.\n\nThese instances prove that, from the Australian blacks in the Bush,\nwho hear raps when the spirits come, to ancient Egypt, and thence to\nGreece, and last, in our own time, and in a London suburb, similar\nexperiences, real or imaginary, are explained by the same\nhypothesis.  No 'survival' can be more odd and striking, none more\nillustrative of the permanence, in human nature, of certain\nelements.  To examine these psychological curiosities may, or may\nnot, be 'useful,' but, at lowest, the study may rank as a branch of\nMythology, or of Folklore.\n\nIt is in the spirit of these sciences, themselves parts of a general\nhistorical inquiry into the past and present of our race, that we\nwould glance at the anecdotes, legends, and superstitions which are\nhere collected.  The writer has been chiefly interested in the\nquestion of the Evidence, its nature and motives, rather than in the\nquestion of Fact.  It is desirable to know why independent\nwitnesses, practically everywhere and always, tell the same tales.\nTo examine the origin of these tales is not more 'superstitious'\nthan to examine the origin of the religious and heroic mythologies\nof the world.  It is, of course, easy to give both mythology, and\n'the science of spectres,' the go by.  But antiquaries will be\ninquiring, and these pursuits are more than mere 'antiquarian old\nwomanries'.  We follow the stream of fable, as we track a burn to\nits head, and it leads us into shy, and strange scenes of human\nlife, haunted by very fearful wild-fowl, and rarely visited save by\nthe credulous.  There may be entertainment here, and, to the student\nof his species, there may be instruction.\n\nOn every side we find, as we try to show, in all ages, climates,\nraces, and stages of civilisation, consentient testimony to a set of\nextraordinary phenomena.  Equally diffused we find fraudulent\nimitations of these occurrences, and, on one side, a credulity which\nhas accepted everything, on the other hand, a scepticism which\ndenies and laughs at all the reports.  But it is a question whether\nhuman folly would, everywhere and always, suffer from the same\ndelusions, undergo the same hallucinations, and elaborate the same\nfrauds.  The problem is one which, in other matter, always haunts\nthe student of man's development:  he is accustomed to find similar\nmyths, rites, customs, fairy tales, all over the world; of some he\ncan trace the origin to early human imagination and reason, working\non limited knowledge; about others, he asks whether they have been\nindependently evolved in several places, or whether they have been\ndiffused from a single centre.  In the present case, the problem is\nmore complicated.  Taboos, totemism, myths explanatory of natural\nphenomena, customs like what, with Dr. Murray's permission, we call\nthe Couvade, are either peculiar to barbarous races, or, among the\nold civilised races, existed as survivals, protected by conservative\nReligion.  But such things as 'clairvoyance,' 'levitation,'\n'veridical apparitions,' 'movements of objects without physical\ncontact,' 'rappings,' 'hauntings,' persist as matters of belief, in\nfull modern civilisation, and are attested by many otherwise sane,\ncredible, and even scientifically trained modern witnesses.  In this\npersistence, and in these testimonies, the alleged abnormal\nphenomena differ from such matters as nature-myths, customs like\nSuttee, Taboo, Couvade, and Totemism, the change of men into beasts,\nthe raising of storms by art-magic.  These things our civilisation\nhas dropped, the belief in other wild phenomena many persons in our\ncivilisation retain.\n\nThe tendency of the anthropologist is to explain this fact by\nSurvival and Revival.  Given the savage beliefs in magic, spirit\nrapping, clairvoyance, and so forth, these, like Marchen, or nursery\ntales, will survive obscurely among peasants and the illiterate\ngenerally.  In an age of fatigued scepticism and rigid physical\nscience, the imaginative longings of men will fall back on the\nsavage or peasant necromancy, which will be revived perhaps in some\nobscure American village, and be run after by the credulous and\nhalf-witted.  Then the wished-for phenomena will be supplied by the\ndexterity of charlatans.  As it is easy to demonstrate the quackery\nof paid 'mediums,' as _that_, at all events, is a vera causa, the\ntheory of Survival and Revival seems adequate.  Yet there are two\ncircumstances which suggest that all is not such plain sailing.  The\nfirst is the constantly alleged occurrence of 'spontaneous' and\nsporadic abnormal phenomena, whether clairvoyance in or out of\nhypnotic trance, of effects on the mind and the senses apparently\nproduced by some action of a distant mind, of hallucinations\ncoincident with remote events, of physical prodigies that contradict\nthe law of gravitation, or of inexplicable sounds, lights, and other\noccurrences in certain localities.  These are just the things which\nMedicine Men, Mediums and classical Diviners have always pretended\nto provoke and produce by certain arts or rites.  Secondly, whether\nthey do or do not occasionally succeed, apart from fraud, in these\nperformances, the 'spontaneous' phenomena are attested by a mass and\nquality of evidence, ancient, mediaeval and modern, which would\ncompel attention in any other matter.  Living, sane, and\nscientifically trained men now,--not to speak of ingenious, and\nintelligent, if superstitious observers in the past,--and Catholic\ngleaners of contemporary evidence for saintly miracle, and\nwitnesses, judges, and juries in trials for witchcraft, are\nundeniably all 'in the same tale'.\n\nNow we can easily devise an explanation of the stories told by\nsavages, by fanatics, by peasants, by persons under ecclesiastical\ninfluence, by witches, and victims of witches.  That is simple, but\nwhy are sane, scientific, modern observers, and even disgusted\nmodern sceptics, in a tale, and that just the old savage tale?  What\nmakes them repeat the stories they do repeat?  We do not so much\nask:  'Are these stories true?' as, '_Why are these stories told_?'\nProfessor Ray Lankester puts the question thus, and we are still at\na loss for an answer.\n\nMeanwhile modern science has actually accepted as real, some strange\npsychological phenomena which both science and common-sense\nrejected, between 1720 and 1840, roughly speaking.  The accepted\nphenomena are always reported, historically, as attendant on the\nstill more strange, and still rejected occurrences.  We are thus\nface to face with a curious question of evidence:  To what extent\nare some educated modern observers under the same illusions as Red\nMen, Kaffirs, Eskimo, Samoyeds, Australians, and Maoris?  To what\nextent does the coincidence of their testimony with that of races so\ndifferently situated and trained, justify curiosity, interest, and\nperhaps suspense of judgment?\n\nThe question of the value of the facts is one to be determined by\nphysiologists, physicians, physicists, and psychologists.  It is\nclear that the alleged phenomena, both those now accepted and those\nstill rejected, attend, or are said to attend, persons of singular\nphysical constitution.  It is not for nothing that Iamblichus,\ndescribing the constitution of his diviner, or seer, and the\nphenomena which he displays, should exactly delineate such a man as\nSt. Joseph of Cupertino, with his miracles as recounted in the Acta\nSanctorum {9} (1603-1663).  Now certain scientific, and (as a layman\nmight suppose), qualified persons, aver that they have seen and even\ntested, in modern instances, the phenomena insisted on by\nIamblichus, by the Bollandists, and by a great company of ordinary\nwitnesses in all climes, ages, and degrees of culture.  But these\nfew scientific observers are scouted in this matter, by the vast\nmajority of physicists and psychologists.  It is with this majority,\nif they choose to find time, and can muster inclination for the task\nof prolonged and patient experiment, that the ultimate decision as\nto the portee and significance of the facts must rest.  The problem\ncannot be solved and settled by amateurs, nor by 'common-sense,'\nthat\n\nDelivers brawling judgments all day long,\nOn all things, unashamed.\n\nIgnorance, however respectable, and however contemptuous, is\ncertainly no infallible oracle on any subject.  Meanwhile most\nrepresentatives of physical science, perhaps all official\nrepresentatives, hold aloof,--not merely from such performances or\npretences as can only be criticised by professional conjurers,--but\nfrom the whole mass of reported abnormal events.  As the occurrences\nare admitted, even by believers, to depend on fluctuating and\nunascertained personal conditions, the reluctance of physicists to\nexamine them is very natural and intelligible.\n\nWhether the determination to taboo research into them, and to\ndenounce their examination as of perilous moral consequence, is\nscientific, or is obscurantist, every one may decide for himself.\nThe quest for truth is usually supposed to be regardless of\nconsequences, meanwhile, till science utters an opinion, till Roma\nlocuta est, and does not, after a scrambling and hasty inquiry, or\nno inquiry at all, assert a prejudice; mere literary and historical\nstudents cannot be expected to pronounce a verdict.\n\nSpiritualists, and even less convinced persons, have frequently\ndenounced official men of science for not making more careful and\nprolonged investigations in this dusky region.  It is not enough,\nthey say, to unmask one imposture, or to sit in the dark four or\nfive times with a 'medium'.  This affair demands the close scrutiny\nof years, and the most patient and persevering experiment.\n\nThis sounds very plausible, but the few official men of science,\nwhose names the public has heard,--and it is astonishing how famous\namong his peers a scientific character may be, while the public has\nnever heard of him--can very easily answer their accusers:  'What,'\nthey may cry, 'are we to investigate?  It is absurd to ask us to\nleave our special studies, and sit for many hours, through many\nyears, probably in the dark, with an epileptic person, and a few\nhysterical believers.  We are not conjurers or judges of conjuring.'\nAgain, is a man like Professor Huxley, or Lord Kelvin, to run about\nthe country, examining every cottage where there are rumours of\ncurious noises, and where stones and other missiles are thrown\nabout, by undetected hands?  That is the business of the police, and\nif the police are baffled, as in a Cock Lane affair at Port Glasgow,\nin 1864, and in Paris, in 1846, we cannot expect men of science to\nact as amateur detectives. {11}  Again, it is hardly to be expected\nthat our chosen modern leaders of opinion will give themselves up to\ncross-examining ladies and gentlemen who tell ghost stories.\nBarristers and solicitors would be more useful for that purpose.\nThus hardly anything is left which physical science can investigate,\nexcept the conduct and utterances of the hysterical, the epileptic,\nthe hypnotised and other subjects who are occasionally said to\ndisplay an abnormal extension of the perceptive faculties, for\nexample, by way of clairvoyance.  To the unscientific intelligence\nit seems conceivable that if Home, for example, could have been kept\nin some such establishment as the Salpetriere for a year, and could\nhave been scrutinised and made the subject of experiment, like the\nother hysterical patients, his pretensions might have been decided\non once for all.  But he merely performed a few speciosa miracula\nunder tests established by one or two English men of science, and\nbelievers and disbelievers are still left to wrangle over him:  they\nusually introduce a question of moral character.  Now a few men of\nscience in England like Dr. Gregory about 1851, and like Dr.\nCarpenter, and a larger number on the continent, have examined and\nare examining these peculiarities.  Their reports are often\nsufficiently astonishing to the lay mind.\n\nNo doubt when, if ever, a very large and imposing body of these\nreports is presented by a cloud of scientific witnesses of esteemed\nreputation, then official science will give more time and study to\nthe topic than it is at present inclined to bestow.  Mr. Wallace has\nasserted that, 'whenever the scientific men of any age have denied,\non a priori grounds, the facts of investigation, they have _always\nbeen wrong_'. {12}  He adds that Galileo, Harvey, Jenner, Franklin,\nYoung, and Arago, when he 'wanted even to discuss the subject of the\nelectric telegraph,' were 'vehemently opposed by their scientific\ncontemporaries,' 'laughed at as dreamers,' 'ridiculed,' and so on,\nlike the early observers of palaeolithic axes, and similar\nprehistoric remains.  This is true, of course, but, because some\ncorrect ideas were laughed at, it does not follow that whatever is\nlaughed at is correct.  The squarers of the circle, the discoverers\nof perpetual motion, the inquirers into the origin of language, have\nall been ridiculed, and ruled out of court, the two former classes,\nat least, justly enough.  Now official science apparently regards\nall the long and universally rumoured abnormal occurrences as in the\nsame category with Keely's Motor, and Perpetual Motion, not as in\nthe same category with the undulatory theory of light, or the theory\nof the circulation of the blood.  Clairvoyance, or ghosts, or\nsuspensions of the law of gravitation, are things so widely\ncontradictory of general experience and of ascertained laws, that\nthey are pronounced to be impossible; like perpetual motion they are\nnot admitted to a hearing.\n\nAs for the undeniable phenomenon that, in every land, age, and\ncondition of culture, and in every stage of belief or disbelief,\nsome observers have persistently asserted their experience of these\noccurrences; as for the phenomenon that the testimonies of\nAustralian blacks, of Samoyeds, of Hurons, of Greeks, of European\npeasants, of the Catholic and the Covenanting clergy, and of some\nscientifically trained modern physicians and chemists, are all\ncoincident, official physical science leaves these things to\nanthropology and folklore.  Yet the coincidence of such strange\ntestimony is a singular fact in human nature.  Even people of open\nmind can, at present, say no more than that there is a great deal of\nsmoke, a puzzling quantity, if there be no fire, and that either\nhuman nature is very easily deluded by simple conjuring tricks, or\nthat, in all stages of culture, minds are subject to identical\nhallucinations.  The whole hocus-pocus of 'spirit-writing' on slates\nand in pellets of paper, has been satisfactorily exposed and\nexplained, as a rather simple kind of leger-de-main.  But this was a\npurely modern sort of trickery; the old universal class of useless\nmiracles, said to occur spontaneously, still presents problems of\nundeniable psychological interest.\n\nFor example, if it be granted, as apparently it was by Dr.\nCarpenter, that, in certain circumstances, certain persons, wide\nawake, can perform, in various ways, intelligent actions, and\nproduce intelligent expressions automatically, without being\nconscious of what they are doing, then that fact is nearly as\ninteresting and useful as the fact that we are descended from\nprotozoa.  Thus Dr. Carpenter says that, in 'table-talking,' 'cases\nhave occasionally occurred in the experience of persons above\nsuspicion of intentional deception, in which the answers given by\nthe movements of tables were not only unknown to the questioners,\nbut were even contrary to their belief at the time, and yet\nafterwards proved to be true.  Such cases afford typical examples of\nthe doctrine of unconscious cerebration, for in several of them it\nwas capable of being distinctly shown that the answers, although\ncontrary to the belief of the questioners at the time, were true to\nfacts of which they had been formerly cognisant, but which had\nvanished from their recollection; the residua of these forgotten\nimpressions giving rise to cerebral changes which prompted the\nresponses without any consciousness on the part of the agents of the\nlatent springs of their actions.'  It is, apparently, to be\nunderstood that, as the existence of latent unconscious knowledge\nwas traced in 'several' cases, therefore the explanation held good\nin all cases, even where it could not be established as a fact.\n\nLet us see how this theory works out in practice.  Smith, Jones,\nBrown and Robinson are sitting with their hands on a table.  All, ex\nhypothesi, are honourable men, 'above suspicion of intentional\ndeception'.  They ask the table where Green is.  Smith, Jones and\nRobinson have no idea, Brown firmly believes that Green is in Rome.\nThe table begins to move, kicks and answers, by aid of an alphabet\nand knocks, that Green is at Machrihanish, where, on investigation,\nhe is proved to be.  Later, Brown is able to show (let us hope by\ndocumentary evidence), that he _had_ heard Green was going to\nMachrihanish, instead of to Rome as he had intended, but this\nremarkable change of plans on Green's part had entirely faded from\nBrown's memory.  Now we are to take it, ex hypothesi, that Brown is\nthe soul of honour, and, like Mr. Facey Rumford, 'wouldn't tell a\nlie if it was ever so'.  The practical result is that, while Brown's\nconsciousness informs him, trumpet-tongued, that Green is at Rome,\n'the residue of a forgotten impression' makes him (without his\nknowing it) wag the table, which he does not intend to do, and\nforces him to say through the tilts of the table, that Green is at\nMachrihanish, while he believes that Green is at Rome.\n\nThe table-turners were laughed at, and many, if not all of them,\ndeserved ridicule.  But see how even this trivial superstition\nilluminates our knowledge of the human mind!  A mere residuum of a\nforgotten impression, a lost memory which Brown would have sworn, in\na court of justice, had never been in his mind at all, can work his\nmuscles, while he supposes that they are _not_ working, can make a\ntable move at which three other honourable men are sitting, and can\ntell all of them what none of them knows.  Clearly the expedient of\ntable-turning in court might be tried by conscientious witnesses,\nwho have forgotten the circumstances on which they are asked to give\nevidence.  As Dr. Carpenter remarks, quoting Mr. Lecky, 'our\ndoctrine of unconscious cerebration inculcates toleration for\ndifferences not merely of belief, but of the moral standard'.  And\nwhy not toleration for 'immoral' actions?  If Brown's residuum of an\nimpression can make Brown's muscles move a table to give responses\nof which he is ignorant, why should not the residuum of a forgotten\nimpression that it would be a pleasant thing to shoot Mr. Gladstone\nor Lord Salisbury, make Brown unconsciously commit that solecism?\nIt is a question of degree.  At all events, if the unconscious self\ncan do as much as Dr. Carpenter believed, we cannot tell how many\nother marvels it may perform; we cannot know till we investigate\nfurther.  If this be so, it is, perhaps, hardly wise or scientific\nto taboo all investigation.  If a mere trivial drawing-room\namusement, associated by some with an absurd 'animistic hypothesis,'\ncan, when explained by Dr. Carpenter, throw such unexpectedly\nblinding light on human nature, who knows how much light may be\nobtained from a research into more serious and widely diffused\nsuperstitious practices?  The research is, undeniably, beset with\nthe most thorny of difficulties.  Yet whosoever agrees with Dr.\nCarpenter must admit that, after one discovery so singular as\n'unconscious cerebration,' in its effect on tables, some one is\nbound to go further in the same field, and try for more.  We are\nassuming, for the sake of argument, the accuracy of Dr. Carpenter's\nfacts. {17a}\n\nMore than twenty years ago an attempt was made by a body called the\n'Dialectical Society,' to investigate the phenomena styled\nspiritualistic.  This well-meant essay had most unsatisfactory\nresults. {17b}\n\nFirst a committee of inquiry was formed, on the motion of Dr.\nEdmunds.  The committee was heterogeneous.  Many of the names now\nsuggest little to the reader.  Mr. Bradlaugh we remember, but he\nchiefly attended a committee which sat with D. D. Home, and it is\nadmitted that nothing of interest there occurred.  Then we find the\nRev. Maurice Davies, who was wont to write books of little\ndistinction on semi-religious topics.  Mr. H. G. Atkinson was a\nperson interested in mesmerism.  Kisch, Moss, and Quelch, with Dyte\nand Isaac Meyers, Bergheim and Geary, Hannah, Hillier, Reed (their\nnames go naturally in blank verse), were, doubtless, all most\nestimable men, but scarcely boast of scientific fame.  Serjeant Cox,\na believer in the phenomena, if not in their spiritual cause, was of\nthe company, as was Mr. Jencken, who married one of the Miss Foxes,\nthe first authors of modern thaumaturgy.  Professor Huxley and Mr.\nG. H. Lewes were asked to join, but declined to march to Sarras, the\nspiritual city, with the committee.  This was neither surprising nor\nreprehensible, but Professor Huxley's letter of refusal appears to\nindicate that matters of interest, and, perhaps, logic, are\ndifferently understood by men of science and men of letters. {18}\nHe gave two reasons for refusing, and others may readily be imagined\nby the sympathetic observer.  The first was that he had no time for\nan inquiry involving much trouble, and (as he justly foresaw) much\nannoyance.  Next, he had no interest in the subject.  He had once\nexamined a case of 'spiritualism,' and detected an imposture.  'But,\nsupposing the phenomena to be genuine, they do not interest me.  If\nanybody would endow me with the faculty of listening to the chatter\nof old women and curates in the nearest cathedral town, I should\ndecline the privilege, having better things to do.'  Thus it would\nnot interest Professor Huxley if some new kind of telephone should\nenable him to hear all the conversation of persons in a town (if a\ncathedral town) more or less distant.  He would not be interested by\nthe 'genuine' fact of this extension of his faculties, because he\nwould not expect to be amused or instructed by the contents of what\nhe heard.  Of course he was not invited to listen to a chatter,\nwhich, on one hypothesis, was that of the dead, but to help to\nascertain whether or not there were any genuine facts of an unusual\nnature, which some persons explained by the animistic hypothesis.\nTo mere 'bellettristic triflers' the existence of genuine abnormal\nand unexplained facts seems to have been the object of inquiry, and\nwe must penitently admit that if genuine communications could really\nbe opened with the dead, we would regard the circumstance with some\ndegree of curious zest, even if the dead were on the intellectual\nlevel of curates and old women.  Besides, all old women are not\nimbeciles, history records cases of a different kind, and even some\ncurates are as intelligent as the apes, whose anatomy and customs,\nabout that time, much occupied Professor Huxley.  In Balaam's\nconversation with his ass, it was not so much the fact that mon ane\nparle bien which interested the prophet, as the circumstance that\nmon ane parle.  Science has obviously soared very high, when she\ncannot be interested by the fact (if a fact) that the dead are\ncommunicating with us, apart from the value of what they choose to\nsay.\n\nHowever, Professor Huxley lost nothing by not joining the committee\nof the Dialectical Society.  Mr. G. H. Lewes, for his part, hoped\nthat with Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace to aid (for he joined the\ncommittee) and with Mr. Crookes (who apparently did not) 'we have a\nright to expect some definite result'.  Any expectation of that kind\nwas doomed to disappointment.  In Mr. Lewes's own experience, which\nwas large, 'the means have always been proved to be either\ndeliberate imposture . . . or the well-known effects of expectant\nattention'.  That is, when Lord Adare, the Master of Lindsay, and a\ncloud of other witnesses, thought they saw heavy bodies moving about\nof their own free will, either somebody cheated, or the spectators\nbeheld what they did behold, because they expected to do so, even\nwhen, like M. Alphonse Karr, and Mr. Hamilton Aide, they expected\nnothing of the kind.  This would be Mr. Lewes's natural explanation\nof the circumstances, suggested by his own large experience.\n\nThe results of the Dialectical Society's inquiry were somewhat\ncomic.  The committee reported that marvels were alleged, by the\nexperimental subcommittees, to have occurred.  Sub-committee No. 1\naverred that 'motion may be produced in solid bodies without\nmaterial contact, by some hitherto unrecognised force'.  Sub-\ncommittees 2 and 3 had many communications with mysterious\nintelligences to vouch for, and much erratic behaviour on the part\nof tables to record.  No. 4 had nothing to report at all, and No. 5\nwhich sat four times with Home had mere trifles of raps.  Home was\nill, and the seances were given up.\n\nSo far, many curious phenomena were alleged to have occurred, but\nnow Dr. Edmunds, who started the whole inquiry, sent in a separate\nreport.  He complained that convinced spiritualists had 'captured'\nthe editing sub-committee, as people say, and had issued a report\npractically spiritualistic.  He himself had met nothing more\nremarkable than impudent frauds or total failure.  'Raps, noises,\nand movements of various kinds,' he had indeed witnessed, and he\nheard wondrous tales from truthful people, 'but I have never been\nable to see anything worthy of consideration, as not being accounted\nfor by unconscious action, delusion, or imposture'.  Then the\neditors of the Report contradicted Dr. Edmunds on points of fact,\nand Mr. A. R. Wallace disabled his logic, {21} and Mr. Geary\ndissented from the Report, and the editors said that his statements\nwere incorrect, and that he was a rare attendant at seances, and\nSerjeant Cox vouched for more miracles, and a great many statements\nof the most astounding description were made by Mr. Varley, an\nelectrician, by D. D. Home, by the Master of Lindsay (Lord Crawford)\nand by other witnesses who had seen Home grow eight inches longer\nand also shorter than his average height; fly in the air; handle\nburning coals unharmed, cause fragrance of various sweet scents to\nfill a room, and, in short, rival St. Joseph of Cupertino in all his\nmost characteristic performances.  Unluckily Mr. Home, not being in\nthe vein, did not one of these feats in presence of Mr. Bradlaugh\nand sub-committee No. 5.  These results are clearly not of a\nconvincing and harmonious description, and thus ended the attempt of\nthe Dialectical Society.  Nobody can do otherwise than congratulate\nProfessor Huxley and Mr. Lewes, on their discreet reserve.  The\ninquiry of the Dialectical Society was a failure; the members of the\ncommittees remained at variance; and it is natural to side with the\nsceptics rather than with those who believed from the first, or were\nconverted (as many are said to have been) during the experiments.\nPerhaps all such inquiries may end in no more than diversity of\nopinion.  These practical researches ought not to be attempted by\nthe majority of people, if by any.  On many nervous systems, the\nmere sitting idly round a table, and calling the process a seance,\nproduces evil effects.\n\nAs to the idea of purposely evoking the dead, it is at least as\nimpious, as absurd, as odious to taste and sentiment, as it is\ninsane in the eyes of reason.  This protest the writer feels obliged\nto make, for while he regards the traditional, historical and\nanthropological curiosities here collected as matters of some\ninterest, in various aspects, he has nothing but abhorrence and\ncontempt for modern efforts to converse with the manes, and for all\nthe profane impostures of 'spiritualism'.\n\nOn the question of the real existence of the reported phenomena\nhereafter chronicled, and on the question of the portee of the\nfacts, if genuine, the writer has been unable to reach any\nconclusion, negative or affirmative.  Even the testimony of his\nsenses, if they ever bore witness to any of the speciosa miracula,\nwould fail to convince him on the affirmative side.  There seems to\nbe no good reason why one observer should set so much store by his\nown impressions of sense, while he regards those of all other\nwitnesses as fallible.  On the other hand, the writer feels unable\nto set wholly aside the concurrent testimony of the most diverse\npeople, in times, lands and conditions of opinion the most various.\nThe reported phenomena fall into regular groups, like the symptoms\nof a disease.  Is it a disease of observation?  If so, the topic is\none of undeniable psychological interest.  To urge this truth, to\nproduce such examples as his reading affords, is the purpose of the\nauthor.\n\nThe topic has an historical aspect.  In what sorts of periods, in\nwhat conditions of general thought and belief, are the alleged\nabnormal phenomena most current?  Every one will answer:  In ages\nand lands of ignorance and superstitions; or, again:  In periods of\nreligious, or, so to say, of irreligious crisis.  As Mr. Lecky\ninsists, belief in all such matters, from fairies to the miracles of\nthe Gospel, declines as rationalism or enlightenment advances.  Yet\nit is not as Mr. Lecky says, before reason that they vanish, not\nbefore learned argument and examination, but just before a kind of\nsentiment, or instinct, or feeling, that events contradictory of\nnormal experience seem ridiculous, and incredible.\n\nNow, if we set aside, for the present, ecclesiastical miracles, and\njudicial witchcraft, and fix our attention on such minor and useless\nmarvels as clairvoyance, 'ghosts,' unexplained noises, unexplained\nmovements of objects, one doubts whether the general opinion as to\nthe ratio of marvels and ignorance is correct.  The truth is that we\nhave often very scanty evidence.  If we take Athens in her lustre,\nwe are, undeniably, in an age of enlightenment, of the Aufklarung.\nNo rationalistic, philosophical, cool-headed contemporary of\nMiddleton, of Hume, of Voltaire, could speak more contemptuously\nabout ghosts, and about the immortality of the soul, than some of\nthe Athenian gentlemen who converse with Socrates in the Dialogues.\nYet we find that Socrates and Plato, men as well educated, as\nfamiliar with the refined enlightenment of Athens as the others,\ntake to some extent the side of the old wives with their fables, and\nbelieve in earth-bound spirits of the dead.  Again, the clear-headed\nSocrates, one of the pioneers of logic, credits himself with\n'premonitions,' apparently with clairvoyance, and assuredly with\nwarnings which, in the then existing state of psychology, he could\nonly regard as 'spiritual'.  Hence we must infer that belief, or\ndisbelief, does not depend on education, enlightenment, pure reason,\nbut on personal character and genius.  The same proportionate\ndistribution of these is likely to recur in any age.\n\nOnce more, Rome in the late Republic, the Rome of Cicero, was\n'enlightened,' as was the Greece of Lucian; that is the educated\nclasses were enlightened.  Yet Lucretius, writing only for the\neducated classes, feels obliged to combat the belief in ghosts and\nthe kind of Calvinism which, but for his poem, we should not know to\nhave been widely prevalent.  Lucian, too, mocks frequently at\neducated belief in just such minor and useless miracles as we are\nconsidering, but then Lucian lived in an age of cataclysm in\nreligion.  Looking back on history we find that most of historical\ntime has either been covered with dark ignorance, among savages,\namong the populace, or in all classes; or, on the other hand, has\nbeen marked by enlightenment, which has produced, or accompanied,\nreligious or irreligious crises.  Now religious and irreligious\ncrises both tend to beget belief in abnormal occurrences.  Religion\nwelcomes them as miracles divine or diabolical.  Scepticism produces\na reaction, and 'where no gods are spectres walk'.  Thus men cannot,\nor, so far, men have not been able to escape from the conditions in\nwhich marvels flourish.  If we are savages, then Vuis and Brewin\nbeset the forest paths and knock in the lacustrine dwelling perched\nlike a nest on reeds above the water; tornaks rout in the Eskimo\nhut, in the open wood, in the gunyeh, in the Medicine Lodge.  If we\nare European peasants, we hear the Brownie at work, and see the\nfairies dance in their grassy ring.  If we are devoutly Catholic we\nbehold saints floating in mid-air, or we lay down our maladies and\nleave our crutches at Lourdes.  If we are personally religious, and\npass days in prayer, we hear voices like Bunyan; see visions like\nthe brave Colonel Gardiner or like Pascal; walk environed by an\natmosphere of light, like the seers in Iamblichus, and like a very\nsavoury Covenanting Christian.  We are attended by a virtuous sprite\nwho raps and moves tables as was a pious man mentioned by Bodin and\na minister cited by Wodrow.  We work miracles and prophesy, like Mr.\nBlair of St. Andrews (1639-1662); we are clairvoyant, like Mr.\nCameron, minister of Lochend, or Loch-Head, in Kintyre (1679).  If\nwe are dissolute, and irreligious like Lord Lyttelton, or like\nMiddleton, that enemy of Covenanters, we see ghosts, as they did,\nand have premonitions.  If we live in a time of witty scepticism, we\ntake to the magnetism of Mesmer.  If we exist in a period of learned\nand scientific scepticism, and are ourselves trained observers, we\nmay still watch the beliefs of Mr. Wallace and the experiments\nwitnessed by Mr. Crookes and Dr. Huggins.\n\nSay we are Protestants, and sceptical, like Reginald Scot (1584), or\nWhigs, like De Foe, we then exclaim with Scot, in his Discovery of\nWitchcraft (1584), that minor miracles, moving tables, have gone out\nwith benighted Popery, as De Foe also boasts in his History of the\nDevil.  Alas, of the table we must admit eppur si muove; it moves,\nor is believed by foreign savants to move, for a peasant medium,\nEusapia Paladino.  Mr. Lecky declares (1865) that Church miracles\nhave followed Hop o' my Thumb; they are lost, with no track of white\npebbles, in the forest of Rationalism. {26a}  And then Lourdes comes\nto contradict his expectation, and Church miracles are as common as\nblackberries.  Enfin, mankind, in the whole course of its history,\nhas never got quit of experiences which, whatever their cause, drive\nit back on the belief in the marvellous. {26b}\n\nIt is a noteworthy circumstance that (setting apart Church miracles,\nand the epidemic of witchcraft which broke out simultaneously with\nthe new learning of the Renaissance, and was fostered by the\nenlightened Protestantism of the Reformers, the Puritans, and the\nCovenanters, in England, Scotland and America) the minor miracles,\nthe hauntings and knockings, are not more common in one age than in\nanother.  Our evidence, it is true, does not quite permit us to\njudge of their frequency at certain periods.  The reason is obvious.\nWe have no newspapers, no miscellanies of daily life, from Greece,\nRome, and the Middle Ages.  We have from Greece and Rome but few\nliterary examples of 'Psychical Research,' few collections of books\non 'Bogles' as Scott called them.  We possess Palaephatus, the life\nof Apollonius of Tyana, jests in Lucian, argument and exposition\nfrom Pliny, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Plutarch, hints from Plato,\nPlautus, Lucretius, from St. Augustine and other fathers.  Suetonius\nchronicles noises and hauntings after the death of Caligula, but,\nnaturally, the historian does not record similar disturbances in the\npauperum tabernaae.\n\nClassical evidence on these matters, as about Greek and Roman\nfolklore in general, we have to sift painfully from the works of\nliterary authors who were concerned with other topics.  Still, in\nthe region of the ghostly, as in folklore at large, we have relics\nenough to prove that the ancient practices and beliefs were on the\nordinary level of today and of all days:  and to show that the\nordinary numbers of abnormal phenomena were supposed to be present\nin the ancient civilisations.  In the Middle Ages--the 'dark ages'--\nmodern opinion would expect to find an inordinate quantity of\nghostly material.  But modern opinion would be disappointed.\nSetting aside saintly miracles, and accusations of witchcraft, the\nminor phenomena are very sparsely recorded.  In the darkest of all\n'dark ages,' when, on the current hypothesis, such tales as we\nexamine ought to be most plentiful, even witch-trials are\ninfrequent.  Mr. Lecky attributes to these benighted centuries\n'extreme superstition, with little terrorism, and, consequently,\nlittle sorcery'.  The world was capable of believing anything, but\nit believed in the antidote as well as in the bane, in the efficacy\nof holy water as much as in the evil eye.  When, with the dawn of\nenlightenment in the twelfth century, superstition became cruel, and\nburned witch and heretic, the charges against witches do not, as a\nrule, include the phenomena which we are studying.  Witches are\naccused of raising storms, destroying crops, causing deaths and\nblighting marriages, by sympathetic magic; of assuming the shapes of\nbeasts, of having intercourse with Satan, of attending the Sabbat.\nAll these fables, except the last, are survivals from savage\nbeliefs, but none of these occurrences are attested by modern\nwitnesses of all sorts, like the 'knockings,' 'movements,' 'ghosts,'\n'wraiths,' 'second sight,' and clairvoyance.\n\nThe more part of mediaeval witchcraft, therefore, is not quod\nsemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.  The facts were facts:  people\nreally died or were sterile, flocks suffered, ships were wrecked,\nfields were ruined; the mistake lay in attributing these things to\nwitchcraft.  On the other hand, the facts of rappings, ghosts,\nclairvoyance, in spite of the universally consentient evidence, are\nvery doubtful facts after all.  Their existence has to be\nestablished before we look about for their cause.  Now, of records\nabout _these_ phenomena the Middle Ages produce but a very scanty\nsupply.  The miracles which were so common were seldom of this kind;\nthey were imposing visions of devils, or of angels, or of saints;\nprocessions of happy or unhappy souls; views of heaven, hell, or\npurgatory.  The reason is not far to seek:  ecclesiastical\nchroniclers, like classical men of letters, recorded events which\ninterested themselves; a wraith, or common ghost ('matter of daily\nexperience,' says Lavaterus, and, later, contradicts himself), or\nknocking sprite, was beneath their notice.  In mediaeval sermons we\nmeet a few edifying wraiths and ghosts, returning in obedience to a\ncompact made while in the body.  Here and there a chronicle, as of\nRudolf of Fulda (858), vouches for communication with a rapping\nbogle.  Grimm has collected several cases under the head of 'House-\nsprites,' including this ancient one at Capmunti, near Bingen. {30}\nGervase of Tilbury, Marie de France, John Major, Froissart, mention\nan occasional follet, brownie, or knocking sprite.  The prayers of\nthe Church contain a petition against the spiritus percutiens, or\nspirit who produces 'percussive noises'.  The Norsemen of the Viking\nage were given to second sight, and Glam 'riding the roofs,' made\ndisturbances worthy of a spectre peculiarly able-bodied.  But, not\ncounting the evidence of the Icelandic sagas, mediaeval literature,\nlike classical literature, needs to be carefully sifted before it\nyields a few grains of such facts as sane and educated witnesses\neven now aver to be matter of their personal experience.  No doubt\nthe beliefs were prevalent, the Latin prayer proves that, but\nexamples were seldom recorded.\n\nThus the dark ages do _not_, as might have been expected, provide us\nwith most of this material.  The last forty enlightened years give\nus more bogles than all the ages between St. Augustine and the\nRestoration.  When the dark ages were over, when learning revived,\nthe learned turned their minds to 'Psychical Research,' and Wier,\nBodin, Le Loyer, Georgius Pictorius, Petrus Thyraeus, James VI.,\ncollected many instances of the phenomena still said to survive.\nThen, for want of better materials, the unhappy, tortured witches\ndragged into their confessions all the folklore which they knew.\nSecond sight, the fairy world, ghosts, 'wraiths,' 'astral bodies' of\nwitches whose bodies of flesh are elsewhere, volatile chairs and\ntables, all were spoken of by witches under torture, and by sworn\nwitnesses. {31}  Resisting the scepticism of the Restoration,\nGlanvil, More, Boyle, and the rest, fought the Sadducee with the\nusual ghost stories.  Wodrow, later (1701-1731), compiled the\nmarvels of his Analecta.  In spite of the cold common-sense of the\neighteenth century, sporadic outbreaks of rappings and feats of\nimpulsive pots, pans, beds and chairs insisted on making themselves\nnotorious.  The Wesley case would never have been celebrated if the\nsons of Samuel Wesley had not become prominent.  John Wesley and the\nMethodists revelled in such narratives, and so the catena of\ntestimonies was lengthened till Mesmer came, and, with Mesmer, the\nhypothesis of a 'fluidic force' which in various shapes has endured,\nand is not, even now, wholly extinct.  Finally Modern Spiritualism\narrived, and was, for the most part, an organised and fraudulent\ncopy of the old popular phenomena, with a few cheap and vulgar\nvariations on the theme.\n\nIn the face of these facts, it does not seem easy to aver that one\nkind of age, one sort of 'culture' is more favourable to the\noccurrence of, or belief in, these phenomena than another.\nAccidental circumstances, an increase, or a decrease of knowledge\nand education, an access of religion, or of irreligion, a fashion in\nintellectual temperament, may bring these experiences more into\nnotice at one moment than at another, but they are always said to\nrecur, at uncertain intervals, and are always essentially the same.\n\nTo prove this by examples is our present business.  In a thoroughly\nscientific treatise, the foundation of the whole would, of course,\nbe laid in a discussion of psychology, physiology, and the phenomena\nof hypnotism.  But on these matters an amateur opinion is of less\nthan no value.  The various schools of psychologists, neurologists,\n'alienists,' and employers of hypnotism for curative or experimental\npurposes, appear to differ very widely among themselves, and the\nlayman may read but he cannot criticise their works.  The essays\nwhich follow are historical, anthropological, antiquarian.\n\n\n\n\n\nSAVAGE SPIRITUALISM.\n\n\n'Shadow' or Magic of the Dene Hareskins:  its four categories.\nThese are characteristic of all Savage Spiritualism.  The subject\nsomewhat neglected by Anthropologists.  Uniformity of phenomena.\nMr. Tylor's theory of the origin of 'Animism'.  Question whether\nthere are any phenomena not explained by Mr. Tylor's theory.\nExamples of uniformity.  The savage hypnotic trance.  Hareskin\nexamples.  Cases from British Guiana.  Australian rapping spirits.\nMaori oracles.  A Maori 'seance'.  The North American Indian Magic\nLodge.  Modern and old Jesuit descriptions.  Movements of the Lodge.\nInsensibility of Red Indian Medium to fire.  Similar case of D. D.\nHome.  Flying table in Thibet.  Other instances.  Montezuma's\n'astral body'.  Miracles.  Question of Diffusion by borrowing, or of\nindependent evolution.\n\nPhilosophers among the Dene Hareskins in the extreme north of\nAmerica recognise four classes of 'Shadow' or magic.  Their\ncategories apply sufficiently closely to all savage sorcery\n(excluding sympathetic magic), as far as it has been observed.  We\nhave, among the Hareskins:--\n\n1.  Beneficent magic, used for the healing of the sick.\n\n2.  Malevolent magic:  the black art of witchcraft\n\n3.  Conjuring, or the working of merely sportive miracles.\n\n4.  Magic for ascertaining the truth about the future or the distant\npresent--clairvoyance.  This is called 'The Young Man Bound and\nBounding,' from the widely-spread habit of tying-up the limbs of the\nmedium, and from his customary convulsions.\n\nTo all of these forms of magic, or spiritualism, the presence and\naid of 'spirits' is believed to be necessary, with, perhaps, the\nexception of the sportive or conjuring class.  A spirit helps to\ncure and helps to kill.  The free spirit of the clairvoyant in\nbondage meets other spirits in its wanderings.  Anthropologists,\ntaking it for granted that 'spirits' are a mere 'animistic\nhypothesis'--their appearances being counterfeited by imposture--\nhave paid little attention to the practical magic of savages, as far\nas it is not merely sympathetic, and based on the doctrine that\n'like cures like'.\n\nThus Mr. Sproat, in his excellent work, Scenes and Studies of Savage\nLife, frankly admits that in Vancouver Island the trickery and\nhocus-pocus of Aht sorcery were so repugnant to him that he could\nnot occupy himself with the topic.  Some other travellers have been\nmore inquisitive; unlettered sojourners among the wilder peoples\nhave shared their superstitions, and consulted their oracles, while\none or two of the old Jesuit missionaries were close and puzzled\nobservers of their 'mediumship'.\n\nThus enough is known to show that savage spiritualism wonderfully\nresembles, even in minute details, that of modern mediums and\nseances, while both have the most striking parallels in the old\nclassical thaumaturgy.\n\nThis uniformity, to a certain extent, is not surprising, for savage,\nclassical, and modern spiritualism all repose on the primaeval\nanimistic hypothesis as their metaphysical foundation.  The origin\nof this hypothesis--namely, that disembodied intelligences exist and\nare active--is explained by anthropologists as the result of early\nreasonings on life, death, sleep, dreams, trances, shadows, the\nphenomena of epilepsy, and the illusions of starvation.  This\nscientific theory is, in itself, unimpeachable; normal phenomena,\npsychological and physical, might suggest most of the animistic\nbeliefs. {35}\n\nAt the same time 'veridical hallucinations,' if there are any, and\nclairvoyance, if there is such a thing, would do much to originate\nand confirm the animistic opinions.  Meanwhile, the extraordinary\nsimilarity of savage and classical spiritualistic rites, with the\ncorresponding similarity of alleged modern phenomena, raises\nproblems which it is more easy to state than to solve.  For example,\nsuch occurrences as 'rappings,' as the movement of untouched\nobjects, as the lights of the seance room, are all easily feigned.\nBut that ignorant modern knaves should feign precisely the same\nraps, lights, and movements as the most remote and unsophisticated\nbarbarians, and as the educated Platonists of the fourth century\nafter Christ, and that many of the other phenomena should be\nidentical in each case, is certainly noteworthy.  This kind of\nfolklore is the most persistent, the most apt to revive, and the\nmost uniform.  We have to decide between the theories of independent\ninvention; of transmission, borrowing, and secular tradition; and of\na substratum of actual fact.\n\nThus, either the rite of binding the sorcerer was invented, for no\nobvious reason, in a given place, and thence reached the Australian\nblacks, the Eskimo, the Dene Hareskins, the Davenport Brothers, and\nthe Neoplatonists; or it was independently evolved in each of\nseveral remote regions; or it was found to have some actual effect--\nwhat we cannot guess--on persons entranced.  We are hampered by not\nknowing, in our comparatively rational state of development, what\nstrange things it is natural for a savage to invent.  That spirits\nshould knock and rap seems to us about as improbable an idea as\ncould well occur to the fancy.  Were we inventing a form for a\nspirit's manifestations to take, we never should invent _that_.  But\nwhat a savage might think an appropriate invention we do not know.\nMeanwhile we have the mediaeval and later tales of rapping, some of\nwhich, to be frank, have never been satisfactorily accounted for on\nany theory.  But, on the other hand, each of us might readily invent\nanother common 'manifestation'--the _wind_ which is said to\naccompany the spirit.\n\nThe very word spiritus suggests air in motion, and the very idea of\nabnormal power suggests the trembling and shaking of the place\nwherein it is present.  Yet, on the other side, the 'cold non-\nnatural wind' of seances, of Swedenborg, and of a hundred stories,\nold or new, is undeniably felt by some sceptical observers, even on\noccasions where no professional charlatan is engaged.  As to the\ntrembling and shaking of the house or hut, where the spirit is\nalleged to be, we shall examine some curious evidence, ancient and\nmodern, savage and civilised.  So of the other phenomena.  Some seem\nto be of easy natural invention, others not so; and, in the latter\ncase, independent evolution of an idea not obvious is a difficult\nhypothesis, while transmission from the Pole to Australia, though\nconceivable, is apt to give rise to doubt.\n\nMeanwhile, one phenomenon, which is usually said to accompany others\nmuch more startling, may now be held to have won acceptance from\nscience.  This is what the Dene Hareskins call the Sleep of the\nShadow, that is, the Magical Sleep, the hypnotic trance.  Savages\nare well acquainted with this abnormal condition, and with means of\nproducing it, and it is at the bottom of all their more mysterious\nnon-sympathetic magic.  Before Mesmer, and even till within the last\nthirty years, this phenomenon, too, would have been scouted; now it\nis a commonplace of physiology.  For such physical symptoms as\nintroverted eyes in seers we need look no further than Martin's\naccount of the second-sighted men, in his book on the Hebrides.  The\nphenomenon of anaesthesia, insensibility to pain, in trance, is not\nunfamiliar to science, but that red-hot coals should not burn a seer\nor medium is, perhaps, less easily accepted; while science,\nnaturally, does not recognise the clairvoyance, and still less the\n'spiritual' attendants of the seer in the Sleep of the Shadow.\nNevertheless, classical, modern, and savage spiritualists are agreed\nin reporting these last and most startling phenomena of the magic\nslumber in certain cases.\n\nBeginning with what may be admitted as possible, we find that the\nDene Hareskins practise a form of healing under hypnotic or mesmeric\ntreatment. {38}  The physician (who is to be pitied) begins by a\nthree days' fast.  Then a 'magic lodge,' afterwards to be described,\nis built for him in the forest.  Here he falls into the Sleep of the\nShadow; the patient is then brought before him.  In the lodge, the\npatient confesses his sins to his doctor, and when that ghostly\nfriend has heard all, he sings and plays the tambour, invoking the\nspirit to descend on the sick man.  The singing of barbarous songs\nwas part of classical spiritualism; the Norse witch, in The Saga of\nEric the Red, insisted on the song of Warlocks being chanted, which\nsecured the attendance of 'many powerful spirits'; and modern\nspiritualists enliven their dark and dismal programme by songs.\nPresently the Hareskin physician blows on the patient, and bids the\nmalady quit him.  He also makes 'passes' over the invalid till he\nproduces trance; the spirit is supposed to assist.  Then the spirit\nextracts the _sin_ which caused the suffering, and the illness is\ncured, after the patient has been awakened by a loud cry.  In all\nthis affair of confession one is inclined to surmise a mixture of\nCatholic practice, imitated from the missionaries.  It is also not,\nperhaps, impossible that hypnotic treatment may occasionally have\nbeen of some real service.\n\nTurning to British Guiana, where, as elsewhere, hysterical and\nepileptic people make the best mediums, or 'Peay-men,' we are\nfortunate in finding an educated observer who submitted to be\npeaied.  Mr. Im Thurn, in the interests of science, endured a savage\nform of cure for headache.  The remedy was much worse than the\ndisease.  In a hammock in the dark, attended by a peay-man armed\nwith several bunches of green boughs, Mr. Im Thurn lay, under a vow\nnot to touch whatever might touch him.  The peay-men kept howling\nquestions to the kenaimas, or spirits, who answered.  'It was a\nclever piece of ventriloquism and acting.'\n\n'Every now and then, through the mad din, there was a sound, at\nfirst low and indistinct, and then gathering in volume, as if some\nbig, winged thing came from far towards the house, passed through\nthe roof, and then settled heavily on the floor; and again, after an\ninterval, as if the same winged thing rose and passed away as it had\ncome,' while the air was sensibly stirred.  A noise of lapping up\nsome tobacco-water set out for the kenaimas was also audible.  The\nrustling of wings, and the thud, 'were imitated, as I afterwards\nfound, by skilfully shaking the leafy boughs, and then dashing them\nsuddenly against the ground'.  Mr. Im Thurn bit one of the boughs\nwhich came close to his face, and caught leaves in his teeth.  As a\nrule he lay in a condition scarcely conscious:  'It seems to me that\nmy spirit was as nearly separated from my body as is possible in any\ncircumstances short of death.  Thus it appears that the efforts of\nthe peay-man were directed partly to the separation of his own\nspirit from his body, and partly to the separation of the spirit\nfrom the body of his patient, and that in this way spirit holds\ncommunion with spirit.'  But Mr. Im Thurn's headache was not\nalleviated!  The whirring noise occurs in the case of the Cock Lane\nGhost (1762), in Iamblichus, in some 'haunted houses,' and is\nreported by a modern lady spiritualist in a book which provokes\nsceptical comments.  Now, had the peay tradition reached Cock Lane,\nor was the peay-man counterfeiting, very cleverly, some real\nphenomenon? {40}\n\nWe may next examine cases in which, the savage medium being\nentranced, spirits come to him and answer questions.  Australia is\nso remote, and it is so unlikely that European or American\nspiritualists suggested their ideas to the older blacks (for\nmediumship seems to be nearly extinct since the settling of the\ncountry), that any transmission of such notions to the Black Fellows\nmust be very ancient.  Our authorities are Mr. Brough Smyth, in\nAborigines of Victoria (i. 472), and Messrs. Fison and Howitt, in\nKamilaroi and Kurnai, who tell just the same tale.  The spirits in\nVictoria are called Mrarts, and are understood to be the souls of\nBlack Fellows dead and gone, not demons unattached.  The mediums,\nnow very scarce, are Birraarks.  They were consulted as to things\npresent and future.  The Birraark leaves the camp, the fire is kept\nlow, and some one 'cooees' at intervals.  'Then a noise is heard.\nThe narrator here struck a book against the table several times to\ndescribe it.'  This, of course, is 'spirit-rapping'.  The knocks\nhave a home among the least cultivated savages, as well as in\nmediaeval and modern Europe.  Then whistles are heard, a phenomenon\nlavishly illustrated in certain seances held at Rio de Janeiro {41a}\nwhere children were mediums.  The spiritual whistle is familiar to\nGlanvil and to Homer.  Mr. Wesley, at Epworth (1716), noted it among\nall the other phenomena.  The Mrarts are next heard 'jumping down,'\nlike the kenaimas.  Questions are put to them, and they answer.\nThey decline, very naturally, to approach a bright fire.  The medium\n(Birraark) is found entranced, either on the ground where the Mrarts\nhave been talking, or at the top of a tree, very difficult to climb,\n'and up which there are no marks of any one having climbed'.  The\nblacks, of course, are peculiarly skilled in detecting such marks.\nIn maleficent magic, as among the Dene Hareskins, the Australian\nsorcerer has 'his head, body, and limbs wound round with stringy\nbark cords'. {41b}  The enchantment is believed to drag the victim,\nin a trance, towards the sorcerer.  This binding is customary among\nthe Eskimo, and, as Mr. Myers has noted, was used in the rites\ndescribed by the Oracles in 'trance utterances,' which Porphyry\ncollected in the fourth century.  Whether the binding was thought to\nrestrain the convulsions of the mediums, or whether it was,\noriginally, a 'test condition,' to prevent the medium from cheating\n(as in modern experiments), we cannot discover.  It does not appear\nto be in use among the Maoris, whose speciality is 'trance\nutterance'.\n\nA very picturesque description of a Maori seance is given in Old New\nZealand. {42}  The story loses greatly by being condensed.  A\npopular and accomplished young chief had died in battle, and his\nfriends asked the Tohunga, or medium, to call him back.  The chief\nwas able to read and write; he had kept a journal of remarkable\nevents, and that journal, though 'unceasingly searched for,' had\ndisappeared.  This was exactly a case for a test, and that which was\ngiven would have been good enough for spiritualists, though not for\nmore reasonable human beings.  In the village hall, in flickering\nfirelight, the friends, with the English observer, the 'Pakeha\nMaori,' were collected.  The medium, by way of a 'cabinet,' selected\nthe darkest corner.  The fire burned down to a red glow.  Suddenly\nthe spirit spoke, 'Salutation to my tribe,' and the chief's sister,\na beautiful girl, rushed, with open arms, into the darkness; she was\nseized and held by her friends.  The gloom, the tears, the sorrow,\nnearly overcame the incredulity of the Englishman, as the Voice\ncame, 'a strange, melancholy sound, like the sound of a wind blowing\ninto a hollow vessel'.  'It is well with me,' it said; 'my place is\na good place.'  They asked of their dead friends; the hollow answers\nreplied, and the Englishman 'felt a strange swelling of the chest'.\nThe Voice spoke again:  'Give my large pig to the priest,' and the\nsceptic was disenchanted.  He now thought of the test.  '\"We cannot\nfind your book,\" I said; \"where have you concealed it?\"  The answer\nimmediately came:  \"Between the Tahuhu of my house and the thatch,\nstraight over you as you go into the door\".'  Here the brother\nrushed out.  'In five minutes he came back, _with the book in his\nhand_.'  After one or two more remarks the Voice came, '\"Farewell!\"\n_from deep beneath the ground_.  \"Farewell!\" again _from high in\nair_.  \"Farewell!\" once more came moaning through the distant\ndarkness of the night.  The deception was perfect.  \"A\nventriloquist,\" said I, \"or--or, _perhaps_ the devil.\"'  The seance\nhad an ill end:  the chief's sister shot herself.\n\nThis was decidedly a well-got-up affair for a colonial place.  The\nMaori oracles are precisely like those of Delphi.  In one case a\nchief was absent, was inquired for, and the Voice came, 'He will\nreturn, yet not return'.  Six months later the chiefs friends went\nto implore him to come home.  They brought him back a corpse; they\nhad found him dying, and carried away the body.  In another case,\nwhen the Maori oracle was consulted as to the issue of a proposed\nwar, it said:  'A desolate country, a desolate country, a desolate\ncountry!'  The chiefs, of course, thought the _other_ country was\nmeant, but they were deceived, as Croesus was by Delphi, when he was\ntold that he 'would ruin a great empire'.  In yet another case, the\nMaoris were anxious for the spirits to bring back a European ship,\non which a girl had fled with the captain.  The Pakeha Maori was\npresent at this seance, and heard the 'hollow, mysterious whistling\nVoice, \"The ship's nose I will batter out on the great sea\"'.  Even\nthe priest was puzzled, this, he said, was clearly a deceitful\nspirit, or atua, like those of which Porphyry complains, like most\nof them in fact.  But, ten days later, the ship came back to port;\nshe had met a gale, and sprung a leak in the bow, called, in Maori,\n'the nose' (ihu).  It is hardly surprising that some Europeans used\nto consult the oracle.\n\nPossibly some spiritualists may take comfort in these anecdotes, and\nallege that the Maori mediums were 'very powerful'.  This is said to\nhave been the view taken by some American believers, in a very\ncurious case, reported by Kohl, but the tale, as he tells it, cannot\npossibly be accurate.  However, it illustrates and strangely\ncoincides with some stories related by the Jesuit, Pere Lejeune, in\nthe Canadian Mission, about 1637.  The instances bear both on\nclairvoyance and on the force which is said to shake houses as well\nas to lift tables, in the legends of the modern thaumaturgists.  We\nshall take Kohl's tale before those of the old Jesuit.  Kohl first\ndescribes the 'Medicine Lodge,' already alluded to in the account of\nDene Hareskin magic.\n\nThe 'lodge' answers to what spiritualists call 'the cabinet,'\nusually a place curtained off in modern practice.  Behind this the\nmedium now gets up his 'materialisations,' and other cheap\nmysteries.  The classical performers of the fourth century also knew\nthe advantage of a close place, {45a} 'where the power would not be\nscattered'.  This idea is very natural, granting the 'power'.  The\nmodern Ojibway 'close place,' or lodge, like those seen by old\nJesuit fathers, 'is composed of stout posts, connected with basket-\nwork, and covered with birch bark.  It is tall and narrow, and\nresembles a chimney.  It is very firmly built, and two men, even if\nexerting their utmost strength, would be unable to move, shake, or\nbend it.' {45b}  On this topic Kohl received information from a\ngentleman who 'knew the Indians well, and was even related to them\nthrough his wife'.  He, and many other white people thirty years\nbefore, saw a Jossakeed, or medium, crawl into such a lodge as Kohl\ndescribes, beating his tambour.  'The entire case began gradually\ntrembling, shaking, and oscillating slowly amidst great noise. . . .\nIt bent back and forwards, up and down, like the mast of a vessel in\na storm.  I could not understand how those movements could be\nproduced by a man inside, as we could not have caused them from the\nexterior.'  Two voices, 'both entirely different,' were then heard\nwithin.  'Some spiritualists' (here is the weakest part of the\nstory) 'who were present explained it through modern spiritualism.'\nNow this was not before 1859, when Kohl's book appeared in English,\nand modern spiritualism, as a sect of philosophy, was not born till\n1848, so that, thirty years before 1859, in 1829, there were no\nmodern spiritualists.  This, then, is absurd.  However, the tale\ngoes on, and Kohl's informant says that he knew the Jossakeed, or\nmedium, who had become a Christian.  On his deathbed the white man\nasked him how it was done:  'now is the time to confess all\ntruthfully'.  The converted one admitted the premisses--he was\ndying, a Christian man--but, 'Believe me, I did not deceive you at\nthat time.  I did not move the lodge.  It was shaken by the power of\nthe spirits.  I could see a great distance round me, and believed I\ncould recognise the most distant objects.'  This 'with an expression\nof simple truth'.  It is interesting, but the interval of thirty\nyears is a naked impossibility.  In 1829 there were queer doings in\nAmerica.  Joe Smith's Mormons 'spoke with tongues,' like Irving's\ncongregation at the same time, but there were no modern\nspiritualists.  Kohl's informant should have said 'ten years ago,'\nif he wanted his anecdote to be credited, and it is curious that\nKohl did not notice this circumstance.\n\nWe now come to the certainly honest evidence of the Pere Lejeune,\nthe Jesuit missionary.  In the Relations de la Nouvelle France\n(1634), Lejeune discusses the sorcerers, who, as rival priests, gave\nhim great trouble.  He describes the Medicine Lodge just as Kohl\ndoes.  The fire is put out, of course, the sorcerer enters, the\nlodge shakes, voices are heard in Montagnais and Algonkin, and the\nFather thought it all a clumsy imposture.  The sorcerer, in a very\nsportsmanlike way, asked him to go in himself and try what he could\nmake of it.  'You'll find that your body remains below and your soul\nmounts aloft.'  The cautious Father, reflecting that there were no\nwhite witnesses, declined to make the experiment.  This lodge was\nlarger than those which Kohl saw, and would have held half a dozen\nmen.  This was in 1634; by 1637 Pere Lejeune began to doubt whether\nhis theory that the lodge was shaken by the juggler would hold\nwater.  Two Indians--one of them a sorcerer, Pigarouich, 'me\ndescouvrant avec grande sincerite toutes ses malices'--'making a\nclean breast of his tricks'--vowed that they did not shake the\nlodge--that a great wind entered fort promptement et rudement, and\nthey added that the 'tabernacle' (as Lejeune very injudiciously\ncalls the Medicine Lodge), 'is sometimes so strong that a single man\ncan hardly stir it.'  The sorcerer was a small weak man.  Lejeune\nhimself noted the strength of the structure, and saw it move with a\nviolence which he did not think a man could have communicated to it,\nespecially not for such a length of time.  He was assured by many\n(Indian) witnesses that the tabernacle was sometimes laid level with\nthe ground, and again that the sorcerer's arm and legs might be seen\nprojecting outside, while the lodge staggered about--nay, more, the\nlodge would rock and sway after the juggler had left it.  As usual,\nthere was a savage, Auiskuouaskousit, who had seen a juggler rise in\nair out of the structure, while others, looking in, saw that he was\nabsent.  St. Theresa had done equal marvels, but this does not occur\nto the good Father.\n\nThe savage with the long name was a Christian catechumen, and yet he\nstood to it that he had seen a sorcerer disappear before his very\neyes, like the second-sighted Highlander in Kirk's Secret\nCommonwealth (1691).  'His neibours often perceaved this man to\ndisappear at a certane place, and about one hour after to become\nvisible.'  It would be more satisfactory if the Father had seen\nthese things himself, like Mrs. Newton Crosland, who informs the\nworld that, when with Robert Chambers and other persons of sanity,\nshe felt a whole house violently shaken, trembling, and thrilling in\nthe presence of a medium--not a professional, but a young lady\namateur.  Here, of course, we greatly desire the evidence of Robert\nChambers.  Spirits came to Swedenborg with a wind, but it was only\nstrong enough to flutter papers; 'the cause of which,' as he remarks\nwith naivete, 'I do not yet understand'.  If Swedenborg had gone\ninto a Medicine Lodge, no doubt, in that 'close place,' the\nphenomena would have been very much more remarkable.  In 1853 Pere\nArnaud visited the Nasquapees, and describes a seance.  'The\nconjurers shut themselves up in a little lodge, and remain for a few\nminutes in a pensive attitude, cross-legged.  Soon the lodge begins\nto move like a table turning, and replies by bounds and jumps to the\nquestions which are put to the conjurer.' {48}  The experiment might\nbe tried with a modern medium.\n\nFather Lejeune, in 1637, gives a case which reminds us of Home.\nAccording to Home, and to Mrs. S. C. Hall, and other witnesses, when\n'in power' he could not only handle live coals without being burned,\nbut he actually placed a large glowing coal, about the size of a\ncricket-ball, on the pate of Mr. S. C. Hall, where it shone redly\nthrough Mr. Hall's white locks, but did him no manner of harm.  Now\nFather Pijart was present, tesmoin oculaire, when a Huron medicine-\nman heated a stone red hot, put it in his mouth, and ran round the\ncabin with it, without receiving any harm.  Father Brebeuf,\nafterwards a most heroic martyr, sent the stone to Father Lejeune;\nit bore the marks of the medicine-man's teeth, though Father Pijart,\nexamining the man, found that lips and tongue had no trace of burn\nor blister.  He reasonably concluded that these things could not be\ndone 'sans l'operation de quelque Demon'.  That an excited patient\nshould not feel fire is, perhaps, admissible, but that it should not\nscorch either Mr. Hall, or Home, or the Huron, is a large demand on\nour credulity.  Still, the evidence in this case (that of Mr.\nCrookes and Lord Crawford) is much better than usual.\n\nIt would be strange if practices analogous to modern 'table-turning'\ndid not exist among savage and barbaric races.  Thus Mr. Tylor, in\nPrimitive Culture (ii. 156), quotes a Kutuchtu Lama who mounted a\nbench, and rode it, as it were, to a tent where the stolen goods\nwere concealed.  The bench was believed, by the credulous Mongols,\nto carry the Lama!  Among the Manyanja of Africa thefts are detected\nby young men holding sticks in their hands.  After a sufficient\namount of incantation, dancing, and convulsions, the sticks became\npossessed, the men 'can hardly hold them,' and are dragged after\nthem in the required directions. {50a}  These examples are analogous\nto the use of the Divining Rod, which is probably moved\nunconsciously by honest 'dowsers'; 'sometimes they believe that they\ncan hardly hold it'.  These are cases of movement of objects in\ncontact with human muscles, and are therefore not at all mysterious\nin origin.  A regular case of movement _without_ contact was\nreported from Thibet, by M. Tscherepanoff, in 1855.  The modern\nepidemic of table-turning had set in, when M. Tscherepanoff wrote\nthus to the Abeille Russe:  {50b} 'The Lama can find stolen objects\nby following a table which flies before him'.  But the Lama, after\nbeing asked to trace an object, requires an interval of some days,\nbefore he sets about finding it.  When he is ready he sits on the\nground, reading a Thibetan book, in front of a small square table,\non which he rests his hands.  At the end of half an hour he rises\nand lifts his hands from the surface of the table:  presently the\ntable also rises from the ground, and follows the direction of his\nhand.  The Lama elevates his hand above his head, the table reaches\nthe level of his eyes:  the Lama walks, the table rushes before him\nin the air, so rapidly that he can scarcely keep up with its flight.\nThe table then spins round, and falls on the earth, the direction in\nwhich it falls, indicates that in which the stolen object is to be\nsought.  M. Tscherepanoff says that he saw the table fly about forty\nfeet, and fall.  The stolen object was not immediately discovered,\nbut a Russian peasant, seeing the line which the table took,\ncommitted suicide, and the object was found in his hut.  The date\nwas 1831.  M. Tscherepanoff could not believe his eyes, and searched\nin vain for an iron wire, or other mechanism, but could find nothing\nof the sort.  This anecdote, if it does not prove a miracle,\nillustrates a custom. {51}\n\nAs to clairvoyance among savages, the subject is comparatively\nfamiliar.  Montezuma's priests predicted the arrival of the\nSpaniards long before the event.  On this point, in itself well\nvouched for, Acosta tells a story which illustrates the identity of\nthe 'astral body,' or double, with the ordinary body.  In the witch\nstories of Increase Mather and others, where the possessed sees the\nphantasm of the witch, and strikes it, the actual witch proves to be\ninjured.  Story leads to story, and Mr. Thomas Hardy somewhere tells\none to this effect.  A farmer's wife, a woman of some education,\nfell asleep in the afternoon, and dreamed that a neighbour of hers,\na woman, was sitting on her chest.  She caught at the figure's arm\nin her dream, and woke.  Later in the day she met her neighbour, who\ncomplained of a pain in the arm, just where the farmer's wife seized\nit in her dream.  The place mortified and the poor lady died.  To\nreturn to Montezuma.  An honest labourer was brought before him, who\nmade this very tough statement.  He had been carried by an eagle\ninto a cave, where he saw a man in splendid dress sleeping heavily.\nBeside him stood a burning stick of incense such as the Aztecs used.\nA voice announced that this sleeper was Montezuma, prophesied his\ndoom, and bade the labourer burn the slumberer's face with the\nflaming incense stick.  The labourer reluctantly applied the flame\nto the royal nose, 'but he moved not, nor showed any feeling'.  On\nthis anecdote being related to Montezuma, he looked on his own face\nin a mirror, and 'found that he was burned, the which he had not\nfelt till then'. {52}\n\nOn the Coppermine River the medicine-man, according to Hearne,\nprophesies of travellers, like the Highland second-sighted man, ere\nthey appear.  The Finns and Lapps boast of similar powers.  Scheffer\nis copious on the clairvoyant feats of Lapps in trance.  The Eskimo\nAngakut, when bound with their heads between their legs, cause\nluminous apparitions, just as was done by Mr. Stainton Moses, and by\nthe mediums known to Porphyry and Iamblichus; the Angakut also send\ntheir souls on voyages, and behold distant lands.  One of the oddest\nAngekok stories in Rink's Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo (p.\n324) tells how some children played at magic, making 'a dark\ncabinet,' by hanging jackets over the door, to exclude the light.\n'The slabs of the floor were lifted and rushed after them:' a case\nof 'movement of objects without physical contact'.  This phenomenon\nin future attended the young medium's possessions, even when he was\naway from home.  This particular kind of manifestation, so very\ncommon in trials for witchcraft, and in modern spiritualistic\nliterature, does not appear to prevail much among savages.  Persons\notherwise credible and sane tell the authorities of the Psychical\nSociety that, with only three amateurs present, things are thrown\nabout, and objects are brought from places many miles distant, and\ntossed on the table.  These are technically termed apports.  The\nwriter knows a case in which this was attested by a witness of the\nmost unimpeachable character.  But savages hardly go so far.  Bishop\nCallaway has an instance in which 'spirits' tossed objects into the\nmidst of a Zulu circle, but such things are not usual.  Savages also\nset out food for the dead, but they scarcely attain to the\ncredulity, or are granted the experience, of a writer in the Medium.\n{53}  This astonishing person knew a familiar spirit.  At dinner,\none day, an empty chair began to move, 'and in answer to the\nquestion whether it would have some dinner, said \"Yes\"'.  It chose\ncroquets de pomme de terre, which were placed on the chair in a\nspoon, lest the spirit, whose manners were rustic, should break a\nplate.  'In a few seconds I was told that it was eaten, and looking,\nfound the half of it gone, with the marks showing the teeth.'\nPerhaps few savages would have told such a tale to a journal which\nought to have a large circulation--among believers.\n\nThe examples of savage spiritualism which have been adduced might\nprobably receive many additions; those are but gleanings from a\nlarge field carelessly harvested.  The phenomena have been but\ncasually studied; the civilised mind is apt to see, in savage\nseances, nothing but noisy buffoonery.  We have shown that there is\na more serious belief involved, and we have adduced cases in which\nwhite men were not unconscious of the barbarian spell.  It also\nappears that the now recognised phenomena of hypnotism are the basis\nof the more serious savage magic.  The production of hypnotic\ntrances, perhaps of hypnotic hallucinations, is a piece of knowledge\nwhich savages possessed (as they were acquainted with quinine),\nwhile European physicians and philosophers ignored or laughed at it.\nTobacco and quinine were more acceptable gifts from the barbarian.\nHis magic has now and then been examined by a competent\nanthropologist, like Mr. Im Thurn, and Castren closely observed the\nproceedings of the bound and bounding Shamans among the Samoyeds.\nBut we need the evidence both of anthropologists and of adepts in\nconjuring.  They might detect some of the tricks, though Mr. Kellar,\na professional conjurer and exposer of spiritualistic imposture, has\nbeen fairly baffled (he says) by Zulus and Hindus, while educated\nAmericans are puzzled by the Pawnees.  Mr. Kellar's plan of\ndisplaying a few of his own tricks was excellent:  the dusky\nprofessionals were stimulated to show theirs, which, as described,\nwere miracles.  The Pakeha Maori, already quoted, saw a Maori\nTohunga perform 'a very good miracle as times go,' but he does not\ngive any particulars.  The late Mr. Davey, who started as a\nSpiritualist catechumen, managed, by conjuring, to produce answers\nto questions on a locked slate, which is as near a miracle as\nanything.  But Mr. Davey is dead, though we know his secret, while\nit is improbable that Mr. Maskelyne will enrich his repertoire by\ntravelling among Zulus, Hindus, and Pawnees.  As savages cease to be\nsavages, our opportunities of learning their mystic lore must\ndecrease.\n\nTo one point in this research the notice of students in folklore may\nbe specially directed.  In the attempt to account for the diffusion\nof popular tales, such as Cinderella, we are told to observe that\nthe countries most closely adjacent to each other have the most\nclosely similar variants of the story.  This is true, as a rule, but\nit is also true that, while Scandinavian regions have a form of\nCinderella with certain peculiarities not shared by Southern Europe,\nthose crop up sporadically, far away, among Kaffirs and the Indian\n'aboriginal' tribe of Santhals.  The same phenomenon of diffusion\noccurs when we find savage mediums tied up in their trances, all\nover the North, among Canadian Hareskins, among Samoyed and Eskimo,\nwhile the practice ceases at a given point in Labrador, and gives\nplace to Medicine Lodges.  The binding then reappears if not in\nAustralia, certainly in the ancient Greek ceremonial.  The writer is\nnot acquainted with 'the bound and bounding young man' in the\nintervening regions and it would be very interesting to find\nconnecting cases, stepping-stones, as it were, by which the rite\npassed from the Levant to the frozen North.\n\n\n\n\nANCIENT SPIRITUALISM.\n\n\nM. Littre on 'demoniac affections,' a subject, in his opinion,\nworthy of closer study.  Outbreak of Modern Spiritualism.  Its\nrelations to Greek and Egyptian Spiritualism recognised.  Popular\nand literary sources of Modern Spiritualism.  Neoplatonic\nthaumaturgy not among these.  Porphyry and Iamblichus.  The\ndiscerning of Spirits.  The ancient attempts to prove 'spirit\nidentity'.  The test of 'spirit lights' in the ancient world.\nPerplexities of Porphyry.  Dreams.  The Assynt Murder.  Eusebius on\nAncient Spiritualism.  The evidence of Texts from the Papyri.\nEvocations.  Lights, levitation, airy music, anaesthesia of Mediums,\nancient and modern.  Alternative hypotheses:  conjuring,\n'suggestion' and collective hallucination, actual fact.  Strange\ncase of the Rev. Stainton Moses.  Tabular statement showing\nhistorical continuity of alleged phenomena.\n\nIn the Revue des Deux Mondes, for 1856, tome i., M. Littre published\nan article on table-turning and 'rapping spirits'.  M. Littre was a\nsavant whom nobody accused of superstition, and France possessed no\nclearer intellect.  Yet his attitude towards the popular marvels of\nthe day, an attitude at once singular and natural, shows how easily\nthe greatest minds can pay themselves with words.  A curious reader,\nin that period of excitement about 'spiritualism,' would turn to the\nRevue, attracted by M. Littre's name.  He would ask:  'Does M.\nLittre accept the alleged facts; if so, how does he explain them?'\nAnd he would find that this guide of human thought did not, at\nleast, _reject_ the facts; that he did not (as he well might have\ndone) offer imposture as the general explanation; that he regarded\nthe topic as very obscure, and eminently worthy of study,--and that\nhe pooh-poohed the whole affair!\n\nThis is not very consistent or helpful counsel.  Like the rest of\nus, who are so far beneath M. Littre in grasp and in weight of\nauthority, he was subject to the idola fori, the illusions of the\nmarket-place.  It would never do for a great scientific sceptic to\nsay, 'Here are strange and important facts of human nature, let us\nexamine them as we do all other natural phenomena,' it would never\ndo for such a man to say that without qualification.  So he\nconcluded his essay in the pooh-pooh tone of voice.  He first gives\na sketch of abnormalities in mortal experience, as in the case of\nmental epidemics, of witchcraft, of the so-called prophets in the\nCevennes, of the Jansenist marvels.  He mentions a nunnery where,\n'in the sixteenth century,' there occurred, among other phenomena,\nmovements of inanimate objects, pottery specially distinguishing\nitself, as in the famous 'Stockwell mystery'.  Unluckily he supplies\nno references for these adventures.' {57}  The Revue, being written\nfor men and women of the world, may discuss such topics, but need\nnot offer exact citations.  M. Littre, on the strength of his\nhistorical sketch, decides, most correctly, that there is rien de\nnouveau, nothing new, in the spirit-rapping epidemic.  'These\nmaladies never desert our race.'  But this fact hardly explains\n_why_ 'vessels were dragged from the hands' of his nuns in the\nsixteenth century.\n\nIn search of a cause, he turns to hallucinations.  In certain or\nuncertain physical conditions, the mind can project and objectify,\nits own creations.  Thus Gleditch saw the dead Maupertuis, with\nperfect distinctness, in the salle of the Academy at Berlin.  Had he\nnot known that Maupertuis was dead, he could have sworn to his\npresence (p. 866).  Yes:  but how does that explain volatile pots\nand pans?  Well, there are _collective_ hallucinations, as when the\npersecuted in the Cevennes, like the Covenanters, heard non-existent\npsalmody.  And all witches told much the same tale; apparently\nbecause they were collectively hallucinated.  Then were the\nspectators of the agile crockery collectively hallucinated?  M.\nLittre does not say so explicitly, though this is a conceivable\ntheory.  He alleges after all his scientific statements about\nsensory troubles, that 'the whole chapter, a chapter most deserving\nof study, which contains the series of demoniac affections\n(affections demoniaques), has hardly been sketched out'.\n\nAmong accounts of 'demoniac affections,' descriptions of objects\nmoved without contact are of frequent occurrence.  As M. Littre\nsays, it is always the same old story.  But why is it always the\nsame old story?  There were two theories before the world in 1856.\nFirst there was the 'animistic-hypothesis,' 'spirits' move the\nobjects, spirits raise the medium in the air, spirits are the\nperformers of the airy music.  Then there was the hypothesis of a\nforce or fluid, or faculty, inherent in mankind, and notable in some\nrare examples of humanity.  This force, fluid, agency, or what you\nwill, counteracts the laws of gravitation, and compels tables, or\npots, to move untouched.\n\nTo the spiritualists M. Littre says, 'Bah!' to the partisans of a\nforce or fluid, he says, 'Pooh!'  'If your spirits are spirits, why\ndo they let the world wag on in its old way, why do they confine\nthemselves to trivial effects?'\n\nThe spiritualist would probably answer that he did not understand\nthe nature and limits of spiritual powers.\n\nTo the friends of a force or faculty in our nature, M. Littre\nremarks, in effect, 'Why don't you _use_ your force? why don't you\nsupply a new motor for locomotives?  _Pooh_!'  The answer would be\nthat it was not the volume and market value of the force, but the\n_existence_ of the force, which interested the inquirer.  When\namber, being rubbed, attracted straws, the force was as much a\nforce, as worthy of scientific study, as when electricity is\nemployed to bring bad news more rapidly from the ends of the earth.\n\nThese answers are obvious:  M. Littre's satire was not the weapon of\nscience, but the familiar test of the bourgeois and the Philistine.\nStill, he admitted, nay, asserted strongly, that the whole series of\n'demoniac affections' was 'most worthy of investigation,' and was\n'hardly sketched out'.  In a similar manner, Brierre de Boismont, in\nhis work on hallucinations, explains a number of 'clairvoyant'\ndreams, by ordinary causes.  But, coming to a vision which he knew\nat first hand, he breaks down:  'We must confess that these\nexplanations do not satisfy us, and that these events seem rather to\nbelong to some of the deepest mysteries of our being'. {60}  There\nis a point at which the explanations of common-sense arouse\nscepticism.\n\nMuch has been done, since 1856, towards producing a finished\npicture, in place of an ebauche.  The accepted belief in the\nphenomena of hypnotism, and of unconscious mental and bodily\nactions--'automatisms'--has expelled the old belief in spirits from\nmany a dusty nook.  But we still ask:  '_Do_ objects move untouched?\n_why_ do they move, or if they move not at all (as is most probable)\n_why_ is it always the same story, from the Arctic circle to the\ntales of witches, and of mediums?'\n\nThere is little said about this particular phenomena (though\nsomething is said), but there is much about other marvels, equally\nwidely rumoured of, in the brief and dim Greek records of\nthaumaturgy.  To examine these historically is to put a touch or two\non the picture of 'demoniac affections,' which M. Littre desired to\nsee executed.  The Greek mystics, at least, believed that the airy\nmusic, the movements of untouched objects, the triumph over\ngravitation, and other natural laws, for which they vouch, were\ncaused by 'demons,' were 'demoniac affections'.  To compare the\nstatements of Eusebius and Iamblichus with those of modern men of\nscience and other modern witnesses, can, therefore, only be called\nsuperfluous and superstitious by those who think M. Littre\nsuperstitious, and his desired investigation 'superfluous'.\n\nWhen the epidemic of 'spiritualism' broke out in the United States\n(1848-1852) students of classical literature perceived that\nspiritualism was no new thing, but a recrudescence of practices\nfamiliar to the ancient world.  Even readers who had confined their\nattention to the central masterpieces of Greek literature recognised\nsome of the revived 'phenomena'.  The 'Trance Medium,' the\n'Inspirational Speaker' was a reproduction of the maiden with a\nspirit of divination, of the Delphic Pythia.  In the old belief, the\ngod dominated her, and spoke from her lips, just as the 'control,'\nor directing spirit, dominates the medium.  But there were still\nmore striking resemblances between ancient and modern thaumaturgy,\nwhich were only to be recognised by readers of the late\nNeoplatonists, such as Porphyry, and of the Christian Fathers, such\nas Eusebius, who argued against the apologists of heathenism.  The\ncentral classical writers, from Homer to Tacitus, are not\nsuperstitious; they accept the orthodox state magic of omens, of\naugurs, of prodigies, of oracles, but anything like private\nnecromancy is alien and distasteful to them.  We need not doubt that\nsorcery and the consultation of the dead were being practised all\nthrough the classical period, indeed we know that it was so.  Plato\nlegislates against sorcery in a practical manner; whether it does\nharm or not, men are persuaded that it does harm; it is vain to\nargue with them, therefore the wizard and witch are to be punished\nfor their bad intentions. {62}\n\nThere were regular, and, so to speak, orthodox oracles of the dead.\nThey might be consulted by such as chose to sleep on tombs, or to\nvisit the cavern of Trophonius, or other chasms which were thought\nto communicate with the under world.  But the idea of bringing a\nshade, or a hero, a demon, or a god into a private room, as in\nmodern spiritualism, meets us late in such works as the Letter of\nPorphyry, and the Reply of Iamblichus, written in the fourth century\nof our era.  If we may judge by the usual fortune of folklore, these\nprivate spiritualistic rites, without temple, or state-supported\npriestly order, were no new things in the early centuries of\nChristianity, but they had not till then occupied the attention of\nphilosophers and men of letters.  The dawn of our faith was the late\ntwilight of the ancient creeds, the classic gods were departing,\nbelief was waning, ghosts were walking, even philosophers were\nseeking for a sign.  The mysteries of the East had invaded Hellas.\nThe Egyptian theory and practice were of special importance.  By\ncertain sacramental formulas, often found written on papyrus, the\ngods could be constrained, and made, like mediaeval devils, the\nslaves of the magician.  Examples will occur later.  This idea was\nalien to the Greek mind, at least to the philosophic Greek mind.\nThe Egyptians, like Michael Scott, had books of dread, and an old\nEgyptian romance turns on the evils which arose, as to William of\nDeloraine, from the possession of such a volume. {63}  Half-\nunderstood strings of Hebrew, Syriac, and other 'barbarous' words\nand incantations occur in Greek spells of the early Christian age.\nAgain, old Hellenic magic rose from the lower strata of folklore\ninto that of speculation.  The people, the folk, is the unconscious\nself, as it were, of the educated and literary classes, who, in a\ntwilight of creeds, are wont to listen to its promptings, and return\nto the old ancestral superstitions long forgotten.\n\nThe epoch of the rise of modern spiritualism was analogous to that\nwhen the classical and oriental spiritualism rose into the sphere of\nthe educated consciousness In both periods the marvellous\n'phenomena' were practically the same, and so were the perplexities,\nthe doubts, the explanatory hypotheses of philosophical observers.\nThis aspect of the modern spiritualistic epidemic did not escape\nattention.  Dr. Leonard Marsh, of the University of Vermont,\npublished, in 1854, a treatise called The Apocatastasis, or Progress\nBackwards.  He proved that the marvels of the Foxes, of Home, and\nthe other mediums, were the old marvels of Neoplatonism.  But he\ndraws no conclusion except that spiritualism is retrogressive.  His\nbook is wonderfully ill-printed, and, though he had some curious\nreading, his style was cumbrous, jocular, and verbose.  It may,\ntherefore, be worth while, in the light of anthropological research,\nto show how very closely human nature has repeated its past\nperformances.\n\nThe new marvels were certainly not stimulated by literary knowledge\nof the ancient thaumaturgy.  Modern spiritualism is an effort to\norganise and 'exploit' the traditional and popular phenomena of\nrapping spirits, and of ghosts.  Belief in these had always lived an\nunderground life in rural legend, quite unharmed by enlightenment\nand education.  So far, it resembled the ordinary creeds of\nfolklore.  It is probable that, in addition to oral legend, there\nwas another and more literary source of modern thaumaturgy.  Books\nlike Glanvil's, Baxter's, those of the Mathers and of Sinclair, were\nthumbed by the people after the literary class had forgotten them.\nMoreover, the Foxes, who started spiritualism, were Methodists, and\nmay well have been familiar with 'old Jeffrey,' who haunted the\nWesleys' house, and with some of the stories of apparitions in\nWesley's Arminian Magazine.\n\nIf there were literary as well as legendary sources of nascent\nspiritualism, the sources were these.  Porphyry, Iamblichus,\nEusebius, and the life of Apollonius of Tyana, cannot have\ninfluenced the illiterate parents of the new thaumaturgy.  This fact\nmakes the repetition, in modern spiritualism, of Neoplatonic\ntheories and Neoplatonic marvels all the more interesting and\ncurious.\n\nThe shortest cut to knowledge of ancient spiritualism is through the\nletter of Porphyry to Anebo, and the reply attributed to Iamblichus.\nPorphyry, the disciple of Plotinus, was a seeker for truth in divine\nthings.  Prejudice, literary sentiment, and other considerations,\nprevented him from acquiescing in the Christian verity.  The\nordinary paganism shocked him, both by its obscene and undignified\nmyths, and by many features of its ritual.  He devised non-natural\ninterpretations of its sacred legends, he looked for a visible or\ntangible 'sign,' and he did not shrink from investigating the\nthaumaturgy of his age.  His letter of inquiry is preserved in\nfragments by Eusebius, and St. Augustine:  Gale edited it, and, as\nhe says, offers us an Absyrtus (the brother of Medea, who scattered\nhis mutilated remains) rather than a Porphyry. {65a}  Not all of\nPorphyry's questions interest us for our present purpose.  He asks,\namong other things:  How can gods, as in the evocations of gods, be\nmade subject to necessity, and _compelled_ to manifest themselves?\n{65b}\n\nHow do you discriminate between demons, and gods, that are manifest,\nor not manifest?  How does a demon differ from a hero, or from a\nmere soul of a dead man?\n\nBy what sign can we be sure that the manifesting agency present is\nthat of a god, an angel, an archon, or a soul?  For to boast, and to\ndisplay phantasms, is common to all these varieties. {65c}\n\nIn these perplexities, Porphyry resembles the anxious spiritualistic\ninquirer.  A 'materialised spirit' alleges himself to be Washington,\nor Franklin, or the lost wife, or friend, or child of him who seeks\nthe mediums.  How is the inquirer, how was Porphyry to know that the\nassertion is correct, that it is not the mere 'boasting' of some\nvulgar spirit?  In the same way, when messages are given through a\nmedium's mouth, or by raps, or movements of a table, or a\nplanchette, or by automatic writing, how (even discounting\nimposture) is the source to be verified?  How is the identity of the\nspirit to be established?  This question of discerning spirits, of\nidentifying them, of not taking an angel for a devil, or vice versa,\nwas most important in the Middle Ages.  On this turned the fate of\nJoan of Arc:  Were her voices and visions of God or of Satan?  They\ncame, as in the cases mentioned by Iamblichus, with a light, a\nhallucination of brilliance.  When Jean Brehal, Grand Inquisitor of\nFrance, in 1450-1456, held the process for rehabilitating Joan,\ncondemned as a witch in 1431, he entered learnedly into the tests of\n'spirit-identity'. {66a}  St. Theresa was bidden to try to exorcise\nher visions, by the sign of the Cross.  Saint or sorcerer? it was\nalways a delicate inquiry.\n\nIamblichus, in his reply to Porphyry's doubts, first enters into\ntheology pretty deeply, but, in book ii. chap. iii. he comes, as it\nwere, to business.  The nature of the spiritual agency present on\nany occasion may be ascertained from his manifestations or\nepiphanies.  All these agencies show _in a light_, we are reminded\ninevitably of the light which accompanied the visions of Colonel\nGardiner and of Pascal.  Joan of Arc, too, in reply to her judges,\naverred that a light (claritas) usually accompanied the voices which\ncame to her. {66b}  These things, if we call them hallucinations,\nwere, at least, hallucinations of the good and great, and must be\nregarded not without reverence.  But modern spiritualistic and\nghostly literature is full of lights which accompany\n'manifestations,' or attend the nocturnal invasions of apparitions.\nExamples are so common that they can readily be found by any one who\nstudies Mrs. Crowe's Night Side of Nature, or Home's Life, or\nPhantasms of the Living, or the Proceedings of the Psychical\nSociety.  Meantime Homer, and Theocritus in familiar passages,\nattest this belief in light attendant on the coming of the divine,\nwhile the Norse Sagas, and the well-known tale of Sir Charles Lee's\ndaughter and the ghost of her mother (1662), speak for the same\nbelief in the pre-Christian north, and in the society of the\nRestoration. {67a}  A light always comes among the Eskimo, when the\ntornak, or familiar spirit, visits the Angekok or sorcerer.  Here,\nthen, is harmony enough in the psychical beliefs of all time, as\nwhen we learn that lights were flashed by the spirits who beset the\nlate Rev. Stainton Moses. {67b}  Unluckily, while we have this cloud\nof witnesses to the belief in a spiritual light, we are still\nuncertain as to whether the seeing of such a light is a physical\nsymptom of hallucination.  This is the opinion of M. Lelut, as given\nin his Amulette de Pascal (p. 301):  'This globe of fire . . . is a\ncommon constituent of hallucinations of sight, and may be regarded\nat once as their most elementary form, and their highest degree of\nintensity'.  M. Lelut knew the phenomenon among mystics whom he had\nobserved in his practice as an 'alienist'.  He also quotes a story\ntold of himself by Benvenuto Cellini.  If we can admit that this\nhallucination of brilliant light may be produced in the conditions\nof a seance, whether modern, savage, or classical, we obtain a\npartial solution of the problem presented by the world-wide\ndiffusion of this belief.  Of course, once accepted as an element in\nspiritualism, a little phosphorus supplies the modern medium with a\nrequisite of his trade. {68a}\n\nReturning to Iamblichus, he classifies his phantasmogenetic agencies\nby the _kind_ of light they show; greater or less, more or less\ndivided, more or less pure, steady or agitated (ii. 4).  The arrival\nof demons is attended by disturbances. {68b}  Heroes are usually\nvery noisy in their manifestations:  a hero is a polter-geist,\n'sounds echo around' (ii. 8).  There are also subjective moods\ndiversely generated by diverse apparitions; souls of the dead, for\nexample, prompt to lust (ii. 9).  On the whole, a great deal of\nexperience is needed by the thaumaturgist, if he is to distinguish\nbetween one kind of manifestation and another.  Even Inquisitors\nhave differed in opinion.\n\nIamblichus next tackles the difficult question of imposition and\npersonation by spirits.  Thus a soul, or a spirit, may give itself\nout for a god, and exhibit the appropriate phantasmagoria:  may\nboast and deceive (ii. 10).  This is the result of some error or\nblunder in the ceremony of evocation. {69}  A bad or low spirit may\nthus enter, disguised as a demon or god, and may utter deceitful\nwords.  But all arts, says our guide, are liable to errors, and the\n'sacred art' must not be judged by its occasional imperfections.  We\nknow the same kind of excuses in modern times.\n\nPorphyry went on to ask questions about divination and clairvoyance.\nWe often ascertain the future, he says, in dreams, when our bodies\nare lying still and peaceful:  when we are in no convulsive ecstasy\nsuch as diviners use.  Many persons prophesy 'in enthusiastic and\ndivinely seized moments, awake, in a sense, yet not in their\nhabitual state of consciousness'.  Music of certain kinds, the water\nof certain holy wells, the vapours of Branchidae, produce such\necstatic effects.  Some 'take darkness for an ally' (dark seances),\nsome see visions in water, others on a wall, others in sun or moon.\nAs an example of ancient visions in water, we may take one from the\nlife of Isidorus, by Damascius.  Isidorus, and his biographer, were\nacquainted with women who beheld in pure water in a glass vessel the\nphantasms of future events. {70a}  This form of divination is still\npractised, though crystal balls are more commonly used than\ndecanters of water.  Ancient and modern superstition as in the\nfamiliar case of Dr. Dee, attributes the phantasms to spiritual\nagency\n\nIs a divine being _compelled_, Porphyry asks, to aid in these\nefforts, or is it only the soul of the seer, as some believe, which\nhallucinates itself, by the aid of points de repere? {70b}  Or is\nthere a blending of the soul's operations with the divine\ninspiration?  Or are demons in some way evolved out of something\nabstracted from living bodies?  He seems to hint at some such theory\nof 'exuvious fumes' from the 'circle,' as more recent inquirers have\nimagined.  The young appear to be peculiarly sensitive to vapours,\ninvocations, and other magical methods, which affect the human\nconstitution, and the young are usually engaged as seers.  Hence\nvisions are probably subjective.  Ecstasy, madness, fasts and vigils\nseem particularly favourable to divination.  Or are there certain\nmystic correspondences in the nature of things, which may be\ndetected?  Thus stones and herbs are used in evocations; 'sacred\nbonds' are tied (as in the Eskimo hypnotism and in Australia);\nclosed doors are opened, the heavenly bodies are observed.  Some\nsuppose that there is a race of false and counterfeiting spirits,\nwhich, indeed, Iamblichus admits.  These act the parts of gods,\ndemons, and souls of the dead.  Again, the conjurer plays on our\nexpectant attention.  Omitting some remarks no longer appropriate,\nPorphyry asks what use there is in chanting barbarous and\nmeaningless words.  He is inclined to think that the demon, or\nguardian spirit of each man is only part of his soul,--in fact his\n'subliminal self'.  And generally, he suspects that the whole affair\nis 'a mere imaginative deceit, played off on itself by the soul'.\n\nReplying as to divination, Iamblichus says that the right kind of\ndreams are between sleeping and waking when we hear a voice giving\ndirections.  A modern example occurred in the trial of the Assynt\nmurderer in 1831.  One Kenneth Fraser, called 'the dreamer,' said in\nthe trial:  'I was at home when I had the dream.  It was said to me\nin my sleep by a voice like a man's voice, that the pack (of the\nmurdered pedlar) was lying in sight of the place.  I got a sight of\nthe place just as if I had been awake.  I never saw the place\nbefore, but the voice said in Gaelic, \"the pack of the merchant is\nlying in a cairn of stones, in a hollow near to their house\".  The\nvoice did not name Macleod's house.'  The pack was, however, not\nfound there, but in a place hard by, which Kenneth had _not_ seen in\nhis dream.  Oddly enough, the murderer had originally hidden the\npack, or some of its contents, in a cairn of stones, but later\nremoved it.  In the 'willing game,' as played by Mr. Stuart\nCumberland, the seeker usually goes first to the place where the\nhider had thought of concealing the object, though later he changed\nhis mind.  Macleod was hanged, he confessed his guilt. {71}\n\nIamblichus believed in dreams of this kind, and in voices heard by\nmen wide awake, as in the case of Joan of Arc.  When an invisible\nspirit is present, he makes a whirring noise, like the Cock Lane\nGhost! {72}  Lights also are exhibited; the medium then by some\nmystic sense knows what the spirit means.  The soul has two lives,\none animal, one intellectual; in sleep the latter is more free, and\nmore clairvoyant.  In trance, or somnambulism, many cannot feel pain\neven if they are burned, the god within does not let fire harm them\n(iii. 4).  This, of course, suggests Home's experiments in handling\nlive coals, as Mr. Crookes and Lord Crawford describe them.  Compare\nthe Berserk 'coal-biters' in the saga of Egil, and the Huron coal-\nbiter in the preceding essay.  'They do not then live an animal\nlife.'  Sword points do not hurt them.  Their actions are no longer\nhuman.  'Inaccessible places are accessible to them, when thus borne\nby the gods; and they tread on fire unharmed; they walk across\nrivers. . . .  They are not themselves, they live a diviner life,\nwith which they are inspired, and by which they are possessed.'\nSome are convulsed in one way, some in another, some are still.\nHarmonies are heard (as in Home's case and that of Mr. Stainton\nMoses).  Their bodies are elongated (like Home's), or broadened, or\nfloat in mid-air, as in a hundred tales of mediums and saints.\nSometimes the medium sees a light when the spirit takes possession\nof him, sometimes all present see it (iii. 6).  Thus Wodrow says (as\nwe have already shown), that Mrs. Carlyle's ancestor, Mr. Welsh,\nshone in a light as he meditated; and Patrick Walker tells the same\ntale about two of the fanatics called 'Sweet Singers'.\n\nFrom all this it follows, Iamblichus holds, that spiritual\npossession is a genuine objective fact and that the mediums act\nunder real spiritual control.  Omitting local oracles, and practices\napparently analogous to the use of planchette, Iamblichus regards\nthe heavenly _light_ as the great source of and evidence for the\n_external_ and spiritual character and cause of divination (iii.\n14).  Iamblichus entirely rejects all Porphyry's psychological\ntheories of hallucinations, of the demon or 'genius' as 'subliminal\nself,' and asserts the actual, objective, sensible action of\nspirits, divine or daemonic.  What effect Iamblichus produced on the\ninquiring Porphyry is uncertain.  In his De Abstinentia (ii. 39) he\ngives in to the notion of deceitful spirits.\n\nIn addition to the evidence of Porphyry, Iamblichus, Eusebius and\nother authors of the fourth century, some recently published papyri\nof the same period throw a little light on the late Greek\nthaumaturgy. {73}  Thus Papyrus cxxv. verso (about the fifth\ncentury) 'contains elaborate instructions for a magical process, the\neffect of which is to evoke a goddess, to transform her into the\nappearance of an old woman, and to bind to her the service of the\nperson using the spell. . . .'\n\nObviously we would much prefer a spell for turning an old woman into\na goddess.  The document is headed, [Greek], 'the old serving woman\nof Apollonius of Tyana,' and it ends, [Grrek], 'it is proved by\npractice'.\n\nYou take the head of an ibis, and write certain characters on it in\nthe blood of a black ram, and go to a cross-road, or the sea-shore,\nor a river-bank at midnight:  there you recite gibberish and then\nsee a pretty lady riding a donkey, and she will put off her beauty\nlike a mask and assume the appearance of old age, and will promise\nto obey you:  and so forth.\n\nHere is a 'constraint put on a god' as Porphyry complains.  Reginald\nScot, in his Discovery of Witchcraft (1584), has a very similar\nspell for alluring an airy sylph, and making her serve and be the\nmistress of the wizard!  There is another papyrus (xlvi.), of the\nfourth century, with directions for divination by aid of a boy\nlooking into a bowl, says the editor (p. 64).  There is a long\ninvocation full of 'barbarous words,' like the mediaeval nonsense\nrhymes used in magic.  There is a dubious reading, [Grrek] or\n[Greek]; it is suggested that the boy is put into a pit, as it seems\nwas occasionally done. {74}  It is clear that a spirit is supposed\nto show the boy his visions.  A spell follows for summoning a\nvisible deity.  Then we have a recipe for making a ring which will\nenable the owner to know the thoughts of men.  The god is threatened\nif he does not serve the magicians.  All manner of fumigations,\nplants, and stones are used in these idiotic ceremonies, and to\nthese Porphyry refers.  The papyri do not illustrate the phenomena\ndescribed by Iamblichus, such as the 'light,' levitation, music of\nunknown origin, the resistance of the medium to fire and sword\npoints, and all the rest of his list of prodigies.  Iamblichus\nprobably looked down on the believers in these spells written on\npapyri with extreme disdain.  They are only interesting as folklore,\nlike the rhymes of incantation preserved in Reginald Scot's\nDiscovery of Witchcraft.\n\nThere were other analogies between modern, ancient, and savage\nspiritualism.  The medium was swathed, or tied up, like the\nDavenport Brothers, like Eskimo and Australian conjurers, like the\nHighland seer in the bull's hide. {75a}  The medium was understood\nto be a mere instrument like a flute, through which the 'control,'\nthe god or spirit, spoke. {75b}  This is still the spiritualistic\nexplanation of automatic speech.  Eusebius goes so far as to believe\nthat 'earthbound spirits' do speak through the medium, but a much\nsimpler theory is obvious. {75c}  Indeed where automatic\nperformances of any sort--by writing, by the kind of 'Ouija' or\ntable pointing to letters, as described by Ammianus Marcellinus\n(xxix. 29)--or by speaking, are concerned, we have the aid of\npsychology, and the theory of 'unconscious cerebration' to help us.\nBut when we are told the old tales of whirring noises, of\n'bilocation,' of 'levitation,' of a mystic light, we are in contact\nwith more difficult questions.\n\nIn brief, the problem of spiritualism in general presents itself to\nus thus:  in ancient, modern, and savage thaumaturgy there are\ncertain automatic phenomena.  The conjurer, priest, or medium acts,\nor pretends to act, in various ways beyond his normal consciousness.\nSavages, ancient mystics, and spiritualists ascribe his automatic\nbehaviour to the control of spirits, gods or demons.  No such\nhypothesis is needed.\n\nOn the other side, however, are phenomena not automatic, 'spiritual'\nlights, and sounds; interferences with natural laws, as when bodies\nare lifted in the air, or are elongated, when fire does not fasten\non them, and so on.  These phenomena, in ancient times, followed on\nthe performance of certain mystic rites.  They are now said to occur\nwithout the aid of any such rites.  Gods and spirits are said to\ncause them, but they are only attained in the presence of certain\nexceptional persons, mediums, saints, priests, conjurers.  Clearly\nthen, not the rites, but the peculiar constitution of these\nindividuals is the cause (setting imposture aside) of the phenomena,\nof the hallucinations, of the impressions, or whatever they are to\nbe styled.  That is to say, witnesses, in other matters credible,\naver that they receive these peculiar impressions in the society of\ncertain persons and not in that of people in general.  Now these\nimpressions are, everywhere, in every age and stage of civilisation,\nessentially identical.  Is it stretching probability almost beyond\nwhat it will bear, to allege that all the phenomena, in the Arctic\ncircle as in Australia, in ancient Alexandria as in modern London,\nare, always, the result of an imposture modelled on savage ideas of\nthe supernatural?\n\nIf so we are reduced to the choice between actual objective facts of\nunknown origin (frequently counterfeited of course), and the\ntheory,--which really comes to much the same thing,--of identical\nand collective hallucinations in given conditions.  On either\nhypothesis the topic is certainly not without interest for the\nstudent of human nature.  Even if we could, at most, establish the\nfact that people like Iamblichus, Mr. Crookes, Lord Crawford,\nJesuits in Canada, professional conjurers in Zululand, Spaniards in\nearly Peru, Australian blacks, Maoris, Eskimo, cardinals,\nambassadors, are similarly hallucinated, as they declare, in the\npresence of priests, diviners, Home, Zulu magicians, Biraarks,\nJossakeeds, angakut, tohungas, and saints, and Mr. Stainton Moses,\nstill the identity of the false impressions is a topic for\npsychological study.  Or, if we disbelieve this cloud of witnesses,\nif they voluntarily fabled, we ask, why do they all fable in exactly\nthe same fashion?  Even setting aside the animistic hypothesis, the\nsubject is full of curious neglected problems.\n\nOnce more, if we admit the theory of intentional imposture by\nsaints, angakut, Zulu medicine-men, mediums, and the rest, we must\ngrant that a trick which takes in a professional conjurer, like Mr.\nKellar, is a trick well worthy of examination.  How did his Zulu\nlearn the method of Home, of the Egyptian diviners, of St. Joseph of\nCupertino? {78a}  Each solution has its difficulties, while\npractical investigation is rarely possible.  We have no Home with\nus, at present, and the opportunity of studying his effects\ncarefully was neglected.  It was equally desirable to study them\nwhether he caused collective hallucinations, or whether his effects\nwere merely those of ordinary, though skilful, conjuring.  For Home,\nwhatever his moral character may have been, was a remarkable\nsurvival of a class of men familiar to the mystic Iamblichus, to the\nsavage races of the past and present, and (as far as his marvels\nwent) to the biographers of the saints.  'I am one of those,' says\nthe Zulu medicine-man, in Mr. Rider Haggard's Allan's Wife, 'who can\nmake men see what they do not see.'  The class of persons who are\nsaid to have possessed this power appear, now and then, in all human\nhistory, and have at least bequeathed to us a puzzle in\nanthropology.  This problem has recently been presented, in what may\nbe called an acute form, by the publication of the 'Experiences of\nMr. Stainton Moses'. {78b}   Mr. Moses was a clergyman and\nschoolmaster; in both capacities he appears to have been\nindustrious, conscientious, and honourable.  He was not devoid of\nliterature, and had contributed, it is said, to periodicals as\nremote from mysticism as Punch, and the Saturday Review.  He was a\nsportsman, at least he was a disciple of our father, Izaak Walton.\n'Most anglers are quiet men, and followers of peace, so simply wise\nas not to sell their consciences to buy riches, and with them\nvexation, and a fear to die,' says Izaak.\n\nIn early middle age, about 1874, Mr. Moses began to read such books\nas Dale Owen's, and to sit 'attentive of his trembling' table, by\nway of experiment.  He soon found that tables bounded in his\npresence, untouched.  Then he developed into a regular 'medium'.\nInanimate objects came to him through stone walls.  Scent of all\nsorts, and, as in the case of St. Joseph of Cupertino, of an unknown\nsort, was scattered on people in his company.  He floated in the\nair.  He wrote 'automatically'.  Knocks resounded in his\nneighbourhood, in the open air.  'Lights' of all varieties hovered\nin his vicinity.  He spoke 'automatically,' being the mouth-piece of\na 'spirit,' and very dull were the spirit's sermons.  After a\nstruggle he believed in 'spirits,' who twanged musical notes out in\nhis presence.  He became editor of a journal named Light; he joined\nthe Psychical Society, but left it when the society pushed\nmaterialism so far as to demonstrate that certain professional\nmediums were convicted swindlers.\n\nThe evidence for his marvels is the testimony of a family, perfectly\nrespectable, named Speer, and of a few other witnesses whom nobody\ncan suspect of conscious inaccuracy.  There remain, as documents,\nhis books, his MS. notes, and other corroborative notes kept by his\nfriend Dr. Speer, a sceptic, and other observers.\n\nIt is admitted that Mr. Moses was not a cautious logician, his\ninferences are problematic, his generalisations hasty.  As to the\nfacts, it is equally difficult to believe in them, and to believe\nthat Mr. Moses was a conscious impostor, and his friends easy dupes.\nHe cannot have been an impostor _unconsciously_ in a hypnotic state,\nin a 'trance,' because his effects could not have been improvised.\nIf they were done by jugglery, they required elaborate preparations\nof all sorts, which must have been made in full ordinary\nconsciousness.  If we fall back on collective hallucination, then\nthat hallucination is something of world-wide diffusion, ancient and\ncontinuous, for the effects are those attributed by Iamblichus to\nhis mystics, by the Church to her saints, by witnesses to the\n'possessed,' by savages to medicine-men, and by Mr. Crookes and Lord\nCrawford to D. D. Home.  Of course we may be told that all lookers-\non, from Eskimo to Neoplatonists and men of science, know what to\nexpect, and are hallucinated by their own expectant attention.  But,\nwhen they expect nothing, and are disappointed by having to witness\nprodigies, the same old prodigies, what is the explanation?\n\nThe following tabular statement, altered from that given by Mr.\nMyers in his publication of Mr. Moses and Dr. Speer's MS. notes,\nwill show the historical identity of the phenomena.  Mr. Moses was\nthe agent in all; those exhibited by other ancient and modern agents\nare marked with a cross.\n\n   Rev.      D. D.  Iamblichus  St.        Eskimo  Australian\n'Spontaneous\n\n   Stainton  Home               Joseph of\n(Glanvil,\n\n   Moses                        Cupertino\nBovet,\n\n\nTelfair,\n\n                                                               Kirk)\n\n1.   X         X                                        ?\nX\n2.   X         X        X                     X\nX\n3.   X         X        X            X        X         X\nX\n4.   X\nX\n5.   X\n6.   X         X\n7.   X         X\n8.   X         X        X\nX\n9.   X         X                     X\n10.  X         X        X                     X\nX\n11.  X         X\n12.  X         X\nX\n\n1.  'Intelligent Raps.'\n2.  'Movement of objects untouched.'\n3.  'Levitation' (floating in air of seer).\n4.  Disappearance and Reappearance of objects.  The 'object' being\nthe medium in some cases.\n5.  Passage of Matter through Matter.\n6.  Direct writing.  That is, not by any detected human agency.\n7.  Sounds made on instruments supernormally.\n8.  Direct sounds.  That is, by no detected human agency.\n9.  Scents.\n10.  Lights.\n11.  Objects 'materialised.'\n12.  Hands materialised, touched or seen.\n\nThere are here twelve miracles!  Home and Iamblichus add to Mr.\nMoses's repertoire the alteration of the medium's height or bulk.\nThis feat still leaves Mr. Moses 'one up,' as regards Home, in whose\npresence objects did not disappear, nor did they pass through stone\nwalls.  The questions are, to account for the continuity of\ncollective hallucinations, if we accept that hypothesis, and to\nexplain the procedure of Mr. Moses, if he were an impostor.  He did\nnot exhibit before more than seven or eight private friends, and he\ngained neither money nor dazzling social success by his\nperformances.\n\nThis page in the chapter of 'demoniac affections' is thus still in\nthe state of ebauche.  Mr. Moses believed his experiences to be\n'demoniac affections,' in the Neoplatonic sense.  Could his\nphenomena have been investigated by the Archbishop of Canterbury,\nDr. Parker, Messrs. Maskelyne and Cook, and Professor Huxley, the\npublic mind might have arrived at some conclusion on the subject.\nBut Mr. Moses's chief spirit, known in society as 'Imperator,'\ndeclined to let strangers look on.  He testified his indignation in\na manner so bruyant, he so banged on tables, that Mr. Moses and his\nfriends thought it wiser to avoid an altercation.\n\nThis exclusiveness of 'Imperator' certainly donne furieusement a\npenser.  If spirits are spirits they may just as well take it for\nunderstood that performances 'done in a corner' are of no scientific\nvalue.  But we are still at a loss for a 'round' and satisfactory\nhypothesis which will colligate all the alleged facts, and explain\ntheir historical continuity.  We merely state that continuity as a\nhistorical fact.  Marvels of savages, Neoplatonists, saints of\nChurch or Covenant, 'spontaneous' phenomena, Mediumistic phenomena,\nall hang together in some ways.  Of this the Church has her own\nexplanation.\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMPARATIVE PSYCHICAL RESEARCH\n\n\nA Party at Ragley Castle.  The Miraculous Conformist.  The\nRestoration and Scepticism.  Experimental Proof of Spiritual\nExistence.  Glanvill.  Boyle.  More.  The Gentleman's Butler.\n'Levitation.'  Witchcraft.  Movements of Objects.  The Drummer of\nTedworth.  Haunted Houses.  Rerrick.  Glenluce.  Ghosts.  'Spectral\nEvidence.'  Continuity and Uniformity of Stories.  St. Joseph of\nCupertino, his Flights.  Modern Instances.  Theory of Induced\nHallucination.  Ibn Batuta.  Animated Furniture.  From China to\nPeru.  Rapping Spirit at Lyons.  The Imposture at Orleans.  The\nStockwell Mystery.  The Demon of Spraiton.  Modern Instances.  The\nWesleys.  Theory of Imposture.  Conclusion.\n\nIn the month of February, 1665, there was assembled at Ragley Castle\nas curious a party as ever met in an English country-house.  The\nhostess was the Lady Conway, a woman of remarkable talent and\ncharacter, but wholly devoted to mystical speculations.  In the end,\nunrestrained by the arguments of her clerical allies, she joined the\nSociety of Friends, by the world called Quakers.  Lady Conway at the\ntime when her guests gathered at Ragley, as through all her later\nlife, was suffering from violent chronic headache.  The party at\nRagley was invited to meet her latest medical attendant, an\nunlicensed practitioner, Mr. Valentine Greatrakes, or Greatorex; his\nname is spelled in a variety of ways.  Mr. Greatrakes was called\n'The Irish Stroker' and 'The Miraculous Conformist' by his admirers,\nfor, while it was admitted that Dissenters might frequently possess,\nor might claim, powers of miracle, the gift, or the pretension, was\nrare among members of the Established Church.  The person of Mr.\nGreatrakes, if we may believe Dr. Henry Stubbe, physician at\nStratford-on-Avon, diffused a pleasing fragrance as of violets.\nLord Herbert of Cherbury, it will be remembered, tells the same\nstory about himself in his memoirs.  Mr. Greatrakes 'is a man of\ngraceful personage and presence, and if my phantasy betrayed not my\njudgement,' says Dr. Stubbe, 'I observed in his eyes and meene a\nvivacitie and spritelinesse that is nothing common'.\n\nThis Miraculous Conformist was the younger son of an Irish squire,\nand a person of some property.  After the Restoration--_and not\nbefore_--Greatrakes felt 'a strong and powerful impulse in him to\nessay' the art of healing by touching, or stroking.  He resisted the\nimpulse, till one of his hands having become 'dead' or numb, he\nhealed it by the strokes of the other hand.  From that moment\nGreatrakes practised, and became celebrated; he cured some diseased\npersons, failed wholly with others, and had partial and temporary\nsuccess with a third class.  The descriptions given by Stubbe, in\nhis letter to the celebrated Robert Boyle, and by Foxcroft, Fellow\nof King's College, Cambridge, leave little doubt that 'The Irish\nStroker' was most successful with hypochondriacal and hysterical\npatients.  He used to chase the disease up and down their bodies, if\nit did not 'fly out through the interstices of his fingers,' and if\nhe could drive it into an outlying part, and then forth into the\nwide world, the patient recovered.  So Dr. Stubbe reports the method\nof Greatrakes. {86}  He was brought over from Ireland, at a charge\nof about 155 pounds, to cure Lady Conway's headaches.  In this it is\nconfessed that he entirely failed; though he wrought a few miracles\nof healing among rural invalids.  To meet this fragrant and\nmiraculous Conformist, Lady Conway invited men worthy of the\nprivilege, such as the Rev. Joseph Glanvill, F.R.S., the author of\nSadducismus Triumphatus, his friend Dr. Henry More, the Cambridge\nPlatonist, and other persons interested in mystical studies.  Thus\nat Ragley there was convened the nucleus of an unofficial but active\nSociety for Psychical Research, as that study existed in the\nseventeenth century.\n\nThe object of this chapter is to compare the motives, methods, and\nresults of Lady Conway's circle, with those of the modern Society\nfor Psychical Research.  Both have investigated the reports of\nabnormal phenomena.  Both have collected and published narratives of\neye-witnesses.  The moderns, however, are much more strict on points\nof evidence than their predecessors.  They are not content to watch,\nbut they introduce 'tests,' generally with the most disenchanting\nresults.  The old researchers were animated by the desire to\nestablish the tottering faith of the Restoration, which was\nendangered by the reaction against Puritanism.  Among the fruits of\nPuritanism, and of that frenzied state of mind which accompanied the\nCivil War, was a furious persecution of 'witches'.  In a rare little\nbook, Select Cases of Conscience, touching Witches and Witchcraft,\nby John Gaule, 'preacher of the Word at Great Staughton in the\ncounty of Huntington' (London, 1646), we find the author not denying\nthe existence of witchcraft, but pleading for calm, learned and\njudicial investigation.  To do this was to take his life in his\nhand, for Matthew Hopkins, a fanatical miscreant, was ruling in a\nReign of Terror through the country.  The clergy of the Church of\nEngland, as Hutchinson proves in his Treatise of Witchcraft (second\nedition, London, 1720), had been comparatively cautious in their\ntreatment of the subject.  Their record is far from clean, but they\nhad exposed some impostures, chiefly, it is fair to say, where\nNonconformists, or Catholics, had detected the witch.  With the\nRestoration the general laxity went so far as to scoff at\nwitchcraft, to deny its existence, and even, in the works of\nWagstaff and Webster, to minimise the leading case of the Witch of\nEndor.  Against the 'drollery of Sadducism,' the Psychical\nResearchers within the English Church, like Glanvill and Henry More,\nor beyond its pale, like Richard Baxter and many Scotch divines,\ndefended witchcraft and apparitions as outworks of faith in general.\nThe modern Psychical Society, whatever the predisposition of some of\nits members may be, explores abnormal phenomena, not in the\ninterests of faith, but of knowledge.  Again, the old inquirers were\ndominated by a belief in the devil.  They saw witchcraft and\ndemoniacal possession, where the moderns see hysterics and hypnotic\nconditions.\n\nFor us the topic is rather akin to mythology, and 'folk-psychology,'\nas the Germans call it.  We are interested, as will be shown, in a\nmost curious question of evidence, and the value of evidence.  It\nwill again appear that the phenomena reported by Glanvill, More,\nSinclair, Kirk, Telfair, Bovet, are identical with those examined by\nMessrs. Gurney, Myers, Kellar (the American professional conjurer),\nand many others.  The differences, though interesting, are rather\ntemporary and accidental than essential.\n\nA few moments of attention to the table talk of the party assembled\nat Ragley will enable us to understand the aims, the methods, and\nthe ideas of the old informal society.  By a lucky accident,\nfragments of the conversation may be collected from Glanvill's\nSadducismus Triumphatus, {88a} and from the correspondence of\nGlanvill, Henry More, and Robert Boyle.  Mr. Boyle, among more\ntangible researches, devoted himself to collecting anecdotes, about\nthe second sight.  These manuscripts are not published in the six\nhuge quarto volumes of Boyle's works; on the other hand, we possess\nLord Tarbet's answer to his questions. {88b}  Boyle, as his letters\nshow, was a rather chary believer in witchcraft and possession.  He\nreferred Glanvill to his kinsman, Lord Orrery, who had enjoyed an\nexperience not very familiar; he had seen a gentleman's butler float\nin the air!\n\nNow, by a great piece of good fortune, Mr. Greatrakes the fragrant\nand miraculous, had also been an eye-witness of this miracle, and\nwas able to give Lady Conway and her guests the fullest information.\nAs commonly happened in the seventeenth century, though not in ours,\nthe marvel of the butler was mixed up with ordinary folklore.  In\nthe records and researches of the existing Society for Psychical\nResearch, folklore and fairies hold no place.  The Conformist,\nhowever, had this tale to tell:  the butler of a gentleman unnamed,\nwho lived near Lord Orrery's seat in Ireland, fell in, one day, with\nthe good people, or fairies, sitting at a feast.  The fairies,\ntherefore, endeavoured to spirit him away, as later they carried off\nMr. Kirk, minister of Aberfoyle, in 1692.  Lord Orrery, most kindly,\ngave the butler the security of his castle, where the poor man was\nkept, 'under police protection,' and watched, in a large room.\nAmong the spectators were Mr, Greatrakes himself, and two bishops,\none of whom may have been Jeremy Taylor, an active member of the\nsociety.  Late in the afternoon, the butler was 'perceived to rise\nfrom the ground, whereupon Mr. Greatrix and another lusty man clapt\ntheir hands over his shoulders, one of them before, and the other\nbehind, and weighed him down with all their strength, but he was\nforcibly taken up from them; for a considerable time he was carried\nin the air to and fro, over their heads, several of the company\nstill running under him, to prevent him receiving hurt if he should\nfall;' so says Glanvill.  Faithorne illustrates this pleasing\ncircumstance by a picture of the company standing out, ready to\n'field the butler, whose features display great concern.' {90a}\n\nNow we know that Mr. Greatrakes told this anecdote, at Ragley, first\nto Mrs. Foxcroft, and then to the company at dinner.  Mr. Alfred\nWallace, F.R.S., adduces Lord Orrery and Mr. Greatrakes as witnesses\nof this event in private life.  Mr. Wallace, however, forgets to\ntell the world that the fairies, or good people, were, or were\nbelieved to be, the agents. {90b}  Fairies still cause levitation in\nthe Highlands.  Campbell of Islay knew a doctor, one of whose\npatients had in vain tried to hold down a friend who was seized and\ncarried to a distance of two miles by the sluagh, the fairy folk.\n{90c}  Glanvill admits that Lord Orrery assured Lady Roydon, one of\nthe party at Ragley, that the Irish tale was true:  Henry More had\nit direct from Mr. Greatrakes.\n\nHere is a palpably absurd legend, but the reader is requested to\nobserve that the phenomenon is said to have occurred in all ages and\ncountries.  We can adduce the testimony of modern Australian blacks,\nof Greek philosophers, of Peruvians just after the conquest by\nPizarro, of the authors of Lives of the Saints, of learned New\nEngland divines, of living observers in England, India, and America.\nThe phenomenon is technically styled 'levitation,' and in England\nwas regarded as a proof either of witchcraft or of 'possession'; in\nItaly was a note of sanctity; in modern times is a peculiarity of\n'mediumship'; in Australia is a token of magical power; in Zululand\nof skill in the black art; and, in Ireland and the West Highlands,\nwas attributed to the guile of the fairies.  Here are four or five\ndistinct hypotheses.  Part of our business, therefore, is to examine\nand compare the forms of a fable current in many lands, and reported\nto the circle at Ragley by the Miraculous Conformist.\n\nMr. Greatrakes did not entertain Lady Conway and her friends with\nthis marvel alone.  He had been present at a trial for witchcraft,\nin Cork, on September 11, 1661.  In this affair evidence was led to\nprove a story as common as that of 'levitation'--namely, the\nmysterious throwing or falling of stones in a haunted house, or\naround the person of a patient bewitched.  Cardan is expansive about\nthis manifestation.  The patient was Mary Longdon, the witch was\nFlorence Newton of Youghal.  Glanvill prints the trial from a\ndocument which he regards as official, but he did not take the\ntrouble to trace Mr. Aston, the recorder or clerk (as Glanvill\nsurmises), who signed every page of the manuscript.  Mr. Alfred\nWallace quotes the tale, without citing his authority.  The\nwitnesses for the falling of stones round the bewitched girl were\nthe maid herself, and her master, John Pyne, who deposed that she\nwas 'much troubled with little stones that were thrown at her\nwherever she went, and that, after they had hit her, would fall on\nthe ground, and then vanish, so that none of them could be found'.\nThis peculiarity beset Mr. Stainton Moses, when he was fishing, and\nmust have 'put down' the trout.  Objects in the maid's presence,\nsuch as Bibles, would 'fly from her,' and she was bewitched, and\ncarried off into odd places, like the butler at Lord Orrery's.\nNicholas Pyne gave identical evidence.  At Ragley, Mr. Greatrakes\ndeclared that he was present at the trial, and that an awl would not\npenetrate the stool on which the unlucky enchantress was made to\nstand:  a clear proof of guilt.\n\nHere, then, we have the second phenomenon which interested the\ncircle at Ragley; the flying about of stones, of Bibles, and other\nmovements of bodies.  Though the whole affair may be called\nhysterical imposture by Mary Longdon (who vomited pins, and so\nforth, as was customary), we shall presently trace the reports of\nsimilar events, among people of widely remote ages and countries,\n'from China to Peru'.\n\nAmong the guests at Ragley, as we said, was Dr. Joseph Glanvill, who\ncould also tell strange tales at first hand, and from his own\nexperience.  He had investigated the case of the disturbances in Mr.\nMompesson's house at Tedworth, which began in March, 1661.  These\nevents, so famous among our ancestors, were precisely identical with\nwhat is reported by modern newspapers, when there is a 'medium' in a\nfamily.  The troubles began with rappings on the walls of the house,\nand on a drum taken by Mr. Mompesson from a vagrant musician.  This\nman seems to have been as much vexed as Parolles by the loss of his\ndrum, and the Psychical Society at Ragley believed him to be a\nmagician, who had bewitched the house of his oppressor.  While Mrs.\nMompesson was adding an infant to her family the noise ceased, or\nnearly ceased, just as, at Epworth, in the house of the Rev. Samuel\nWesley, it never vexed Mrs. Wesley at her devotions.  Later, at\nTedworth, 'it followed and vexed the younger children, beating their\nbedsteads with that violence, that all present expected when they\nwould fall in pieces'. . . .  It would lift the children up in their\nbeds.  Objects were moved:  lights flitted around, and the Rev.\nJoseph Glanvill could assure Lady Conway that he had been a witness\nof some of these occurrences.  He saw the 'little modest girls in\nthe bed, between seven and eight years old, as I guessed'.  He saw\ntheir hands outside the bed-clothes, and heard the scratchings above\ntheir heads, and felt 'the room and windows shake very sensibly'.\nWhen he tapped or scratched a certain number of times, the noise\nanswered, and stopped at the same number.  Many more things of this\nkind Glanvill tells.  He denies the truth of a report that an\nimposture was discovered, but admits that when Charles II. sent\ngentlemen to stay in the house, nothing unusual occurred.  But these\nresearchers stayed only for a single night.  He denied that any\nnormal cause of the trouble was ever discovered.  Glanvill told\nsimilar tales about a house at Welton, near Daventry, in 1658.\nStones were thrown, and all the furniture joined in an irregular\ncorroboree.  Too late for Lady Conway's party was the similar\ndisturbance at Gast's house of Little Burton June, 1677.  Here the\ncareful student will note that 'they saw a hand holding a hammer,\nwhich kept on knocking'.  This _hand_ is as familiar to the research\nof the seventeenth as to that of the nineteenth century.  We find it\nagain in the celebrated Scotch cases of Rerrick (1695), and of\nGlenluce, while 'the Rev. James Sharp' (later Archbishop of St.\nAndrews), vouched for it, in 1659, in a tale told by him to\nLauderdale, and by Lauderdale to the Rev. Richard Baxter. {94}\nGlanvill also contributes a narrative of the very same description\nabout the haunting of Mr. Paschal's house in Soper Lane, London:\nthe evidence is that of Mr. Andrew Paschal, Fellow of Queen's\nCollege, Cambridge.  In this case the trouble began with the arrival\nand coincided with the stay of a gentlewoman, unnamed, 'who seemed\nto be principally concerned'.  As a rule, in these legends, it is\neasy to find out who the 'medium' was.  The phenomena here were\naccompanied by 'a cold blast or puff of wind,' which blew on the\nhand of the Fellow of Queen's College, just as it has often blown,\nin similar circumstances, on the hands of Mr. Crookes, and of other\nmodern amateurs.  It would be tedious to analyse all Glanvill's\ntales of rappings, and of volatile furniture.  We shall see that,\nbefore his time, as after it, precisely similar narratives attracted\nthe notice of the curious.  Glanvill generally tries to get his\nstories at first hand and signed by eye-witnesses.\n\nLady Conway was not behind her guests in personal experiences.  Her\nladyship was concerned with a good old-fashioned ghost.  We say\n'old-fashioned' of set purpose, because while modern tales of\n'levitation' and flighty furniture, of flying stones, of rappings,\nof spectral hands, of cold psychical winds, are exactly like the\ntales of old, a change, an observed change, has come over the ghost\nof the nineteenth century.  Readers of the Proceedings of the\nPsychical Society will see that the modern ghost is a purposeless\ncreature.  He appears nobody knows why; he has no message to\ndeliver, no secret crime to reveal, no appointment to keep, no\ntreasure to disclose, no commissions to be executed, and, as an\nalmost invariable rule, he does not speak, even if you speak to him.\nThe recent inquirers, notably Mr. Myers, remark with some severity\non this vague and meaningless conduct of apparitions, and draw\nspeculative conclusions to the effect that the ghost, as the Scotch\nsay, 'is not all there'.  But the ghosts of the seventeenth century\nwere positively garrulous.  One remarkable specimen indeed behaved,\nat Valogne, more like a ghost of our time than of his own. {95}\nBut, as a common rule, the ghosts in whom Lady Conway's friends were\ninterested had a purpose:  some revealed the spot where a skeleton\nlay; some urged the payment of a debt, or the performance of a\nneglected duty.  One modern spectre, reported by Mr. Myers, wandered\ndisconsolate till a debt of three shillings and tenpence was\ndefrayed. {96}  This is, perhaps, the lowest figure cited as a\npretext for appearing.  The ghost vouched for by Lady Conway was\ndisturbed about a larger sum, twenty-eight shillings.  She, an\nelderly woman, persecuted by her visits David Hunter, 'neat-herd at\nthe house of the Bishop of Down and Connor, at Portmore, in 1663'.\nMr. Hunter did not even know the ghost when she was alive; but she\nmade herself so much at home in his dwelling that 'his little dog\nwould follow her as well as his master'.  The ghost, however, was\ninvisible to Mrs. Hunter.  When Hunter had at last executed her\ncommission, she asked him to lift her up in his arms.  She was not\nsubstantial like fair Katie King, when embraced by Mr. Crookes, but\n'felt just like a bag of feathers; so she vanished, and he heard\nmost delicate music as she went off over his head'.  Lady Conway\ncross-examined Hunter on the spot, and expressed her belief in his\nnarrative in a letter, dated Lisburn, April 29, 1663.  It is true\nthat contemporary sceptics attributed the phenomena to potheen, but,\nas Lady Conway asks, how could potheen tell Hunter about the ghost's\ndebt, and reveal that the money to discharge it was hidden under her\nhearthstone?\n\nThe scope of the Ragley inquiries may now be understood.  It must\nnot be forgotten that witchcraft was a topic of deep interest to\nthese students.  They solemnly quote the records of trials in which\nit is perfectly evident that girls and boys, either in a spirit of\nwicked mischief, or suffering from hysterical illusions, make\ngrotesque charges against poor old women.  The witches always prick,\npinch, and torment their victims, being present to them, though\ninvisible to the bystanders.  This was called 'spectral evidence';\nand the Mathers, during the fanatical outbreaks at Salem, admit that\nthis 'spectral evidence,' unsupported, is of no legal value.\nIndeed, taken literally, Cotton Mather's cautions on the subject of\nevidence may almost be called sane and sensible.  But the Protestant\ninquisitors always discovered evidence confirmatory.  For example, a\ngirl is screaming out against an invisible witch; a man, to please\nher, makes a snatch at the empty air where she points, and finds in\nhis hand a fragment of stuff, which again is proved to be torn from\nthe witch's dress.  It is easy to see how this trick could be\nplayed.  Again, a possessed girl cries that a witch is tormenting\nher with an iron spindle, grasps at the spindle (visible only to\nher), and, lo, it is in her hand, and is the property of the witch.\nHere is proof positive!  Again, a girl at Stoke Trister, in\nSomerset, is bewitched by Elizabeth Style, of Bayford, widow.  The\nrector of the parish, the Rev. William Parsons, deposes that the\ngirl, in a fit, pointed to different parts of her body, 'and where\nshe pointed, he perceived a red spot to arise, with a small black in\nthe midst of it, like a small thorn'; and other evidence was given\nto the same effect.  The phenomenon is akin to many which, according\nto medical and scientific testimony, occur to patients in the\nhypnotic state.  The so-called stigmata of Louise Lateau, and of the\nshepherd boy put up by the Archbishop of Reims as a substitute for\nJoan of Arc, are cases in point.  But Glanvill, who quotes the\nrecord of the trial (January, 1664), holds that witchcraft is proved\nby the coincidence of the witch's confession that she, the devil,\nand others made an image of the girl and pierced it with thorns!\nThe confession is a piece of pure folklore:  poor old Elizabeth\nStyle merely copies the statements of French and Scotch witches.\nThe devil appeared as a handsome man, and as a black dog!  Glanvill\ndenies that she was tortured, or 'watched'--that is, kept awake till\nher brain reeled.  But his own account makes it plain that she was\n'watched' after her confession at least, when the devil, under the\nform of a butterfly, appeared in her cell.\n\nThis rampant and mischievous nonsense was dear to the psychical\ninquirers of the Restoration; it was circulated by Glanvill, a\nFellow of the Royal Society; by Henry More; by Sinclair, a professor\nin the University of Glasgow; by Richard Baxter, that glory of\nNonconformity, who revels in the burning of an 'old reading parson'--\nthat is, a clergyman who read the Homilies, under the Commonwealth.\nThis unlucky old parson was tortured into confession by being\n'walked' and 'watched'--that is, kept from sleep till he was\ndelirious.  Archbishop Spottiswoode treated Father Ogilvie, S. J.,\nin the same abominable manner, till delirium supervened.  Church,\nKirk, and Dissent have no right to throw the first stone at each\nother.\n\nTaking levitation, haunting, disturbances and apparitions, and\nleaving 'telepathy' or second sight out of the list for the present,\nhe who compares psychical research in the seventeenth and nineteenth\ncenturies finds himself confronted by the problem which everywhere\nmeets the student of institutions and of mythology.  The\nanthropologist knows that, if he takes up a new book of travels in\nthe remotest lands, he will find mention of strange customs\nperfectly familiar to him in other parts of the ancient and modern\nworld.  The mythologist would be surprised if he encountered in\nPapua or Central Africa, or Sakhalin, a perfectly _new_ myth.  These\nuniformities of myth and custom are explained by the identical\nworkings of the uncivilised intelligence on the same materials, and,\nin some cases, by borrowing, transmission, imitation.\n\nNow, some features in witchcraft admit of this explanation.\nHighland crofters, even now, perforate the image of an enemy with\npins; broken bottle-ends or sharp stones are put, in Russia and in\nAustralia, in the footprints of a foe, for the purpose of laming\nhim; and there are dozens of such practices, all founded on the\ntheory of sympathy.  Like affects like.  What harms the effigy hurts\nthe person whose effigy is burned or pricked.  All this is perfectly\nintelligible.  But, when we find savage 'birraarks' in Australia,\nfakirs in India, saints in mediaeval Europe, a gentleman's butler in\nIreland, boys in Somerset and Midlothian, a young warrior in\nZululand, Miss Nancy Wesley at Epworth in 1716, and Mr. Daniel Home\nin London in 1856-70, all triumphing over the law of gravitation,\nall floating in the air, how are we to explain the uniformity of\nstories palpably ridiculous?\n\nThe evidence, it must be observed, is not merely that of savages, or\nof persons as uneducated and as superstitious as savages.  The\nAustralian birraark, who flies away up the tree, we may leave out of\naccount.  The saints, St. Francis and St. Theresa, are more\npuzzling, but miracles were expected from saints. {100a}  The\nlevitated boy was attested to in a court of justice, and is designed\nby Faithorne in an illustration of Glanvill's book.  He flew over a\ngarden!  But witnesses in such trials were fanciful people.  Lord\nOrrery and Mr. Greatrakes may have seen the butler float in the air--\nafter dinner.  The exploits of the Indian fakirs almost, or quite,\novercome the scepticism of Mr. Max Muller, in his Gifford Lectures\non Psychological Religion.  Living and honourable white men aver\nthat they have seen the feat, examined the performers, and found no\nexplanation; no wires, no trace of imposture.  (The writer is\nacquainted with a well vouched for case, the witness an English\nofficer.)  Mr. Kellar, an American professional conjurer, and\nexposer of spiritualistic pretensions, bears witness, in the North\nAmerican Review, to a Zulu case of 'levitation,' which actually\nsurpasses the tale of the gentleman's butler in strangeness.  Cieza\nde Leon, in his Travels, translated by Mr. Markham for the Hakluyt\nSociety, brings a similar anecdote from early Peru, in 1549. {100b}\nMiss Nancy Wesley's case is vouched for (she and the bed she sat on\nboth rose from the floor) by a letter from one of her family to her\nbrother Samuel, printed in Southey's Life of Wesley.  Finally, Lord\nLindsay and Lord Adare published a statement that they saw Home\nfloat out of one window and in at another, in Ashley Place, S.W., on\nDecember 16, 1868.  Captain Wynne, who was also there, 'wrote to the\nMedium, to say I was present as a witness'. {101}  We need not heap\nup more examples, drawn from classic Greece, as in the instances of\nAbaris and Iamblichus.  We merely stand speechless in the presence\nof the wildest of all fables, when it meets us, as identical myths\nand customs do--not among savages alone, but everywhere, practically\nspeaking, and in connection with barbarous sorcery, with English\nwitchcraft, with the saintliest of mediaeval devotees, with African\nwarriors, with Hindoo fakirs, with a little English girl in a quiet\nold country parsonage, and with an enigmatic American gentleman.\nMany living witnesses, of good authority, sign statements about\nHome's levitation.  In one case, a large table, on which stood a man\nof twelve stone weight rose from the floor, and an eye-witness, a\ndoctor, felt under the castors with his hands.\n\nOf all persons subject to 'levitation,' Saint Joseph of Cupertino\n(1603-1663) was the most notable.  The evidence is partly derived\nfrom testimonies collected with a view to his canonisation, within\ntwo years after his death.  There is a full account of his life and\nadventures in Acta Sanctorum. {102}  St. Joseph died, as we saw, in\n1663, but the earliest biography of him, in Italian, was not\npublished till fifteen years later, in 1678.  Unluckily the compiler\nof his legend in the Acta Sanctorum was unable to procure this work,\nby Nutius, which might contain a comparatively slight accretion of\nmyths.  The next life is of 1722, and the author made use of the\nfacts collected for Joseph's beatification.  There is another life\nby Pastrovicchi, in 1753.  He was canonised in that year, when all\nthe facts were remote by about a century.\n\nJoseph's parents were pauperes sed honesti; his father was a\ncarpenter, his mother a woman of almost virulent virtue, who kept\nher son in great order.  From the age of eight he was subject to\ncataleptic or epileptic fits and convulsions.  After his novitiate\nhe suffered from severe attacks of melancholia.  His 'miracles'\nattracting attention, he was brought before the Inquisition at\nNaples, as an impostor.  He was sent to an obscure and remote\nmonastery, and thence to Assisi, where he was harshly treated, and\nfell into Bunyan's Slough of Despond, having much conflict with\nApollyon.\n\nHe was next called to Rome, where cardinals testify that, on hearing\nsacred names, he would give a yell, and fall into ecstasy.\nReturning to Assisi he was held in high honour, and converted a\nHanoverian Prince.  He healed many sick people, and, having fallen\ninto a river, came out quite dry.  He could scarcely read, but was\ninspired with wonderful theological acuteness.  He always yelled\nbefore falling into an ecstasy, afterwards, he was so much under the\ndominion of anaesthesia that hot coals, if applied to his body,\nproduced no effect.  Then he soared in air, now higher, now lower (a\ncardinal vouches for six inches), and in aere pendulus haerebat,\nlike the gentleman's butler at Lord Orrery's.\n\nSeventy separate flights, in-doors and out of doors, are recorded.\nIn fact it was well to abstain from good words in conversation with\nSt. Joseph of Cupertino, for he would give a shout, on hearing a\npious observation, and fly up, after which social intercourse was\nout of the question.  He was, indeed, prevented by his superiors\nfrom appearing at certain sacred functions, because his flights\ndisturbed the proceedings, indeed everything was done by the Church\nto discourage him, but in vain.  He explained his preliminary shout\nby saying that 'guns also make a noise when they go off,' so the\nCardinal de Laurea heard him remark.  He was even more fragrant than\nthe Miraculous Conformist, or the late Mr. Stainton Moses, to whose\nseances scent was marvellously borne by 'spirits'.  It must be\nremembered that contemporary witnesses attest these singular\ncircumstances in the evidence taken two years after his death, for\nthe beatification of Joseph.  From Assisi he was sent to various\nobscure convents, where his miracles were as remarkable as ever.\nOne Christmas Eve, hearing sacred music, he flew up like a bird,\nfrom the middle of the church to the high altar, where he floated\nfor a quarter of an hour, yet upset none of the candles.  An insane\nnobleman was brought to him to be healed.  Seizing the afflicted\nprince by the hair of the head, he uttered a shout, and soared up\nwith the patient, who finally came down cured!  Once he flew over a\npulpit, and once more than eighty yards to a crucifix.  This is\nprobably 'a record'.  When some men were elevating a cross for a\nCalvary, and were oppressed by the weight, Joseph uttered a shriek,\nflew to them, and lightly erected the cross with his own hand.  The\nflight was of about eighty yards.  He flew up into a tree once, and\nperched on a bough, which quivered no more than if he had been a\nbird.  A rather commonplace pious remark uttered in his presence was\nthe cause of this exhibition.  Once in church, he flew from his\nknees, caught a priest, lifted him up, and gyrated, laetissimo\nraptu, in mid air.  In the presence of the Spanish ambassador and\nmany others, he once flew over the heads of the congregation.  Once\nhe asked a priest whether the holy elements were kept in a\nparticular place.  'Who knows?' said the priest, whereon Joseph\nsoared over his head, remained kneeling in mid air, and came down\nonly at the request of his ecclesiastical superior.  Joseph was\nclairvoyant, and beheld apparitions, but on the whole (apart from\nhis moral excellence) his flights were his most notable\naccomplishment.  On one occasion he 'casual remarked to a friend,'\n'what an infernal smell' (infernails odor), and then nosed out a\nnumber of witches and warlocks who were compounding drugs:\n'standing at some considerable distance, standing, in fact, in quite\nanother street'.\n\nIamblichus, in the letter to Porphyry, describes such persons as St.\nJoseph of Cupertino.  'They have been known to be lifted up into the\nair. . . .  The subject of the afflatus has not felt the application\nof fire. . . .  The more ignorant and mentally imbecile a youth may\nbe, the more freely will the divine power be made manifest.'  Joseph\nwas ignorant, and 'enfeebled by vigil and fasts,' so Joseph was\n'insensible of the application of fire,' and 'was lifted up into the\nair'.  Yet the cardinals, surgeons, and other witnesses were not\nthinking of the pagan Iamblichus when they attested the\naccomplishments of the saint.  Whence, then, comes the uniformity of\nevidence?\n\nThe sceptical Calef did not believe in these things, because they\nare 'miracles,' that is, contrary to experience.  But here is\nexperience enough to which they are not contrary.\n\nThere are dozens of such depositions, and here it is that the\nstudent of testimony and of belief finds himself at a deadlock.\nBelieve the evidence we cannot, yet we cannot doubt the good faith,\nthe veracity of the attesting witnesses.  Had we only savage, or\nancient and uneducated testimony, we might say that the uniformity\nof myths of levitation is easily explained.  The fancy wants a\nmarvel, it readily provides one by positing the infraction of the\nmost universally obvious law, that of gravitation.  Men don't fly;\nlet us say that a man flew, like Abaris on his arrow!  This is\nrudimentary, but then witnesses whose combined testimony would prove\nalmost anything else, declare that they saw the feat performed.\nTill we can find some explanation of these coincidences of\ntestimony, it is plain that a province in psychology, in the\nrelations between facts as presented to and as represented by\nmankind, remains to be investigated.  Of all persons who have been\nlevitated since St. Joseph, a medium named Eglinton was most subject\nto this infirmity.  In a work, named There is no Death, by Florence\nMarryat, the author assures us that she has frequently observed the\nphenomenon.  But Mr. Eglinton, after being 'investigated' by the\nPsychical Society, 'retired,' as Mr. Myers says, 'into private\nlife'.  The tales told about him by spiritualists are of the kind\nusually imparted to a gallant, but proverbially confiding, arm of\nHer Majesty's service.  As for Lord Orrery's butler, and the others,\nthere are the hypotheses that a cloud of honourable and sane\nwitnesses lied; that they were uniformly hallucinated, or\nhypnotised, by a glamour as extraordinary as the actual miracle\nwould be; or again, that conjuring of an unexampled character could\nbe done, not only by Home, or Eglinton, in a room which may have\nbeen prepared, but by Home, by a Zulu, by St. Joseph of Cupertino,\nand by naked fakirs, in the open air.  Of all these theories that of\nglamour, of hypnotic illusion, is the most specious.  Thus, when Ibn\nBatuta, the old Arabian traveller, tells us that he saw the famous\nrope-trick performed in India--men climbing a rope thrown into the\nair, and cutting each other up, while the bodies revive and reunite--\nhe very candidly adds that his companion, standing by, saw nothing\nout of the way, and declared that nothing occurred. {107a}  This\nclearly implies that Ibn Batuta was hypnotised, and that his\ncompanion was not.  But Dr. Carpenter's attempt to prove that one\nwitness saw nothing, while Lord Lindsay and Lord Adare saw Home\nfloat out of one window, and in by another, turns out to be\nerroneous.  The third witness, Captain Wynne, confirmed the\nstatement of the other gentlemen.\n\nWe now approach the second class of marvels which regaled the circle\nat Ragley, namely, 'Alleged movements of objects without contact,\noccurring _not_ in the presence of a paid medium,' and with these we\nshall examine rappings and mysterious noises.  The topic began to\nattract modern attention when table-turning was fashionable.  But in\ncommon table-turning there _was_ contact, and Faraday easily\ndemonstrated that there was conscious or unconscious pushing and\nmuscular exertion.  In 1871 Mr. Crookes made laboratory experiments\nwith Home, using mechanical tests. {107b}  He demonstrated, to his\nown satisfaction, that in the presence of Home, even when he was not\nin physical contact with the object, the object moved:  e pur si\nmuove.  He published a reply to Dr. Carpenter's criticism, and the\ncommon-sense of ordinary readers, at least, sees no flaw in Mr.\nCrookes's method and none in his argument.  The experiments of the\nmodern Psychical Society, with paid mediums, produced results, in\nMr. Myers's opinion, 'not wholly unsatisfactory,' but far from\nleading to an affirmative conclusion, if by 'satisfactory' Mr. Myers\nmeans 'affirmative'. {108a}  The investigations of Mrs. Sidgwick\nwere made under the mediumship of Miss Kate Fox (Mrs. Jencken).\nThis lady began the modern 'spiritualism' when scarcely older than\nMr. Mompesson's 'two modest little girls,' and was accompanied by\nphenomena like those of Tedworth.  But, in Mrs. Sidgwick's presence\nthe phenomena were of the most meagre; and the reasoning faculties\nof the mind decline to accept them as other than perfectly normal.\nThe society tried Mr. Eglinton, who once was 'levitated' in the\npresence of Mr. Kellar, the American conjurer, who has publicly\ndescribed feats like those of the gentleman's butler. {108b}  But,\nafter his dealings with the society, Mr. Eglinton has left the\nscene. {108c}  The late Mr. Davey also produced results like Mr.\nEglinton's by confessed conjuring.\n\nMr. Myers concludes that 'it does not seem worth while, as a rule,\nto examine the testimony to physical marvels occurring in the\npresence of professional mediums'.  He therefore collects evidence\nin the article quoted, for physical marvels occurring where there is\nno paid medium.  Here, as in the business of levitation, the\ninterest of the anthropologist and mythologist lies in the\nuniformity and identity of narratives from all countries, climates,\nand ages.  Among the earliest rappings with which we chance to be\nfamiliar are those reported by Froissart in the case of the spirit\nOrthon, in the fourteenth century.  The tale had become almost a\nfabliau, but any one who reads the amusing chapter will see that it\nis based on a belief in disturbances like those familiar to Glanvill\nand the Misses Fox.  Cieza de Leon (1549) in the passage already\nquoted, where he describes the levitated Cacique of Pirza in Popyan,\nadds that 'the Christians saw stones falling from the air' (as in\nthe Greatrakes tale of the Youghal witch), and declares that, 'when\nthe chief was sitting with a glass of liquor before him, the\nChristians saw the glass raised up in the air and put down empty,\nand a short time afterwards the wine was again poured into the cup\nfrom the air'.  Mr. Home once equalled this marvel, {109a} and Ibn\nBatuta reports similar occurrences, earlier, at the court of the\nKing of Delhi.  There is another case in Histoire Prodigieuse d'une\njeune Fille agitee d'un Esprit fantastique et invisible. {109b}  A\nbourgeois of Bonneval was beset by a rapping rattle of a sprite.\n'At dinner, when he would lay his hand on a trencher, it was carried\noff elsewhere, and the wineglass, when he was about drinking, was\nsnatched from his hand.'  So Mr. Wesley's trencher was set spinning\non the table, when nobody touched it!  In such affairs we may have\nthe origin of the story of the Harpies at the court of Phineus.\n\nIn China, Mr. Dennys tells how 'food placed on the table vanished\nmysteriously, and many of the curious phenomena attributed to\nghostly interference took place,' so that the householder was driven\nfrom house to house, and finally into a temple, in 1874, and all\nthis after the death of a favourite but aggrieved monkey! {110a}\n'Throwing down crockery, trampling on the floor, etc.--such pranks\nas have attracted attention at home, are not unknown. . . .  I must\nconfess that in China, as elsewhere, these occurrences leave a bona\nfide impression of the marvellous which can neither be explained nor\nrejected'. {110b}\n\nWe have now noted these alleged phenomena, literally 'from China to\nPeru'.  Let us next take an old French case of a noisy sprite in the\nnunnery of St. Pierre de Lyon.  The account is by Adrien de\nMontalembert, almoner to Francis I. {110c}  The Bibliography of this\nvery rare tract is curious and deserves attention.  When Lenglet\nDufresnoy was compiling, in 1751, his Dissertations sur les\nApparitions he reprinted the tract from the Paris quarto of 1528, in\nblack letter.  This example had been in the Tellier collection, and\nDufresnoy seems to have borrowed it from the Royal Convent of St.\nGenevieve.  Knowing that Cardinal Tencin had some acquaintance with\nthe subject, Dufresnoy wrote to him, and publishes (vol. i. cxli.)\nhis answer, dated October 18, 1751, Lyons.  The cardinal replied\nthat, besides the Paris edition of 1528, there was a Rouen reprint,\nof 1529, by Rolin Gautier, with engravings.  Brunet says, that there\nare engravings in the Paris edition of 1528, perhaps these were\nabsent from the Tellier example.  That of Rouen, which Cardinal\nTencin collated, was in the Abbey of St. Peter, in Lyons.  Some\nleaves had been thumbed out of existence, and their place was\nsupplied in manuscript.  The only difference was in chapter xxviii.\nwhere the printed Rouen text may have varied.  In the MS. at all\nevents, it is stated that on March 21, the spirit of Sister Alix de\nTelieux struck thirty-three great strokes on the refectory of her\nconvent, 'mighty and marvellous,' implying that her thirty-three\nyears of purgatory were commuted into thirty-three days.  A bright\nlight, scarcely endurable, then appeared, and remained for some\neight minutes.  The nuns then went into chapel and sang a Te Deum.\n\nAt the end of the volume, a later hand added, in manuscript, that\nthe truth of the contemporary record was confirmed by the tradition\nof the oldest sisters who had received it from eye-witnesses of the\nearlier generation.  The writer says that she had great difficulty\nin finding the printed copy, but that when young, in 1630, she\nreceived the tale from a nun, then aged ninety-four.  This nun would\nbe born in 1536, ten years after these events.  She got the story\nfrom her aunt, a nun, Gabrielle de Beaudeduit, qui etoit de ce tems-\nla.  There is no doubt that the sisters firmly and piously believed\nin the story, which has the contemporary evidence of Adrien de\nMontalembert.  Dufresnoy learned that a manuscript copy of the tract\nwas in the library of the Jesuits of Lyons.  He was unaware of an\nedition in 12mo of 1580, cited by Brunet.\n\nTo come to the story, one of our earliest examples of a 'medium,'\nand of communications by raps.  The nunnery was reformed in 1516.  A\npretty sister, Alix de Telieux, fled with some of the jewels, lived\na 'gay' life, and died wretchedly in 1524.  She it was, as is\nbelieved, who haunted a sister named Anthoinette de Grolee, a girl\nof eighteen.  The disturbance began with a confused half-dream.  The\ngirl fancied that the sign of the cross was made on her brow, and a\nkiss impressed on her lips, as she wakened one night.  She thought\nthis was mere illusion, but presently, when she got up, she heard,\n'comme soubs ses pieds frapper aucuns petis coups,' 'rappings,' as\nif at the depth of four inches underground.  This was exactly what\noccurred to Miss Hetty Wesley, at Epworth, in 1716, and at Rio de\nJaneiro to a child named 'C.' in Professor Alexander's narrative.\n{112}  Montalembert says, in 1528, 'I have heard these rappings many\na time, and, in reply to my questions, so many strokes as I asked\nfor were given'.  Montalembert received information (by way of raps)\nfrom the 'spirit,' about matters of importance, qui ne pourroient\nestre cogneus de mortelle creature.  'Certainly,' as he adds,\n'people have the best right to believe these things who have seen\nand heard them.'\n\nThe rites of the Church were conferred in the most handsome manner\non the body of Sister Alix, which was disinterred and buried in her\nconvent.  Exorcisms and interrogations of the spirit were practised.\nIt merely answered questions by rapping 'Yes,' or 'No'.  On one\noccasion Sister Anthoinette was 'levitated'.  Finally, the spirit\nappeared bodily to her, said farewell, and disappeared after making\nan extraordinary fracas at matins.  Montalembert conducted the\nreligious ceremonies.  One case of hysteria was developed; the\nsufferer was a novice.  Of course it was attributed to diabolical\npossession The whole story in its pleasant old French, has an\nagreeable air of good faith But what interests us is the remarkable\nanalogy between the Lyons rappings and those at Epworth, Tedworth,\nand countless other cases, old or of yesterday.  We can now\nestablish a catena of rappings and pour prendre date, can say that\ncommunications were established, through raps, with a so-called\n'spirit,' more than three hundred years before the 'Rochester\nknockings' in America.  Very probably wider research would discover\ninstances prior to that of Lyons; indeed, Wierus, in De Praestigiis\nDaemonum, writes as if the custom was common.\n\nIt is usual to explain the raps by a theory that the 'medium'\nproduces them through cracking his, or her, knee-joints.  It may\nthus be argued that Sister Anthoinette discovered this trick, or was\ntaught the trick, and that the tradition of her performance, being\nwidely circulated in Montalembert's quarto, and by oral report,\ninspired later rappers, such as Miss Kate Fox, Miss 'C.' Davis, Miss\nHetty Wesley, the gentlewoman at Mr. Paschal's, Mr. Mompesson's\n'modest little girls,' Daniel Home, and Miss Margaret Wilson of\nGalashiels.  Miss Wilson's uncle came one day to Mr. Wilkie, the\nminister, and told him the devil was at his house, for, said he,\n'there is an odd knocking about the bed where my niece lies'.\nWhereupon the minister went with him, and found it so.  'She, rising\nfrom her bed, sat down to supper, and from below there was such a\nknocking up as bred fear to all that were present.  This knocking\nwas just under her chair, where it was not possible for any mortal\nto knock up.'  When Miss Wilson went to bed, and was in a deep\nsleep, 'her body was so lifted up that many strong men were not able\nto keep it down'. {114a}  The explanation about cracking the knee-\njoints hardly covers the levitations, or accounts for the tremendous\nnoise which surrounded Sister Anthoinette at matins, or for the\nbright light, a common spiritualistic phenomenon.  Margaret Wilson\nwas about twelve years of age.  If it be alleged that little girls\nhave a traditional method of imposture, even that is a curious and\ninteresting fact in human nature.\n\nAs regards imposture, there exists a singular record of a legal\nprocess in Paris, 1534. {114b}\n\nIt may have been observed that the Lyons affair was useful to the\nChurch, as against 'the damnable sect of Lutherans,' because Sister\nAlix attested the existence of purgatory.  No imposture was\ndetected, and no reader of Montalembert can doubt his good faith,\nnor the sincerity of his kindness and piety.  But such a set of\ncircumstances might provoke imitation.  Of fraudulent imitation the\nFranciscans of Orleans were accused, and for this crime they were\nseverely punished.  We have the Arrest des Commissaires du Conseil\nd'Etat du Roi, from MS. 7170, A. of the Bibliotheque du Roi. {115}\nWe have also allusions in the Franciscanus, a satire in Latin\nhexameter by George Buchanan.  Finally, we have versions in\nLavaterus, and in Wierus, De Curat. Laes. Maleficio (Amsterdam,\n1660, p. 422).  Wierus, born 1515, heard the story when with Sleidan\nat Orleans, some years after the events.  He gives the version of\nSleidan, a notably Protestant version.  Wierus is famous for his\nspirited and valuable defence of the poor women then so frequently\nburned as witches.  He either does, or pretends to believe in\ndevils, diabolical possession, and exorcism, but the exorcist, to be\nrespectable, must be Protestant.  Probably Wierus was not so\ncredulous as he assumes to be, and a point of irony frequently peeps\nout.  The story as told by Sleidan differs from that in the official\nrecord.  In this document Adam Fumee counsellor of the king,\nannounces that the Franciscans of Orleans have informed the king\nthat they are vexed by a spirit, which gives itself out by signs\n(rappings), as the wife of Francois de St. Mesmin, Provost of\nOrleans.  They ask the king to take cognisance of the matter.  On\nthe other side, St. Mesmin declares that the Franciscans have\ncounterfeited the affair in hope of 'black-mailing' him.  The king,\ntherefore, appoints Fumee to inquire into the case.  Thirteen friars\nare lying in prison in Paris, where they have long been 'in great\nwretchedness and poverty, and perishing of hunger,' a pretty example\nof the law's delay.  A commission is to try the case (November,\n1534).  The trouble had begun on February 22, 1533 (old style), when\nFather Pierre d'Arras at five a.m. was called into the dormitory of\n'les enfans,'--novices,--with holy water and everything proper.\nKnocking was going on, and by a system of knocks, the spirit said it\nwanted its body to be taken out of holy ground, said it was Madame\nSt Mesmin, and was damned for Lutheranism and extravagance!  The\nexperiment was repeated before churchmen and laymen, but the lay\nobservers rushed up to the place whence the knocks came where they\nfound nothing.  They hid some one there, after which there was no\nknocking.  On a later day, the noises as in Cock Lane and elsewhere,\nbegan by scratching.  \"M. l'Official,\" the bishop's vicar, 'ouit\ngratter, qui etoit le commencement de ladite accoutummee tumulte\ndudit Esprit'.  But no replies were given to questions, which the\nFranciscans attributed to the disturbance of the day before, and the\nbreaking into various places by the people.  One Alicourt seems to\nhave been regarded as the 'medium,' and the sounds were heard as in\nCock Lane and at Tedworth when he was in bed.  Later experiments\ngave no results, and the friars were severely punished, and obliged\nto recant their charges against Madame de Mesmin.  The case,\nscratches, raps, false accusations and all, is parallel to that of\nthe mendacious 'Scratching Fanny,' examined by Dr. Johnson and\nDouglas, Bishop of Salisbury.  In that affair the child was driven\nby threats to make counterfeit noises, but, as to the method of\nimposture at Orleans, nothing is said in the contemporary legal\ndocument.\n\nWe now turn to the account by Sleidan, in Wierus.  The provost's\nwife had left directions for a cheap funeral in the Franciscan\nChurch.  This economy irritated the Fathers, who only got six pieces\nof gold, 'having expected much greater plunder'.  'Colimannus'\n(Colimant), an exorcist named in the process, was the ringleader.\nThey stationed a lad in the roof of the church, who rapped with a\npiece of wood, and made a great noise 'when they mumbled their\nprayers at night'.  St. Mesmin appealed to the king, the Fathers\nwere imprisoned, and the youth was kept in Fumee's house, and plied\nwith questions.  He confessed the trick, and the friars were\npunished.  Of all this confession, and of the mode of imposture,\nnothing is said in the legal process.  From the whole affair came a\npopular saying, c'est l'esprit d'Orleans, when any fable was told.\nBuchanan talks of cauta parum pietas in fraude paranda.\n\nThe evidence, it may be seen, is not very coherent, and the\nFranciscans may have been the deceived, not the deceivers. {117}\nWierus himself admits that he often heard a brownie in his father's\nhouse, which frightened him not a little, and Georgius Pictorius\navers that a noisy spirit haunted his uncle's house for thirty\nyears, a very protracted practical joke, if it was a practical joke.\n{118}  This was a stone-throwing demon.\n\nA large book might easily be filled with old stories of mysterious\nflights of stones, and volatile chairs and tables.  The ancient\nmystics of the Levant were acquainted with the phenomena, as\nIamblichus shows.  The Eskimo knew them well.  Glanvill is rich in\nexamples, the objects flying about in presence of a solitary\nspectator, who has called at a 'haunted house,' and sometimes the\nevents accompany the presence of a single individual, who may, or\nmay not be a convulsionary or epileptic.  Sometimes they befall\nwhere no individual is suspected of constitutional electricity or of\nimposture.\n\nWe may select a laughable example from a rare tract.  'An authentic,\ncandid, and circumstantial narrative of the astonishing transactions\nat Stockwell, in the county of Surrey, on Monday and Tuesday, the\n6th and 7th of January, 1772.  Published with the consent and\napprobation of the family and other parties concerned, to\nauthenticate which, the original copy is signed by them.  London,\n1772, printed for J. Marks, bookseller, in St. Martin's Lane.'\n\nThe dramatis personae are old Mrs. Golding, of Stockwell parish, 'a\ngentlewoman of unblemished honour and character'; Mrs. Pain, her\nniece, a farmer's wife, 'respected in the parish'; Mary Martin, her\nservant, previously with Mrs. Golding; Richard Fowler, a labourer,\nliving opposite Mrs. Pain; Sarah Fowler his wife--all these sign the\ndocument,--and Ann Robinson, Mrs. Golding's maid, just entered on\nher service.  Ann does _not_ sign.\n\nThe trouble began at ten a.m. on January 6, when Mrs. Golding heard\na great smash of crockery, an event 'most incident to maids'.  The\nlady went into the kitchen, when plates began to fall from the\ndresser 'while she was there and nobody near them'.  Then a clock\ntumbled down, so did a lantern, a pan of salt beef cracked, and a\ncarpenter, Rowlidge, suggested that a recent addition of a room\nabove had shaken the foundation of the house.  Mrs. Golding rushed\ninto the house of Mr. Gresham, her next neighbour, and fainted.\nMeanwhile Ann Robinson was 'mistress of herself, though china fall,'\nand seemed in no hurry to leave the threatened dwelling.  The niece\nof Mrs. Golding, Mrs. Pain, was sent for to Mr. Gresham's, Mrs.\nGolding was bled, when, lo, 'the blood sprang out of the basin upon\nthe floor, and the basin broke to pieces!'  A bottle of rum, of\nsympathetic character, also burst.  Many of Mrs. Golding's more\nfragile effects had been carried into Mr. Gresham's:  the glasses\nand china first danced, and then fell off the side-board and broke.\nMrs. Golding, 'her mind one confused chaos,' next sought refuge at\nMr. Mayling's for three-quarters of an hour.  Here nothing unusual\noccurred, but, at Mr. Gresham's (where Ann Robinson was packing the\nremains of her mistress's portable property) a 'mahogany waiter,' a\nquadrille box, a jar of pickles and a pot of raspberry jam shared\nthe common doom.  'Their end was pieces.'  Mrs. Pain now hospitably\nconveyed her aunt to her house at Rush Common, 'hoping all was\nover'.  This was about two in the afternoon.\n\nAt eight in the evening, the whole row of pewter dishes, bar one,\nfell from a shelf, rolled about a little, and 'as soon as they were\nquiet, turned upside down; they were then put upon the dresser, and\nwent through the same a second time'.  Then of two eggs, one 'flew\noff, crossed the kitchen, struck a cat on the head, and then burst\nin pieces'.  A pestle and a mortar presently 'jumped six feet from\nthe floor'.  The glass and crockery were now put on the floor, 'he\nthat is down need fear no fall,' but the objects began to dance, and\ntumble about, and then broke to pieces.  A china bowl jumped eight\nfeet but was not broken.  However it tried again, and succeeded.\nCandlesticks, tea-kettles, a tumbler of rum and water, two hams, and\na flitch of bacon joined in the corroboree.  'Most of the genteel\nfamilies around were continually sending to inquire after them, and\nwhether all was over or not.'  All this while, Ann was 'walking\nbackwards and forwards', nor could they get her to sit down, except\nfor half an hour, at prayers, 'then all was quiet'.  She remarked,\nwith stoicism, 'these things could not be helped'.  Fowler came in\nat ten, but fled in a fright at one in the morning.  By five, Mrs.\nGolding summoned Mrs. Pain, who had gone to bed, 'all the tables,\nchairs, drawers, etc., were tumbling about'.\n\nThey rushed across to Fowler's where, as soon as Ann arrived, the\nold game went on.  Fowler, therefore, like the landlord in the poem,\n'did plainly say as how he wished they'd go away,' at the same time\nasking Mrs. Golding 'whether or not, she had been guilty of some\natrocious crime, for which providence was determined to pursue her\non this side the grave,' and to break crockery till death put an end\nto the stupendous Nemesis.  'Having hitherto been esteemed a most\ndeserving person,' Mrs. Golding replied, with some natural warmth,\nthat 'her conscience was quite clear, and she could as well wait the\nwill of providence in her own house as in any other place,' she and\nthe maid went to her abode, and there everything that had previously\nescaped was broken.  'A nine-gallon cask of beer that was in the\ncellar, the door being open and nobody near it, turned upside down';\n'a pail of water boiled like a pot'.  So Mrs. Golding discharged\nMiss Ann Robinson and that is all.\n\nAt Mrs. Golding's they took up three, and at Mrs. Pain's two pails\nof the fragments that were left.  The signatures follow, appended on\nJanuary 11.\n\nThe tale has a sequel.  In 1817 an old Mr. Braidley, who loved his\njoke, told Hone that he knew Ann, and that she confessed to having\ndone the tricks by aid of horse-hairs, wires and other simple\nappliances.  We have not Mr. Braidley's attested statement, but\nAnn's character as a Medium is under a cloud.  Have all other\nMediums secret wires?  (Every-day Book, i. 62.)\n\nAnn Robinson, we have seen, was a tranquil and philosophical maiden.\nNot so was another person who was equally active, ninety years\nearlier.\n\nBovet, in his Pandaemonium (1684), gives an account of the Demon of\nSpraiton, in 1682.  His authorities were 'J. G., Esquire,' a near\nneighbour to the place, the Rector of Barnstaple, and other\nwitnesses.  The 'medium' was a young servant man, appropriately\nnamed Francis Fey, and employed in the household of Sir Philip\nFurze.  Now, this young man was subject to 'a kind of trance, or\nextatick fit,' and 'part of his body was, occasionally, somewhat\nbenumbed and seemingly deader than the other'.  The nature of Fey's\ncase, physically, is clear.  He was a convulsionary, and his head\nwould be found wedged into tight places whence it could hardly be\nextracted.  From such a person the long and highly laughable tale of\nghosts (a male ghost and a jealous female ghost) which he told does\nnot much win our acceptance.  True, Mrs. Thomasin Gidley, Anne\nLangdon, and a little child also saw the ghost in various forms.\nBut this was probably mere fancy, or the hallucinations of Fey were\ninfectious.  But objects flew about in the young man's presence.\n'One of his shoe-strings was observed (without the assistance of any\nhand) to come of its own accord out of his shoe and fling itself to\nthe other side of the room; the other was crawling after it (!) but\na maid espying that, with her hand drew it out, and it clasp'd and\ncurl'd about her hand like a living eel or serpent.  A barrel of\nsalt of considerable quantity hath been observed to march from room\nto room without any human assistance,' and so forth. {122}\n\nIt is hardly necessary to add more modern instances.  The 'electric\ngirl' Angelique Cottin, who was a rival of Ann Robinson, had her\npowers well enough attested to arouse the curiosity of Arago.  But,\nwhen brought from the country to Paris, her power, or her artifice,\nfailed.\n\nIt is rather curious that tales of volatile furniture are by no\nmeans very common in trials for witchcraft.  The popular belief was,\nand probably still is, that a witch or warlock could throw a spell\nover an enemy so that his pots, and pans, tables and chairs, would\nskip around.  The disturbances of this variety, in the presbytery at\nCideville, in Seine Inferieure (1850), came under the eye of the\nlaw, because a certain shepherd injudiciously boasted that he had\ncaused them by his magic art. {123a}  The cure, who was the victim,\ntook him at his word, and the shepherd swain lost his situation.  He\nthen brought an action for defamation of character, but was non-\nsuited, as it was proved that he had been the fanfaron of his own\nvices.  In Froissart's amusing story of Orthon, that noisy sprite\nwas hounded on by a priest.  At Tedworth, the owner of the drum was\n'wanted' on a charge of sorcery as the cause of the phenomena.  The\nWesleys suspected that their house was bewitched.  But examples in\nwitch trials are not usual.  Mr. Graham Dalyell, however, gives one\ncase, 'the firlote rynning about with the stuff popling,' on the\nfloor of a barn, and one where 'the sive and the wecht dancit throw\nthe hous'. {123b}\n\nA clasped knife opened in the pocket of Christina Shaw, and her\nglove falling, it was lifted by a hand invisible to several persons\npresent.  One is reminded of the nursery rhyme,--'the dish it ran\nafter the spoon'.  In the presence of Home, even a bookcase is said\nto have forgotten itself, and committed the most deplorable\nexcesses.  In the article of Mr. Myers, already cited, we find a\ntable which jumps by the bedside of a dying man. {124}  A handbag of\nMiss Power's flies from an arm-chair, and hides under a table; raps\nare heard; all this when Miss Power is alone.  Mr. H. W. Gore Graham\nsees a table move about.  A heavy table of Mr. G. A. Armstrong's\nrises high in the air.  A tea-table 'runs after' Professor\nAlexander, and 'attempts to hem me in,' this was at Rio de Janeiro,\nin the Davis family, where raps 'ranged from hardly perceptible\nticks up to resounding blows, such as might be struck by a wooden\nmallet'.  A Mr. H. falls into convulsions, during which all sorts of\nthings fly about.  All these stories closely correspond to the tales\nin Increase Mather's Remarkable Providences in New England, in which\nthe phenomena sometimes occur in the presence of an epileptic and\nconvulsed boy, about 1680.  To take one classic French case, Segrais\ndeclares that a M. Patris was lodged in the Chateau d'Egmont.  At\ndinner-time, he went into the room of a friend, whom he found lost\nin the utmost astonishment.  A huge book, Cardan's De Subtilitate,\nhad flown at him across the room, and the leaves had turned, under\ninvisible fingers!  There are plenty of bogles in that book.  M.\nPatris laughed at this tale, and went into the gallery, when a large\nchair, so heavy that two men could scarcely lift it, shook itself\nand came at him.  He remonstrated, and the chair returned to its\nusual position.  'This made a deep impression on M. Patris, and\ncontributed in no slight degree to make him a converted character'--\na le faire devenir devot. {125a}\n\nTales like this, with that odd uniformity of tone and detail which\nmakes them curious, might be collected from old literature to any\nextent.  Thus, among the sounds usually called 'rappings,' Mr.\nCrookes mentions, as matter within his own experience, 'a cracking\nlike that heard when a frictional machine is at work'.  Now, as may\nbe read in Southey's Life of Wesley and in Clarke's Memoirs of the\nWesleys, this was the very noise which usually heralded the arrival\nof 'Jeffrey,' as they called the Epworth 'spirit'. {125b}  It has\nbeen alleged that the charming and ill-fated Hetty Wesley caused the\ndisturbances.  If so (and Dr. Salmon, who supports this thesis, does\nnot even hazard a guess as to the modus operandi), Hetty must have\nbeen familiar with almost the whole extent of psychical literature,\nfor she scarcely left a single phenomenon unrepresented.  It does\nnot appear that she supplied visible 'hands'.  We have seen Glanvill\nlay stress on the apparition of a hand.  In the case of the devil of\nGlenluce, 'there appeared a naked hand, and an arm from the elbow\ndown, beating upon the floor till the house did shake again'. {126a}\nAt Rerrick, in 1695, 'it knocked upon the chests and boards, as\npeople do at a door'.  'And as I was at prayer,' says the Rev.\nAlexander Telfair, 'leaning on the side of a bed, I felt something\nthrusting my arm up, and casting my eyes thitherward, perceived a\nlittle white hand, and an arm from the elbow down, but it vanished\npresently.' {126b}  The hands viewed, grasped, and examined by\nHome's clientele, hands which melted away in their clutch, are\ninnumerable, and the phenomenon, with the 'cold breeze,' is among\nthe most common in modern narratives.\n\nOur only conclusion is that the psychological conditions which begat\nthe ancient narratives produce the new legends.  These surprise us\nby the apparent good faith in marvel and myth of many otherwise\ncredible narrators, and by the coincidence, accidental or designed,\nwith old stories not generally familiar to the modern public.  Do\nimpostors and credulous persons deliberately 'get up' the subject in\nrare old books?  Is there a method of imposture handed down by one\ngeneration of bad little girls to another?  Is there such a thing as\npersistent identity of hallucination among the sane?  This was\nColeridge's theory, but it is not without difficulties.  These\nquestions are the present results of Comparative Psychological\nResearch.\n\n\n\n\n\nHAUNTED HOUSES\n\n\nReginald Scot on Protestant expulsion of Ghosts.  His boast\npremature.  Savage hauntings.  Red Indian example.  Classical cases.\nPetrus Thyraeus on Haunted Houses.  His examples from patristic\nliterature.  Three species of haunting spirits.  Demons in\ndisguises.  Hallucinations, visual, auditory, and tactile.  Are the\nsounds in Haunted Houses real or hallucinatory?  All present do not\nalways hear them.  Interments in houses to stop hauntings.  Modern\nexample.  The Restoration and Scepticism.  Exceptional position of\nDr. Johnson.  Frequency of Haunted Houses in modern Folklore.\nResearches of the S. P. R.  Failure of the Society to see Ghosts.\nUncertain behaviour of Ghosts.  The Society need a 'seer' or\n'sensitive' comrade.  The 'type' or normal kind of Haunted Houses.\nSome natural explanations.  Historical continuity of type.  Case of\nSir Walter Scott.  A haunted curacy.  Modern instances.  Miss\nMorton's case:  a dumb ghost.  Ghost, as is believed, of a man of\nletters.  Mr. Harry's ghost raises his mosquito curtains.  Columns\nof light.  Mr. Podmore's theory.  Hallucinations begotten by natural\ncauses are 'telepathically' transferred, with variations, to\nstrangers at a distance.  Example of this process.  Incredulity of\nMr. Myers.  The spontaneous phenomena reproduced at 'seances'.  A\nghost who followed a young lady.  Singular experience of the writer\nin Haunted Houses.  Experience negative.  Theory of 'dreams of the\ndead'.  Difficulties of this theory; physical force exerted in\ndreams.  Theory of Mr. James Sully.  His unscientific method and\ncarelessness as to evidence.  Reflections.\n\nReginald Scot, the humane author who tried, in his Discovery of\nWitchcraft, 1584 (xv. 39), to laugh witch trials away, has a\ntriumphant passage on the decline of superstition.  'Where are the\nsoules that swarmed in time past? where are the spirits? who heareth\ntheir noises? who seeth their visions?'  He decides that the spirits\nwho haunt places and houses, may have gone to Italy, because masses\nare dear in England.  Scot, as an ardent Protestant, conceived that\nhaunted houses were 'a lewd invention,' encouraged, if not\noriginated, by the priests, in support of the doctrine of purgatory.\nAs a matter of fact the belief in 'haunting,' dates from times of\nsavagery, when we may say that every bush has its bogle.  The Church\nhad nothing to do with the rise of the belief, though, early in the\nReformation, some 'psychical phenomena' were claimed as experimental\nproofs of the existence of purgatory.  Reginald Scot decidedly made\nhis Protestant boast too soon.  After 300 years of 'the Trewth,' as\nKnox called it, the haunted houses are as much part of the popular\ncreed as ever.  Houses stand empty, and are said to be 'haunted'.\nHere not the fact of haunting, but only the existence of the\nsuperstition is attested.  Thus a house in Berkeley Square was long\nunoccupied, for reasons perfectly commonplace and intelligible.  But\nthe fact that it had no tenants needed to be explained, and was\nexplained by a myth,--there were ghosts in the house!  On the other\nhand, if Reginald Scot asked today, 'Who heareth the noises, who\nseeth the visions?' we could answer, 'Protestant clergymen, officers\nin the army, ladies, land-agents, solicitors, representatives of all\nclasses, except the Haunted House Committee of the Psychical\nSociety'.\n\nBefore examining the researches and the results of this learned\nbody, we may glance at some earlier industry of investigators.  The\ncommon savage beliefs are too well known to need recapitulation, and\nhave been treated by Mr. Tylor in his chapter on 'Animism,' {129}\nand by Mr. Herbert Spencer in Principles of Psychology.  The points\nof difference between these authors need not detain us here.  As a\nrule the spirits which haunt the bush, or the forest, are but\nvaguely conceived of by the Australian blacks, or Red Men:  they may\nbe ghosts of the dead, or they may be casual spirits unattached.  An\nexample analogous to European superstition is given by John Tanner\nin his Narrative of a Captivity among the Red Indians, 1830.  In\nthis case one man had slain his brother, or, at least, a man of his\nown Totem, and was himself put to death by the kindred.  The\nspectres of both haunted a place which the Indians shunned, but\nTanner (whose Totem was the same as that of the dead) passed a night\non the scene.  His dreams, if not his waking moments, for his\naccount is indistinct, were disturbed by the ghosts.  It is\nimpossible to ascertain how far this particular superstition was\ncoloured by European influences. {130}\n\nOver classical tales we need not linger.  Pliny, Plutarch,\nSuetonius, St. Augustine, Lucian, Plautus (in the Mostellaria),\ndescribe, with more or less of seriousness, the apparitions and\nnoises which haunted houses, public baths, and other places.\nOccasionally a slain man's phantom was anxious that his body should\nbe buried, and the reported phenomena were akin to those in modern\npopular legends.  Sometimes, in the middle ages, and later, the law\ntook cognisance of haunted houses, when the tenant wished to break\nhis lease.  A collection of authorities is given elsewhere, in\nGhosts before the Law.  It is to be noticed that Bouchel, in his\nBibliotheque du Droit Francais, chiefly cites classical, not modern,\ninstances.\n\nAmong the most careful and exhaustive post-mediaeval writers on\nhaunted houses we must cite Petrus Thyraeus of the Society of Jesus,\nDoctor in Theology.  His work, published at Cologne in 1598, is a\nquarto of 352 pages, entitled, 'Loca Infesta; That is, Concerning\nPlaces Haunted by Mischievous Spirits of Demons and of the Dead.\nThereto is added a Tract on Nocturnal Disturbances, which are wont\nto bode the deaths of Men.'  Thyraeus begins, 'That certain places\nare haunted by spectres and spirits, is no matter of doubt,' wherein\na modern reader cannot confidently follow him.\n\nWhen it comes to establishing his position Thyraeus most provokingly\nsays, 'we omit cases which are recent and of daily occurrence,' such\nas he heard narrated, during his travels, in 'a certain haunted\ncastle'.  A modern inquirer naturally prefers recent examples, which\nmay be inquired into, but the old scholars reposed more confidence\nin what was written by respected authors, the more ancient the more\nauthoritative.  However Thyraeus relies on the anthropological test\nof evidence, and thinks that his belief is confirmed by the\ncoincident reports of hauntings, 'variis distinctissimisque locis et\ntemporibus,' in the most various times and places.  There is\nsomething to be said for this view, and the identity of the alleged\nphenomena, in all lands and ages, does raise a presumption in favour\nof some kind of abnormal occurrences, or of a common species of\nhallucinations.  Like most of the old authors Thyraeus quotes\nAugustine's tale of a haunted house, and an exorcism in De Civitate\nDei (lib. xxii. ch. viii.).  St. Gregory has also a story of one\nPaschasius, a deacon, who haunted some baths, and was seen by a\nbishop. {131a}  There is a ghost who rode horses, and frightened the\nreligious in the Life of Gregory by Joannes Diaconus (iv. 89).  In\nthe Life of Theodorus one Georgius, a disciple of his, mentions a\nhouse haunted by stone-throwing sprites, a very common phenomenon in\nthe books of Glanvill, and Increase Mather, in witch trials, and in\nrural disturbances.  Omitting other examples Cardan {131b} is cited\nfor a house at Parma, in which during a hundred years the phantom of\nan old woman was seen before the death of members of the family.\nThis is a rare case of an Italian Banshie.  William of Paris, in\nBodin (iii. ch. vi.) tells of a stone-throwing fiend, very active in\n1447.  The bogey of Bingen, a rapping ghost of 856, is duly\nchronicled; he also threw stones.  The dormitory of some nuns was\nhaunted by a spectre who moaned, tramped noisily around, dragged the\nsisters out of bed by the feet, and even tickled them nearly to\ndeath!  This annoyance lasted for three years, so Wierus says. {132}\nWodrow chronicles a similar affair at Mellantrae, in Annandale.\nThyraeus distinguishes three kinds of haunting sprites, devils,\ndamned souls, and souls in purgatory.  Some are mites, mild and\nsportive; some are truculenti ferocious.  Brownies, or fauni, may\nact in either character, as Secutores et joculatores.  They rather\naim at teasing than at inflicting harm.  They throw stones, lift\nbeds, and make a hubbub and crash with the furniture.  Suicides,\nmurderers, and spirits of murdered people, are all apt to haunt\nhouses.  The sprites occasionally appear in their proper form, but\njust as often in disguise:  a demon, too, can appear in human shape\nif so disposed:  demons being of their nature deceitful and fond of\ntravesty, as Porphyry teaches us and as Law (1680) illustrates.\nWhether the spirits of the dead quite know what they are about when\nthey take to haunting, is, in the opinion of Thyraeus, a difficult\nquestion.  Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, inclines to hold\nthat when there is an apparition of a dead man, the dead man is\nunconscious of the circumstance.  A spirit of one kind or another\nmay be acting in his semblance.  Thyraeus rather fancies that the\ndead man is aware of what is going on.\n\nHauntings may be visual, auditory, or confined to the sense of\ntouch.  Auditory effects are produced by flutterings of air, noises\nare caused, steps are heard, laughter, and moaning.  Lares domestici\n(brownies) mostly make a noise.  Apparitions may be in tactile form\nof men or animals, or monsters.  As for effects, some ghosts push\nthe living and drive them along, as the Bride of Lammermoor, in\nLaw's Memorialls, was 'harled through the house,' by spirits.  The\nspirits of an amorous complexion seem no longer to be numerous, but\nare objects of interest to Thyraeus as to Increase Mather.  Thyraeus\nnow raises the difficult question:  'Are the sounds heard in haunted\nhouses real, or hallucinatory?'  Omnis qui a spiritibus fit,\nsimulatus est, specie sui fallit.  The spirits having no vocal\norgans, can only produce _noise_.  In a spiritual hurly-burly, some\nof the mortals present _hear nothing_ (as we shall note in some\nmodern examples), but may they not be prevented from hearing by the\nspirits?  Or again, the sounds may be hallucinatory and only some\nmortals may have the power of hearing them.  If there are visual,\nthere may also be auditory hallucinations. {133}  On the whole\nThyraeus thinks that the sounds may be real on some occasions, when\nall present hear them, hallucinatory on others.  But the sounds need\nnot be produced on the furniture, for example, when they seem to be\nso produced.  'Often we think that the furniture has been all tossed\nabout, when it really has not been stirred.'  The classical instance\nof the disturbances which aroused Scott at Abbotsford, on the death\nof his agent Bullock, is in point here.  'Often a hammer is heard\nrapping, when there is no hammer in the house' (p. 82).  These are\ncurious references to phenomena, however we explain them, which are\nstill frequently reported.\n\nThyraeus thinks that the air is agitated when sounds are heard, but\nthat is just the question to be solved.\n\nAs for visual phantasms, these Thyraeus regards as hallucinations\nproduced by spirits on the human senses, not as external objective\nentities.  He now asks why the sense of _touch_ is affected usually\nas if by a cold body.  Beyond assuming the influence of spirits over\nthe air, and, apparently, their power of using dead bodies as\nvehicles for themselves, Thyraeus comes to no distinct conclusion.\nHe endeavours, at great length, to distinguish between haunters who\nare ghosts of the dead, and haunters who are demons, or spirits\nunattached.  The former wail and moan, the latter are facetious.  He\ndecides that to bury dead bodies below the hearth does not prevent\nhaunting, for 'the hearth has no such efficacy'.  Such bodies are\nnot very unfrequently found in old English houses, the reason for\nthis strange interment is not obvious, but perhaps it is explained\nby the superstition which Thyraeus mentions.  One might imagine that\nto bury people up and down a house would rather secure haunting than\nprevent it.  And, indeed, at Passenham Rectory, where the Rev. G. M.\nCapell found seven skeletons in his dining-room, in 1874, Mrs.\nMontague Crackanthrope and her nurse were 'obsessed' by 'a feeling\nthat some one was in the room,' when some one was _not_. {135}\nPerhaps seven burials were not sufficient to prevent haunting.  The\nconclusion of the work of Thyraeus is devoted to exorcisms, and\northodox methods of expelling spirits.  The knockings which herald a\ndeath are attributed to the Lares, a kind of petty mischievous\ndemons unattached.  Such is the essence of the learned Jesuit's\nwork, and the strange thing is that, in an age of science, people\nare still discussing his problems, and, stranger still, that the\nreported phenomena remain the same.\n\nThat the Church in the case of Thyraeus, and many others; that\nmedical science, in the person of Wierus (b. 1515); that law, in the\nbook of Bouchel, should have gravely canvassed the topic of haunted\nhouses, was, of course, very natural in the dark ages before the\nrestoration of the Stuarts, and the founding of the Royal Society.\nCommon-sense, and 'drolling Sadduceeism,' came to their own, in\nEngland, with the king, with Charles II.  After May 29, 1660,\nWebster and Wagstaffe mocked at bogles, if Glanvill and More took\nthem seriously.\n\nBefore the Restoration it was distinctly dangerous to laugh at\nwitchcraft, ghosts and hauntings.  But the laughers came in with the\nmerry monarch, and less by argument than by ridicule, by inveighing\nagainst the horror, too, of the hideous witch prosecutions, the\nlaughers gradually brought hauntings and apparitions into contempt.\nFew educated people dared to admit that their philosophy might not\nbe wholly exhaustive.  Even ladies sneered at Dr. Johnson because\nhe, having no dread of common-sense before his eyes, was inclined to\nhold that there might be some element of truth in a world-old and\nworld-wide belief; and the romantic Anna Seward told, without\naccepting it, Scott's tale of 'The Tapestried chamber'.  That a\nhundred years after the highday and triumph of common-sense, people\nof education should be found gravely investigating all that common-\nsense had exploded, is a comfortable thought to the believer in\nProgress.  The world does not stand still.\n\nA hundred years after the blue stockings looked on Johnson as the\nlast survivor, the last of the Mohicans of superstition, the\nPsychical Society can collect some 400 cases of haunted houses in\nEngland.\n\nTen years ago, in 1884, the society sifted out nineteen stories as\nin 'the first class,' and based on good first-hand evidence.  Their\nanalysis of the reports led them to think that there is a certain\ngenuine _type_ of story, and, that when a tale 'differs widely from\nthe type, it proves to be incorrect, or unattainable from an\nauthentic source'.  This is very much the conclusion to which the\nwriter is brought by historical examination of stories about\nhauntings.  With exceptions, to be indicated, these tales all\napproximate to a type, and that is not the type of the magazine\nstory.\n\nIt may be well, in the first place, to make some negative statements\nas to what the committee does _not_ discover.  First, it has never\nyet hired haunted house in which the sights and sounds continued\nduring the tenancy of the curious observers. {137}  The most obvious\ninference is that the earlier observers who saw and heard abnormal\nthings were unscientific, convivial, nervous, hysterical, or\naddicted to practical joking.  This, however, is not the only\npossible explanation.  As a celebrated prophet, by his own avowal\nhad been 'known to be steady for weeks at a time,' so, even in a\nregular haunted house, the ghost often takes a holiday.  A case is\nwell known to the writer in which a ghost began his manoeuvres soon\nafter a family entered the house.  It made loud noises, it opened\ndoors, turning the handle as the lady of the house walked about, it\npulled her hair when she was in bed, plucked her dress, produced\nlights, and finally appeared visibly, a hag dressed in grey, to\nseveral persons.  Then as if sated, the ghost struck work for years,\nwhen it suddenly began again, was as noisy as ever, and appeared to\na person who had not seen it before, but who made a spirited if\nunsuccessful attempt to run it to earth.\n\nThe truth is, that magazine stories and superstitious exaggerations\nhave spoiled us for ghosts.  When we hear of a haunted house, we\nimagine that the ghost is always on view, or that he has a benefit\nnight, at certain fixed dates, when you know where to have him.\nThese conceptions are erroneous, and a house _may_ be haunted,\nthough nothing desirable occurs in presence of the committee.\nMoreover the committee, as far as the writer is aware, have\nneglected to add a seer to their number.  This mistake, if it has\nbeen made, is really wanton.  It is acknowledged that not every one\nhas 'a nose for a ghost,' as a character of George Eliot's says, or\neyes or ears for a ghost.  It is thought very likely that, where\nseveral people see an apparition simultaneously, the spiritual or\npsychical or imaginative 'impact' is addressed to one, and by him,\nor her (usually her) handed on to the rest of the society.  Now, if\nthe committee do not provide themselves with a good 'sensitive'\ncomrade, what can they expect, but what they get, that is, nothing?\nA witch in an old Scotch trial says, of her 'Covin,' or 'Circle,'\n'We could do no great thing without our Maiden'.  The committee\nneeds a Maiden, as a Covin needed one, and among the visionaries of\nthe Psychical Society, there must be some young lady who should be\non the House Committee.  Yet one writer in the Society's Proceedings\nwho has a very keen scent for an impostor, if not for a ghost, avers\nthat, from the evidence, she believes that they are examining facts,\nand not the origin of fables.\n\nThese facts, as was said, differ from the stories in 'Christmas\nnumbers'.  The ghost in typical reports seldom or never _speaks_.\nIt has no message to convey, or, if it has a message, it does not\nconvey it.  It does not unfold some tragedy of the past:  in fact it\nis very seldom capable of being connected with any definite known\ndead person.  The figure seen sometimes 'varies with the seer'.\n{139}  In other cases, however, different people attest having seen\nthe same phantasm.  Finally a new house seems just as likely to be\nhaunted as an old house, and the committee appears to have no\nspecial knowledge of very ancient family ghosts, such as Pearlin\nJean, the Luminous Boy of Corby, or the rather large company of\nspectres popularly supposed to make themselves at home at Glamis\nCastle.\n\nWhat then is the type, the typical haunted house, from which, if\nnarratives vary much, they are apt to break down under cross-\nexamination?\n\nThe phenomena are usually phenomena of sight, or sound, or both.  As\na rule the sounds are footsteps, rustling of dresses, knocks, raps,\nheavy bangs, noises as of dragging heavy weights, and of\ndisarranging heavy furniture.  These sometimes occur freely, where\nnobody can testify to having _seen_ anything spectral.  Next we have\nphantasms, mostly of figures beheld for a moment with 'the tail of\nthe eye' or in going along a passage, or in entering a room where\nnobody is found, or standing beside a bed, perhaps in a kind of\nself-luminous condition.  Sometimes these spectres are taken by\nvisitors for real people, but the real people cannot be found;\nsometimes they are at once recognised as phantasms, because they are\nsemi-transparent, or look very malignant, or because they glide and\ndo not walk, or are luminous, or for some other excellent reason.\nThe combination, in due proportions, of pretty frequent inexplicable\nnoises, with occasional aimless apparitions, makes up the _type_ of\northodox modern haunted house story.  The difficulty of getting\nevidence worth looking at (except for its uniformity) is obviously\ngreat.  Noises may be naturally caused in very many ways:  by winds,\nby rats, by boughs of trees, by water pipes, by birds.  The writer\nhas known a very satisfactory series of footsteps in an historical\nScotch house, to be dispelled by a modification of the water pipes.\nAgain he has heard a person of distinction mimic the noises made by\n_his_ family ghosts (which he preserved from tests as carefully as\nDon Quixote did his helmet) and the performance was an admirable\nimitation of the wind in a spout.  There are noises, however, which\ncannot be thus cheaply disposed of, and among them are thundering\nwhacks on the walls of rooms, which continue in spite of all efforts\nto detect imposture.  These phenomena, says Kiesewetter, were known\nto the Acadians of old, a circumstance for which he quotes no\nauthority. {140a}\n\nParacelsus calls the knocks pulsatio mortuorum, in his fragment on\n'Souls of the Dead,' and thinks that the sounds predict misfortune,\na very common belief. {140b}  Lavaterus says, that such\ndisturbances, in unfinished houses are a token of good luck!\n\nAgain there is the noise made apparently by violent movement of\nheavy furniture, which on immediate examination (as in Scott's case\nat Abbotsford) is found not to have been moved.  The writer is\nacquainted with a dog, a collie, which was once shut up alone in a\nroom where this disturbance occurred.  The dog was much alarmed and\nhowled fearfully, but it soon ceased to weigh on his spirits.  When\nphantasms are occasionally seen by respectable witnesses, where\nthese noises and movements occur, the haunted house is of a healthy,\northodox, modern type.  But the phenomena are nothing less than\nmodern, for Mather, Sinclair, Paracelsus, Wierus, Glanvill, Bovet,\nBaxter and other old writers are full of precisely these\ncombinations of sounds and sights, while many cases occur in old\nFrench literature, old Latin literature, and among races of the\nlower barbaric and savage grades of culture.  One or two curious\ncircumstances have rather escaped the notice of philosophers though\nnot of Thyraeus.  First, the loudest of the unexplained sounds are\n_occasionally_ not audible to all, so that (as when the noise seems\nto be caused by furniture dragged about) we may conjecture with\nThyraeus, that there is no real movement of the atmosphere, that the\napparent crash is an auditory hallucination.  The planks and heavy\nobjects at Abbotsford had _not_ been stirred, as the loud noises\noverhead indicated, when Scott came to examine them.\n\nIn a dreadfully noisy curacy vouched for by 'a well-known Church\ndignitary,' who occupied the place, there was usually a frightful\ncrash as of iron bars thrown down, at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning.\nAll the boxes and heavy material in a locked set of attics, seemed\nto be dancing about, but were never found to have been stirred.  Yet\nthis clergyman discovered that 'the great Sunday crash might\nmanifest itself to some persons in the house without his wife or\nhimself being conscious of it.  Knowing how overwhelming the sound\nalways appeared to me when I did hear it, I cannot but consider this\none of the most wonderful things in the whole business.' {142}\n\nIn this case, in a house standing hundreds of yards apart from any\nneighbour, and occupied only by a parson, his wife, and one servant,\nthese phenomena lasted for a year, with great regularity.  There\nwere the usual footsteps, the ordinary rappings were angry when\nlaughed at, and the clergyman when he left at the end of a year, was\nas far as ever from having detected any cause.  Indeed it is not\neasy to do so.  A friend of the writer's, an accomplished man of\nlaw, was once actually consulted, in the interests of an enraged\nsquire, as to how he could bring a suit against _somebody_ for a\nseries of these inexplicable disturbances.  But the law contained no\ninstrument for his remedy.\n\nFrom the same report of the S. P. R. we take another typical case.\nA lady, in an old house, saw, in 1873, a hideous hag watching her in\nbed; she kept the tale to herself, but, a fortnight later, her\nbrother, a solicitor, was not a whit less alarmed by a similar and\nsimilarly situated phenomenon.  In this house dresses were plucked\nat, heavy blows were struck, heavy footsteps went about, there were\nraps at doors, and nobody was ever any the wiser as to the cause.\nHere it may be observed that a ghost's power of making a noise, and\nexerting what seems to be great physical energy, is often in inverse\nratio to his power of making himself generally visible, or, at all\nevents, to his inclination so to do.  Thus there is a long record of\na haunted house, by the chief observer, Miss Morton, in P. S. P. R.,\npt. xxii. p. 311.  A lady had died of habits too convivial, in 1878.\nIn April, 1882, Miss Morton's family entered, but nobody saw the\nghost till Miss Morton viewed it in June.  The appearance was that\nof a tall lady in widow's weeds, hiding her face with a\nhandkerchief.  From 1882 to 1884, Miss Morton saw the spectre six\ntimes, but did not name it to her family.  Her sister saw the\nappearance in 1882, a maid saw it in 1883, and two boys beheld it in\nthe same year.  Miss Morton used to follow the appearance downstairs\nand speak to it, but it merely gave a slight gasp, and seemed unable\nto converse.  By way of testing the spectre, Miss Morton stretched\nthreads at night from the railing of the stair to the wall, but the\nghost descended without disturbing them.  Yet her footsteps sounded\non the stairs.  This is, in fact, a crucial difficulty about ghosts.\nThey are material enough to make a noise as they walk, but _not_\nmaterial enough to brush away a thread!  This ghost, whose visible\nform was so much en evidence, could, or did, make no noise at all,\nbeyond light pushes at doors, and very light footsteps.  In the\ncuracy already described, noises were made enough to waken a parish,\nbut no form was ever seen.  Briefly, for this ghost there is a cloud\nof witnesses, all solemnly signing their depositions.  These two\nexamples are at the opposite poles between which ghostly\nmanifestations vary, in haunted houses.\n\nA brief precis of 'cases' may show how these elements of noise, on\none side, and apparitions, on the other, are commonly blended.  In a\ndetached villa, just outside 'the town of C.,' Mrs. W. remarks a\nfigure of a tall dark-haired man peeping round the corner of a\nfolding door.  She does not mention the circumstance.  Two months\nlater she sees the same sorrowful face in the drawing-room.  This\ntime she tells her husband.  Later in the same month, when playing\ncricket with her children, she sees the face 'peeping round from the\nkitchen door'.  Rather later she heard a deep voice say in a\nsorrowful tone, 'I can't find it'; something slaps her on the back.\nHer step-daughter who had not heard of the phantasm, sees the same\npale dark-moustached face, 'peeping round the folding doors'.  She\nis then told Mrs W.'s story.  Her little brother, later, sees the\nfigure simultaneously with herself.  She also hears the voice say,\n'I can't find it,' at the same moment as Mrs. W. hears it.  A year\nlater, she sees the figure at the porch, _in a tall hat_!  Neither\nlady had enjoyed any other hallucination.  Nothing is known of the\nmelancholy spectre, probably the ghost of a literary person,\nsearching, always searching, for a manuscript poem by some total\nstranger who had worried him into his grave, and not left him at\npeace even there.  This is a very solemn and touching story, and\nappeals tenderly and sadly to all persons of letters who suffer from\nthe unasked for manuscripts of the general public.\n\n2.  Some ladies and servants in a house in Hyde Park Place, see at\nintervals a phantom housemaid:  she is also seen by a Mr. Bird.\nThere is no story about a housemaid, and there are no noises.  This\nis _not_ an interesting tale.\n\n3.  A Hindoo native woman is seen to enter a locked bath-room, where\nshe is not found on inquiry.  A woman had been murdered there some\nyears before.  The percipient, General Sir Arthur Becher, had seen\nother uncanny visions.  A little boy, wakened out of sleep, said he\nsaw an ayah.  Perhaps he did.\n\n4.  A Mr. Harry, in the South of Europe, saw a white female figure\nglide through his library into his bedroom.  Later, his daughters\nbeheld a similar phenomenon.  Mr. Harry, a gentleman of sturdy\ncommon-sense, 'dared his daughters to talk of any such nonsense as\nghosts, as they might be sure apparitions were only in the\nimagination of nervous people'.  He himself saw the phantasm seven\nor eight times in his bedroom, and twice in the library.  On one\noccasion it lifted up the mosquito curtains and stared at Mr. Harry.\nAs in the case of meeting an avalanche, 'a weak-minded man would\npray, sir, would pray; a strong-minded man would swear, sir, would\nswear'.  Mr. Harry was a strong-minded man, and behaved 'in a\nconcatenation accordingly,' although Petrus Thyraeus says that there\nis no use in swearing at ghosts.  The phantasm seemed to be about\nthirty-five, her features were described as 'rather handsome,' and\n(unromantically) as 'oblong'.  A hallucination, we need hardly say,\nwould not raise the mosquito curtains, this ghost had more heart in\nit than most.\n\n5.  Various people see 'a column of light vaguely shaped like a\nwoman,' moving about in a room of a house in Sussex.  One servant,\nwho slept in the room in hopes of a private view, saw 'a ball of\nlight with a sort of halo round it'.  Again, in a very pretty story,\nthe man who looked after an orphan asylum saw a column of light\nabove the bed of one of the children.  Next morning the little boy\ndeclared that his mother had come to visit him, probably in a dream.\n\nOn this matter of lights {146} Mr. Podmore enters into argument with\nMr. Frederick Myers.  Mr. Myers, on the whole, believes that the\nphenomena of haunted houses are caused by influences of some sort\nfrom the minds of the dead.  Mr. Podmore, if we understand him holds\nthat some living person has had some empty hallucination, in a\nhouse, and that this is 'telepathically' handed on, perhaps to the\nnext tenant, who may know nothing about either the person or the\nvision.  Thus, a Miss Morris, much vexed by ghostly experiences,\nleft a certain house in December, 1886.  Nearly a year later, in\nNovember, 1887, a Mrs. G. came in.  Mrs. G. did not know Miss\nMorris, nor had she heard of the disturbances.  However sobs, and\nmoans, and heavy thumps, and noises of weighty objects thrown about,\nand white faces, presently drove Mrs. G. to seek police protection.\nThis only roused the ghost's ambition, and he 'came' as a man with\nfreckles, also he walked about, shook beds, and exhibited lights.  A\nfigure in black, with a white face, now displayed itself:\nbarristers and clergymen investigated, but to no purpose.  They saw\nfigures, heard crashes, and the divine did a little Anglican\nexorcism.  The only story about the house showed that a woman had\nhanged herself with a skipping rope in the 'top back bedroom,' in\n1879.  Here are plenty of phenomena, apparitions male and female.\nBut Miss Morris, in addition to hearing noises, only saw a pale\nwoman in black.\n\nMr. Podmore's theory comes in thus:  'the later experiences may have\nbeen started by thought transference from Miss Morris, whose\nthoughts, no doubt, occasionally turned to the house in which she\nhad suffered so much agitation and alarm'.  Moreover 'real noises'\nmay have 'suggested' the visual hallucinations to Miss Morris. {147}\nMr. Podmore certainly cannot be accused of ordinary superstition.\nThere is a house, and there is a tenant.  She hears footsteps\npounding up- and down-stairs, and all through her room, she says\nnothing and gets used to it.  Let it be granted that these noises\nare caused by rats.  After conquering her dislike to the sounds,\nthree weeks after her entry to the house, Miss Morris meets a total\nstranger, deadly pale, in deep black, who vanishes.  This phantasm\nhas gathered round the nucleus which the rats provided by stamping\nup- and down-stairs, and through Miss Morris's room.  It is natural\nthat a person who hears rats, or wind, or waterpipes, and makes up\nher mind not to mind it, should then see a phantasm of a pale woman\nin black; also should hear loud knocks at the door of her chamber.\nMiss Morris goes away, a year later comes Mrs. G., and Mrs. G., her\nchildren, her servants, a barrister and an exorcist, are all\ndisturbed by\n\nNoises.\n\nKnocks.\n\nSobs.\n\nMoans.\n\nThumps.\n\nDragging of heavy weights.\n\nOne dreadful white face.\n\nOne little woman.\n\nLights.\n\nOne white skirt hanging from the ceiling.\n\nOne footfall which played two notes on the piano (!).\n\nOne figure in brown.\n\nOne man with freckles.\n\nTwo human faces.\n\nOne shadow.\n\nOne 'part of the dress of a super-material being' (Barrister).\n\nOne form (Exorcist).\n\nOne small column of misty vapour.\n\nNow all this catalogue of prodigies which drove Mrs. G. into the\ncold, bleak world, was caused, 'by thought transference from Miss\nMorris,' who had been absent for a year, and whose own\nhallucinations were caused by noises which may have been produced by\nrats, or what not.\n\nThis ingenious theory is too much for Mr. Myers's powers of belief:\n'The very first effect of Miss Morris's ponderings was a heavy\nthump, followed by a deep sob and moan, and a cry of, \"Oh, do\nforgive me,\" all disturbing poor Mrs. G. who had the ill luck to\nfind herself in a bedroom about which Miss Morris was possibly\nthinking. . . .  Surely the peace of us all rests on a very\nuncertain tenure.'  Meanwhile Mr. Myers prefers to regard the whole\ntrouble as more probably caused by the 'dreams of the dead' woman\nwho hanged herself with a skipping rope, than by the reflections of\nMiss Morris.  In any case the society seem to have occupied the\nhouse, and, with their usual bad luck, were influenced neither by\nthe ponderings of Miss Morris, nor by the fredaines of the lady of\nthe skipping rope. {149}  It may be worth noticing that the raps,\nknocks, lights, and so forth of haunted houses, the 'spontaneous'\ndisturbances, have been punctually produced at savage, classical,\nand modern seances.  If these, from the days of the witch of Endor\nto our own, and from the polar regions to Australia, have all been\nimpostures, at least they all imitate the 'spontaneous' phenomena\nreported to occur in haunted houses.  The lights are essential in\nthe seances described by Porphyry, Eusebius, Iamblichus:  they were\nalso familiar to the covenanting saints.  The raps are known to\nAustralian black fellows.  The phantasms of animals, as at the\nWesleys' house, may be beasts who play a part in the dead man's\ndream, or they may be incidental hallucinations, begotten of rats,\nand handed on by Miss Morris or any one else.\n\nThere remains a ghost who illustrates the story, spread all over\nEurope, of the farmer who was driven from his house by a bogle.  As\nhis carts went along the road, the bogle was heard exclaiming,\n'We're flitting today,' and it faithfully stayed with the family.\nThis tale, current in Italy as well as in Northern England, might be\nregarded as a mere piece of folklore, if the incident had not\nreproduced itself in West Brompton.  In 1870 the T.'s took a house\nhere:  now mark the artfulness of the ghost, it did nothing for\neighteen months.  In autumn, 1871, Miss T. saw a figure come out of\nthe dining-room, and the figure was often seen, later, by five\nindependent witnesses.  It was tall, dressed in grey, and was\nchiefly fond of haunting Miss T.'s own room.  It did not walk, it\nglided, making no noise.  Mr. T. met it in the hall, once, when he\ncame in at night, and from the street he saw it standing in the\ndrawing-room window.  It used to sigh and make a noise as of steps,\nwhen it was not visible, it knocked and moved furniture about, and\ndropped weights, but these sounds were sometimes audible only to\none, or a few of the observers.  In 1877 the T.'s left for another\nhouse, to which Miss T. did not repair till 1879.  Then the noises\ncame back as badly as ever,--the bogle had flitted,--and, on\nChristmas Day, 1879, Miss T. saw her old friend the figure.  Several\nmembers of the family never saw it at all.  One lady, in another\ncase, Miss Nettie Vatas-Simpson, tried to flap a ghost away with a\ntowel, {150} but he was not thus to be exorcised.  He presently went\nout through a locked door.\n\nSuch are the ordinary or typical phenomena of haunted houses.  It is\nplainly of no use to take a haunted house for a month and then say\nit is not haunted because you see no ghosts.  Even where they have\nbeen seen there are breaks of years without any 'manifestations'.\nBesides, the evidence shows that it is not every one who can see a\nghost when he is there:  Miss Morton's father could not see the lady\nin black, when she was visible to Miss Morton.\n\nIt is difficult to write with perfect seriousness about haunted\nhouses.  The writer will frankly confess that, when living in\nhaunted houses (as he has done at various times when suffering from\nillness and overwork), he takes a very solemn view of the matter\nabout bed-time.  If 'expectant attention' on a mind strained by the\nschools, and a body enfeebled by bronchitis, could have made a man,\nwho was the only occupant of the haunted wing of an old Scotch\ncastle, see a ghost, the writer would have seen whatever there was\nto see.  To be sure he could not rationally have regarded a spectre\nbeheld in these conditions, as a well-authenticated ghost. {151}  As\nfar as his experience of first-hand tales is concerned, the persons\nknown to him who say they have seen ghosts in haunted houses, were\nneither unhealthy, nor, except in one solitary case, imaginative,\nnor were they _expecting_ a ghost.  The apparition was 'a little\npleasant surprise'.  The usual seer is not an invalid, nor a\nliterary person who can always be dismissed as 'imaginative,' though\nhe is generally nothing of the kind.  But it cannot be denied that\nladies either see more ghosts than men or are less reluctant to\nimpart information.  The visionary lady who keeps up a regular\ntelepathic correspondence with several friends is likely to see a\nghost, and should certainly be entered at 'fixed local ghosts,' but\nthere are slight objections to such evidence, as not free from\nsuspicion of fancifulness.\n\nTurning from the seers to the seen, it is difficult or impossible\neven to suggest an hypothesis which will seem to combine the facts.\nThe most plausible fancy is that which likens the apparitions to\nfigures in a feverish dream.  Could we imagine a more or less bad\nman or woman dead, and fitfully living over again, 'in that sleep of\ndeath,' old events among old scenes, could we go further and believe\nthat these dreams were capable of being made objective and visible\nto the living, then we might find a kind of theory of the process.\nBut even if it were possible to demonstrate the existence of such a\nprocess, we are as far as ever from accounting for the force which\ncauses noises, or hallucinations of noises, a force of considerable\nvigour, according to observers.  Still less could we explain the\nrare cases in which a ghost produces a material effect on the\ninanimate or animate world, as by drawing curtains, or pulling\npeople's hair and clothes,--all phenomena as well vouched for as the\nothers.  A picture projected by one mind on another, cannot\nconceivably produce these effects.  They are such as ghosts have\nalways produced, or been said to produce.  Since the days of ancient\nEgypt, ghosts have learned, and have forgotten nothing.  Unless we\nadopt the scientific and popular system of merely saying 'Fudge!' we\nfind no end to the conundrums of the ghostly world.  Ghosts seem to\nknow as little about themselves as we do, so that, if we are to\ndiscover anything, we must make haste, before we become ghosts\nourselves.\n\nWriters on Psychology sometimes make a push at a theory of haunted\nhouses.  Mr. James Sully, for example, has done so in his book\nstyled Illusions. {153}  Mr. Sully appears well pleased with his\nhypothesis, and this, granting the accuracy of a tale for which he\nis indebted to a gentleman who need not be cited here, argues an\neasily contented disposition.  Here is the statement:--\n\n'A lady was staying at a country house.  During the night and\nimmediately on waking up she had (sic) an apparition of a strange-\nlooking man in mediaeval costume, a figure by no means agreeable,\nand which seemed altogether unfamiliar to her.  The next morning, on\nrising, she recognised the original of her hallucinatory image in a\nportrait hanging on the wall of her bedroom, which must have\nimpressed itself on her brain before the occurrence of the\napparition, though she had not attended to it.  Oddly enough, she\nnow learned for the first time that the house at which she was\nstaying had the reputation of being haunted, and by the very same\nsomewhat repulsive-looking mediaeval personage that had troubled her\ninter-somnolent moments.  The case seems to me to be typical with\nrespect to the genesis of ghosts, and of the reputation of haunted\nhouses.'\n\nThis anecdote affords much joy to the superstitious souls who deal\nin Psychical Research, or Ghost Hunting.  Mr. Sully's manner of\nnarrating it clearly proves the difference between Science and\nSuperstition.  For a Ghost Hunter or Psychical Researcher would not\nventure to publish a modern ghost story (except for mere amusement),\nif he had it not at first hand, or at second hand with corroboration\nat first hand.  Science, however, can adduce a case without\nindicating the evidence on which it rests, as whether Mr. Sully's\ninformant had the tale from the lady, or at third, fourth, fifth, or\na hundredth hand.  So much for the matter of evidence.  Next, Mr.\nSully does not tell us whether the lady 'had an apparition,' when\nshe supposed herself to be awake, or asleep, or 'betwixt and\nbetween'.  From the phrase 'inter-somnolent,' he appears to prefer\nthe intermediate condition.  But he does not pretend to have\ninterrogated the lady, the 'percipient'.  Again, the figure wore a\n'mediaeval costume,' the portrait represented a 'mediaeval\npersonage'.  Does Mr. Sully believe that the portrait was an\noriginal portrait of a real person? and how many portraits of\nmediaeval people does he suppose to exist in English country houses?\nTaking the Middle Ages as lasting till the beginning of the reign of\nHenry VIII., say till Holbein, we can assure Mr. Sully that they\nhave left us very few portraits indeed.  But perhaps it was a modern\npicture, a fanciful study of a man in mediaeval costume.  In that\nevent, Mr. Sully's case is greatly strengthened, but he does not\ntell us whether the work of art was, or was not, contemporary with\nthe Middle Ages.  Neither does he tell us whether the lady was in\nthe habit of seeing hallucinations.\n\nThe weakest point in the whole anecdote and theory is in the\nstatement, 'oddly enough, she now learned for the first time that\nthe house at which she was staying had the reputation of being\nhaunted' by the mediaeval personage.  It certainly would be very odd\nif one picture in a house troubled 'the inter-somnolent moments' of\na succession of people, who, perhaps, had never seen, or, like the\nlady, never attended to it.  Such 'troubles' are very rare:  very\nfew persons have seen a dream which, in Mr. Sully's words, 'left\nbehind, for an appreciable interval after waking, a vivid after-\nimpression, and in some cases, even the semblance of a sense\nperception'.  Mathematicians may calculate the chances against a\nsingle unnoticed portrait producing this very rare effect, in a\nseries of cases, so as to give rise to a belief in haunting, by mere\ncasual coincidence.  In the records of the Psychical Society, one\nobserver speaks of seeing a face and figure at night, which he\nrecognises next morning in a miniature on his chimney-piece.  But,\nin this case, there was no story of haunting, there had been no\nseries of similar impressions on successive occupants of the room,\n_that_ is the circumstance which Mr. Sully finds 'odd enough,' a\nsentiment in which we may all agree with him.  This is exactly the\noddity which his explanation does not explain.\n\nWhile psychological science, in this example, seems to treat matters\nof evidence rather laxly, psychical conjecture, on the other hand,\nleaves much unexplained.  Thus Mr. Myers puts forward a theory which\nis, in origin, due to St. Augustine.  The saint had observed that\nany one of us may be seen in a dream by another person, while our\nintelligence is absolutely unconscious of any communication.  Apply\nthis to ghosts in haunted houses.  We may be affected by a\nhallucination of the presence of a dead man or woman, but he, or she\n(granting their continued existence after death), may know nothing\nof the matter.  In the same way, there are stories of people who\nhave consciously tried to make others, at a distance, think of them.\nThe subjects of these experiments have, it is said, had a\nhallucination of the presence of the experimenter.  But _he_ is\nunaware of his success, and has no control over the actions of what\nold writers, and some new theosophists, call his 'astral body'.\nSuppose, then, that something conscious endures after death.\nSuppose that some one thinks he sees the dead.  It does not follow\nthat the surviving consciousness (ex hypothesi) of the dead person\nwho seems to be seen, is aware that he is 'manifesting' himself.  As\nMr. Myers puts it, 'ghosts must therefore, as a rule, represent--not\nconscious or central currents of intelligence--but mere automatic\nprojections from consciousnesses which have their centres\nelsewhere,' [Greek]:  as Homer makes Achilles say, 'there is no\nheart in them.' {156}  All this is not inconceivable.  But all this\ndoes not explain the facts, namely, the noises, often very loud, and\nthe movements of objects, and the lights which are the common or\ninfrequent accompaniments of apparitions in haunted houses.  Now we\nhave (always on much the same level of evidence) accounts of similar\nnoises, and movements of untouched objects, occurring where living\npersons of peculiar constitution are present, or in haunted houses.\nThese things we discuss in an essay on 'The Logic of Table-turning'.\nBy parity of reasoning, or at least by an obvious analogy, we are\nled to infer that more than 'an automatic projection from the\nconsciousness' of a dead man is present where he is not only seen,\nbut heard, making noises, and perhaps moving objects.  If this be\nadmitted then psychical conjecture is pushed back on something very\nlike the old theory of haunted houses, namely, that a ghost, or\nspiritual entity, is present and active there.\n\nLong ago, in a little tale called 'Castle Perilous' (published in a\nvolume named The Wrong Paradise), the author made an affable sprite\nexplain all these phenomena.  'We suffer, we ghosts,' he said in\neffect, 'from a malady akin to aphasia in the living.  We know what\nwe want to say, and how we wish to appear, but, just as a patient in\naphasia uses the wrong word, we use the wrong manifestation.'  This\nhe illustrated by a series of apparitions on his own part, which, he\ndeclared, were involuntary and unconscious:  when they were\ndescribed to him by the percipient, he admitted that they were\nvulgar and distressing, though, as far as he was concerned, merely\nautomatic.\n\nThese remarks of the ghost, were, at least, explicit and\nintelligible.  The theory which he stated with an honourable\ncandour, and in language perfectly lucid, appears to have been\nadopted by Mr. Frederick Myers, but he puts it in a different style.\n'I argue that the phantasmogenetic agency at work--whatever that may\nbe--may be able to produce effects of light more easily than\ndefinite figures. . . .  A similar argument will hold good in the\ncase of the vague hallucinatory noises which frequently accompany\ndefinite veridical phantasms, and frequently also occur apart from\nany definite phantasm in houses reputed haunted.' {158a}  Now where\nMr. Myers says 'phantasmogenetic agency,' we say 'ghost'.  J'appelle\nun chat, un chat, et Rollet un fripon.  We urge that the ghost\ncannot, as it were, express himself as plainly as he would like to\ndo, that he suffers from aphasia.  Now he shows as a black dog, now\nas a green lady, now as an old man, and often he can only rap and\nknock, or display a light, or tug the bed-clothes.  Thus the Rev. F.\nG. Lee tells us that a ghost first sat on his breast invisibly, then\nglided about his room like a man in grey, and, finally, took to\nthumping on the walls, the bed and in the chimney.  Dr. Lee kindly\nrecited certain psalms, and was greeted with applause, 'a very\ntornado of knocks . . . was the distinct and intelligible response'.\n{158b}  Now, on our theory, the ghost, if he could, would have said,\n'Thank you very much,' or the like, but he could not, so his\nsentiments translated themselves into thumps.  On another occasion,\nhe might have merely shown a light, or he might have sat on Dr.\nLee's chest, 'pressed unduly on my chest,' says the learned divine,--\nor pulled his blankets off, as is not unusual.  Such are the\npeculiarities of spectral aphasia, or rather asemia.  The ghost can\nmake signs, but not the right signs.\n\nVery fortunately for science, we have similar examples of imperfect\nexpression in the living.  Thus Dr. Gibotteau, formerly interne at a\nhospital in Paris, published, in Annales des Sciences, Psychiques\n(Oct. and Dec, 1892), his experiments on a hospital nurse, and her\nexperiments on him.  She used to try to send him hallucinations.\nOnce at 8 p.m. in summer as he stood on a balcony, he saw a curious\nreflet blanc, 'a shining shadow' like that in The Strange Story.  It\nresembled the reflection of the sun from a window, 'but there was\nneither sun, nor moon, nor lighted lamps'.  This white shadow was\nthe partial failure of Berthe, the nurse, 'to show herself to me on\nthe balcony'.  In precisely the same way, lights in haunted houses\nare partial failures of ghosts to appear in form As for the knocks,\nDr. Binns, in his Anatomy of Sleep, mentions a gentleman who could\npush a door at a distance,--if he could push, he could knock.\nPerhaps a rather larger collection of such instances is desirable,\nstill, these cases illustrate our theory.  That theory certainly\ndoes drive the cold calm psychical researcher back upon the\nprimitive explanation:  'A ghaist's a ghaist for a' that!'  We must\ncome to this, we must relapse into savage and superstitious\npsychology, if once we admit a 'phantasmogenetic agency.'  But\nscience is in quest of Truth, regardless of consequences.\n\n\n\n\nCOCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE\n\n\nCock Lane Ghost discredited.  Popular Theory of Imposture.  Dr.\nJohnson.  Story of the Ghost.  The Deceased Wife's Sister.\nBeginning of the Phenomena.  Death of Fanny.  Recurrence of\nPhenomena.  Scratchings.  Parallel Cases.  Ignorance and Malevolence\nof the Ghost.  Possible Literary Sources.  Investigation.  Imitative\nScratchings:  a Failure.  Trial of the Parsonses.  Professor\nBarrett's Irish parallel.  Cause undetected.  The Theories of\nCommon-sense.  The St. Maur Affair.  The Amiens Case.  The Sportive\nHighland Fox.  The Brightling Case.\n\nIf one phantom is more discredited than another, it is the Cock Lane\nghost.\n\nThe ghost has been a proverb for impudent trickery, and stern\nexposure, yet its history remains a puzzle, and is a good, if vulgar\ntype, of all similar marvels.  The very people who 'exposed' the\nghost, were well aware that their explanation was worthless, and\nfrankly admitted the fact.  Yet they, no more than we, were prepared\nto believe that the phenomena were produced by the spiritual part of\nMiss Fanny L.--known after her decease, as 'Scratching Fanny'.  We\nstill wander in Cock Lane, with a sense of amused antiquarian\ncuriosity, and the same feeling accompanies us in all our\nexplorations of this branch of mythology.  It may be easy for some\npeople of common-sense to believe that all London was turned upside\ndown, that Walpole, the Duke of York, Lady Mary Coke, and two other\nladies were drawn to Cock Lane (five in a hackney coach), that Dr.\nJohnson gave up his leisure and incurred ridicule, merely because a\nnaughty child was scratching on a little wooden board.\n\nThe matter cannot have been so simple as that, but from the true\nsolution of the problem we are as remote as ever.  We can, indeed,\nstudy even the Cock Lane Ghost in the light of the Comparative, or\nAnthropological Method.  We can ascertain that the occurrences which\npuzzled London in 1762, were puzzling heathen philosophers and\nFathers of the Church 1400 years earlier.  We can trace a chain of\n'Scratching Fannies' through the ages, and among races in every\ngrade of civilisation.  And then the veil drops, or we run our heads\nagainst a blank wall in a dark alley.  Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks,\nEskimo, Red Men, Dyaks, Fellows of the Royal Society, Inquisitors,\nSaints, have perlustrated Cock Lane, and have come away nothing the\nwiser.  Some, of course, have thought they had the secret, have\nrecognised the work of God, 'daemons,' 'spirits,' 'ghosts,'\n'devils,' 'fairies' and of ordinary impostors:  others have made a\npush at a theory of disengaged nervous force, or animal magnetism.\nWe prefer to leave theory alone, not even accepting with enthusiasm,\nthe hypothesis of Dr. Johnson.  'He expressed great indignation at\nthe imposture of the Cock Lane ghost, and related, with much\nsatisfaction, how he had assisted in detecting the cheat, and had\npublished an account of it in the newspapers.  Upon this subject I\nincautiously offended him, by pressing him with too many questions,'\nsays Boswell,--questions which the good doctor was obviously unable\nto answer.\n\nIt is in January, 1762, that the London newspapers begin to be full\nof a popular mystery, the Cock Lane ghost.  Reports, articles,\nletters, appeared, and the ghost made what is now called a\n'sensation'.  Perhaps, the most clear, if the most prejudiced\naccount, is that given in a pamphlet entitled The Mystery Revealed,\npublished by Bristow, in St. Paul's Churchyard (1762).  Comparing\nthis treatise (which Goldsmith is said to have written for three\nguineas) with the newspapers, The Gentleman's Magazine and the\nAnnual Register, we get a more or less distinct view of the subject.\nBut the various newspapers repeat each other's versions, with slight\nalterations; The Gentleman's Magazine, and Annual Register, follow\nsuit, the narratives are 'synoptic,' while Goldsmith's tract, if it\nbe Goldsmith's, is obviously written in defence of the unlucky Mr.\nK., falsely accused of murder by the ghost.\n\nMr. K.'s version is the version given by Goldsmith, and thus leads\nup to the 'phenomena' through a romance of middle-class life.  In\n1756, this Mr. K., a person of some means, married Miss E. L. of L.\nin Norfolk.  In eleven months the young wife died, in childbed, and\nher sister, Miss Fanny, came to keep house for Mr. K.  The usual\npassionate desire to marry his deceased wife's sister assailed Mr.\nK., and Fanny shared his flame.  According to Goldsmith, the canon\nlaw would have permitted the nuptials, if the wife had not born a\nchild which lived, though only for a few minutes.  However this may\nbe, Mr. K. honourably fled from Fanny, who, unhappily, pursued him\nwith letters, and followed him to town.  Here they took lodgings\ntogether, but when Mr. K. left the rooms, being unable to recover\nsome money which he had lent his landlord, the pair looked out for\nnew apartments.  These they found in Cock Lane, in the house of Mr.\nParsons, clerk of St. Sepulchre's.\n\nIt chanced (here we turn to the Annual Register for 1762) that Mr.\nK. left Fanny alone in Cock Lane while he went to a wedding in the\ncountry.  She asked little Elizabeth Parsons, her landlord's\ndaughter, to share her bed, and both of them were disturbed by\nstrange scratchings and rappings.  These were attributed by Mrs.\nParsons to the industry of a neighbouring cobbler, but when they\noccurred on a Sunday, this theory was abandoned.  Poor Fanny,\naccording to the newspapers, thought the noises were a warning of\nher own death.  Others, after the event, imagined that they were\ncaused by the jealous or admonishing spirit of her dead sister.\nFanny and Mr. K. (having sued Mr. Parsons for money lent) left his\nrooms in dudgeon, and went to Bartlet Court, Clerkenwell.  Here\nFanny died on February 2, 1760, of a disease which her physician and\napothecary certified to be small-pox, and her coffin was laid in the\nvault of St. John's Church.  Now the noises in Cock Lane had ceased\nfor a year and a half after Fanny left the house, but they returned\nin force in 1761-62.  Mr. Parsons in vain took down the\nwainscotting, to see whether some mischievous neighbour produced the\nsounds. {165}  The raps and scratches seemed to come on the bed of\nlittle Elizabeth Parsons, just as in the case of the Tedworth\ndrummer, investigated by Glanvill, a hundred years earlier; and in\nthe case at Orleans, 230 years earlier.  The Orleans case is\npublished, with full legal documents, from MS. 40, 7170, 4,\nBibliotheque du Roi, in Recueil de Dissertations Anciennes et\nNouvelles sur les Apparitions, ii. 90 (a Avignon, 1751).\n'Scratching' was usually the first manifestation in this affair, and\nthe scratches were heard in the bedroom occupied by certain\nchildren.  The Cock Lane child 'was always affected with tremblings\nand shiverings at the coming and going of the ghost'.  It was stated\nthat the child had seen a shrouded figure without hands; two other\nwitnesses (one of them a publican) had seen a luminous apparition,\n_with_ hands.  This brilliant being lit up the figures on the dial\nof a clock.  'The noises followed the child to other houses,' and\nmultitudes of people, clergy, nobles, and princes, also followed the\nchild.  A certain Mr. Brown was an early investigator, and published\nhis report.  Like Adrien de Montalembert, in 1526, like the\nFranciscans about 1530, he asked the ghost to reply, affirmatively\nor negatively, to questions, by one knock for 'yes,' two for 'no'.\nThis method was suggested, it seems, by a certain Mary Frazer, in\nattendance on the child.  Thus it was elicited that Fanny had been\npoisoned by Mr. K. with 'red arsenic,' in a draught of purl to which\nshe was partial.  She added that she wished to see Mr. K. hanged.\n\nShe would answer other questions, now right, and now wrong.  She\ncalled her father John, while his real name was Thomas.  In fact she\nwas what Porphyry, the Neoplatonist, would have called a 'deceitful\ndemon'.  Her chief effects were raps, scratchings, and a sound as of\nwhirring wings, which filled the room.  This phenomenon occurs in a\n'haunted house' mentioned in the Journal of the Psychical Society.\nIt is infinitely more curious to recall, that, when Mr. Im Thurn, in\nBritish Guiana, submitted to the doctoring of a peayman (see p. 39),\nhe heard a sound, 'at first low and indistinct, and then gathering\nin volume as if some big winged thing came from far toward the\nhouse, passed through the roof, and then settled heavily on the\nfloor, and again, after an interval, as if the same winged thing\nrose and passed away as it had come'.  Mr. Im Thurn thinks the\nimpression was caused by the waving of boughs.  These Cock Lane\noccurrences were attributed to ventriloquism, but, after a surgeon\nhad held his hand on the child's stomach and chest while the noises\nwere being produced, this probable explanation was abandoned.  'The\ngirl was said to be constantly attended by the usual noises, though\nbound and muffled hand and foot, and that without any motion of her\nlips, and when she appeared to be asleep.' {166}  This binding is\npractised by Eskimo Angakut, or sorcerers, as of old, by mediums\n([Greek]) in ancient Greece and Egypt, so we gather from Iamblichus,\nand some lines quoted from Porphyry by Eusebius. {167}  A kind of\n'cabinet,' as modern spiritualists call a curtain, seems to have\nbeen used.  In fact the phenomena, luminous apparition, 'tumultuous\nsounds,' and all, were familiar to the ancients.  Nobody seems to\nhave noted this, but one unusually sensible correspondent of a\nnewspaper quoted cases of knockings from Baxter's Certainty of the\nWorlds of Spirits, and thought that Baxter's popular book might have\nsuggested the imposture.  Though the educated classes had buried\nsuperstition, it lived, of course, among the people, who probably\nthumbed Baxter and Glanvill.\n\nThus things went on, crowds gathering to amuse themselves with the\nghost.  On February 1, Mr. Aldrich, a clergyman of Clerkenwell,\nassembled in his house a number of gentlemen and ladies, having\npersuaded Parsons to let his child be carried thither and tested.\nDr. Johnson was there, and Dr. Macaulay suggested the admission of a\nMrs. Oakes.  Dr. Johnson supplied the newspapers with an account of\nwhat happened.  The child was put to bed by several ladies, about\nten o'clock, and the company sat 'for rather more than an hour,'\nduring which nothing occurred.  The men then went down-stairs and\ntalked to Parsons, when they were interrupted by some of the ladies,\nwho said that scratching and knocking had set in.  The company\nreturned, and made the child hold her hands outside the bedclothes.\nNo phenomena followed.  Now the sprite had promised to rap on its\nown coffin in the vault of St. John's, so thither they adjourned\n(without the medium), but there was never a scratch!\n\n'It is therefore the opinion of the whole assembly, that the child\nhas some art of making or counterfeiting particular noises, and that\nthere is no agency of any higher cause.'\n\nIn precisely the same way the judges in the Franciscan case of 1533,\nvisited the bed of the child where the spirit had been used to\nscratch and rap, heard nothing, and decided that the affair was a\nhoax.  The nature of the fraud was not discovered, but the\nFranciscans were severely punished.  At Lyons, the bishop and some\nother clerics could get no response from the rapping spirit which\nwas so familiar with the king's chaplain, Adrien de Montalembert\n(1526-7).  Thus 'the ghost in some measure remains undetected,' says\nGoldsmith, and, indeed, Walpole visited Cock Lane, but could not get\nin, apparently _after_ the detection.  But, writing on February 2,\nhe may speak of an earlier date.\n\nMeanwhile matters were very uncomfortable for Mr. K.  Accused by a\nghost, he had no legal remedy.  Goldsmith, like most writers,\nassumes that Parsons undertook the imposture, in revenge for having\nbeen sued for money lent by Mr. K.  He adds that Mr. K. was engaged\nin a Chancery suit by his relations, and seems to suspect their\nagency.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth was being 'tested' in various ways.\nFinally the unlucky child was swung up in a kind of hammock, 'her\nhands and feet extended wide,' and, for two nights, no noises were\nheard.  Next day she was told that, if there were no noises, she and\nher father would be committed to Newgate.  She accordingly concealed\na little board, on which a kettle usually stood, a piece of wood six\ninches by four.  She managed this with so little art that the maids\nsaw her place the wood in her dress, and informed the investigators\nof the circumstances.  Scratches were now produced, but the child\nherself said that they were not like the former sounds, and 'the\nconcurrent opinion of the whole assembly was that the child had been\nfrightened by threats into this attempt. . . .  The master of the\nhouse and his friend both declared that the noises the girl had made\nthis morning _had not the least likeness to the former noises_.'  In\nthe same way the Wesleys at Epworth, in 1716, found that they could\nnot imitate the perplexing sounds produced in the parsonage.  The\nend of the affair was that Parsons, Mary Frazer, a clergyman, a\ntradesman, and others were tried at the Guildhall and convicted of a\nconspiracy, on July 10, 1762.  Parsons was pilloried, and 'a\nhandsome collection' was made for him by the spectators.  His later\nfortunes, or misfortunes, and those of the miserable little\nElizabeth, are unknown.  One thing is certain, the noises did not\nbegin in an attempt at imposture on Parsons's part; he was on good\nterms with his lodgers, when Fanny was first disturbed.  Again, the\nchild could not counterfeit the sounds successfully when she was\ndriven by threats to make the effort.  The seance of rather more\nthan an hour, in which Johnson took part, was certainly inadequate.\nThe phenomena were such as had been familiar to law and divinity, at\nleast since 856, A.D. {170a}  The agencies always made accusations,\nusually false.  The knocking spirit at Kembden, near Bingen, in 856\ncharged a priest with a scandalous intrigue.  The raps on the bed of\nthe children examined by the Franciscans, about 1530, assailed the\nreputation of a dead lady.  When the Foxes, at Rochester, in 1848-\n49, set up alphabetic communication with the knocks, they told a\nsilly tale of a murder.  The Cock Lane ghost lied in the same way.\nThe Fox girls started modern spiritualism on its wild and\nmischievous career, as Elizabeth Parsons might have done, in a more\nfavourable environment.  There was never anything new in all these\ncases.  The lowest savages have their seances, levitations, bindings\nof the medium, trance-speakers; Peruvians, Indians, have their\nobjects moved without contact.  Simon Magus, or St. Paul under that\noffensive pseudonym, was said to make the furniture move at will.\n{170b}\n\nThere is a curious recent Cock Lane case in Ireland where 'the\nghost' brought no accusations against anybody.  The affair was\ninvestigated by Mr. Barrett, a Professor in the Royal College of\nScience, Dublin, who published the results in the Dublin University\nMagazine, for December, 1877.  The scene was a small lonely farm\nhouse at Derrygonnelly, near Enniskillen.  The farmer's wife had\ndied a few weeks before Easter, 1877, leaving him with four girls,\nand one boy, of various ages, the eldest, Maggie, being twenty.  The\nnoises were chiefly heard in her neighbourhood.  When the children\nhad been put to bed, Maggie lay down, without undressing, in the\nbedroom off the kitchen.  A soft pattering noise was soon heard,\nthen raps, from all parts of the room, then scratchings, as in Cock\nLane.  When Mr. Barrett, his friend, and the farmer entered with a\ncandle, the sounds ceased, but began again 'as if growing accustomed\nto the presence of the light'.  The hands and feet of the young\npeople were watched, but nothing was detected, while the raps were\ngoing on everywhere around, on the chairs, on the quilt, and on the\nbig four-post wooden bedsteads where they were lying.  Mr. Barrett\nnow played Moro with the raps, that is, he extended so many fingers,\nkeeping his hand in the pocket of a loose great-coat, and the sounds\nalways responded the right number.  Four trials were made.  Then\ncame a noise like the beating of a drum, 'with violent scratching\nand tearing sounds'.\n\nThe trouble began three weeks after the wife's death.  Once a number\nof small stones were found on Maggie's bed.  All the family suffered\nfrom sleeplessness, and their candles, even when concealed, were\nconstantly stolen.  'It took a boot from a locked drawer,' and the\nboot was found in a great chest of feathers in a loft.  A Bible was\nspirited about, and a Methodist teacher (the family were Methodists)\nmade no impression on the agency.  They tried to get some\ncommunication by an alphabet, but, said the farmer, 'it tells lies\nas often as truth, and oftener, I think'.\n\nMr. Barrett, and a friend, on two occasions, could detect no method\nof imposture, and, as the farmer did not believe that his children,\nsorely distressed by the loss of their mother, would play such\ntricks, at such a time, even if they could, the mystery remains\nunsolved.  The family found that the less attention they paid to the\ndisturbances, the less they were vexed.  Mr. Barrett, examining some\nother cases, found that Dr. Carpenter's and other theories did not\naccount for them.  But it is certain that the children, as\nMethodists, had read Wesley's account of the spirit at Epworth, in\n1716.  Mr. Barrett was aware of this circumstance, but was unable to\ndiscover how the thing was managed, on the hypothesis of fraudulent\nimitation.  The Irish household seems to have reaped no profit by\nthe affair, but rather trouble, annoyance, and the expense of\nhospitality to strange visitors.\n\nThe agency was mendacious, as usual, for Porphyry complains that the\n'spirits' were always as deceitful as the Cock Lane ghost, feigning\nto be gods, heroes, or the souls of the dead.  It is very\ninteresting to note how, in Greece, as Christianity waxed, and\npaganism waned, such inquiring minds as that of Porphyry fell back\non seances and spiritualism, or superstitions unmentioned by Homer,\nand almost unheard of in the later classical literature.  Religion,\nwhich began in Shamanism, in the trances of Angakut and Birraark,\nreturned to these again, and everywhere found marvel, mystery,\nimposture, conscious, or unconscious.  The phenomena have never\nceased, imposture has always been detected or asserted, but that\nhypothesis rarely covers the whole field, and so, if we walk in Cock\nLane at all, we wander darkling, in good and bad company, among\ndiviners, philosophers, saints, witches, charlatans, hypnotists.\nMany a heart has been broken, like that of Mr. Dale Owen, by the\nlate discovery of life-long delusion, for we meet in Cock Lane, as\nPorphyry says, [Greek].  Yet this 'deceptive race' has had its\nstroke in the making of creeds, and has played its part in human\nhistory, while it contributes not a little to human amusement.\nMeanwhile, of all wanderers in Cock Lane, none is more beguiled than\nsturdy Common-sense, if an explanation is to be provided.  When once\nwe ask for more than 'all stuff and nonsense,' we speedily receive a\nvery mixed theory in which rats, indigestion, dreams, and of late,\nhypnotism, are mingled much at random, for Common-sense shows more\nvalour than discretion, when she pronounces on matters (or spirits)\nwhich she has never studied.\n\nBeautiful instances of common-sense explanations, occur in two\nstories of the last century, the St. Maur affair (1706), and the\nhaunted house of Amiens, (1746).  The author of 'Ce qu'on doit\npenser de l'aventure arrivee a Saint Maur,' was M. Poupart, canon of\nSt. Maur, near Paris.  The good canon, of course, admits Biblical\napparitions, which are miraculous, and admits hallucination caused\nby the state of the visual organs and by fever, while he believes in\nsomething like the Lucretian idea, that bodies, dead bodies, at\nleast, shell off a kind of peel, which may, on occasion, be visible.\nCommon ghosts he dismisses on grounds of common-sense; if spirits in\nPurgatory _could_ appear, they would appear more frequently, and\nwould not draw the curtains of beds, drag at coverlets, turn tables\nupside down, and make terrible noises, all of which feats are\ntraditional among ghosts.\n\nM. Poupart then comes to the adventure at St. Maur.  The percipient,\nM. de S., was a man of twenty-five:  his mother seems to have been a\nvisionary, and his constitution is described as 'melancholic'.  He\nwas living alone, however, and his mother has no part in the\nbusiness.  The trouble began with loud knocks at his door, and the\nservant, when she went to open it, found nobody there.  The curtains\nof his bed were drawn, when he was alone in the room, and here, of\ncourse, we have only his evidence.  One evening about eleven, he and\nhis servants heard the papers on a table being turned over, and,\nthough they suspected the cat, no cat could be found.  When S. went\nto bed, the same noise persisted in his sitting-room, where the cat,\nno doubt, could easily conceal herself, for it is not easy to find a\ncat who has motives for not being found.  S. again hunted for the\nanimal, but only heard a great rap on the wall.  No sooner had S.\ngone back to bed, than the bed gave a violent leap, and dashed\nitself against the wall:  the jump covered four feet.  He called his\nservants, who replaced the bed, but the curtains, in their sight,\nwere drawn, and the bed made a wild rush at the fireplace.  This\nhappened again twice, though the servants held on gallantly to the\nbed.  Monsieur S. had no sleep, his bed continued to bound and run,\nand he sent on the following day, for a friend.  In that gentleman's\npresence the leaps made by the bed ended in its breaking its left\nfoot, on which the visitor observed that he had seen quite enough.\nHe is said, later, to have expressed sorrow that he spoke, but he\nmay have had various motives for this repentance.\n\nOn the following night, S. slept well, and if his bed did rise and\nfall gently, the movement rather cradled him to repose.  In the\nafternoon, the bolts of his parlour door closed of their own accord,\nand the door of a large armoire opened.  A voice then bade S. do\ncertain things, which he was to keep secret, go to a certain place,\nand find people who would give him further orders.  S. then fainted,\nhurt himself, and with difficulty unbolted his door.  A fortnight\nlater, S., his mother, and a friend heard more rapping, and a heavy\nknock on the windows.\n\nM. Poupart now gives the explanations of common-sense.  The early\nnoises might have had physical causes:  master, servants, and\nneighbours all heard them, but that proves nothing.  As to the\npapers, a wind, or a mouse may have interfered with _them_.  The\nmovements of the bed are more serious, as there are several\nwitnesses.  But 'suppose the bed was on castors'.  The inquirer does\nnot ask whether it really was on castors, or not, he supposes the\ncase.  Then suppose S., that melancholy man, wants a lark (a envie\nde se rejouir), he therefore tosses about in bed, and the bed\nrushes, consequently, round the room.  This experiment may be\nattempted by any philosopher.  Let him lie in a bed with castors,\nand try how far he can make it run, while he kicks about in it.\nThis explanation, dear to common-sense, is based on a physical\nimpossibility, as any one may ascertain for himself.  Then the\nservants tried in vain to hold back the excited couch, well, these\nservants may have lied, and, at most, could not examine 'les\nressorts secrets qui causaient ce mouvement'.  Now, M. Poupart\ndeserts the theory that we can make a bed run about, by lying\nkicking on it, and he falls back on hidden machinery.  The\nindependent witness is said to have said that he was sorry he spoke,\nbut this evidence proves nothing.  What happened in the room when\nthe door was bolted, is not evidence, of course, and we may imagine\nthat S. himself made the noises on walls and windows, when his\nfriend and mother were present.  Thus M. S. was both melancholy, and\nanxious se donner un divertissement, by frightening his servants, to\nwhich end he supplied his bed with machinery that made it jump, and\ndrew the curtains.  What kind of secret springs would perform these\nfeats, M. Poupart does not explain.  It would have been wiser in him\nto say that he did not believe a word of it, than to give such silly\nreasons for a disbelief that made no exact inquiry into the\ncircumstances.  The frivolities of the bed are reported in the case\nof Home and others, nor can we do much more than remark the\nconservatism of the phenomena; the knocks, and the animated\nfurniture.\n\nThe Amiens case (1746) is reported and attested by Father Charles\nLouis Richard, Professor in Theology, a Dominican friar.  The\nhaunted house was in the Rue de l'Aventure, parish of St. Jacques.\nThe tenant was a M. Leleu, aged thirty-six.  The troubles had lasted\nfor fourteen years, and there was evidence for their occurrence\nearlier, before Leleu occupied the house.  The disturbances were of\nthe usual kind, a sound of heavy planks being tossed about, as in\nthe experience of Scott at Abbotsford, raps, the fastening of doors\nso that they could not be opened for long, and then suddenly gave\nway (this, also, is frequent in modern tales), a sound of sweeping\nthe floor, as in the Epworth case, in the Wesleys' parsonage, heavy\nknocks and thumps, the dragging of heavy bodies, steps on the\nstairs, lights, the dancing of all the furniture in the room of\nMlle. Marie de Latre, rattling of crockery, a noise of whirring in\nthe air, a jingling as of coins (familiar at Epworth), and, briefly,\nall the usually reported tintamarre.  Twenty persons, priests,\nwomen, girls, men of all sorts, attest those phenomena which are\nsimply the ordinary occurrences still alleged to be prevalent.\n\nThe narrator believes in diabolical agency, but he gives the\nexplanations of common-sense.  1.  M. Leleu is a visionary.  But, as\nno one says that all the other witnesses are visionaries, this helps\nus little.  2.  M. Leleu makes all the noise himself.  That is, he\nclimbs to the roof with a heavy sack of grain on his shoulder, and\nlets it fall; he runs up and down the chimneys with his heavy sack\non his shoulder, he frolics with weighty planks all over the house,\nthumps the walls, makes furniture dance, and how?  What is his\nmotive?  His tenants leave him, he is called a fool, a devil, a\npossessed person:  his business is threatened, they talk of putting\nhim in jail, and that is all he has got by his partiality for making\na racket.  3.  The neighbours make the noises, and again the\nnarrator asks 'how?' and 'why?'  4.  Some priests slept in the house\nonce and heard nothing.  But nobody pretends that there is always\nsomething to hear.  The Bishop of Amiens licenses the publication\n'with the more confidence, as we have ourselves received the\ndepositions of ten witnesses, a number more than sufficient to\nattest a fact which nobody has any interest in feigning'.\n\nIn a tale like this, which is only one out of a vast number, exactly\nanalogous, Common-sense is ill-advised in simply alleging imposture,\nso long maintained, so motiveless, and, on the whole, so very\ndifficult to execute.  M. Leleu brought in the Church, with its\nexorcisms, but our Dominican authority does not say whether or not\nthe noises ceased after the rites had been performed.  Dufresnoy, in\nwhose Dissertations {178} these documents are republished, mentions\nthat Bouchel, in his Bibliotheque du Droit Francois, d. v. 'Louage,'\ntreats of the legal aspect of haunted houses.  Thus the profession\nhas not wholly disdained the inquiry.\n\nOf all common sensible explanations, the most sporting and good-\nhumoured is that given by the step-daughter of Alexander Dingwall, a\ntenant in Inverinsh, in 1761.  Poor Dingwall in his cornyard 'heard\nvery grievous lamentations, which continued, as he imagined, all the\nway to the seashore'.  These he regarded as a warning of his end,\nbut his stepdaughter sensibly suggested that, as the morning was\ncold, 'the voice must be that of a fox, to cause dogs run after him\nto give him heat'.  Dingwall took to bed and died, but the\nsuggestion that the fox not only likes being hunted, but provokes it\nas a form of healthy exercise, is invaluable.  The tale is in\nTheophilus Insulanus, on the second sight.\n\nThere is no conclusion to be drawn from this mass of Cock Lane\nstories.  Occasionally an impostor is caught, as at Brightling, in\n1659.  Mr. Joseph Bennet, a minister in that town, wrote an account\nof the affair, published in Increase Mather's Remarkable\nProvidences.  'Several things were thrown by an invisible hand,'\nincluding crabs!  'Yet there was a seeming blur cast, though not on\nthe whole, yet upon some part of it, for their servant girl was at\nlast found throwing some things.'  She averred that an old woman had\nbidden her do so, saying that 'her master and dame were bewitched,\nand that they should hear a great fluttering about their house for\nthe space of two days'.  This Cock Lane phenomenon, however, is not\nreported to have occurred.  The most credulous will admit that the\nmaid is enough to account for the Brightling manifestations; some of\nthe others are more puzzling and remain in the region of the\nunexplained.\n\n\n\n\nAPPARITIONS, GHOSTS, AND HALLUCINATIONS.\n\n\nApparitions appear.  Apparitions are not necessarily Ghosts.\nSuperstition, Common-sense, and Science.  Hallucinations:  their\nkinds, and causes.  Aristotle.  Mr. Gurney's definition.  Various\nsources of Hallucination, external and internal.  The Organ of\nSense.  The Sensory Centre.  The Higher Tracts of the Brain.  Nature\nof Evidence.  Dr. Hibbert.  Claverhouse.  Lady Lee.  Dr. Donne.  Dr.\nHibbert's complaint of want of evidence.  His neglect of\ncontemporary cases.  Criticism of his tales.  The question of\ncoincidental Hallucinations.  The Calculus of Probabilities:  M.\nRichet, MM. Binet et Fere; their Conclusions.  A step beyond\nHibbert.  Examples of empty and unexciting Wraiths.  Our ignorance\nof causes of Solitary Hallucinations.  The theory of 'Telepathy'.\nSavage metaphysics of M. d'Assier.  Breakdown of theory of\nTelepathy, when hallucinatory figure causes changes in physical\nobjects.  Animals as Ghost-seers:  difficult to explain this by\nTelepathy.  Strange case of a cat.  General propriety and lack of\nsuperstition in cats.  The Beresford Ghost, well-meaning but\nprobably mythical.  Mrs. Henry Sidgwick:  her severity as regards\nconscientious Ghosts.  Case of Mr. Harry.  Case of Miss Morton.  A\ndifficult case.  Examples in favour of old-fashioned theory of\nGhosts.  Contradictory cases.  Perplexities of the anxious inquirer.\n\nOnly one thing is certain about apparitions, namely this, that they\ndo appear.  They really are perceived.  Now, as popular language\nconfuses apparitions with ghosts, this statement sounds like an\nexpression of the belief that ghosts appear.  It has, of course, no\nsuch meaning.  When Le Loyer, in 1586, boldly set out to found a\n'science of spectres,' he carefully distinguished between his\nmethod, and the want of method observable in the telling of ghost\nstories.  He began by drawing up long lists of apparitions which are\n_not_ spectres, or ghosts, but the results of madness, malady,\ndrink, fanaticism, illusions and so forth.  It is true that Le\nLoyer, with all his deductions, left plenty of genuine spectres for\nthe amusement of his readers.  Like him we must be careful not to\nconfound 'apparitions,' with 'ghosts'.\n\nWhen a fist, applied to the eye, makes us 'see stars'; when a liver\nnot in good working order makes us see muscae volitantes, or\n'spiders'; when alcohol produces 'the horrors,'--visions of\nthreatening persons or animals,--when a lesion of the brain, or\ndelirium, or a disease of the organs of sense causes visions, or\nwhen they occur to starved and enthusiastic ascetics, all these\nfalse perceptions are just as much 'apparitions,' as the view of a\nfriend at a distance, beheld at the moment of his death, or as the\nunrecognised spectre seen in a haunted house.\n\nIn popular phrase, however, the two last kinds of apparitions are\ncalled 'ghosts,' or 'wraiths,' and the popular tendency is to think\nof these, and of these alone, when 'apparitions' are mentioned.  On\nthe other hand the tendency of common-sense is to rank the two last\nsorts of apparition, the wraith and ghost, with all the other kinds,\nwhich are undeniably caused by accident, by malady, mental or\nbodily, or by mere confusion and misapprehension, as when one,\nseeing a post in the moonlight, takes it for a ghost.  Science,\nfollowing a third path, would class all perceptions which 'have not\nthe basis in fact that they seem to have' as 'hallucinations'.  The\nstars seen after a blow on the eye are hallucinations,--there are no\nreal stars in view,--and the friend, whose body seems to fill space\nbefore our sight when his body is really on a death-bed far away;--\nand again, the appearance of the living friend whom we see in the\ndrawing-room while he is really in the smoking-room or in\nTimbuctoo,--are hallucinations also.  The common-sense of the matter\nis stated by Aristotle.  'The reason of the hallucinations is that\nappearances present themselves, not only when the _object of sense_\nis itself in motion, but also when the _sense_ is stirred, as it\nwould be by the presence of the object' (De Insomn., ii. 460, b, 23-\n26).\n\nThe ghost in a haunted house is taken for a figure, say, of a monk,\nor of a monthly nurse, or what not, but no monthly nurse or monk is\nin the establishment.  The 'percept,' is a 'percept,' for those who\nperceive it; the apparition is an apparition, for _them_, but the\nperception is hallucinatory.\n\nSo far, everybody is agreed:  the differences begin when we ask what\ncauses hallucinations, and what different classes of hallucinations\nexist?  Taking the second question first, we find hallucinations\ndivided into those which the percipient (or percipients) believes,\nat the moment, and perhaps later, to be real; and those which his\njudgment pronounces to be _false_.  Famous cases of the latter class\nare the idola which beset Nicolai, who studied them, and wrote an\naccount of them.  After a period of trouble and trial, and neglect\nof blood-letting, Nicolai saw, first a dead man whom he had known,\nand, later, crowds of people, dead, living, known or unknown.  The\nmalady yielded to leeches. {183}  Examples of the first sort of\napparitions taken by the judgment to be _real_, are common in\nmadness, in the intemperate, and in ghost stories.  The maniac\nbelieves in his visionary attendant or enemy, the drunkard in his\nrats and snakes, the ghost-seer often supposes that he has actually\nseen an acquaintance (where no mistaken identity is possible) and\nonly learns later that the person,--dead, or alive and well,--was at\na distance.  Thus the writer is acquainted with the story of a\ngentleman who, when at work in his study at a distance from England,\nsaw a colleague in his profession enter the room.  'Just wait till I\nfinish this business,' he said, but when he had hastily concluded\nhis letter, or whatever he was engaged on, his friend had\ndisappeared.  That was the day of his friend's death, in England.\nHere then the hallucination was taken for a reality; indeed, there\nwas nothing to suggest that it was anything else.  Mr. Gurney has\ndefined a hallucination as 'a percept which lacks, but which can\nonly by distinct reflection be recognised as lacking, the objective\nbasis which it suggests'--and by 'objective basis,' he means 'the\npossibility of being shared by all persons with normal senses'.\nNobody but the 'percipient' was present on the occasion just\ndescribed, so we cannot say whether other people would have seen the\nvisitor, or not.  But reflection could not recognise the unreality\nof this 'percept,' till it was found that, in fact, the visitor had\nvanished, and had never been in the neighbourhood at all.\n\nHere then, are two classes of hallucinations, those which reflection\nshows us to be false (as if a sane man were to have the\nhallucination of a crocodile, or of a dead friend, entering the\nroom), and those which reflection does not, at the moment, show to\nbe false, as if a friend were to enter, who could be proved to have\nbeen absent.\n\nIn either case, what causes the hallucination, or are there various\npossible sorts of causes?  Now defects in the eye, or in the optic\nnerve, to speak roughly, may cause hallucinations _from without_.\nAn injured external organ conveys a false and distorted message to\nthe brain and to the intelligence.  A nascent malady of the ear may\nproduce buzzings, and these may develop into hallucinatory voices.\nHere be hallucinations _from without_.  But when a patient begins\nwith a hallucination of the intellect, as that inquisitors are\nplotting to catch him, or witches to enchant him, and when he later\ncomes to _see_ inquisitors and witches, where there are none, we\nhave, apparently, a hallucination _from within_.  Again, some\npersons, like Blake the painter, _voluntarily_ start a\nhallucination.  'Draw me Edward I.,' a friend would say, Blake\nwould, _voluntarily_, establish a hallucination of the monarch on a\nchair, in a good light, and sketch him, if nobody came between his\neye and the royal sitter.  Here, then, are examples of\nhallucinations begotten _from within_, either voluntarily, by a\nsingular exercise of fancy, or involuntarily, as the suggestion of\nmadness, of cerebral disease, or abnormal cerebral activity.\n\nAgain a certain amount of intensity of activity, at a 'sensory\ncentre' in the brain, will start a 'percept'.  Activity of the\nnecessary force at the right place, may be _normally_ caused by the\norgan of sense, say the eye, when fixed on a real object, say a\ncandlestick.  (1)  Or the necessary activity at the sensory centre\nmay be produced, _abnormally_, by irritation of the eye, or along\nthe line of nerve from the eye to the 'sensory centre'.  (2)  Or\nthirdly, there may be a morbid, but spontaneous activity in the\nsensory centre itself.  (3)  In case one, we have a natural\nsensation converted into a perception of a real object.  In case\ntwo, we have an abnormal origin of a perception of something unreal,\na hallucination, begotten _from without_, that is by a vice in an\nexternal organ, the eye.  In case three, we have the origin of an\nabnormal perception of something _unreal_, a hallucination, begotten\nby a vicious activity _within_, in the sensory centre.  But, while\nall these three sets of stimuli set the machinery in motion, it is\nthe 'highest parts of the brain' that, in response to the stimuli,\ncreate the full perception, real or hallucinatory.\n\nBut there remains a fourth way of setting the machinery in motion.\nThe first way, in normal sensation and perception, was the natural\naction of the organ of sense, stimulated by a material object.  The\nsecond way was by the stimulus of a vice in the organ of sense.  The\nthird way was a vicious activity in a sensory centre.  All three\nstimuli reach the 'central terminus' of the brain, and are there\ncreated into perceptions, the first real and normal, the second a\nhallucination from an organ of sense, _from without_, the third a\nhallucination from a sensory centre, _from within_.  The fourth way\nis illustrated when the machinery is set a-going from the 'central\nterminus' itself, 'from the higher parts of the brain, from the\nseats of ideation and memory'.  Now, as long as these parts only\nproduce and retain ideas or memories in the usual way, we think, or\nwe remember, but we have no hallucination.  But when the activity\nstarting from the central terminus 'escapes downwards,' in\nsufficient force, it reaches the 'lower centre' and the organ of\nsense, and then the idea, or memory, stands visibly before us as a\nhallucination.\n\nThis, omitting many technical details, and much that is matter of\nmore dispute than common, is a statement, rough, and as popular as\npossible, of the ideas expressed in Mr. Gurney's remarkable essay on\nhallucinations. {186}  Here, then, we have a rude working notion of\nvarious ways in which hallucinations may be produced.  But there are\nmany degrees in being hallucinated, or enphantosme, as the old\nFrench has it.  If we are interested in the most popular kind of\nhallucinations, ghosts and wraiths, we first discard like Le Loyer,\nthe evidence of many kinds of witnesses, diversely but undeniably\nhallucinated.  A man whose eyes are so vicious as habitually to give\nhim false information is not accepted as a witness, nor a man whose\nbrain is drugged with alcohol, nor a man whose 'central terminus' is\nabandoned to religious excitement, to remorse, to grief, to anxiety,\nto an apprehension of secret enemies, nor even to a habit of being\nhallucinated, though, like Nicolai, he knows that his visionary\nfriends are unreal.  Thus we would not listen credulously to a ghost\nstory out of his own experience from a man whose eyes were\nuntrustworthy, nor from a short-sighted man who had recognised a\ndead or dying friend on the street, nor from a drunkard.  A tale of\na vision of a religious character from Pascal, or from a Red Indian\nboy during his Medicine Fast, or even from a colonel of dragoons who\nfell at Prestonpans, might be interesting, but would not be evidence\nfor our special purpose.  The ghosts beheld by conscience-stricken\nmurderers, by sorrowing widowers, by spiritualists in dark rooms,\nhaunted by humbugs, or those seen by lunatics, or by children, or by\ntimid people in lonely old houses, or by people who, though sane at\nthe time, go mad twenty years later, or by sane people habitually\nvisionary, these and many other ghosts, we must begin, like Le\nLoyer, by rejecting.  These witnesses have too much cerebral\nactivity at the wrong time and place.  They start their\nhallucinations from the external terminus, the unhealthy organ of\nsense; from the morbid central terminus; or from some dilapidated\ncerebral station along the line.  But, when we have, in a sane man's\nexperience, say one hallucination whether that hallucination does,\nor does not coincide with a crisis in the life, or perhaps with the\ndeath of the person who seems to be seen, what are we to think?  Or\nagain, when several witnesses simultaneously have the same\nhallucination,--not to be explained as a common misinterpretation of\na real object,--what are we to think?  This is the true question of\nghosts and wraiths.  That apparitions, so named by the world, do\nappear, is certain, just as it is certain that visionary rats appear\nto drunkards in delirium tremens.  But, as we are only to take the\nevidence of sane and healthy witnesses, who were neither in anxiety,\ngrief, or other excitement, when they perceived their one\nhallucination, there seems to be a difference between their\nhallucinations and those of alcoholism, fanaticism, sorrow, or\nanxiety.  Now the common mistakes in dealing with this topic have\nbeen to make too much, or to make too little, of the coincidences\nbetween the hallucinatory appearance of an absent person, and his\ndeath, or some other grave crisis affecting him.  Too little is made\nof such coincidences by Dr. Hibbert, in his Philosophy of\nApparitions (p. 231).  He 'attempts a physical explanation of many\nghost stories which may be considered most authentic'.  So he says,\nbut he only touches on three, the apparition of Claverhouse, on the\nnight of Killiecrankie, to Lord Balcarres, in an Edinburgh prison;\nthe apparition of her dead mother to Miss Lee, in 1662; and the\napparition of his wife, who had born a dead child on that day in\nEngland, to Dr. Donne in Paris, early in the seventeenth century.\n\nDr. Hibbert dedicated his book, in 1825, to Sir Walter Scott, of\nAbbotsford, Bart., President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.  Sir\nWalter, at heart as great a ghost-hunter as ever lived, was\nconceived to have a scientific interest in the 'mental principles to\nwhich certain popular illusions may be referred'.  Thus Dr.\nHibbert's business, if he would satisfy the President of the Royal\nSociety of Edinburgh, was to 'provide a physical explanation of many\nghost stories which may be considered most authentic'.  In our\nprosaic age, he would have begun with those most recent, such as the\ntall man in brown, viewed by Sir Walter on the moor near Ashestiel,\nand other still remembered contemporary hallucinations.  Far from\nthat, Dr. Hibbert deliberately goes back two centuries for all the\nthree stories which represent the 'many' of his promise.  The\nWynyard ghost was near him, Mrs Ricketts's haunted house was near\nhim, plenty of other cases were lying ready to his hand. {189}  But\nhe went back two centuries, and then,--complained of lack of\nevidence about 'interesting particulars'!  Dr. Hibbert represents\nthe science and common-sense of seventy years ago, and his criticism\nprobably represents the contemporary ideas about evidence.\n\nThe Balcarres tale, as told by him, is that the Earl was 'in prison,\nin Edinburgh Castle, on the suspicion of Jacobitism'.  'Suspicion'\nis good; he was the King's agent for civil, as Dundee was for\nmilitary affairs in Scotland.  He and Dundee, and Ailesbury, stood\nby the King in London, to the last.  Lord Balcarres himself, in his\nmemoirs, tells James II. how he was confined, 'in close prison,' in\nEdinburgh, till the castle was surrendered to the Prince of Orange.\nIn Dr. Hibbert's tale, the spectre of Dundee enters Balcarres's room\nat night, 'draws his curtain,' looks at him for some time, and walks\nout of the room, Lord Balcarres believing it to be Dundee himself.\n\nDr. Hibbert never even asks for the authority on which this legend\nreposes, certainly Balcarres does not tell the tale in his own\nreport, or memoirs, for James II. (Bannatyne Club, 1841).  The\ndoctor then grumbles that he does not know 'a syllable of the state\nof Lord Balcarres's health at the time'.  The friend of Bayle and of\nMarlborough, an honourable politician, a man at once loyal and\nplain-spoken in dealings with his master, Lord Balcarres's word\nwould go for much, if he gave it. {190}  But Dr. Hibbert asks for no\nauthority, cites none.  He only argues that, 'agreeably to the well-\nknown doctrine of chances,' Balcarres might as well have this\nhallucination at the time of Dundee's death as at any other (p.\n232).  Now, that is a question which we cannot settle, without\nknowing whether Lord Balcarres was subject to hallucinations.  If he\nwas, cadit quaestio, if he was _not_, then the case is different.\nIt is, manifestly, a problem in statistics, and only by statistics\nof wide scope, can it be solved. {191}  But Dr. Hibbert was content\nto produce his easy solution, without working out the problem.\n\nHis second case is of 1662, and was taken down, he says, by the\nBishop of Gloucester, from the lips of the father of Miss Lee.  This\nyoung lady, in bed, saw a light, then a hallucination which called\nitself her mother.  The figure prophesied the daughter's death at\nnoon next day and at noon next day the daughter died.  A physician,\nwhen she announced her vision, attended her, bled her, and could\nfind nothing wrong in her health.  Dr. Hibbert conjectures that her\nmedical attendant did not know his business.  'The coincidence was\n_a fortunate one_,' that is all his criticism.  Where there is no\ncoincidence, the stories, he says, are forgotten.  For that very\nreason, he should have collected contemporary stories, capable of\nbeing investigated, but that did not occur to Dr. Hibbert.  His last\ncase is the apparition of Mrs. Donne, with a dead child, to Dr.\nDonne, in Paris, as recorded by Walton.  As Donne was a poet, very\nfond of his wife, and very anxious about her health, this case is\nnot evidential, and may be dismissed for 'a fortuitous coincidence'\n(p. 332).\n\nCertainly Dr. Hibbert could come to no conclusion, save his own, on\nthe evidence he adduces.  But it was by his own fault that he chose\nonly evidence very remote, incapable of being cross-examined, and\nscanty, while we know that plenty of contemporary evidence was\nwithin his reach.  Possibly the possessors of these experiences\nwould not have put them at his disposal, but, if he could get no\nmaterials, he was in no position to form a theory.  All this would\nhave been recognised in any other matter, but in this obscure branch\nof psychology, beset, as it is, by superstition, science was content\nto be casual.\n\nThe error which lies at the opposite pole from Dr. Hibbert's mistake\nin not collecting instances, is the error of collecting only\naffirmative instances.  We hear constantly about 'hallucinations of\nsight, sound, or touch, which suggest the presence of an absent\nperson, and which occur simultaneously with some exceptional crisis\nin that person's life, or, most frequently of all, with his death'.\n{192}  Now Mr. Gurney himself was much too fair a reasoner to avoid\nthe collection of instantiae contradictoraes, examples in which the\nhallucination occurs, but does not coincide with any crisis whatever\nin the life of the absent person who seems to be present.  Of these\ncases, Dr. Hibbert could find only one on record, in the Mercure\nGallant, January, 1690.  The writer tells us how he dreamed that a\ndead relation of his came to his bedside, and announced that he must\ndie that day.  Unlike Miss Lee, he went on living.  Yet the dream\nimpressed him so much that he noted it down in writing as soon as he\nawoke.  Dr. Johnson also mentions an instantia contradictoria.  A\nfriend of Boswell's, near Kilmarnock, heard his brother's voice call\nhim by name:  now his brother was dead, or dying, in America.\nJohnson capped this by his tale of having, when at Oxford, heard his\nname pronounced by his mother.  She was then at Lichfield, but\nnothing ensued.  In Dr. Hibbert's opinion, this proves that\ncoincidences, when they do occur, are purely matters of chance.\n{193a}  There are many hallucinations, a death may correspond with\none of them, that case is noted, the others are forgotten.  Yet the\ncoincidences are so many, or so striking, that when a Maori woman\nhas a hallucination representing her absent husband, she may marry\nwithout giving him recognised ground for resentment, if he happens\nto be alive.  This curious fact proves that the coincidence between\ndeath and hallucinatory presence has been marked enough to suggest a\nbelief which can modify savage jealousy. {193b}\n\nBy comparing coincidental with non-coincidental hallucinations known\nto him, Mr. Gurney is said to have decided that the chances against\na death coinciding with a hallucination, were forty to one,--long\nodds. {194a}  But it is clear that only a very large collection of\nfacts would give us any materials for a decision.  Suppose that some\n20,000 people answer such questions as:--\n\n1.  Have you ever had any hallucination?\n\n2.  Was there any coincidence between the hallucination and facts at\nthe time unknown to you?\n\nThe majority of sane people will be able to answer the first\nquestion in the negative.\n\nOf those who answer both questions in the affirmative, several\nthings are to be said.  First, we must allow for jokes, then for\nillusions of memory.  Corroborative contemporary evidence must be\nproduced.  Again, of the 20,000, many are likely to be selected\ninstances.  The inquirer is tempted to go to a person who, as he or\nshe already knows, has a story to tell.  Again, the inquirers are\nlikely to be persons who take an interest in the subject on the\n_affirmative_ side, and their acquaintances may have been partly\nchosen because they were of the same intellectual complexion. {194b}\n\nAll these drawbacks are acknowledged to exist, and are allowed for,\nand, as far as possible, provided against, by the very fair-minded\npeople who have conducted this inquisition.  Thus Mr. Henry\nSidgwick, in 1889, said, 'I do not think we can be satisfied with\nless than 50,000 answers'. {195}  But these 50,000 answers have not\nbeen received.  When we reflect that, to our knowledge, out of\ntwenty-five questions asked among our acquaintances in one place,\n_none_ would be answered in the affirmative:  while, by selecting,\nwe could get twenty-five affirmative replies, the delicacy and\ndifficulty of the inquisition becomes painfully evident.  Mr.\nSidgwick, after making deductions on all sides of the most\nsportsmanlike character, still holds that the coincidences are more\nnumerous by far than the Calculus of Probabilities admits.  This is\na question for the advanced mathematician.  M. Richet once made some\nexperiments which illustrate the problem.  One man in a room thought\nof a series of names which, ex hypothesi, he kept to himself.  Three\npersons sat at a table, which, as tables will do, 'tilted,' and each\ntilt rang an electric bell.  Two other persons, concealed from the\nview of the table tilters, ran through an alphabet with a pencil,\nmarking each letter at which the bell rang.  These letters were\ncompared with the names secretly thought of by the person at neither\ntable.\n\nHe thought of        The answers were\n\n1.  Jean Racine      1.  Igard\n\n2.  Legros           2.  Neghn\n\n3.  Esther           3.  Foqdem\n\n4.  Henrietta        4.  Higiegmsd\n\n5.  Cheuvreux        5.  Dievoreq\n\n6.  Doremond         6.  Epjerod\n\n7.  Chevalon         7.  Cheval\n\n8.  Allouand         8.  Iko\n\nHere the non-mathematical reader will exclaim:  'Total failure,\nexcept in case 7!'  And, about that case, he will have his private\ndoubts.  But, arguing mathematically, M. Richet proves that the\ntable was right, beyond the limits of mere chance, by fourteen to\ntwo.  He concludes, on the whole of his experiments, that, probably,\nintellectual force in one brain may be echoed in another brain.  But\nMM. Binet and Fere, who report this, decide that 'the calculation of\nchances is, for the most part, incapable of affording a peremptory\nproof; it produces uncertainty, disquietude, and doubt'. {196}  'Yet\nsomething is gained by substituting doubt for systematic denial.\nRichet has obtained this important result, that henceforth the\npossibility of mental suggestion cannot be met with contemptuous\nrejection.'\n\nMental suggestion on this limited scale, is a phenomenon much less\nstartling to belief than the reality, and causal nature, of\ncoincidental hallucinations, of wraiths.  But it is plain that, as\nfar as general opinion goes, the doctrine of chances, applied to\nsuch statistics of hallucinations as have been collected, can at\nmost, only 'produce uncertainty, disquietude, and doubt'.  Yet if\neven these are produced, a step has been made beyond the blank\nnegation of Hibbert.\n\nThe general reader, even if credulously inclined, is more staggered\nby a few examples of non-coincidental hallucinations, than confirmed\nby a pile of coincidental examples.  Now it seems to be a defect in\nthe method of the friends of wraiths, that they do not publish, with\nfull and impressive details, as many examples of non-coincidental as\nof coincidental hallucinations.  It is the _story_ that takes the\npublic:  if we are to be fair we must give the non-coincidental\nstory in all its features, as is done in the matter of wraiths with\na kind of message or meaning.\n\nLet us set a good example, by adducing wraiths which, in slang\nphrase, were 'sells'.  Those which we have at first hand are marked\n'(A),' those at second-hand '(B)'.  But the world will accept the\nstory of a ghost that failed on very poor evidence indeed.\n\n1.  (A)  A young lady, in the dubious state between awake and\nasleep, unable, in fact, to feel certain whether she was awake or\nasleep, beheld her late grandmother.  The old lady wept as she sat\nby the bedside.\n\n'Why do you weep, grandmamma, are you not happy where you are?'\nasked the girl.\n\n'Yes, I am happy, but I am weeping for your mother.'\n\n'Is she going to die?'\n\n'No, but she is going to lose you.'\n\n'Am _I_ going to die, grandmamma?'\n\n'Yes, my dear.'\n\n'Soon?'\n\n'Yes, my dear, very soon.'\n\nThe young lady, with great courage, concealed her dream from her\nmother, but confided it to a brother.  She did her best to be good\nwhile she was on earth, where she is still, after an interval of\nmany years.\n\nExcept for the conclusion, and the absence of a mystic bright light\nin the bedroom, this case exactly answers to that of Miss Lee, in\n1662.  Dr. Hibbert would have liked this example.\n\n2.  (B)  A lady, staying with a friend, observed that one morning\nshe was much depressed.  The friend confided to her that, in the\npast night, she had seen her brother, dripping wet.  He told her\nthat he had been drowned by the upsetting of a boat, which was\nattached by a rope to a ship.  At this time, he was on his way home\nfrom Australia.  The dream, or vision, was recorded in writing.\nWhen next the first lady met her friend, she was entertaining her\nbrother at luncheon.  He had never even been in a boat dragged\nbehind a ship, and was perfectly safe.\n\n3.  (B)  A lady, residing at a distance from Oxford wrote to tell\nher son, who was at Merton College, that he had just entered her\nroom and vanished.  Was he well?  Yes, he was perfectly well, and\nbowling for the College Eleven.\n\n4.  (B)  A lady in bed saw her absent husband.  He announced his\ndeath by cholera, and gave her his blessing, she, of course, was\nvery anxious and miserable, but the vision was a lying vision.  The\nhusband was perfectly well.\n\nIn all these four cases, anxiety was caused by the vision, and in\nthree at least, action was taken, the vision was recorded orally, or\nin writing.  In the following set, the visions were waking\nhallucinations of sane persons never in any other instance\nhallucinated.\n\n5.  (A)  A person of distinction, walking in a certain Cambridge\nquadrangle, met a very well-known clergyman.  The former held out\nhis hand, but there was before him only open space.  No feeling of\nexcitement or anxiety followed.\n\n6.  (A)  The writer, standing before dinner, at a table in a large\nand brilliantly lit hall, saw the door of the drawing-room open, and\na little girl, related to himself, come out, and run across the hall\ninto another room.  He spoke to her, but she did not answer.  He\ninstantly entered the drawing-room, where the child was sitting in a\nwhite evening-dress.  When she ran across the hall, the moment\nbefore, she was dressed in dark blue serge.  No explanation of the\npuzzle could be discovered, but it is fair to add that no anxiety\nwas excited.\n\n7.  (A)  A young lady had a cold, and was wearing a brown shawl.\nAfter lunch she went to her room.  A few minutes later, her sister\ncame out, saw her in the hall, and went upstairs after her, telling\nher an anecdote.  At the top of the stairs, the brown-shawled sister\nvanished.  The elder sister was in her room, in a white shawl.  She\nwas visible, when absent on another occasion, to another spectator.\n\nIn two other cases (A) ladies, in their usual health, saw their\nhusbands in their rooms, when, in fact, they were in the drawing-\nroom or study.  Here then are eight cases of non-coincidental\nhallucination, some of people awake, some of people probably on the\nverge of sleep, which are wholly without 'coincidence,' wholly\nunveridical.  None of the 'percipients' was addicted to seeing\n'visions about.' {199}\n\nOn the other side, though the writer knows several people who have\n'seen ghosts' in haunted houses, and other odd phenomena, he knows\nnobody, at first hand, who has seen a 'veridical hallucination,' or\nrather, knows only one, a very young one indeed.  Thus, between\nthese personally collected statistics of spectral 'sells' on one\npart, and the world-wide diffusion of belief in 'coincidental'\nhallucination on the other, the human mind is left in a balance\nwhich mathematics, and the Calculus of Probabilities (especially if\none does not understand it) fail to affect.\n\nMeanwhile, we still do not know what causes these solitary\nhallucinations of the sane.  They can hardly come from diseased\norgans of sense, for these would not confine themselves to a single\nmistaken message of great vivacity.  And why should either the\n'sensory centre' or the 'central terminus' just once in a lifetime\ndevelop this uncanny activity, and represent to us a person to whom\nwe may be wholly indifferent?  The explanation is less difficult\nwhen the person represented is a husband or child, but even then,\nwhy does the activity occur once, and only once, and _not_ in a\nmoment of anxiety?\n\nThe coincidental hallucinations are laid to the door of 'telepathy,'\nto 'a telepathic impact from the mind of an absent agent,' who is\ndying, or in some other state of rare or exciting experience,\nperhaps being married, as in Col. Meadows Taylor's case.  This is a\ntheory as old as Lavaterus, and was proclaimed by Mayo in the middle\nof the century; while, substituting 'angels' for human agents,\nFrazer of Tiree used it, in 1700, to explain second sight.  Nay, it\nis the Norse theory of a 'sending' by a sorcerer, as we read in the\nIcelandic sagas.  But, admitting that telepathy may be a cause of\nhallucinations, we often find the effect where the cause is not\nalleged to exist.  Nobody, perhaps, will explain our nine empty\nhallucinations by 'telepathy,' yet, from the supposed effects of\ntelepathy they were indistinguishable.  Are all such cases of casual\nhallucination in the sane to be explained by telepathy, by an impact\nof force from a distant brain on the central terminus of our own\nbrains?  At all events, a casual hallucination of the presence of an\nabsent friend need obviously cause us very little anxiety.  We need\nnot adopt the hypothesis of the Maoris.\n\nThe telepathic theory has the advantage of cutting down the\nmarvellous to the minimum.  It also accounts for that old puzzle,\nthe clothes worn by the ghosts.  These are reproduced by the\n'agent's' theory of himself, perhaps with some unconscious\nassistance from 'the percipient'.  For lack of this light on the\nmatter, M. d'Assier, a positivist, who believed in spectres had to\nsuggest that the ghosts wear the ghosts of garments!  Thus\npositivism, in this disciple, returned to the artless metaphysics of\nsavages.  Telepathy saves the believer from such a humiliating\nrelapse, and, perhaps, telepathy also may be made to explain\n'collective' hallucinations, when several people see the same\napparition.  If a distant mind can thus demoralise the central\nterminus of one brain, it may do as much for two or more brains, or\nthey may demoralise each other.\n\nAll this is very promising, but telepathy breaks down when the\napparition causes some change in the relations of material objects.\nIf there be a physical effect which endures after the phantasm has\nvanished, then there was an actual agent, a real being, a 'ghost' on\nthe scene.  For instance, the lady in Scott's ballad, 'The Eve of\nSt. John,' might see and might hear the ghost of her lover by a\ntelepathic hallucination of two senses.  But if\n\nThe sable score, of fingers four,\nRemained on the board impressed\n\nby the spectre, then there was no telepathic hallucination, but an\nactual being of an awful kind was in Smailholm Tower.  Again, the\ncases in which dogs and horses, as Paracelsus avers, display terror\nwhen men and women behold a phantasm, are not easily accounted for\nby telepathy, especially when the beast is alarmed _before_ the man\nor woman suspects the presence of anything unusual.  There is, of\ncourse, the notion that the horse shies, or the dog turns craven, in\nsympathy with its master's exhibition of fear.  Owners of dogs and\nhorses may counterfeit horror and see whether their favourites do\nsympathise.  Cats don't.  In one of three cases known to us where a\ncat showed consciousness of a spectral presence, the apparition\n_took the form of a cat_.  The evidence is only that of Richard\nBovet, in his Pandemonium; or, the Devil's Cloyster (1684).  In Mr.\nJ. G. Wood's Man and Beast, a lady tells a story of being alone, in\nfirelight, playing with a favourite cat, Lady Catherine.  Suddenly\npuss bristled all over, her back rose in an arch, and the lady,\nlooking up, saw a hideously malignant female watching her.  Lady\nCatherine now rushed wildly round the room, leaped at the upper\npanels of the door, and seemed to have gone mad.  This new terror\nrecalled the lady to herself.  She shrieked, and the phantasm\nvanished.  She saw it on a later day.  In a third case, a cat merely\nkept a watchful eye on the ghost, and adopted a dignified attitude\nof calm expectancy.  If beasts can be telepathically affected, then\nbeasts have more of a 'psychical' element in their composition than\nthey usually receive credit for; whereas if a ghost is actually in\nview, there is no reason why beasts should not see it.\n\nThe best and most valid proof that an abnormal being is actually\npresent was that devised by the ghost of Sir Richard of Coldinghame\nin the ballad, and by the Beresford ghost, who threw a heavy curtain\nover the bed-pole.  Unluckily, Sir Richard is a poetical figment,\nand the Beresford ghost is a myth, like William Tell:  he may be\ntraced back through various mediaeval authorities almost to the date\nof the Norman Conquest.  We have examined the story in a little book\nof folklore, Etudes Traditionistes.  Always there is a compact to\nappear, always the ghost burns or injures the hand or wrist of the\nspectator.  A version occurs in William of Malmesbury.\n\nWhat we need, to prove a ghost, and disprove an _exclusively_\ntelepathic theory, is a ghost who is not only seen, heard, or even\ntouched, but a ghost who produces some change in physical objects.\nMost provokingly, there are agencies at every successful seance, and\nin every affair of the Poltergeist, who do lift tables, chairs,\nbeds, bookcases, candles, and so forth, while others play\naccordions.  But then nobody or not everybody _sees_ these agencies\nat work, while the spontaneous phantasms which are _seen_ do not so\nmuch as lift a loo-table, generally speaking.  In the spiritualistic\ncases, we have the effect, with no visible cause; in ghost stories,\nwe have the visible presence, but he very seldom indeed causes any\nphysical change in any object.  No ghost who does not do this has\nany strict legal claim to be regarded as other than a telepathic\nhallucination at best, though, as we shall see, some presumptions\nexist in favour of some ghosts being real entities.\n\nThese rare facts have not escaped a ghost-hunter so intelligent as\nMrs. Henry Sidgwick.  This lady is almost too sportsmanlike, for a\npsychical researcher, in her habit of giving an apparition the\nbenefit of every imaginable doubt which may absolve him from the\ncharge of being a real genuine ghost.  'It is true,' she says, 'that\nghosts are alleged sometimes to produce a physical effect on the\nexternal world;' but to admit this is 'to come into prima facie\ncollision with the physical sciences' (an awful risk to run), so\nMrs. Sidgwick, in a rather cavalier manner leaves ghosts who produce\nphysical effects to be dealt with among the phenomena alleged to\noccur at seances.  Now this is hardly fair to the spontaneous\napparition, who is doing his very best to demonstrate his existence\nin the only convincing way.  The phenomena of seances are looked on\nwith deserved distrust, and, generally, may be regarded as an\noutworn mode of swindling.  Yet it is to this society that Mrs.\nSidgwick relegates the most meritorious and conscientious class of\napparitions.\n\nLet us examine a few instances of the ghost who visibly moves\nmaterial objects.  We take one (already cited) from Mrs. Sidgwick's\nown article. {205}  In this case a gentleman named John D. Harry\nscolded his daughters for saying that _they_ had seen a ghost, with\nwhich he himself was perfectly familiar.  'The figure,' a fair woman\ndraped in white, 'on seven or eight occasions appeared in my\nbedroom, and twice in the library, and on one occasion _it lifted up\nthe mosquito-curtains_, and looked closely into my face'.  Now,\ncould a hallucination lift a mosquito-curtain, or even produce the\nimpression that it did so, while the curtain was really unmoved?\nClearly a hallucination, however artful, and well got up, could do\nno such thing.  Therefore a being--a ghost with very little maidenly\nreserve--haunted the bedroom of Mr. Harry, if he tells a true tale.\nAgain (p. 115), a lady (on whose veracity I am ready to pledge my\nall) had doors opened for her frequently, 'as if a hand had turned\nthe handle'.  And once she not only saw the door open, but a grey\nwoman came in.  Another witness, years afterwards, beheld the same\nfigure and the same performance.  Once more, Miss A. M.'s mother\nfollowed a ghost, who _opened a door_ and entered a room, where she\ncould not be found when she was wanted (p. 121).  Again, {206} a\nlady saw a ghost which, 'with one hand, the left, _drew back the\ncurtain_'.  There are many other cases in which apparitions are seen\nin houses where mysterious thumps and raps occur, especially in\nGeneral Campbell's experience (p. 483).  If the apparition gave the\nthumps then he (or, in this instance, she) was material, and could\nproduce effects on matter.  Indeed, this ghost was seen to take up\nand lay down some books, and to tuck in the bed-clothes.\nHallucinations (which are all in one's eye or sensory centre, or\ncerebral central terminus), cannot draw curtains, or open doors, or\npick up books, or tuck in bed-clothes, or cause thumps--not real\nthumps, hallucinatory thumps are different.  Consequently, if the\nstories are true, _some apparitions are ghosts_, real objective\nentities, filling space.  The senses of a hallucinated person may be\ndeceived as to touch, and as to feeling the breath of a phantasm (a\nlikely story), as well as in sight and hearing.  But a visible ghost\nwhich produces changes in the visible world cannot be a\nhallucination.  On the other hand Dr. Binns, in his Anatomy of Sleep\ntells us of 'a gentleman who, in a dream, pushed against a door in a\ndistant house, so that those in the room were scarcely able to\nresist the pressure'. {207a}  Now if this rather staggering anecdote\nbe true, the spirit of a living man, being able to affect matter, is\nalso, so to speak, material, and is an actual entity, an astral\nbody.  Moreover, Mrs. Frederica Hauffe, when in the magnetic sleep,\n'could rap at a distance'.\n\nThese arguments, then, make in favour of the old-fashioned theory of\nghosts and wraiths, as things objectively existing, which is very\ncomforting to a conservative philosopher.  Unluckily, just as many,\nor more, anecdotes look quite the other way.  For instance, General\nBarter sees, hears, and recognises the dead Lieutenant B., wearing a\nbeard which he had grown since the general saw him in life.  He also\nsees the hill-pony ridden by Mr. B., and killed by him--a steed with\nwhich, in its mortal days, the general had no acquaintance.  This is\nall very well:  a dead pony may have a ghost, like Miss A. B.'s dog\nwhich was heard by one Miss B., and seen by the other, some time\nafter its decease.  On mature reflection, as both ladies were well-\nknown persons of letters, we suppress their names, which would carry\nthe weight of excellent character and distinguished sense.  But\nLieutenant B. was also accompanied by two grooms.  Now, it is too\nmuch to ask us to believe that he had killed two grooms, as he\nkilled the pony. {207b}  Consequently, they, at least, were\nhallucinations; so what was Lieutenant B.?  When Mr. K., on board\nthe Racoon, saw his dead father lying in his coffin (p. 461), there\nwas no real coffin there, at all events; and hence, probably, no\nreal dead father's ghost,--only a 'telepathic hallucination'.  Miss\nRose Morton could never _touch_ the female ghost which she often\nchased about the house, nor did this ghost break or displace the\nthreads stretched by Miss Morton across the stairs down which the\napparition walked.  Yet its footsteps did make a noise, and the\nfamily often heard the ghost walking downstairs, followed by Miss\nMorton.  Thus this ghost was both material and immaterial, for\nsurely, only matter can make a noise when in contact with matter.\nOn the whole, if the evidence is worth anything, there are real\nobjective ghosts, and there are also telepathic hallucinations:  so\nthat the scientific attitude is to believe in both, if in either.\nAnd this was the view of Petrus Thyraeus, S.J., in his Loca Infesta\n(1598).  The alternative is to believe in neither.\n\nWe have thus, according to the advice of Socrates, permitted the\nargument to lead us whither it would.  And whither has it led us?\nThe old, savage, natural theory of ghosts and wraiths is that they\nare spirits, yet not so immaterial but that they can fill space, be\nseen, heard, touched, and affect material objects.  Mediaeval and\nother theologians preferred to regard them as angelic or diabolic\nmanifestations, made out of compressed air, or by aid of bodies of\nthe dead, or begotten by the action of angel or devil on the\nsubstance of the brain.  Modern science looks on them as\nhallucinations, sometimes morbid, as in madness or delirium, or in a\nvicious condition of the organ of sense; sometimes abnormal, but not\nnecessarily a proof of chronic disease of any description.  The\npsychical theory then explains a sifted remnant of apparitions; the\ncoincidental, 'veridical' hallucinations of the sane, by telepathy.\nThere is a wide chasm, however, to be bridged over between that\nhypothesis, and its general acceptance, either by science, or by\nreflective yet unscientific inquirers.  The existence of thought-\ntransference, especially among people wide awake, has to be\ndemonstrated more unimpeachably, and then either the telepathic\nexplanation must be shown to fit all the cases collected, or many\ninteresting cases must be thrown overboard, or these must be\nreferred to some other cause.  That cause will be something very\nlike the old-fashioned ghosts.  Perhaps, the most remarkable\ncollective hallucination in history is that vouched for by Patrick\nWalker, the Covenanter; in his Biographia Presbyteriana. {209}  In\n1686, says Walker, about two miles below Lanark, on the water of\nClyde 'many people gathered together for several afternoons, where\nthere were showers of bonnets, hats, guns, and swords, which covered\nthe trees and ground, companies of men in arms marching in order,\nupon the waterside, companies meeting companies. . . . and then all\nfalling to the ground and disappearing, and other companies\nimmediately appearing in the same way'.  This occurred in June and\nJuly, in the afternoons.  Now the Westland Whigs were then, as\nusual, in a very excitable frame of mind, and filled with fears,\ninspired both by events, and by the prophecies of Peden and other\nsaints.  Patrick Walker himself was a high-flying Covenanter, he was\npresent:  'I went there three afternoons together'--and he saw\nnothing unusual occur.  About two-thirds of the crowd did see the\nphenomena he reckons, the others, like himself, saw nothing strange.\n'There was a fright and trembling upon them that did see,' and, at\nleast in one case, the hallucination was contagious.  A gentleman\nstanding next Walker exclaimed:  'A pack of damned witches and\nwarlocks, that have the second sight, the deil ha't do I see'.  'And\nimmediately there was a discernable change in his countenance, with\nas much fear and trembling as any woman I saw there, who cried out:\n\"O all ye that do not see, say nothing; for I perswade you it is\nmatter of fact, and discernable to all that is not stone-blind\".'\nThose who did see minutely described 'what handles the swords had,\nwhether small or three-barred, or Highland guards, and the closing\nknots of the bonnets, black or blue. . . .  I have been at a loss\never since what to make of this last,' says Patrick Walker, and who\nis not at a loss?  The contagion of the hallucination, so to speak,\ndid not affect him, fanatic as he was, and did affect a cursing and\nswearing cavalier, whose prejudices, whose 'dominant idea,' were all\non the other side.  The Psychical Society has published an account\nof a similar collective hallucination of crowds of people,\n'appearing and disappearing,' shared by two young ladies and their\nmaid, on a walk home from church.  But this occurred in a fog, and\nno one was present who was not hallucinated.  Patrick Walker's\naccount is triumphantly honest, and is, perhaps, as odd a piece of\npsychology as any on record, thanks to his escape from the prevalent\nillusion, which, no doubt, he would gladly have shared.  Wodrow, it\nshould be said, in his History of the Sufferings of the Kirk,\nmentions visions of bonnets, which, he thinks, indicated a future\nmuster of militia!  But he gives the date as 1684.\n\n\n\n\n\nSCRYING OR CRYSTAL-GAZING\n\n\nRevival of crystal-gazing.  Antiquity of the practice.  Its general\nharmlessness.  Superstitious explanations.  Crystal-gazing and\n'illusions hypnagogiques'.  Visualisers.  Poetic vision.  Ancient\nand savage practices analogous to crystal-gazing.  New Zealand.\nNorth America.  Egypt.  Sir Walter's interest in the subject.  Mr.\nKinglake.  Greek examples.  Dr. Dee.  Miss X.  Another modern\ninstance.  Successes and failures.  Revival of lost memories.\nPossible thought-transference.  Inferences from antiquity and\ndiffusion of practice.  Based on actual experience.  Anecdotes of\nDr. Gregory.  Children as visionaries.  Not to be encouraged.\n\nThe practice of 'scrying,' 'peeping,' or 'crystal-gazing,' has been\nrevived in recent years, and is, perhaps, the only 'occult'\ndiversion which may be free from psychological or physical risk, and\nwhich it is easy not to mix with superstition.  The antiquity and\nworld-wide diffusion of scrying, in one form or other, interests the\nstudent of human nature.  Meanwhile the comparatively few persons\nwho can see pictures in a clear depth, may be as innocently employed\nwhile so doing, as if they were watching the clouds, or the embers.\n'May be,' one must say, for crystal-seers are very apt to fall back\non our old friend, the animistic hypothesis, and to explain what\nthey see, or fancy they see, by the theory that 'spirits' are at the\nbottom of it all.  In Mrs. de Morgan's work From Matter to Spirit,\nsuggestions of this kind are not absent:  'As an explanation of\ncrystal-seeing, a spiritual drawing was once made, representing a\nspirit directing on the crystal a stream of influence,' and so\nforth.  Mrs. de Morgan herself seemed rather to hold that the act of\nstaring at a crystal mesmerises the observer.  The person who looks\nat it often becomes sleepy.  'Sometimes the eyes close, at other\ntimes tears flow.'  People who become sleepy, or cry, or get\nhypnotised, will probably consult their own health and comfort by\nleaving crystal balls alone.\n\nThere are others, however, who are no more hypnotised by crystal-\ngazing than tea-drinking, or gardening, or reading a book, and who\ncan still enjoy visions as beautiful as those of the opium eater,\nwithout any of the reaction.  Their condition remains perfectly\nnormal, that is, they are wide awake to all that is going on.  In\nsome way their fancy is enlivened, and they can behold, in the\nglass, just such vivid pictures as many persons habitually see\nbetween sleeping and waking, illusions hypnagogiques.  These\n'hypnagogic illusions' Pontus de Tyard described in a pretty sonnet,\nmore than three hundred years ago.  Maury, in his book on dreams has\nrecorded, and analysed them.  They represent faces, places, a page\nof print, a flame of fire, and so forth, and it is one of their\npeculiarities that the faces rapidly shift and alter, generally from\nbeautiful to ugly.  A crystal-seer seems to be a person who can see,\nin a glass, while awake and with open eyes, visions akin to those\nwhich perhaps the majority of people see with shut eyes, between\nsleeping and waking. {214}  It seems probable that people who, when\nthey think, see a mental picture of the subject of their thoughts,\npeople who are good 'visualisers,' are likely to succeed best with\nthe crystal, some of them can 'visualise' purposely, in the crystal,\nwhile others cannot.  Many who are very bad 'visualisers,' like the\nwriter, who think in words, not in pictures, see bright and distinct\nhypnagogic illusions, yet see nothing in the crystal, however long\nthey stare at it.  And there are crystal-seers who are not subject\nto hypnagogic illusions.  These facts, like the analogous facts of\nthe visualisation of arithmetical figures, analysed by Mr. Galton,\nshow interesting varieties in the conduct of mental operations.\nThus we speak of 'vision' in a poet, or novelist, and it seems\nlikely that men of genius 'see' their fictitious characters and\nlandscapes, while people of critical temperament, if they attempt\ncreative work, are conscious that they do not create, but construct.\nOn the other hand many incompetent novelists are convinced that they\nhave 'vision,' that they see and hear their characters, but they do\nnot, as genius does, transfer the 'vision' to their readers.\n\nThis is a digression from the topic of hallucinations caused by\ngazing into a clear depth.  Forms of crystal-gazing, it is well\nknown, are found among savages.  The New Zealanders, according to\nTaylor, gaze in a drop of blood, as the Egyptians do in a drop of\nink.  In North America, the Pere le Jeune found that a kind of\nthought reading was practised thus:  it was believed that a sick\nperson had certain desires, if these could be gratified, he would\nrecover.  The sorcerers, therefore, gazed into water in a bowl\nexpecting to see there visions of the desired objects.  The Egyptian\nprocess with the boy and the ink, is too familiar to need\ndescription.  In Scott's Journal (ii. 419) we read of the excitement\nwhich the reports of Lord Prudhoe {215} and Colonel Felix, caused\namong the curious.  A boy, selected by these English gentlemen, saw\nand described Shakspeare, and Colonel Felix's brother, who had lost\nan arm.  The ceremonies of fumigation, and the preliminary visions\nof flags, and a sultan, are not necessary in modern crystal-gazing.\nScott made inquiries at Malta, and wished to visit Alexandria.  He\nwas attracted, doubtless, by the resemblance to Dr. Dee's tales of\nhis magic ball, and to the legends of his own Aunt Margaret's\nMirror.  The Quarterly Review (No. 117, pp. 196-208) offers an\nexplanation which explains nothing.  The experiments of Mr. Lane\nwere tolerably successful, those of Mr. Kinglake, in Eothen, were\namusingly the reverse.  Dr. Keate, the flogging headmaster of Eton,\nwas described by the seer as a beautiful girl, with golden hair and\nblue eyes.  The modern explanation of successes would apparently be\nthat the boy does, occasionally, see the reflection of his\ninterrogator's thoughts.\n\nIn a paper in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research\n(part xiv.), an anonymous writer gives the results of some\nhistorical investigation into the antiquities of crystal-gazing.\nThe stories of cups, 'wherein my lord divines,' like Joseph, need\nnot necessarily indicate gazing into the deeps of the cup.  There\nwere other modes of using cups and drops of wine, not connected with\nvisions.  At Patrae, in Greece, Pausanias describes the dropping of\na mirror on to the surface of a well, the burning of incense, and\nthe vision of the patient who consults the oracle in the deeps of\nthe mirror. {216a}  A Christian Father asserts that, in some cases,\na basin with a glass bottom was used, through which the gazer saw\npersons concealed in a room below, and took them for real visions.\n{216b}  In mirror-magic (catoptromancy), the child seer's eyes were\nbandaged, and he saw with the top of his head!  The Specularii\ncontinued the tradition through the Middle Ages, and, in the\nsixteenth century Dr. Dee ruined himself by his infatuation for\n'show-stones,' in which Kelly saw, or pretended to see, visions\nwhich Dr. Dee interpreted.  Dee kept voluminous diaries of his\nexperiments, part of which is published in a folio by Meric\nCasaubon.  The work is flighty, indeed crazy; Dee thought that the\nhallucinations were spirits, and believed that his 'show-stones'\nwere occasionally spirited away by the demons.  Kelly pretended to\nhear noises in the stones, and to receive messages.\n\nIn our own time, while many can see pictures, few know what the\npictures represent.  Some explain them by interpreting the\naccompanying 'raps,' or by 'automatic writing'.  The intelligence\nthus conveyed is then found to exist in county histories,\nnewspapers, and elsewhere, a circumstance which lends itself to\ninterpretation of more sorts than one.  Without these very dubious\nmodes of getting at the meaning of the crystal pictures, they\nremain, of course, mere picturesque hallucinations.  The author of\nthe paper referred to, is herself a crystal-seer, and (in Borderland\nNo. 2) mentions one very interesting vision.  She and a friend\nstared into one of Dr. Dee's 'show-stones,' at the Stuart\nexhibition, and both beheld the same scene, not a scene they could\nhave guessed at, which was going on at the seer's own house.  As\nthis writer, though versed in hallucinations, entirely rejects any\n'spiritual' theory, and conceives that, she is dealing with purely\npsychological curiosities, her evidence is the better worth notice,\nand may be compared with that of a crystal-seer for whose evidence\nthe present writer can vouch, as far as one mortal may vouch for\nthat of another.\n\nMiss X., the writer in the Psychical Proceedings, has been able to\nsee pictures in crystals and other polished surfaces, or, indeed,\nindependently of these, since childhood.  She thinks that the\nvisions are:--\n\n1.  After-images, or recrudescent memories (often memories of things\nnot consciously noted).\n\n2.  Objectivations of ideas or images, consciously or unconsciously\npresent to the mind.\n\n3.  Visions, possibly telepathic or clairvoyant, implying\nacquirement of knowledge by supernormal means.  The first class is\nmuch the most frequent in this lady's experience.  She can\noccasionally refresh her memory by looking into the crystal.\n\nThe other seer, known to the writer, cannot do this, and her\npictures, as far as she knows, are purely fanciful.  Perhaps an\n'automatic writer' might interpret them, in the rather dubious\nmanner of that art.  As far as the 'scryer' knows, however, her\npictures of places and people are not revivals of memory.  For\nexample, she sees an ancient ship, with a bird's beak for prow, come\ninto harbour, and behind it a man carrying a crown.  This is a mere\nfancy picture.  On one occasion she saw a man, like an Oriental\npriest, with a white caftan, contemplating the rise and fall of a\nfountain of fire:  suddenly, at the summit of the fire, appeared a\nhuman hand, pointing downwards, to which the old priest looked up.\nThis was in August, 1893.  Later in the month the author happened to\ntake up, at Loch Sheil, Lady Burton's Life of Sir Richard Burton.\nOn the back of the cover is a singular design in gold.  A woman in\nwidow's weeds is bowing beneath rays of light, over which appears a\nhuman hand, marked R. F. B. on the wrist.  The author at once wrote\nasking his friend the crystal-gazer if she had seen this work of\nart, which might have unconsciously suggested the picture.  The\nlady, however, was certain that she had not seen the Life of Sir\nRichard Burton, though her eye, of course, may have fallen on it in\na bookseller's shop, while her mind did not consciously take it in.\nIf this was a revival of a sub-conscious memory in the crystal, it\nwas the only case of that process in her experience.\n\nOn the other hand Miss X. can trace many of her visions to memories,\nas Maury could in his illusions hypnagogiques.  Thus, Miss X. saw in\nthe crystal, the printed announcement of a friend's death.  She had\nnot consciously read the Times, but remembered that she had held it\nup before her face as a firescreen.  This kind of revival, as she\nsays, corresponds to the writing, with planchette, of scraps from\nthe Chanson de Roland, by a person who had never _consciously_ read\na line of it, and who did not even know what stratum of Old French\nwas represented by the fragments.  Miss X. seems not to know either;\nfor she calls it 'Provencal'.  Similar instances of memory revived\nare not very uncommon in dreams.  Miss X. can consciously put a\ngroup of fanciful characters into the crystal, while this is beyond\nthe power of the seer known to the writer, who has attempted to\nperceive what a friend is doing at a distance, but with no success.\nThus she tried to discover what the writer might be about, and\nsecured a view of two large sunny rooms, with a shadowy figure\ntherein.  Now it is very probable that the writer was in just such a\nroom, at --- Castle, but the seer saw, on the library table, a\nsingular mirror, which did not exist there, and a model of a castle,\nalso non-existent.  The knowledge that the person sought for was\nstaying at a 'castle,' may have unconsciously suggested this model\nin the picture.\n\nA pretty case of revived memory is given by Miss X.  She wanted the\ndate of Ptolemy Philadelphus.  Later, in the crystal, she saw a\nconventional old Jew, writing in a book with massive clasps.  Using\na magnifying glass, she found that he was writing Greek, but the\nlines faded, and she only saw the Roman numerals LXX.  These\nsuggested the seventy Hebrews who wrote the Septuagint, with the\ndate, 277 B.C., which served for Ptolemy Philadelphus.  Miss X.\nlater remembered a memoria technica which she had once learned, with\nthe clue, 'Now Jewish elders indite a Greek copy'.  It is obvious\nthat these queer symbolical reawakenings of memory explain much of\nthe (apparently) 'unknown' information given by 'ghosts,' and in\ndreams.  A lady, who had long been in very bad health, was one\nevening seized by a violent recrudescence of memory, and for hours\npoured out the minutest details of the most trivial occurrences; the\nattack was followed by a cerebral malady from which she fortunately\nrecovered.  The same phenomenon of awakened memory has occasionally\nbeen reported by people who were with difficulty restored after\nbeing seven-eighths drowned.\n\nThe crystal ball, in the proper hands, merely illustrates the\npossibility of artificially reviving memory, while the fanciful\nvisions, akin to illusions hypnagogiques, have, in all ages, been\ninterpreted by superstition as revelations of the distant or the\nfuture.  Of course, if there is such a thing as occasional\ntransference of thought, so that the idea in the inquirer's mind is\nreflected in the crystal-gazer's vision, the hypothesis of the\nsuperstitious will fix on this as a miracle, still more will that\nhypothesis be strengthened, if future or distant events, not\nconsciously known, are beheld.  Such things must occasionally occur,\nby chance, in the myriad confusions of dreams, and, to the same\nextent, in crystal visions.  Miss X.'s three cases of possible\ntelepathy in her own experience are trivial, and do not seem to rise\nbeyond the possibility of fortuitous coincidence:  and her possible\nclairvoyant visions she leaves to the judgment of the reader, 'to\ninterpret as clairvoyance, or coincidence, or prevision, or whatever\nelse he will'.  The crystal-gazer known to the author once managed\nto see the person (unknown to her) who was in the mind of the other\nparty in the experiment.  But she has made scarcely any experiments\nof this description.\n\nThe inferences to be drawn from crystal-gazing are not unimportant.\nFirst, we note that the practice is very ancient and widely\ndiffused, among civilised and uncivilised people.  In this diffusion\nit answers to the other practices, the magical rites of Australian\nblacks, Greeks, Eskimo; to the stories of 'death-bed wraiths,' of\nrappings, and so forth.  Now this uniformity, as far as regards the\nlatter phenomena, may be explained by transmission of ideas, or by\nthe uniformity of human nature, while the phenomena themselves may\nbe mere inventions like other myths.  In the case of crystal-gazing,\nhowever, we can scarcely push scepticism so far as to deny that the\nfacts exist, that hallucinations are actually provoked.  The\ninference is that a presumption is raised in favour of the actuality\nof the other phenomena universally reported.  They, too, may\nconceivably be hallucinatory; the rappings and haunting noises may\nbe auditory, as the crystal visions are ocular hallucinations.  The\nsounds so widely attested may not cause vibrations in the air, just\nas the visions are not really _in_ the crystal ball.  As the\nunconscious self suggests the pictures in the ball, so it may\nsuggest the unexplained noises.  But while, as a rule, only one\ngazer sees the visions, the sounds (usually but not invariably) are\nheard by all present.  On the whole, the one case wherein we find\nfacts, if only facts of hallucination, at the bottom of the belief\nin a world-wide and world-old practice, rather tends in the\ndirection of belief in the other facts, not less universally\nalleged.  We know too much about mythology to agree with Dr.\nJohnson, in holding that 'a belief, which prevails as far as human\nnature is diffused, could become universal only by its truth,' that\n'those who never heard of one another would not have agreed in a\ntale which nothing but experience could make credible'.  But, on the\nother hand, a belief is not necessarily untrue, because it is\nuniversally diffused.\n\nIn the second place, crystal-gazing shows how a substratum of fact\nmay be so overlaid with mystic mummeries, incantations, fumigations,\npentacles:  and so overwhelmed in superstitious interpretations,\nintroducing fairies and spirits, that the facts run the risk of\nbeing swept away in the litter and dust of nonsense.  Science has\nhardly thought crystal-gazing worthy even of contempt, yet it\nappears to deserve the notice of psychologists.  To persons who can\n'scry,' and who do not see hideous illusions, or become hypnotised,\nor superstitious, or incur headaches, scrying is a harmless gateway\ninto Les Paradis Artificiels.  'And the rest, they may live and\nlearn.' {223}\n\nA very few experiments will show people whether they are scryers, or\nnot.  The phenomena, it seems, are usually preceded by a mistiness,\nor milkiness, of the glass:  this clears off, and pictures appear.\nEven the best scryers often fail to see anything in the crystal\nwhich maintains its natural 'diaphaneity,' as Dr. Dee says.  Thus\nthe conditions under which the scryer can scry, are, as yet,\nunascertained.\n\nThe phenomena of scrying were not unknown to Dr. Gregory, Professor\nof Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh.  Dr. Gregory believed\nin 'odylic fluid' on the evidence of Reichenbach's experiments,\nwhich nobody seems to have repeated successfully under strict tests.\nClairvoyance also was part of Dr. Gregory's faith, and, to be fair,\nphenomena were exhibited at his house, in the presence of a learned\nand distinguished witness known to the writer, which could only be\naccounted for either by thought transference, or by an almost, or\nquite incredible combination of astuteness, and imposture on the\nside of Dr. Gregory himself.  In presence of the _clairvoyants_ the\nnobleman of whom we speak thought not of his own house, but of a\nroom in the house of a friend.  It possessed a very singular feature\nwhich it is needless to describe here, but which was entirely out of\nthe experience of the clairvoyante.  She described it, however,\nexpressing astonishment at what she 'saw'.  This, unless Dr. Gregory\nguessed what was likely to be thought of, and was guilty of\ncollusion, can only be explained by thought transference.  In other\ncases the doctor was convinced that he had evidence of actual\nclairvoyance, and it is difficult to estimate the amount of evidence\nwhich will clear such a belief of the charge of credulity.  As to\n'scrying' the doctor thought it could be done in 'mesmerised water,'\nwater bewitched.  There is no reason to imagine that 'mesmerised' is\ndifferent from ordinary water. {224}  He knew that folklore retained\nthe belief in scrying in crystal balls, and added some superfluous\nmagical incantations.  The doctor himself was lucky enough to buy an\nold magical crystal in which some boys, after long staring, saw\npersons unknown to themselves, but known to the professor, and also\npersons known to neither.  A little girl, casually picking up a\ncrystal ball, cried, 'There's a ship in it, with its cloth all in\nrags.  Now it tumbles down, and a woman is working at it, and holds\nher head in her hand.'  This is a very fair example of a crystal\nfancy picture.  The child's mother, not having heard what the child\nsaid, saw the same vision (p. 165).  But this is a story at third\nhand.  The doctor has a number of cases, and held that crystal\npossesses an 'odylic' quality.  But a ball of glass serves just as\nwell as a ball of crystal, and is much less expensive.\n\nChildren are naturally visionaries, and, as such, are good subjects\nfor experiment.  But it may be a cruel, and is a most injudicious\nthing, to set children a-scrying.  Superstition may be excited, or\nthe half-conscious tendency to deceive may be put in motion.\n\nSocrates and Joan of Arc were visionaries as children.  Had Joan's\nears been soundly boxed, as Robert de Baudricourt advised, France\nmight now be an English province.  But they were not boxed, happily\nfor mankind.  Certainly much that is curious may be learned by any\none who, having the confidence of a child, will listen to his, or\nher, accounts of spontaneous visions.  The writer, as a boy, knew a\nchild who used to lie prone on the grass watching fairies at play in\nthe miniature forest of blades and leaves.  This child had a\nfavourite familiar whom he described freely, but as his remarks were\nreceived with good-humoured scepticism, no harm came to him.  He\nwould have made a splendid scryer, still, 'I speak of him but\nbrotherly,' his revelations would have been taken with the largest\nallowances.  If scrying, on examination, proves to be of real\npsychological interest, science will owe another debt to folklore,\nto the folk who kept alive a practice which common-sense would not\ndeign even to examine.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND SIGHT\n\n\nThe Gillie and the fire-raising.  Survival of belief in second\nsight.  Belief in ancient Greece and elsewhere.  Examples in\nLapland.  Early evidence as to Scotch second sight.  Witches burned\nfor this gift.  Examples among the Covenanting Ministers.  Early\ninvestigations by English authors:  Pepys, Aubrey, Boyle, Dicky\nSteele, De Foe, Martin, Kirk, Frazer, Dr. Johnson.  Theory of\nvisions as caused by Fairies.  Modern example of Miss H.  Theory of\nFrazer of Tiree (1700). 'Revived impressions of sense.'  Examples.\nAgency of Angels.  Martin.  Modern cases.  Bodily condition of the\nseer.  Not epileptic.  The second-sighted Minister.  The visionary\nBeadle.  Transference of vision by touch.  Conclusion.\n\nSome years ago, the author was fishing in a river of Inverness-\nshire.  He drove to the stream, picked up an old gillie named\nCampbell, and then went on towards the spot where he meant to begin\nangling.  A sheep that lay on the road jumped up suddenly, almost\nunder the horse's feet, the horse shied, and knocked the dogcart\nagainst a wall.  On the homeward way we observed a house burning,\nopposite the place where the horse shied, and found that a farmer\nhad been evicted, and his cottage set on fire.  This unhappy person,\nit seems, was in debt to all his tradesmen, not to his landlord\nonly.  The fire-raising, however, was an excessively barbaric method\nof getting him to leave the parish, and the view justified the\nindignation of the gillie.  The old gillie, much excited, declared\nthat the horse had foreseen this event in the morning, and had,\nconsequently, shied.  In a more sceptical spirit the author reminded\nCampbell of the sheep which started up.  'That sheep was the devil,'\nCampbell explained, nor could this rational belief of his be shaken.\nThe affair led to a conversation on the second sight, and Campbell\nsaid, 'he had it not,' 'but his sister (or sister-in-law) had it'.\n\nCampbell was a very agreeable companion, interested in old events,\nand a sympathiser, as he said, in spite of his name, with the great\nMontrose.  His remarks led the author to infer that, contrary to\nwhat some inquirers wrote in the last, and Graham Dalyell in the\npresent century, the belief in the second sight is still quite\ncommon in the Highlands.  As will be shown later, this inference was\ncorrect.\n\nWe must not, from this survival only, draw the conclusion that the\nHighlanders are more superstitious than many educated people south\nof the Highland line.  Second sight is only a Scotch name which\ncovers many cases called telepathy and clairvoyance by psychical\nstudents, and casual or morbid hallucinations by other people.  In\nsecond sight the percipient beholds events occurring at a distance,\nsees people whom he never saw with the bodily eye, and who\nafterwards arrive in his neighbourhood; or foresees events\napproaching but still remote in time.  The chief peculiarity of\nsecond sight is, that the visions often, though not always, are of a\n_symbolical_ character.  A shroud is observed around the living man\nwho is doomed; boding animals, mostly black dogs, vex the seer;\nfunerals are witnessed before they occur, and 'corpse-candles' (some\nsort of light) are watched flitting above the road whereby a burial\nprocession is to take its way. {228}  Though we most frequently hear\nthe term 'second sight' applied as a phrase of Scotch superstition,\nthe belief in this kind of ominous illusion is obviously universal.\nTheoclymenus, in the Odyssey, a prophet by descent, and of the same\nclan as the soothsayer Melampus, beholds the bodies and faces of the\ndoomed wooers, 'shrouded in night'.  The Pythia at Delphi announced\na similar symbolic vision of blood-dripping walls to the Athenians,\nduring the Persian War.  Again, symbolic visions, especially of\nblood-dripping walls, are so common in the Icelandic sagas that the\nreader need only be referred to the prodigies before the burning of\nNjal, in the Saga of Burnt Njal.  Second sight was as popular a\nbelief among the Vikings as among the Highlanders who retain a large\nshare of their blood.  It may be argued by students who believe in\nthe borrowing rather than in the independent evolution of ideas,\nthat the Gaelic second sight is a direct inheritance from the\nNorthmen, who have left so many Scandinavian local names in the\nisles and along the coasts.\n\nHowever this may be, the Highland second sight is different, in many\npoints, from the clairvoyance and magic of the Lapps, those famous\nsorcerers.  On this matter the History of Lapland, by Scheffer,\nProfessor of Law in Upsala, is generally cited (Oxford, 1674).\n'When the devil takes a liking to any person in his infancy,' says\nScheffer, 'he presently seizes on him by a disease, in which he\nhaunts him with several apparitions.'  This answers, in magical\neducation, to Smalls, or Little Go.\n\nSome Lapps advance to a kind of mystic Moderations, and the great\nsorcerers attain to Final Schools, and are Bachelors in Black Arts.\n'They become so knowing that, _without_ the drum they can see things\nat the greatest distances; and are so possessed by the devil that\nthey see things even against their will.'  The 'drum' is a piece of\nhollow wood covered with a skin, on which rude pictures are drawn.\nAn index is laid on the skin, the drum is tapped, and omens are\ntaken from the picture on which the index happens to rest.  But this\npractice has nothing to do with clairvoyance.  In Scheffer's account\nof Lapp seers we recognise the usual hysterical or epileptic lads,\nwho, in various societies become saints, mediums, warlocks, or\nconjurers.  But Scheffer shows that the Lapp experts try,\nvoluntarily, to see sights, whereas, except when wrapped in a bull's\nhide of old, or cowering in a boiler at the present day, the\nHighland second-sighted man lets his visions come to him\nspontaneously and uninvoked.  Scheffer wished to take a magical drum\nfrom a Lapp, who confessed with tears, that, drum or no drum, he\nwould still see visions, as he proved by giving Scheffer a minute\nrelation 'of whatever particulars had happened to me in my journey\nto Lapland.  And he further complained, that he knew not how to make\nuse of his eyes, since things altogether distant were presented to\nthem.'  When a wizard is consulted he dances round till he falls,\nlies on the ground as if dead, and, finally, rises and declares the\nresult of his clairvoyance.  His body is guarded by his friends, and\nno living thing is allowed to touch it.  Tornaeus was told many\ndetails of his journey by a Lapp, 'which, although it was true,\nTornaeus dissembled to him, lest he might glory too much in his\ndevilish practices'.  Olaus Magnus gives a similar account.  The\nwhole performance, except that the seer is not bound, resembles the\nEskimo 'sleep of the shadow,' more than ordinary Highland second\nsight.  The soul of the seer is understood to be wandering away,\nreleased from his body.\n\nThe belief in clairvoyance, in the power of seeing what is distant,\nand foreseeing what is in the future, obviously and undeniably\noccurs everywhere, in ancient Israel, as in Mexico before the\nSpanish Conquest, and among the Red Indian tribes as among the\nZulus.  It is more probable that similar hallucinatory experiences,\nmorbid, or feigned, or natural, have produced the same beliefs\neverywhere, than that the beliefs were evolved only by 'Aryans,'--\nGreeks or Scandinavians--and by them diffused all over the world, to\nZulus, Lapps, Indians of Guiana, Maoris.\n\nOne of the earliest references to Scotch second sight is quoted by\nGraham Dalyell from Higden's Polychronicon (i. lxiv.). {231a}\n'There oft by daye tyme, men of that islonde seen men that bey dede\nto fore honde, byheded' (like Argyll, in 1661), 'or hole, and what\ndethe they deyde.  Alyens setten theyr feet upon feet of the men of\nthat londe, for to see such syghtes as the men of that londe doon.'\nThis method of communicating the hallucination by touch is described\nin the later books, such as Kirk's Secret Commonwealth (1691), and\nMr. Napier, in his Folklore, mentions the practice as surviving in\nthe present century.  From some records of the Orkneys, Mr. Dalyell\nproduces a trial for witchcraft on Oct. 2, 1616. {231b}  This case\nincluded second sight.  The husband of Jonka Dyneis being in a\nfishing-boat at Walls, six miles from her residence at Aith, and in\nperil, she was 'fund and sein standing at hir awin hous wall, in ane\ntrans, that same hour he was in danger; and being trappit, she could\nnot give answer, bot stude as bereft of hir senssis:  and quhen she\nwas speirit at quhy she wes so movit, she answerit, \"Gif our boit be\nnot tynt, she is in great hazard,\"--and wes tryit so to be'.\n\nElspeth Reoch, in 1616, was tried as a witch for a simple piece of\nclairvoyance, or of charlatanism, as we may choose to believe.  The\noffence is styled 'secund sicht' in the official report.  Again,\nIssobell Sinclair, in 1633, was accused, almost in modern\nspiritualistic phrase, of 'bein _controlled_ with the phairie, and\nthat be thame, shoe hath the second sight'. {232a}  Here, then, we\nfind it officially recorded that the second-sighted person is\nentranced, and more or less unconscious of the outer world, at the\nmoment of the vision.  Something like le petit mal, in epilepsy,\nseems to be intended, the patient 'stude as bereft of hir senssis'.\n{232b}  Again, we have the official explanation of the second sight,\nand that is the spiritualistic explanation.  The seer has a fairy\n'control'.  This mode of accounting for what 'gentle King Jamie'\ncalls 'a sooth dreame, since they see it walking,' inspires the\nwhole theory of Kirk (1691), but he sees no harm either in 'the\nphairie,' or in the persons whom the fairies control.  In Kirk's own\ntime we shall find another minister, Frazer of Tiree, explaining the\nvisions as 'revived impressions of sense' (1705), and rejecting\nvarious superstitious hypotheses.\n\nThe detestable cruelty of the ministers who urged magistrates to\nburn second-sighted people, and the discomfort and horror of the\nhallucinations themselves, combined to make patients try to free\nthemselves from the involuntary experience.  As a correspondent of\nAubrey's says, towards the end of the sixteenth century:  'It is a\nthing very troublesome to them that have it, and would gladly be rid\nof it . . . they are seen to sweat and tremble, and shreek at the\napparition'. {232c}  'They are troubled for having it judging it a\nsin,' and they used to apply to the presbytery for public prayers\nand sermons.  Others protested that it was a harmless accident,\ntried to teach it, and endeavoured to communicate the visions by\ntouch.\n\nAs usual among the Presbyterians a minister might have abnormal\naccomplishments, work miracles of healing, see and converse with the\ndevil, shine in a refulgence of 'odic' light, or be second-sighted.\nBut, if a layman encroached on these privileges, he was in danger of\nthe tar-barrel, and was prosecuted.  On the day of the battle of\nBothwell Brig, Mr. Cameron, minister of Lochend, in remote Kintyre,\nhad a clairvoyant view of the fight.  'I see them (the Whigs) flying\nas clearly as I see the wall,' and, as near as could be calculated,\nthe Covenanters ran at that very moment. {233a}  How Mr. Cameron\ncame to be thought a saint, while Jonka Dyneis was burned as a\nsinner, for precisely similar experiences, is a question hard to\nanswer.  But Joan of Arc, the saviour of France, was burned for\nhearing voices, while St. Joseph of Cupertino, in spite of his\nflights in the air, was canonised.  Minister or medium, saint or\nsorcerer, it was all a question of the point of view.  As to\nCameron's and Jonka's visions of distant contemporary events, they\ncorrespond to what is told of Apollonius of Tyana, that, at Ephesus,\nhe saw and applauded the murder of Domitian at Rome; that one\nCornelius, in Padua, saw Caesar triumph at Pharsalia; that a maniac\nin Gascony beheld Coligny murdered in Paris. {233b}  In the whole\nbelief there is nothing peculiarly Scotch or Celtic, and Wodrow\ngives examples among the Dutch.\n\nSecond Sight, in the days of James VI. had been a burning matter.\nAfter the Restoration, a habit of jesting at everything of the kind\ncame in, on one hand; on the other, a desire to investigate and\nprobe the stories of Scotch clairvoyance.  Many fellows of the Royal\nSociety, and learned men, like Robert Boyle, Henry More, Glanvill,\nPepys, Aubrey, and others, wrote eagerly to correspondents in the\nHighlands, while Sacheverell and Waldron discussed the topic as\nregarded the Isle of Man.  Then came special writers on the theme,\nas Aubrey, Kirk, Frazer, Martin, De Foe (who compiled a catch-penny\ntreatise on Duncan Campbell, a Highland fortune-teller in London),\nTheophilus Insulanus (who was urged to his task by Sir Richard\nSteele), Wodrow, a great ghost-hunter:  and so we reach Dr. Johnson,\nwho was 'willing to be convinced,' but was not under conviction.  In\nanswer to queries circulated for Aubrey, he learned that 'the godly'\nhave not the faculty, but 'the virtuous' may have it.  But Wodrow's\nsaint who saw Bothwell Brig, and another very savoury Christian who\nsaw Dundee slain at Killiecrankie, may surely be counted among 'the\ngodly'.  There was difference of opinion as to the hereditary\ncharacter of the complaint.  A correspondent of Aubrey's vouches for\na second-sighted man who babbled too much 'about the phairie,' and\n'was suddenly removed to the farther end of the house, and was there\nalmost strangled'. {234}  This implies that spirits or 'Phairies'\nlifted him, as they did to a seer spoken of by Kirk, and do to the\ntribal medicine-men of the Australians, and of course, to 'mediums'.\n\nContemporary with Aubrey was the Rev. Robert Kirk of Aberfoyle, a\nCeltic scholar who translated the Bible into Gaelic.  In 1691 he\nfinished his Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Faunes and Fairies,\nwhereof only a fragment has reached us.  It has been maintained that\nthe book was printed in 1691, but no mortal eye has seen a copy.  In\n1815 Sir Walter Scott printed a hundred copies from a manuscript in\nthe Advocates' Library in Edinburgh.  He did not put his name on the\nbook, but Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, in a note on his own copy,\naffirms that Sir Walter was the editor. {235}  Another edition was\nedited, for Mr. Nutt, by the present writer, in 1893.  In the year\nfollowing the completion of his book Mr. Kirk died, or, as local\ntradition avers, was carried away to fairyland.\n\nMr. Kirk has none of the Presbyterian abhorrence of fairies and\nfauns, though, like the accusers of the Orkney witches, he believes\nthat 'phairie control' inspires the second-sighted men, who see them\neat at funerals.  The seers were wont to observe doubles of living\npeople, and these doubles are explained as 'co-walkers' from the\nfairy world.  This 'co-walker' 'wes also often seen of old to enter\na hous, by which the people knew that the person of that liknes wes\nto visite them within a few days'.\n\nNow this belief is probably founded on actual hallucinatory\nexperience, of which we may give a modern example.  In the early\nspring of 1890, a lady, known to the author, saw the 'copy, echo, or\nliving picture,' of a stranger, who intended (unknown to her) to\nvisit her house, but who did not carry out his intention.  The\nauthor can vouch for her perfect integrity, and freedom both from\nsuperstition, and from illusions, except in this case.  Miss H.\nlives in Edinburgh, and takes in young men as boarders.  At the time\nof this event, she had four such inmates.  Two, as she believed,\nwere in their study on the second floor; two were in the drawing-\nroom on the first floor, where she herself was sitting.  The hour\nwas seven o'clock in the evening, and the lamp on the stair was lit.\nMiss H. left the drawing-room, and went into a cupboard on the\nlanding, immediately above the lamp.  She saw a young gentleman, of\nfair complexion, in a suit of dark blue, coming down the staircase\nfrom the second floor.  Supposing him to be a friend of her boarders\nwhose study was on that floor, she came out of the cupboard, closed\nthe door to let him pass, and made him a slight bow.  She did not\nhear him go out, nor did the maid who was standing near the street\ndoor.  She did not see her two friends of the upstairs study till\nnine o'clock:  they had been at a lecture.  When they met, she said:\n'Did you take your friend with you?'\n\n'What friend?'\n\n'The fair young man who left your rooms at seven.'\n\n'We were out before seven, we don't know whom you mean.'\n\nThe mystery of the young man, who could not have entered the house\nwithout ringing, was unsolved.  Next day a lady living exactly\nopposite Miss H.'s house, asked that lady if she could give\nhospitality to a young man who was coming to Edinburgh from the\ncountry.  Miss H. assented, and prepared a room, but the visitor,\nshe was informed, went to stay with a relation of his own.  Two days\nlater Miss H. was looking out of her dining-room window after\nluncheon.\n\n'Why, there's my ghost!' she exclaimed, and her friends, running to\nthe window, allowed that he answered to the description.  The\n'ghost' went into the house of Miss H.'s friend on the other side of\nthe street, and Miss H., with natural curiosity, sallied out, and\nasked who he was.  He was the young man for whom she had prepared a\nroom.  During his absence in the country, his 'co-walker' had\nvisited the house at which he intended to stay!\n\nCoincidences of this kind, then, gave rise to the belief in this\nbranch of second sight.\n\nThough fairies are the 'phantasmogenetic agencies' in second sight,\na man may acquire the art by magic.  A hair rope which has bound a\ncorpse to a bier is wound about him, and then he looks backward\n'through his legs' till he sees a funeral.  The vision of a seer can\nbe communicated to any one who puts his left foot under the wizard's\nright foot.\n\nThis is still practised in some parts of the Highlands, as we shall\nsee, but, near Inverness, the custom only survives in the memory of\nsome old people. {237}  Mr. Kirk's wizards defended the lawfulness\nof their clairvoyance by the example of Elisha seeing Gehazi at a\ndistance. {238}  The second sight was hereditary in some families:\nthis is no longer thought to be the case.  Kirk gives some examples\nof clairvoyance, and prescience:  he then quotes and criticises Lord\nTarbatt's letters to Robert Boyle.  Second sight 'is a trouble to\nmost of them, and they would be rid of it at any rate, if they\ncould'.  One of our own informants says that the modern seers are\nanxious when they feel the vision beginning:  they do not, however,\nregard the power as unholy or disreputable.  Another informant\nmentions a belief that children born between midnight and one\no'clock will be second-sighted.  People attempt to hasten or delay\nthe birth, so as to avoid the witching hour; clearly then they\nregard the second sight as an unenviable accomplishment.  'It is\ncertane' says Kirk, 'he sie more fatall and fearfull things, than he\ndo gladsome.'  For the physical condition of the seer, Kirk\ndescribes it as 'a rapture, transport, and sort of death'.  Our\ncontemporary informants deny that, in their experience, any kind of\nconvulsion or fit accompanies the visions, as in Scott's account of\nAllan Macaulay, in the Legend of Montrose.\n\nStrangely unlike Mr. Kirk, in style and mode of thought, is his\ncontemporary, the Rev. Mr. Frazer of Tiree and Coll; Dean of the\nIsles.  We cannot call a clergyman superstitious because, 200 years\nago, he believed in good and bad angels.  Save for this element in\nhis creed, Mr. Frazer may be called strictly and unexpectedly\nscientific.  He was born in Mull in 1647, being the son of the Rev.\nFarquhard Frazer, a cadet of the house of Lovat.  The father was one\nof the first Masters of Arts who ever held the living of Coll and\nTiree:  in his time only three landed gentlemen of the McLeans could\nread and write.  The son, John, was educated at Glasgow University,\nand succeeded to his father's charge, converting the lairds and\nothers 'to the true Protestant faith' (1680).  At the Revolution, or\nlater, being an Episcopalian and Jacobite, he was deprived of his\nstipend, but was not superseded and continued the exercise of his\nministry till his death in 1702.  Being in Edinburgh in 1700, he met\nAndrew Symson, a relation of his wife:  they fell into discourse on\nthe second sight, and he sent his little manuscript to Symson who\npublished it in 1707.  There is an Edinburgh reprint, by Webster, in\n1820.  The work is dedicated to Lord Cromartie, the Lord Tarbatt of\nKirk's book, and the correspondent of Pepys.  Symson adds a preface,\napologising for Mr. Frazer's lack of books and learned society, and\ngiving an example of transference of second sight:  the seer placed\nhis foot on that of the person interested, who then saw a ship\nlabouring in a storm.  The tale was not at first hand.\n\nMr. Frazer, in his tractate, first deals with the question of fact,\nof the hallucinations called second sight:  'That such\nrepresentations are made to the eyes of men and women, is to me out\nof all doubt, and that affects follow answerable thereto, as little\nquestionable'.  But many doubt as to the question of fact,\n'wherefore so little has been written about it'.  Four or five\ninstances, he thinks, will suffice, 1.  A servant of his left a barn\nwhere he slept, 'because nightly he had seen a dead corps in his\nwinding sheet, straighted beside him'.  In about half a year a young\nman died _and was buried_ in the barn. 2.  Mr. Frazer went to stay\nin Mull with Sir William Sacheverell, who wrote on second sight in\nthe Isle of Man, and was then engaged in trying to recover treasures\nfrom the vessel of the Armada sunk in Tobermory Bay.  The Duke of\nArgyll has a cannon taken from Francis I. at Pavia, which was raised\nfrom this vessel, and, lately, the fluke of a ship's anchor brought\nup a doubloon.  But the treasure still lies in Tobermory Bay.  Mr.\nFrazer's tale merely is that a woman told a sailor to bid him leave\na certain boy behind.  The sailor did not give the message, the boy\ndied, and the woman said that she had seen the lad 'walking with me\nin his winding sheets, sewed up from top to toe,' that this portent\nnever deceived her. 3.  A funeral was seen by Duncan Campbell, in\nKintyre, he soon found himself at the real funeral.\n\n4.  John Macdonald saw a sea-captain all wet, who was drowned,\n'about a year thereafter'.  The seer 'was none of the strictest\nlife'. 5.  A man in Eigg foretold an invasion and calamities.  The\nvision was fulfilled by a landing of English forces in 1689, when\nMr. Frazer himself was a prisoner of Captain Pottinger's, in Eigg.\nHe next mentions an old woman who, in a syncope or catalepsy,\nbelieved she had been in heaven.  She had a charm of barbarous\nwords, whereby she could see the answers to questions 'in live\nimages before her eyes, or upon the wall, but the images were not\ntractable (tangible), which she found by putting to her hand, but\ncould find nothing'.  In place of burning this poor crone, Mr.\nFrazer reasoned with her, 'taught her the danger and vanity of her\npractice,' and saw her die peacefully in extreme old age.\n\nSeeking for an explanation Mr. Frazer gives a thoroughly modern\ndoctrine of visual and auditory hallucinations, as revived\nimpressions of sense.  The impressions, 'laid up in the brain, will\nbe reversed back to the retiform coat and crystalline humour,' hence\n'a lively seeing, as if, de novo, the object had been placed before\nthe eye'.  He illustrates this by experiments in after-images.  He\nwill not deny, however, that angels, good or bad, may intentionally\ncause the revival of impressions, and so, for their own purposes,\nproduce the hallucinations from within.  The coincidence of the\nhallucination with future events may arise from the fore-knowledge\nof the said angels, who, if evil, are deceptive, like Ahab's false\nprophets.  The angel then, who, through one channel or another,\nfore-knows, or anticipates an event, 'has no more to do than to\nreverse the species of these things from a man's brain to the organ\nof the eye'.  Substitute telepathy, the effect produced by a distant\nmind, for angels, and we have here the very theory of some modern\ninquirers.  Mr. Frazer thinks it unlikely that _bad_ angels delude\n'several men that I have known to be of considerable sense, and\npious and good conversation'.  He will not hear of angels making\nbodies of 'compressed air' (an old mystic idea), which they place\nbefore men's eyes.  His own hypothesis is more economical of marvel.\nHe has not observed second sight to be hereditary.  If asked why it\nis confined to ignorant islanders, he denies the fact.  It is as\ncommon elsewhere, but is concealed, for fear of ridicule and odium.\nHe admits that credulity and ignorance give opportunities to evil\nspirits 'to juggle more frequently than otherwise they would have\ndone'.  So he 'humbly submits himself to the judgment of his\nbetters'.  Setting aside the hypothesis of angels, Mr. Frazer makes\nonly one mistake, he does not give instantiae contradictoriae, where\nthe hallucination existed without the fulfilment.  He shows a good\ndeal of reading, and a liking for Sir Thomas Browne.  The difference\nbetween him and his contemporary, Mr. Kirk, is as great as that\nbetween Herodotus and Thucydides.\n\nContemporary with Frazer is Martin Martin, whose Description of the\nWestern Isles (1703, second edition 1716) was a favourite book of\nDr. Johnson's, and the cause of his voyage to the Hebrides.  Martin\ntook his M.A. degree at Edinburgh University in 1681.  He was a\ncurious observer, political and social, and an antiquarian.  He\noffers no theory of the second sight, and merely recounts the\ncurrent beliefs in the islands.  The habit is not, in his opinion,\nhereditary, nor does he think that the vision can be communicated by\ntouch, except by one to another seer.  Where several seers are\npresent, all do not necessarily see the vision.  'At the sight of a\nvision, the eyelids of the person are erected, and the eyes continue\nstaring until the object vanish,' as Martin knew by observing seers\nat the moment of the experience.  Sometimes it was necessary to draw\ndown the eyelids with the fingers.  Sickness and swooning\noccasionally accompanied the hallucination.  The visions were\nusually symbolical, shrouds, coffins, funerals.  Visitors were seen\nbefore their arrival.  'I have been seen thus myself by seers of\nboth sexes at some 100 miles distance; some that saw me in this\nmanner had never seen me personally, and it happened according to\ntheir visions, without any previous design of mine to go to those\nplaces, my coming there being purely accidental.'  Children are\nsubject to the vision, the horse of a seer, or the cow a second-\nsighted woman is milking, receives the infection, at the moment of a\nvision, sweats and trembles.  Horses are very nervous animals, cows\nnot so much so.\n\nAs to objections, the people are very temperate, and madness is\nunknown, hence they are not usually visionary.  That the learned\n'are not able to oblige the world with a satisfying account of those\nvisions,' is no argument against the fact of their occurrence.  The\nseers are not malevolent impostors, and there are cases of second-\nsighted folk of birth and education, 'nor can a reasonable man\nbelieve that children, horses, and cows could be pre-engaged in a\ncombination to persuade the world of the reality of the second\nsight'.  The gift is not confined to the Western Islands, and Martin\ngives a Dutch example, with others from the Isle of Man.  His\ninstances are of the usual sort, the fulfilment was sometimes long\ndeferred.  He mentions a case, but not that given by Mr. Frazer, in\nthe Isle of Eigg.  The natives had been at Killiecrankie, and one of\nthem murdered an English soldier in Skye, hence the English invasion\nof 1689, in which a pretty girl (as had been prophesied by a seer)\nwas brutally ill-treated.  The most interesting cases are those in\nwhich strangers are seen, and peculiarities in their dress observed\nbefore their arrival.  In the Pirate Scott shows how Norna of the\nFitful Head managed to utter such predictions by aid of early\ninformation; and so, as Cleveland said, 'prophesied on velvet'.\nThere are a few cases of a brownie being seen, once by a second-\nsighted butler, who observed brownie directing a man's game at\nchess.  Martin's book was certainly not calculated to convince Dr.\nJohnson; his personal evidence only proves that a kind of\nhallucinatory trance existed, or was feigned.\n\nLater than Martin we have the long work of Theophilus Insulanus,\nwhich contains many 'cases,' of more or less interest or absurdity.\nBut Theophilus is of no service to the framer of philosophical or\nphysiological theories of the second sight.  The Presbyterian clergy\ngenerally made war on the belief, but one of them, as Mrs. Grant\nreports in her Essays, {244} had an experience of his own.  This\ngood old pastor's 'daidling bit,' or lounge, was his churchyard.  In\nan October twilight, he saw two small lights rise from a spot\nunmarked by any stone or memorial.  These 'corpse-candles' crossed\nthe river, stopped at a hamlet, and returned, attended by a larger\nlight.  All three sank into the earth on the spot whence the two\nlights had risen.  The minister threw a few stones on the spot, and\nnext day asked the sexton who lay there.  The man remembered having\nburied there two children of a blacksmith who lived at the hamlet on\nthe opposite side of the water.  The blacksmith died next day!  This\ndid more for second sight, probably, than all the minister's sermons\ncould do against the belief.\n\nAs we began by stating, it is a popular superstition among the\nlearned that the belief in second sight has died out among the\nHighlanders.  Fifty years ago, Dr. McCulloch, in his Description of\nthe Western Islands, wrote thus:  'Second sight has undergone the\nfate of witchcraft; ceasing to be believed, it has ceased to exist'.\n{245}   Now, as to whether second sight exists or not, we may think\nas we please, but the belief in second sight is still vivacious in\nthe Highlands, and has not altered in a single feature.  A well-\nknown Highland minister has been kind enough to answer a few\nquestions on the belief as it is in his parish He first met a\nsecond-sighted man in his own beadle, 'a most respectable person of\nentirely blameless life'.  After citing a few examples of the\nbeadle's successful hits, our informant says:  'He told me that he\nfelt the thing coming on, and that it was always preceded by a sense\nof discomfort and anxiety. . . .  There was no epilepsy, and no\nconvulsion of any kind.  He felt a sense of great relief when the\nvision had passed away, and he assured me repeatedly that the gift\nwas an annoyance rather than a pleasure to him,' as the Lapp also\nconfessed to Scheffer.  'Others who had the same gift have told me\nthe same thing.'  Out of seven or eight people liable to this\nmalady, or whatever we are to call it, only one, we learn, was other\nthan robust, healthy, and steady.  In two instances the seers were\nexamined by a physician of experience, and got clean bills of mental\nand bodily health.  An instance is mentioned in which the beadle,\nalone in a boat with a friend, on a salt-water loch, at night, saw a\nvision of a man drowning in a certain pool of a certain river.  A\nshepherd's plaid lay on the bank.  The beadle told his companion\nwhat he saw, and set his foot on his friend's, who then shared his\nexperience.  This proves the continuity of the belief that the\nhallucination can be communicated by contact. {246}  As a matter of\nevidence, it would have been better if the beadle had not first told\nhis friend what he saw.  Both men told our informant next day, and\nthe vision was fulfilled 'scarcely a week afterwards'.  This vision,\ngranting the honesty of the seers, was a case of 'clairvoyance,' but\n'symbolical hallucinations' frequently occur.  In our informant's\nexperience the gift is not hereditary.\n\nOn the whole subject Dr. Stewart, of Nether Lochaber, wrote several\narticles in the Inverness Courier, during the autumn of 1893.  The\nHighland clergy have, doubtless, some difficulty in dealing with the\nbelief among their parishioners.  But, as the possession of the\naccomplishment is no longer regarded as criminal, and as the old\ntheories of diabolical possession, or fairy inspiration, are not\nentertained, at least by the educated, the seers are probably to be\nregarded as merely harmless visionaries.  At most we may say, with\nthe poet:--\n\nLo, the sublime telepathist is here.\n\nThe belief in witchcraft is also as lively in the Highlands, as in\nDevonshire, but, while the law takes no cognisance of it, no great\nharm is done.  The witchcraft mainly relies on 'sympathetic magic,'\non perforating a clay image of an enemy with needles and so forth.\nThere is a very recent specimen in the Pitt Rivers collection, at\nthe museum in Oxford.  It was presented, in a scientific spirit, by\nthe victim, who was 'not a penny the worse,' unlike Sir George\nMaxwell of Pollok, two centuries ago.\n\nThough second sight is so firmly rooted in Celtic opinion, the\ntourist or angler who 'has no Gaelic' is not likely to hear much of\nit.  But, when trout refuse to rise, and time hangs heavy in a boat\non a loch, it is a good plan to tell the boatman some ghostly\nSassenach tales.  Then, perhaps, he will cap them from his own\nstore, but point-blank questions from an inquiring southron are of\nvery little use.  Nobody likes to be cross-examined on such matters.\nUnluckily the evidence, for facts not for folklore, is worthless\ntill it has stood the severest cross-examination.\n\n\n\n\nGHOSTS BEFORE THE LAW\n\n\nSir Walter Scott on rarity of ghostly evidence.  His pamphlet for\nthe Bannatyne Club.  His other examples.  Case of Mirabel.  The\nspectre, the treasure, the deposit repudiated.  Trials of Auguier\nand Mirabel.  The case of Clenche's murder.  The murder of Sergeant\nDavies.  Acquittal of the prisoners.  An example from Aubrey.  The\nmurder of Anne Walker.  The case of Mr. Booty.  An example from\nMaryland, the story of Briggs and Harris.  The Valogne phantasm.\nTrials in the matter of haunted houses.  Cases from Le Loyer.\nModern instances of haunted houses before the law.  Unsatisfactory\nresults of legal investigations.\n\n'What I do not know is not knowledge,' Sir Walter Scott might have\nsaid, with regard to bogles and bar-ghaists.  His collection at\nAbbotsford of such works as the Ephesian converts burned, is\nextensive and peculiar, while his memory was rich in tradition and\nlegend.  But as his Major Bellenden sings,\n\nWas never wight so starkly made,\nBut time and years will overthrow.\n\nWhen Sir Walter in 1831, wrote a brief essay on ghosts before the\nlaw, his memory was no longer the extraordinary engine, wax to\nreceive, and marble to retain, that it had been.  It is an example\nof his dauntless energy that, even in 1831, he was not only toiling\nat novels, and histories, and reviews, to wipe out his debts, but\nthat, as a pure labour of love, he edited, for the Bannatyne Club,\n'The trial of Duncan Terig alias Clerk, and Alexander Bane\nMacdonald, for the murder of Arthur Davis, sergeant in General\nGuise's regiment of foot, June, 1754'.\n\nThe trial, as Sir Walter says, in his dedication to the Bannatyne\nClub, 'involves a curious point of evidence,' a piece of 'spectral\nevidence' as Cotton Mather calls it.  In another dedication (for\nthere are two) Scott addresses Sir Samuel Shepherd, remarking that\nthe tract deals with 'perhaps the only subject of legal inquiry\nwhich has escaped being investigated by his skill, and illustrated\nby his genius'.  That point is the amount of credit due to the\nevidence of a ghost.  In his preface Sir Walter cites the familiar\nobjection of a learned judge that 'the ghost must be sworn in usual\nform, but in case he does not come forward, he cannot be heard, as\nnow proposed, through the medium' (medium indeed!) 'of a third\nparty'.  It seems to be a rule of evidence that what a dead man said\nmay be received, on the report of the person with whom he\ncommunicated.  A ghost is a dead man, and yet he is deprived,\naccording to the learned judge's ruling, of his privilege.  Scott\ndoes not cite the similar legend in Hibernian Tales, the chap book\nquoted by Thackeray in his Irish Sketch-book.  In that affair, when\nthe judge asked the ghost to give his own evidence:  'Instantly\nthere came a dreadful rumbling noise into the court--\"Here am I that\nwas murdered by the prisoner at the bar\"'.  The Hibernian Tales are\nof no legal authority, nor can we give chapter and verse for another\nwell-known anecdote.  A prisoner on a charge of murder was about to\nescape, when the court observed him looking suspiciously over his\nshoulder.  'Is there no one present,' the learned judge asked in\ngeneral, 'who can give better testimony?'  'My lord,' exclaimed the\nprisoner, 'that wound he shows in his chest is twice as big as the\none I gave him.'  In this anecdote, however, the prisoner was\nclearly suffering from a hallucination, as the judge detected, and\nwe do not propose to consider cases in which phantasms bred of\nremorse drove a guilty man to make confession.\n\nTo return to Scott; he remarks that believers in ghosts must be\nsurprised 'to find how seldom in _any_ country an allusion hath been\nmade to such evidence in a court of justice'.  Scott himself has\nonly 'detected one or two cases of such apparition evidence,' which\nhe gives.  Now it is certain, as we shall see, that he must have\nbeen acquainted with several other examples, which did not recur to\nhis memory:  the memory of 1831 was no longer that of better years.\nAgain, there were instances of which he had probably never possessed\nany knowledge, while others have occurred since his death.  We shall\nfirst consider the cases of spectral evidence (evidence that is of a\ndead man's ghost, not of a mere wraith) recorded by Sir Walter, and\ndeal later with those beyond his memory or knowledge. {250}  Sir\nWalter's first instance is from Causes Celebres, (vol. xii., La\nHaye, 1749, Amsterdam, 1775, p. 247).  Unluckily the narrator, in\nthis collection, is an esprit fort, and is assiduous in attempts to\ndisplay his wit.  We have not a plain unvarnished tale, but\nsomething more like a facetious leading article based on a trial\n\nHonore Mirabel was a labouring lad, under age, near Marseilles.  His\nstory was that, in May (year not given), about eleven at night, he\nwas lying under an almond tree, near the farm of a lady named Gay.\nIn the moonlight he saw a man at an upper window of a building\ndistant five or six paces, the house belonged to a Madame Placasse.\nMirabel asked the person what he was doing there; got no answer,\nentered, and could see nobody.  Rather alarmed he went to a well,\ndrew some water, drank, and then heard a weak voice, bidding him dig\nthere for treasure, and asking that masses might be said for the\nsoul of the informant.  A stone then fell on a certain spot; stone-\nthrowing is a favourite exercise with ghosts everywhere.\n\nWith another labourer, one Bernard, Mirabel dug, found a packet of\ndirty linen, and, fearing that it might hold the infection of\nplague, dipped it in wine, for lack of vinegar.  The parcel\ncontained more than a thousand Portuguese gold coins.  Bernard and\nhis mistress were present at the opening of the parcel, but Mirabel\nmanaged to conceal from them the place where he hid it, not a very\nlikely story.  He was grateful enough to pay for the desired masses,\nand he had himself bled four times to relieve his agitation.\nMirabel now consulted a merchant in Marseilles, one Auguier, who\nadvised him to keep his old coins a mystery, as to put them into\ncirculation would lead to inquiry and inconvenience.  He lent\nMirabel some ready money, and, finally, induced Mirabel to entrust\nthe Portuguese hoard to his care.  The money was in two bags, one\nfastened with gold-coloured ribbon, the other with linen thread.\nAuguier gave a receipt, and now we get a date, Marseilles, September\n27, 1726.  Later Auguier (it seems) tried to murder Mirabel, and\nrefused to return the deposit.  Mirabel went to law with him:\nAuguier admitted that Mirabel had spoken to him about having found a\ntreasure which he would entrust to Auguier, but denied the rest.  In\nhis house was found a ribbon of a golden hue, such as Mirabel used\nto tie up his bag, and a little basket which has no obvious\nconnection with the matter.  The case was allowed to come on, there\nwere sixteen witnesses.  A woman named Caillot swore to Mirabel's\nhaving told her about the ghost:  she saw the treasure excavated,\nsaw the bags, and recognised the ribbon.  A man had seen Mirabel on\nhis way to give Auguier his bags, and, indeed, saw him do so, and\nreceive a piece of paper.  He also found, next day, a gold coin on\nthe scene of the interview.  A third witness, a woman, was shown the\ntreasure by Mirabel.\n\nThe narrator here makes the important reflection that Providence\ncould not allow a ghost to appear merely to enrich a foolish\npeasant.  But, granting ghosts (as the narrator does), we can only\nsay that, in ordinary life, Providence permits a number of\nundesirable events to occur.  Why should the behaviour of ghosts be\nan exception?\n\nOther witnesses swore to corroborating circumstances.  Auguier\ndenied everything, experts admitted that the receipt was like his\nwriting, but declared it to be forged; the ribbon was explained as\npart of his little daughter's dress.  The judge decided--no one will\nguess what--_that Auguier should be put to the torture_!\n\nAuguier appealed:  his advocate urged the absurdity of a ghost-story\non a priori grounds:  if there was no ghost, then there was no\ntreasure:  if there was a treasure, would not the other digger have\nsecured his share?  That digger, Bernard, was not called.  Then\nAuguier pled an alibi, he was eight leagues away when he was said to\nhave received the treasure.  Why he did not urge this earlier does\nnot appear.\n\nMirabel's advocate first defended from the Bible and the Fathers,\nthe existence of ghosts.  The Faculty of Theology, in Paris, had\nvouched for them only two years before this case, in 1724.  The\nSorbonne had been as explicit, in 1518.  'The Parliament of Paris\n_often_ permitted the tenant of a haunted house to break his\ncontract.' {253}  Ghosts or no ghosts, Mirabel's counsel said, there\n_was_ a treasure.  In his receipt Auguier, to deceive a simple\npeasant, partially disguised his hand.  Auguier's alibi is\nworthless, he might easily have been at Marseilles and at Pertuis on\nthe same day:  the distance is eight leagues.\n\nBernard was now at last called in; he admitted that Mirabel told him\nof the ghost, that they dug, and found some linen, but that he never\nsaw any gold.  He had carried the money from Mirabel to pay for the\nmasses due to the ghost.  Mirabel had shown him a document, for\nwhich he said he had paid a crown, and Bernard (who probably could\nnot read) believed it to be like Auguier's receipt.  Bernard, of\ncourse, having been denied his share, was not a friendly witness.  A\nlegal document was put in, showing that Madame Placasse (on whose\nland the treasure lay) summoned Mirabel to refund it to her.  The\ndocument was a summons to him.  But this document was forged, and\nMirabel, according to a barrister whom he had consulted about it,\nsaid it was handed to him by a man unknown.  Why the barrister\nshould have betrayed his client is not clear.  Mirabel and\nMarguerite Caillot, his first witness, who had deposed to his\ntelling her about the ghost, and to seeing the excavation of the\npacket, were now arrested, while Auguier remained in prison.\nMarguerite now denied her original deposition, she had only spoken\nto oblige Mirabel.  One Etienne Barthelemy was next arrested:  he\nadmitted that he had 'financed' Mirabel during the trial, but denied\nthat he had suborned any witnesses.  Two experts differed, as usual,\nabout Auguier's receipt; a third was called in, and then they\nunanimously decided that it was not in his hand.  On February 18,\n1729, Auguier was acquitted, Mirabel was condemned to the torture,\nand to the galley, for life.  Marguerite Caillot was fined ten\nfrancs.  _Under torture_ Mirabel accused Barthelemy of having made\nhim bring his charge against Auguier, supplying him with the forged\nreceipt and with the sham document, the summons to restore the gold\nto Madame Placasse.  Oddly enough he still said that he had handed\nsacks of coin to Auguier, and that one of them was tied up with the\ngold-coloured ribbon.  Two of his witnesses, _under torture_, stuck\nto their original statements.  They were sentenced to be hung up by\nthe armpits, and Barthelemy was condemned to the galleys for life.\n\nIt is a singular tale, and shows strange ideas of justice.  Once\ncondemned to the galleys, Mirabel might as well have made a clean\nbreast of it; but this he did not do:  he stuck to his bags and\ngold-coloured ribbon.  Manifestly Mirabel would have had a better\nchance of being believed in court if he had dropped the ghost\naltogether.  It is notable that Sir Walter probably gave his version\nof this affair from memory:  he says that Mirabel 'was non-suited\nupon the ground that, if his own story was true, the treasure, by\nthe ancient laws of France, belonged to the crown'.\n\nScott's next case is very uninteresting, at least as far as it is\ngiven in Howell's State Trials, vol. xii. (1692), p. 875.\n\nA gentleman named Harrison had been accused of beguiling a Dr.\nClenche into a hackney coach, on pretence of taking him to see a\npatient.  There were two men in the coach, besides the doctor.  They\nsent the coachman on an errand, and when he came back he found the\nmen fled and Clenche murdered.  He had been strangled with a\nhandkerchief.  On evidence which was chiefly circumstantial,\nHarrison was found guilty, and died protesting his innocence.  Later\na Mrs. Milward declared that her husband, before his death,\nconfessed to her that he and a man named Cole were the murderers of\nDr. Clenche.  The ghost of her husband persecuted her, she said,\ntill Cole was arrested.  Mr. Justice Dolben asked her in court for\nthe story, but feared that the jury would laugh at her.  She\nasserted the truth of her story, but, if she gave any details, they\nare not reported.  Cole was acquitted, and the motives of Mrs.\nMilward remain obscure.\n\nComing to the tract which he reprints, Sir Walter says that his\nnotice was first drawn to it, in 1792, by Robert McIntosh, Esq., one\nof the counsel in the case, which was heard in Edinburgh, June 10,\n1754.  Grant of Prestongrange, the Lord Advocate well known to\nreaders of Mr. Stevenson's Catriona, prosecuted Duncan Terig or\nClerk, and Alexander Bain Macdonald, for the murder of Sergeant\nArthur Davies on September 28, 1749.  They shot him on Christie\nHill, at the head of Glenconie.  There his body remained concealed\nfor some time, and was later found with a hat marked with his\ninitials, A. R. D.  They are also charged with taking his watch, two\ngold rings, and a purse of gold, whereby Clerk, previously\npenniless, was enabled to take and stock two farms.\n\nDonald Farquharson, in Glendee, deposes that, in June, 1750,\nAlexander Macpherson sent for him, and said that he was much\ntroubled by the ghost of the serjeant, who insisted that he should\nbury his bones, and should consult Farquharson.  Donald did not\nbelieve this quite, but trembled lest the ghost should vex him.  He\nwent with Macpherson, who showed the body in a peat-moss.  The body\nwas much decayed, the dress all in tatters.  Donald asked Macpherson\nwhether the apparition denounced the murderers:  he replied that the\nghost said it would have done so, had Macpherson not asked the\nquestion.  They buried the body on the spot, Donald attested that he\nhad seen the Serjeant's rings on the hand of Clerk's wife.  For\nthree years the prisoners had been suspected by the country side.\n\nMacpherson declared that he had seen an apparition of a man in blue,\nwho said, 'I am Serjeant Davies,' that he at first took this man for\na brother of Donald Farquharson's, that he followed the man, or\nphantasm, to the door, where the spectre repeated its assertions,\nand pointed out the spot where the bones lay.  He found them, and\nthen went, as already shown, to Donald Farquharson.  Between the\nfirst vision and the burying, the ghost came to him naked, and this\nled him to inter the remains.  On the second appearance, the ghost\ndenounced the prisoners.  Macpherson gave other evidence, not\nspectral, which implicated Clerk.  But, when asked what language the\nghost spoke in, he answered, 'as good Gaelic as he had ever heard in\nLochaber'.  'Pretty well,' said his counsel, Scott's informant,\nMcIntosh, 'for the ghost of an English serjeant.'  This was probably\nconclusive with the jury, for they acquitted the prisoners, in the\nface of the other incriminating evidence.  This was illogical.\nModern students of ghosts, of course, would not have been staggered\nby the ghost's command of Gaelic:  they would explain it as a\nconvenient hallucinatory impression made by the ghost on the mind of\nthe 'percipient'.  The old theologians would have declared that a\ngood spirit took Davies's form, and talked in the tongue best known\nto Macpherson.  Scott's remark is, that McIntosh's was 'no sound\njest, for there was nothing more ridiculous in a ghost speaking a\nlanguage which he did not understand when in the body, than there\nwas in his appearing at all'.  But jurymen are not logicians.\nMacpherson added that he told his tale to none of the people with\nhim in the sheiling, but that Isobel McHardie assured him she 'saw\nsuch a vision'.  Isobel, in whose service Macpherson had been,\ndeponed that, while she lay at one end of the sheiling and\nMacpherson at the other, 'she saw something naked come in at the\ndoor, which frighted her so much that she drew the clothes over her\nhead'.  Next day she asked Macpherson what it was, and he replied\n'she might be easy, for that it would not trouble them any more'.\n\nThe rest of the evidence went very strongly against the accused, but\nthe jury unanimously found them 'Not Guilty'.\n\nScott conjectures that Macpherson knew of the murder (as indeed he\nhad good reason, if his non-spectral evidence is true), but that he\ninvented the ghost, whose commands must be obeyed, that he might\nescape the prejudice entertained by the Celtic race against citizens\nwho do their duty.  Davies, poor fellow, was a civil good-humoured\nman, and dealt leniently (as evidence showed) with Highlanders who\nwore the tartan.  Their national costume was abolished, as we all\nknow, by English law, after the plaid had liberally displayed\nitself, six miles south of Derby, in 1745.\n\nSo far it is plain that 'what the ghost said is not evidence,' and\nmay even ruin a very fair case, for there can be little doubt as to\nwho killed Serjeant Davies.  But examples which Scott forgot, for of\ncourse he knew them, prove that, in earlier times, a ghost's\ntestimony was not contemned by English law.  Cases are given, with\nextracts from documents, in a book so familiar to Sir Walter as\nAubrey's Miscellanies.  Aubrey (b. 1626, d. 1697) was a F.R.S., and,\nlike several other contemporary Fellows of the Royal Society, was a\nkeen ghost hunter.  He published {259} 'A full and true Relation of\nthe Examination and Confession of William Barwick, and Edward\nMangall, of two horrid murders'.\n\nBarwick killed his wife, who was about to bear a child, near Cawood\nin Yorkshire, on April 14, 1690.  Barwick had intrigued with his\nwife before marriage, and perhaps was 'passing weary of her love'.\nOn April 14, Palm Monday, he went to his brother-in-law, Thomas\nLofthouse, near York, who had married Mrs. Barwick's sister.  He\ninformed Lofthouse that he had taken Mrs. Barwick, for her\nconfinement, to the house of his uncle, Harrison, in Selby.  On\nSeptember 17, at York assizes, Lofthouse swore that on Easter\nTuesday (eight days after Palm Monday, namely April 22), he was\nwatering a quickset hedge, at mid-day, when he saw 'the apparition\nin the shape of a woman walking before him'.  She sat down opposite\nthe pool whence he drew water, he passed her as he went, and,\nreturning with his pail filled, saw her again.  She was dandling on\nher lap some white object which he had not observed before.  He\nemptied his pail, and, 'standing in his yard' looked for her again.\nShe was no longer present.  She wore a brown dress and a white hood,\n'such as his wife's sister usually wore, and her face looked extream\npale, her teeth in sight, no gums appearing, her visage being like\nhis wife's sister'.\n\nIt certainly seems as if this resemblance was an after-thought of\nLofthouse's, for he dismissed the matter from his mind till prayers,\nwhen it 'discomposed his devotions'.  He then mentioned the affair\nto his wife, who inferred that her sister had met with foul play.\nOn April 23, that is the day after the vision, he went to Selby,\nwhere Harrison denied all knowledge of Mrs. Barwick.  On April 24,\nLofthouse made a deposition to this effect before the mayor of York,\nbut, in his published statement of that date, he only avers that\n'hearing nothing of the said Barwick's wife, he imagined Barwick had\ndone her some mischief'.  There is not a word hereof the phantasm\nsworn to by Lofthouse at the assizes on September 17.  Nevertheless,\non April 24, Barwick confessed to the mayor of York, that 'on Monday\nwas seventh night' (there seems to be an error here) he 'found the\nconveniency of a pond' (as Aubrey puts it) 'adjoining to a quickwood\nhedge,' and there drowned the woman, and buried her hard by.  At the\nassizes, Barwick withdrew his confession, and pleaded 'Not Guilty'.\nLofthouse, his wife, and a third person swore, however, that the\ndead woman was found buried in her clothes by the pond side, and on\nthe prisoner's confession being read, he was found guilty, and\nhanged in chains.  Probably he was guilty, but Aubrey's dates are\nconfused, and we are not even sure whether there were two ponds, and\ntwo quickset hedges, or only one of each.  Lofthouse may have seen a\nstranger, dressed like his sister-in-law, this may have made him\nreflect on Barwick's tale about taking her to Selby; he visited that\ntown, detected Barwick's falsehood, and the terror of that discovery\nmade Barwick confess.\n\nSurtees, in his History of Durham, published another tale, which\nScott's memory did not retain.  In 1630, a girl named Anne Walker\nwas about to have a child by a kinsman, also a Walker, for whom she\nkept house.  Walker took her to Dame Care, in Chester le Street,\nwhence he and Mark Sharp removed her one evening late in November.\nFourteen days afterwards, late at night, Graime, a fuller, who lived\nsix miles from Walker's village, Lumley, saw a woman, dishevelled,\nblood-stained, and with five wounds in her head, standing in a room\nin his mill.  She said she was Anne Walker, that Mark Sharp had\nslain her with a collier's pick, and thrown her body into a coal-\npit, hiding the pick under the bank.  After several visitations,\nGraime went with his legend to a magistrate, the body and pick-axe\nwere discovered, Walker and Sharp were arrested, and tried at\nDurham, in August, 1631.  Sharp's boots, all bloody, were found\nwhere the ghost said he had concealed them 'in a stream'; how they\nremained bloody, if in water, is hard to explain.  Against Walker\nthere was no direct evidence.  The prisoners, the judge summing up\nagainst them, were found guilty and hanged, protesting their\ninnocence.\n\nIt is suggested that Graime himself was the murderer, else, how did\nhe know so much about it?  But Walker and Sharp were seen last with\nthe woman, and the respectable Walker was not without a motive,\nwhile, at this distance, we can conjecture no motive in the case of\nGraime. {262}  Cockburn's Voyage up the Mediterranean is the\nauthority (ii. 35) for a very odd trial in the Court of King's\nBench, London.  The logs of three ships, under Captains Barnaby,\nBristow and Brown, were put in to prove that, on Friday, 15th May,\n1687, these men, with many others, were shooting rabbits on\nStromboli:  that when beaters and all were collected, about a\nquarter to four, they _all_ saw a man in grey, and a man in black\nrun towards them, the one in grey leading, that Barnaby exclaimed,\n'The foremost is old Booty, my next door neighbour,' that the\nfigures vanished into the flames of the volcano.  This occurrence,\nby Barnaby's desire, they noted in their journals.  They were all\nmaking merry, on October 6, 1687, at Gravesend, when Mrs. Barnaby\nremarked to her husband:  'My dear, old Booty is dead!'  The captain\nreplied:  'We all saw him run into hell'.  Mrs. Booty, hearing of\nthis remark, sued Barnaby for libel, putting her damages at 1000\npounds.  The case came on, the clothes of old Booty were shown in\ncourt:  the date and hour of his death were stated, and\ncorresponded, within two minutes, to the moment when the mariners\nbeheld the apparition in Stromboli, 'so the widow lost her cause'.\nA mediaeval legend has been revived in this example.\n\nAll these curious legal cases were, no doubt, familiar to Sir Walter\nScott.  He probably had no access to an American example which was\nreprinted four years after his death, by a member of the club which\nhe founded, the Bannatyne Club, {263} in 1836.\n\nThe evidence of the ghost-seer was republished by Mrs. Crowe, in her\nNight Side of Nature.  But Mrs. Crowe neither gives the facts of the\ntrial correctly, nor indicates the sources of the narrative.  The\nsource was a periodical, The Opera Glass, February 3, 1827, thirty\nyears after the date of the trial.  The document, however, had\nexisted 'for many years,' in the possession of the anonymous\ncontributor to The Opera Glass.  He received it from one of the\ncounsel in the case, Mr. Nicholson, afterwards a judge in Maryland,\nwho compiled it from attested notes made by himself in court.\n\nThe suit was that of James, Fanny, Robert, and Thomas Harris,\ndevisees of Thomas Harris, v. Mary Harris, relict and administratrix\nof James Harris, brother of Thomas, aforesaid (1798-99).  Thomas\nHarris had four illegitimate children.  He held, as he supposed, a\npiece of land in fee, but, in fact, he was only seized in tail.\nThus he could not sell or devise it, and his brother James was heir\nin tail, the children being bastards.  These legal facts were\nunknown both to James and Thomas.  Thomas made a will, leaving James\nhis executor, and directing that the land should be sold, and the\nmoney divided among his own children.  James, when Thomas died, sold\nthe land, and, in drawing the conveyance, it was discovered that he\nhad no right to do so for Thomas, as it was held by Thomas in tail.\nJames then conveyed his right to the purchaser, and kept the money\nas legal heir.  Why James could sell, if Thomas could not, the\npresent writer is unable to explain.  In two years, James died\nintestate, and the children of Thomas brought a suit against James's\nwidow.  Before James's death, the ghost of Thomas had appeared\nfrequently to one Briggs, an old soldier in the Colonial Revolt,\nbidding James 'return the proceeds of the sale to the orphans'\ncourt, and when James heard of this from Briggs he did go to the\norphans' court, and returned himself to the estate of his brother,\nto the amount of the purchase money of the land'.\n\nNow, before the jury were sworn, the counsel, Wright and Nicholson\nfor the plaintiffs, Scott and Earle for the defendant, privately\nagreed that the money could not be recovered, for excellent legal\nreasons.  But they kept this to themselves, and let the suit go on,\nmerely for the pleasure of hearing Briggs, 'a man of character, of\nfirm, undaunted spirit,' swear to his ghost in a court of law.  He\nhad been intimate with Thomas Harris from boyhood.  It may be said\nthat he invented the ghost, in the interest of his friend's\nchildren.  He certainly mentioned it, however, some time before he\nhad any conversation with it.\n\nBriggs's evidence may be condensed very much, as the learned Mrs.\nCrowe quotes it correctly in her Night Side of Nature.  In March,\n1791, about nine a.m., Briggs was riding a horse that had belonged\nto Harris.  In a lane adjoining the field where Harris was buried,\nthe horse shied, looked into the field where the tomb was, and\n'neighed very loud'.  Briggs now saw Harris coming through the\nfield, in his usual dress, a blue coat.  Harris vanished, and the\nhorse went on.  As Briggs was ploughing, in June, Harris walked by\nhim for two hundred yards.  A lad named Bailey, who came up, made no\nremark, nor did Harris tell him about the hallucination.  In August,\nafter dark, Harris came and laid his arms on Briggs's shoulder.\nBriggs had already spoken to James Harris, 'brither to the corp,'\nabout these and other related phenomena, a groan, a smack on the\nnose from a viewless hand, and so forth.  In October Briggs saw\nHarris, about twilight in the morning.  Later, at eight o'clock in\nthe morning, he was busy in the field with Bailey, aforesaid, when\nHarris passed and vanished:  Bailey saw nothing.  At half-past nine,\nthe spectre returned, and leaned on a railing:  Briggs vainly tried\nto make Bailey see him.  Briggs now crossed the fence, and walked\nsome hundreds of yards with Harris, telling him that his will was\ndisputed.  Harris bade Briggs go to his aforesaid brother James, and\nremind him of a conversation they had held, 'on the east side of the\nwheat-stacks,' on the day when Harris's fatal illness began.  James\nremembered the conversation, and said he would fulfil his brother's\ndesire which he actually did.  There was a later interview between\nBriggs and Harris, the matter then discussed Briggs declined to\nimpart to the court, and the court overruled the question.  'He had\nnever related to any person the last conversation, and never would.'\n\nBailey was sworn, and deposed that Briggs had called his attention\nto Harris, whom _he_ could not see, had climbed the fence, and\nwalked for some distance, 'apparently in deep conversation with some\nperson.  Witness saw no one.'\n\nIt is plain that the ghost never really understood the legal\nquestion at issue.  The dates are difficult to reconcile.  Thomas\nHarris died in 1790.  His ghost appeared in 1791.  Why was there no\ntrial of the case till 'about 1798 or 1799'?  Perhaps research in\nthe Maryland records would elucidate these and other questions; we\ndo but give the tale, with such authority as it possesses.  Possibly\nit is an elaborate hoax, played off by Nicholson, the plaintiffs'\ncounsel, on the correspondent of The Opera Glass, or by him on the\neditor of that periodical.\n\nThe hallucinations of Briggs, which were fortunate enough, it is\nsaid, to get into a court of justice, singularly resemble those of\nM. Bezuel, in July and August, 1697, though these were not matter of\na sworn deposition.  The evidence is in Histoire d'une Apparition\nArrivee a Valogne. {267}  The narrator of 1708, having heard much\ntalk of the affair, was invited to meet Bezuel, a priest, at dinner,\nJanuary 7, 1708.  He told his one story 'with much simplicity'.\n\nIn 1695, when about fifteen, Bezuel was a friend of a younger boy,\none of two brothers, Desfontaines.  In 1696, when Desfontaines minor\nwas going to study at Caen, he worried Bezuel into signing, in his\nblood, a covenant that the first who died should appear to the\nsurvivor.  The lads corresponded frequently, every six weeks.  On\nJuly 31, 1697, at half-past two, Bezuel, who was hay-making, had a\nfainting fit.  On August 1, at the same hour, he felt faint on a\nroad, and rested under a shady tree.  On August 2, at half-past two,\nhe fainted in a hay-loft, and vaguely remembered seeing a half-naked\nbody.  He came down the ladder, and seated himself on a block, in\nthe Place des Capucins.  Here he lost sight of his companions, but\ndid see Desfontaines, who came up, took his left arm, and led him\ninto an alley.  The servant followed, and told Bezuel's tutor that\nhe was talking to himself.  The tutor went to him, and heard him\nasking and answering questions.  Bezuel, for three-quarters of an\nhour, conversed, as he believed, with Desfontaines, who said that he\nhad been drowned, while bathing, at Caen, about half-past two on\nJuly 31.  The appearance was naked to the waist, his head bare,\nshowing his beautiful yellow locks.  He asked Bezuel to learn a\nschool task that had been set him as a penalty, the seven\npenitential psalms:  he described a tree at Caen, where he had cut\nsome words; two years later Bezuel visited it and them; he gave\nother pieces of information, which were verified, but not a word\nwould he say of heaven, hell, or purgatory; 'he seemed not to hear\nmy questions'.  There were two or three later interviews, till\nBezuel carried out the wishes of the phantasm.\n\nWhen the spectral Desfontaines went away, on the first occasion,\nBezuel told another boy that Desfontaines was drowned.  The lad ran\nto the parents of Desfontaines, who had just received a letter to\nthat effect.  By some error, the boy thought that the _elder_\nDesfontaines had perished, and said so to Bezuel, who denied it,\nand, on a second inquiry, Bezuel was found to be right.\n\nThe explanation that Bezuel was ill (as he certainly was), that he\nhad heard of the death of his friend just _before_ his\nhallucination, and had forgotten an impressive piece of news, which,\nhowever, caused the apparition, is given by the narrator of 1708.\nThe kind of illusion in which a man is seen and heard to converse\nwith empty air, is common to the cases of Bezuel and of Briggs, and\nthe writer is acquainted, at first hand, with a modern example.\n\nMrs. Crowe cites, on the authority of the late Mr. Maurice Lothian,\nsolicitor for the plaintiff, a suit which arose out of 'hauntings,'\nand was heard in the sheriff's court, at Edinburgh, in 1835-37.  But\nwe are unable to discover the official records, or extracts of\nevidence from them.  This is to be regretted, but, by way of\nconsolation, we have the pleadings on both sides in an ancient\nFrench case of a haunted house.  These are preserved in his Discours\ndes Spectres, a closely printed quarto of nearly 1000 pages, by\nPierre le Loyer, Conseiller du Roy au Siege Presidial d'Angers.\n{269}  Le Loyer says, 'De gayete de coeur semble m'estre voulu\nengager au combat contre ceux qui impugnent les spectres!'  As Le\nLoyer observes, ghosts seldom come into court in civil cases, except\nwhen indicted as nuisances, namely, when they make a hired house\nuninhabitable by their frolics.  Then the tenant often wants to quit\nthe house, and to have his contract annulled.  The landlord resists,\nan action is brought, and is generally settled in accordance with\nthe suggestion of Alphenus, in his Digests, book ii.  Alphenus says,\nin brief, that the fear must be a genuine fear, and that reason for\nno ordinary dread must be proved.  Hence Arnault Ferton, in his\nCustomal of Burgundy, advises that 'legitimate dread of phantasms\nwhich trouble men's rest and make night hideous' is reason good for\nleaving a house, and declining to pay rent after the day of\ndeparture.  Covarruvias, a Spanish legist, already quoted, agrees\nwith Arnault Ferton.  The Parliament of Grenada, in one or two\ncases, decided in favour of the tenant, and against the landlord of\nhouses where spectres racketed.  Le Loyer now reports the pleadings\nin a famous case, of which he does not give the date.  Incidentally,\nhowever, we learn that it can hardly have been earlier than 1550.\nThe cause was heard, on appeal, before the Parlement de Paris.\n\nPierre Piquet, guardian of Nicolas Macquereau (a minor), let to\nGiles Bolacre a house in the suburbs of Tours.  Poor Bolacre was\npromptly disturbed by a noise and routing of _invisible_ spirits,\nwhich suffered neither himself nor his family to sleep o' nights.\nHe then cited Piquet, also Daniel Macquereau, who was concerned in\nthe letting of the house, before the local seat of Themis.  The case\nwas heard, and the judge at Tours broke the lease, the hauntings\nbeing insupportable nuisances.  But this he did without letters\nroyal.  The lessors then appealed, and the case came before the Cour\nde Parlement in Paris.  Maitre Chopin was for the lessors, Nau\nappeared for the tenant.  Chopin first took the formal point, the\nTours judge was formally wrong in breaking a covenant without\nletters royal, a thing particularly bad in the case of a minor,\nNicolas Macquereau.\n\nSo much for the point of form; as to the matter, Maitre Chopin\nlaughed at the bare idea of noisy spirits.  This is notable because,\nin an age when witches were burned frequently, the idea of a haunted\nhouse could be treated by the learned counsel as a mere waggery.\nYet the belief in haunted houses has survived the legal prosecution\nof witches.  'The judge in Tours has merely and mischievously\nencouraged superstition.'  All ghosts, brownies, lutins, are mere\nbugbears of children; here Maitre Chopin quotes Plato, and Philo\nJudaeus in the original, also Empedocles, Marcus Aurelius,\nTertullian, Quintilian, Dioscorides.  Perhaps Bolacre and his family\nsuffer from nightmare.  If so, a physician, not a solicitor, is\ntheir man.  Or again, granting that their house _is_ haunted, they\nshould appeal to the clergy, not to the law.\n\nManifestly this is a point to be argued.  Do the expenses of\nexorcism fall on landlord or tenant?  This, we think, can hardly be\ndecided by a quotation from Epictetus.  Alexis Comnenus bids us seek\na bishop in the case of psychical phenomena ([Greek]).  So Maitre\nChopin argues, but he evades the point.  Is it not the business of\nthe owner of the house to 'whustle on his ain parten,' to have his\nown bogie exorcised?  Of course Piquet and Macquereau may argue that\nthe bogie is Bolacre's bogie, that it flitted to the house with\nBolacre; but that is a question of fact and evidence.\n\nChopin concludes that a lease is only voidable in case of material\ndefect, or nuisance, as of pestilential air, not in a case which,\nafter all, is a mere vice d'esprit.  Here Maitre Chopin sits down,\nwith a wink at the court, and Nau pleads for the tenant.  First, why\nabuse the judge at Tours?  The lessors argued the case before him,\nand cannot blame him for credulity.  The Romans, far from rejecting\nsuch ideas (as Chopin had maintained), used a ritual service for\nejecting spooks, so Ovid testifies.  Greek and Roman hauntings are\ncited from Pliny, Plutarch, Suetonius; in the last case (ghost of\nCaligula), the house had to be destroyed, like the house at Wolflee\nwhere the ghost, resenting Presbyterian exorcism, killed the Rev.\nMr. Thomson of Southdean, father of the author of The Castle of\nIndolence.  'As to Plato, cited by my learned brother, Plato\nbelieved in hauntings, as we read in the Phaedo,' Nau has him here.\nIn brief, 'the defendants have let a house as habitable, well\nknowing the same to be infested by spirits'.  The Fathers are then\ncited as witnesses for ghosts.  The learned counsel's argument about\na vice d'esprit is a pitiable pun.\n\nThe decision of the court, unluckily, is not preserved by Le Loyer.\nThe counsel for Bolacre told Le Loyer that the case was adjourned on\nthe formal point, but, that, having obtained letters royal for his\nclient, he succeeded in getting the remainder of the lease declared\nvoid.  Comparing, however, Bouchel, s. v. Louage, in his\nBibliotheque du droit Francois, one finds that the higher court\nreversed the decision of the judge at Tours.  In the Edinburgh case,\n1835, the tenant, Captain Molesworth, did not try to have his lease\nquashed, but he did tear up floors, pull down wainscots, and bore a\nhole into the next house, that of his landlord, Mr. Webster, in\nsearch of the cause of the noises.  Mr. Webster, therefore, brought\nan action to restrain him from these experiments.\n\nLe Loyer gives two cases of ghosts appearing to denounce murderers\nin criminal cases.  He possessed the speech of the President Brisson\n(at that time an advocate), in which he cited the testimony of the\nspectre of Madame de Colommiers, mysteriously murdered in full day,\nwith her children and their nurse.  Her ghost appeared to her\nhusband, when wide awake, and denounced her own cousins.  As there\nwas no other evidence, beyond the existence of motive, the accused\nwere discharged.  In another well-known case, before the Parlement\nde Bretagne, the ghost of a man who had mysteriously vanished,\nguided his brother to the spot where his wife and her paramour had\nburied him, after murdering him.  Le Loyer does not give the date of\nthis trial.  The wife was strangled, and her body was burned.\n\nModern times have known dream-evidence in cases of murder, as in the\nAssynt murder, and the famous Red Barns affair.  But Thomas Harris's\nis probably the last ghost cited in a court of law.  On the whole,\nthe ghosts have gained little by these legally attested appearances,\nbut the trials do throw a curious light on the juridical procedure\nof our ancestors.  The famous action against the ghosts in the\nEyrbyggja Saga was not before a Christian court, and is too well\nknown for quotation. {273}\n\n\n\n\n\nA MODERN TRIAL FOR WITCHCRAFT\n\n\nThorel v. Tinel.  Action for libel in 1851.  Mr. Dale Owen's\nincomplete version of this affair.  The suit really a trial for\nwitchcraft.  Spectral obsession.  Movements of objects.  Rappings.\nIncidental folklore.  Old G.  Thorel and the cure.  The wizard's\nrevenge.  The haunted parlour boarder.  Examples of magical tripping\nup, and provoked hallucinations.  Case of Dr. Gibotteau and Berthe\nthe hospital nurse.  Similar case in the Salem affair, 1692.\nEvidence of witnesses to abnormal phenomena.  Mr. Robert de Saint\nVictor.  M. de Mirville.  Thorel non-suited.  Other modern French\nexamples of witchcraft.\n\nPerhaps the last trial for witchcraft was the case of Thorel v.\nTinel, heard before the juge de paix of Yerville, on January 28, and\nFebruary 3 and 4, 1851.  The trial was, in form, the converse of\nthose with which old jurisprudence was familiar.  Tinel, the Cure of\nCideville, did not accuse the shepherd Thorel of sorcery, but Thorel\naccused Tinel of defaming his character by the charge of being a\nwarlock.  Just as when a man prosecutes another for saying that he\ncheated at cards, or when a woman prosecutes another for saying that\nthe plaintiff stole diamonds, it is really the guilt or innocence of\nthe plaintiff that is in question, so the issue before the court at\nYerville was:  'Is Thorel a warlock or not?'  The court decided that\nhe himself had been the chief agent in spreading the slander against\nhimself, he was non-suited, and had to pay costs, but as to the real\ncause of the events which were attributed to the magic of Thorel,\nthe court was unable to pronounce an opinion.\n\nThis curious case has often been cited, as by Mr. Robert Dale Owen,\nin his Footfalls on the Boundary of Another World, {275} but Mr.\nOwen, by accident or design, omitted almost all the essential\nparticulars, everything which connects the affair with such\ntransactions as the witch epidemic at Salem, and the trials for\nsorcery before and during the Restoration.  Yet, in the events at\nCideville, and the depositions of witnesses, we have all the\ncharacteristics of witchcraft.  First we have men by habit and\nrepute sorcerers.  Then we have cause of offence given to these.\nThen we have their threats, malum minatum, then we have evil\nfollowing the threats, damnum secutum.  Just as of old, that damnum,\nthat damage, declares itself in the 'possession' of young people,\nwho become, more or less, subject to trances and convulsions.  One\nof them is haunted, as in the old witchcraft cases, by the phantasm\nof the sorcerer.  The phantasm (as in Cotton Mather's examples) is\nwounded, a parallel wound is found on the suspected warlock.\nFinally, the house where the obsessed victims live is disturbed by\nknocks, raps, flight of objects, and inexplicable movements of heavy\nfurniture.  Thus all the notes of a bad affair of witchcraft are\nattested in a modern trial, under the third Empire.  Finally, some\ncurious folklore is laid bare, light is cast on rural life and\nsuperstition, and a singular corroboration of a singular statement,\nmuch more recent than the occurrences at Cideville, is obtained.  A\nmore astonishing example of survival cannot be imagined, of\nsurvival, or of disconnected and spontaneous revival and\nrecrudescence. {276}\n\nThere was at Auzebosc, near famous Yvetot, an old shepherd named G---:\nhe was the recognised 'wise man,' or white witch of the\ndistrict, and some less noted rural adepts gave themselves out as\nhis pupils.  In March, 1849, M. Tinel, Cure of Cideville, visited a\nsick peasant, and advised him to discard old G., the shepherd\nmagical, and send for a physician.  G. was present, though\nconcealed, heard the cure's criticisms, and said:  'Why does he\nmeddle in my business, I shall meddle in his; he has pupils in his\nhouse, we'll see how long he keeps them.'  In a few days, G. was\narrested, as practising medicine unauthorised, was imprisoned for\nsome months, and fancied that the cure had a share in this\npersecution.  All this, of course, we must take as 'the clash of the\ncountry side,' intent, as there was certainly damnum secutum, on\nestablishing malum minatum.\n\nOn a farm near the cure's house in Cideville was another shepherd,\nnamed Thorel, a man of forty, described as dull, illiterate, and\ngiven to boasting about his powers as a disciple of the venerable G.\nPopular opinion decided that G. employed Thorel to procure his\nvengeance; it was necessary that a sorcerer should _touch_ his\nintended victim, and G. had not the same conveniency for doing so as\nThorel.  In old witch trials we sometimes find the witch kissing her\ndestined prey. {277}  Thorel, so it was said, succeeded in touching,\non Nov. 25, 1850, M. Tinel's two pupils, in a crowd at a sale of\nwood.  The lads, of fifteen and twelve, were named Lemonier and\nBunel.  For what had gone before, we have, so far, only public\nchatter, for what followed we have the sworn evidence in court of\nthe cure's pupils, in January and February, 1851.  According to\nLemonier, on Nov. 26, while studying, he heard light blows of a\nhammer, these recurred daily, about 5. p.m.  When M. Tinel, his\ntutor, said plus fort, the noises were louder.  To condense evidence\nwhich becomes tedious by its eternal uniformity, popular airs were\nbeaten on demand; the noise grew unbearable, tables moved untouched,\na breviary, a knife, a spit, a shoe flew wildly about.  Lemonier was\nbuffeted by a black hand, attached to nobody.  'A kind of human\nphantasm, clad in a blouse, haunted me for fifteen days wherever I\nwent; none but myself could see it.'  He was dragged by the leg by a\nmysterious force.  On a certain day, when Thorel found a pretext for\nvisiting the house, M. Tinel made him beg Lemonier's pardon, clearly\non the ground that the swain had bewitched the boy.  'As soon as I\nsaw him I recognised the phantasm which had haunted me for a\nfortnight, and I said to M. Tinel:  \"There is the man who follows\nme\".'  Thorel knelt to the boy, asked his pardon, and pulled\nviolently at his clothes.  As defendant, perhaps, the cure could not\nbe asked to corroborate these statements.  The evidence of the other\nboy, Bunel, was that, on Nov. 26, he heard first a rush of wind,\nthen tappings on the wall.  He corroborated Lemonier's testimony to\nthe musical airs knocked out, the volatile furniture, and the\nrecognition in Thorel of the phantom.  'In the evening,' said Bunel,\n'Lemonier en eut une crise de nerfs dans laquelle il avait perdu\nconnaissance.'\n\nLeaving the boys' sworn evidence, and returning to the narrative\nwith its gossip, we learn that Thorel boasted of his success, and\nsaid that, if he could but touch one of the lads again, the\nfurniture would dance, and the windows would be broken.  Meanwhile,\nwe are told, nails were driven into points in the floor where\nLemonier saw the spectral figure standing.  One nail became red hot,\nand the wood round it smoked:  Lemonier said that this nail had hit\n'the man in the blouse' on the cheek.  Now, when Thorel was made to\nask the boy's pardon, and was recognised by him as the phantom,\nafter the experiment with the nail, Thorel bore on his cheek the\nmark of the wound!\n\nThis is in accordance with good precedents in witchcraft.  A witch-\nhare is wounded, the witch, in her natural form, has the same wound.\nAt the trial of Bridget Bishop, in the court of Oyer and Terminer,\nheld at Salem, June 2, 1692, there was testimony brought in that a\nman striking once at the place where a bewitched person said the\n_shape_ of Mrs. Bishop stood, the bewitched cried out, _that he had\ntore her coat_, in the place then particularly specified, and\nBishop's coat was found to be torn in that very place. {279a}  Next\nday, after Thorel touched the boy, the windows broke, as he had\nprophesied.  Then followed a curious scene in which Thorel tried, in\npresence of the maire, to touch the cure, who retreated to the end\nof the room, and struck the shepherd with his cane.  Thereupon\nThorel brought his action for libel and assault against the cure.\nForty-two witnesses were heard, it was proved that Thorel had, in\nfact, frequently accused himself, and he was non-suited:  his\ncounsel spoke of appealing, but, unluckily, the case was not carried\nto a higher court.  In a few weeks the boys were sent to their\nhomes, when (according to the narrative) there were disturbances at\nthe home of the younger lad.  Thus the cure lost his pupils.\n\nA curious piece of traditional folklore came out, but only as\nhearsay, in court.  M. Cheval, Maire of Cideville, deposed that a M.\nSavoye told him that Thorel had once been shepherd to a M. Tricot.\nAt that time Thorel said to one of two persons in his company:\n'Every time I strike my cabin (a shelter on wheels used by\nshepherds) you will fall,' and, at each stroke, the victim felt\nsomething seize his throat, and fell! {279b}  This anecdote is\ncurious, because in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical\nResearch is a long paper by Dr. Gibotteau, on his experiments with a\nhospital nurse called Berthe.  This woman, according to the doctor,\nhad the power of making him see hallucinations, of a nature more or\nless horrible, from a distance.  She had been taught some\ntraditional feats of rural sorcery, among others that of making a\nman stumble, or fall, as he walked.  The doctor does not make any\nallusion to the Cideville affair, and it seems probable that this\ntrick is part of the peasant's magical repertoire, or, rather, that\nthe peasant warlocks boast of being able to perform the trick.  But,\nif we can accept the physician's evidence, as 'true for him,' at\nleast, then a person like Berthe really might affect, from a\ndistance, a boy like Lemonier with a haunting hallucination.  To do\nthis is witchcraft, and for crimes of this kind, or on false charges\nof this kind, poor Mrs. Bishop was burned at Salem in 1692.\n\nAt the lowest, we have all the notes of sorcery as our rude\nancestors knew it, in this modern affair.  Two hundred years\nearlier, Thorel would have been burned, and G., too, probably, for\nthe Maire of Cideville swore that before the disturbances, and three\nweeks after G. was let out of prison, Thorel had warned him of the\ntrouble which G. would bring on the cure.  Meanwhile the evidence\nshows no conscious malignity on the part of the two boys.  They at\nfirst took very little notice of the raps, attributing the noises to\nmice.  Not till the sounds increased, and showed intelligence, as by\ndrumming tunes, did the lads concern themselves, much about the\nmatter.  At no time (it seems) did they ask to be sent home, and, of\ncourse, to be relieved from their lessons and sent home would be\ntheir motive, if they practised a fraud.  We may admit that, from\nrural tradition, the boys might have learned what the customary\nphenomena are, knocks, raps, moving tables, heavy objects sailing\ntranquilly about a room.  It would be less easy for them to produce\nthese phenomena, nor did the people of all classes who flocked to\nCideville detect any imposture.\n\nA land surveyor swore that the raps went on when he had placed the\nboy in an attitude which made fraud (in his opinion) impossible.  A\ngentleman M. de B. 'took all possible precautions' but,\nnevertheless, was entertained by 'a noise which performed the tunes\ndemanded'.  He could discover no cause of the noise.  M. Huet,\ntouching a table with his finger, received responsive raps, which\nanswered questions, 'at the very place where I struck, and beneath\nmy finger.  I cannot explain the fact, which, I am convinced, was\nnot caused by the child, nor by any one in the house.'  M. Cheval\nsaw things fly about, he slept in the boy's room, and his pillow\nflew from under his head.  He lay down between the children, holding\ntheir hands, and placing his feet on theirs, when the coverlet of\nthe bed arose, and floated away.  The Marquis de Mirville had a\nnumber of answers by raps, which staggered him very much, but the\nforce was quite feeble when he asked for portions of Italian music.\nMadame de St. Victor felt herself pushed, and her clothes pulled in\nthe cure's house, when no one was near her.  She also saw furniture\nbehave in a fantastic manner, and M. Raoul Robert de St. Victor had\nmany such experiences.  M. Paul de St. Victor was not present.  A\ndesk sailed along:  paused in air, and fell:  'I had never seen a\nmovement of this kind, and I admit that I was alarmed'.  Le\nSeigneur, a farmer, saw 'a variety of objects arise and sail about':\nhe was certain that the boys did not throw them, and when in their\ncompany, in the open air, between Cideville and Anzooville, 'I saw\nstones come to us, without striking us, hurled by some invisible\nforce'.  There was other confirmatory evidence, from men of physic,\nand of the law.\n\nThe juge de paix, as we have seen, pronounced that the clearest\npoint in the case was 'the absence of known cause for the effects,'\nand he non-suited Thorel, the plaintiff.\n\nThe cause of the phenomena is, of course, as obscure for us as for\nthe worthy magistrate.  We can only say that, when precisely similar\nevidence was brought before judges and juries in England and New\nEngland, at a period when medicine, law, and religion all recognised\nthe existence of witchcraft, magic, and diabolical possession, they\nhad scarcely any choice but to condemn the accused.  Causa patet,\nthey said:  'The devil is at the bottom of it all, and the witch is\nhis minister'.\n\nThe affair of Cideville by no means stands alone in modern France.\nIn 1853, two doctors and other witnesses signed a deposition as to\nprecisely similar phenomena attending Adelaide Francoise Millet, a\ngirl of twelve, at Songhien, in Champagne.  The trouble, as at Cock\nLane, began by a sound of scratching on the wood of her bed.  The\nclerk of the juge de la paix, the master of the Douane, two doctors,\nand others visited her, and tied her hands and feet.  The noise\ncontinued.  Mysterious missiles pursued a girl in Martinique, in\n1854.  The house, which was stormed by showers of stone, in Paris\n(1846), entirely baffled the police. {283a}  There is a more\nsingular parallel to the Cideville affair, the account was printed\nfrom the letter of a correspondent in the Abeille of Chartres, March\n11, 1849. {283b}  At Gaubert, near Guillonville, a man was\nimprisoned for thefts of hay, the property of a M. Dolleans.  Two\ndays after his arrest, namely, on December 31, 1848, the servant of\nM. Dolleans had things of all sorts thrown at her from all\ndirections.  She fell ill, and went into hospital for five days,\n_where she was untroubled_.  On her return, in the middle of a\nconversation, ribbons and bits of string would fly at her, and twist\nthemselves round her neck, as in the case of Francis Fey, of\nSpraiton, given by Aubrey and Bovet.  Mademoiselle Dolleans\ncarefully watched the girl for a fortnight, and never let her out of\nher sight, but could not discover any fraud.  After about a month\nthe maid was sent home, where she was not molested.  Naturally we\nsee in her the half-insane cunning of hysteria, but that explanation\ndoes not apply to little Master Dolleans, a baby of three months\nold.  The curse fell on _him_:  however closely his parents watched\nhim, pots and pans showered into his cradle, the narrator himself\nsaw a miscellaneous collection of household furniture mysteriously\namassed there.\n\nThe Abeille of Chartres held this letter over, till two of its\nreporters had visited the scene of action, and interviewed doctors,\npriests, and farmers, who all attested the facts.  Happily, in this\ncase, an exorcism by a priest proved efficacious.  At Cideville,\nholy water and consecrated medals were laughed at by the sprite,\nwho, by the way, answered to the name of Robert.\n\n\n\n\n\nPRESBYTERIAN GHOST HUNTERS.\n\n\nReligious excitement and hallucination.  St. Anthony.  Zulu\ncatechumens.  Haunted Covenanters.  Strange case of Thomas Smeaton.\nLaw's 'Memorialls'.  A deceitful spirit.  Examples of insane and\nmorbidly sensitive ghosts.  'Le revenant qui s'accuse s'excuse.'\nRaising the devil in Irvine.  Mode of evocation.  Wodrow.  His\naccount of Margaret Lang, and Miss Shaw of Bargarran.  The unlucky\nShaws.  Lord Torphichen's son.  Cases from Wodrow.  Lord Middleton's\nstory.  Haunted house.  Wraiths.  Lord Orrery's ghost no\nmetaphysician.  The Bride of Lammermoor.  Visions of the saints.\nTheir cautiousness.  Ghost appearing to a Jacobite.  Ghost of a\ncountry tradesman.  Case of telepathy known to Wodrow.  Avenging\nspectres.  Lack of evidence.  Tale of Cotton Mather.\n\nIn spite of a very general opinion to the opposite effect, it is not\nreally easy to determine in what kind of age, and in what conditions\nof thought and civilisation, ghosts will most frequently appear, and\nghostly phenomena will chiefly abound.  We are all ready to aver\nthat 'ghaists and eldritch fantasies' will be most common 'in the\ndark ages,' in periods of ignorance or superstition.  But research\nin mediaeval chronicles, and in lives of the saints makes it\napparent that, while marvels on a large and imposing scale were\nfrequent, simple ordinary apparitions and haunted houses occur\ncomparatively seldom.  Perhaps they were too common to be thought\nworth noticing, yet they are noticed occasionally, and, even in\nthese periods of superstition, were apparently regarded as not quite\neveryday phenomena.\n\nOne thing in this matter is tolerably certain, namely, that intense\nreligious excitement produces a tendency to believe in marvels of\nall sorts, and also begets a capacity for being hallucinated, for\nbeholding spectres, strange lights, dubious miracles.  Thus every\none has heard of the temptation of St. Anthony, and of other early\nChristian Fathers.  They were wont to be surrounded by threatening\naspects of wild beasts, which had no real existence.  In the same\nway the early Zulu converts of Bishop Callaway, when they retired to\nlonely places to pray, were haunted by visionary lions, and\nphantasms of enemies with assegais.  They, probably, had never heard\nof St. Anthony's similar experiences, nor, again, of the diabolical\nattacks on the converts of Catholic missionaries in Cochin China,\nand in Peru.\n\nProbably the most recent period of general religious excitement in\nour country was that of the Covenant in Scotland.  Not a mere\nscattered congregation or two, as in the rise of Irvingism, but a\nvast proportion of a whole people lived lives of prolonged ecstatic\nprayer, and often neglected food for days.  Consequently devout\nCovenanters, retired in lonely places to pray, were apt to be\ninfested by spectral animals, black dogs as a rule, and they doubted\nnot at all that the black dog was the Accuser of the Brethren.  We\nhave Catholic evidence, in Father Piatti's Life of Father\nElphinstone, S. J., to black dogs haunting Thomas Smeaton, the\nfriend of Andrew Melville (1580).  But Father Piatti thinks that the\ndogs were avenging devils, Smeaton being an apostate (MS. Life of\nElphinstone).  Again Covenanters would see mysterious floods of\nlight, as the heathen also used, but, like the heathen, they were\nnot certain as to whether the light was produced by good or bad\nspirits.  Like poor bewildered Porphyry, many centuries earlier,\nthey found the spirits 'very deceitful'.  You never can depend on\nthem.  This is well illustrated by the Rev. Mr. Robert Law, a\nCovenanting minister, but _not_ a friend of fanaticism and sedition.\n\nIn his Memorialls, a work not published till long after his death,\nhe gives this instance of the deceitfulness of sprites.  The Rev.\nMr. John Shaw, in Ireland, was much troubled by witches, and by\n'cats coming into his chamber and bed'.  He died, so did his wife,\n'and, as was supposed, witched'.  Before Mr. Shaw's death his groom,\nin the stable, saw 'a great heap of hay rolling toward him, and then\nappeared' (the hay not the groom) 'in the shape and lykness of a\nbair.  He charges it to appear in human shape, which it did.'  The\nappearance made a tryst to meet the groom, but Mr. Shaw forbade this\ntampering with evil in the lykness of a bair.  However a stone was\nthrown at the groom, which he took for a fresh invitation from the\nbair, so he went to the place appointed.  'The divill appears in\nhuman shape, with his heid running down with blood,' and explains\nthat he is 'the spirit of a murdered man who lay under his bed, and\nburied in the ground, and who was murdered by such a man, naming him\nby name'.  The groom, very naturally, dug in the spot pointed out by\nthis versatile phantom, 'but finds nothing of bones or anything lyke\na grave, and shortly after this man dyes,' having failed to discover\nthat the person accused of murder had ever existed at all.\n\nMany ghosts have a perfect craze for announcing that bodies or\ntreasures, are buried where there is nothing of the sort.  Glanvill\nhas a tale of a ghost who accused himself of a murder, and led a man\nto a place in a wood where the corpse of the slain was to be found.\nThere was no corpse, the ghost was mad.  The Psychical Society have\npublished the narratives of a housemaid and a butler who saw a lady\nghost.  She, later, communicated through a table her intention to\nappear at eleven p.m.  The butler and two ladies saw her, the\ngentlemen present did _not_.  The ghost insisted that jewels were\nburied in the cellar; the butler dug, but found none.  The writer is\nacquainted with another ghost, not published, who labours under\nmorbid delusions.  For reasons wholly unfounded on fact she gave a\ngreat deal of trouble to a positive stranger.  Now there was\nliterally no sense in these proceedings.  Such is ghostly evidence,\never deceitful!\n\n'It's not good,' says Mr. Law, 'to come in communing terms with\nSatan, there is a snare in the end of it;' yet people have actually\nbeen hanged, in England, on the evidence of a ghost!  On the\nevidence of the devil, some other persons were accused of theft, in\n1682.  This is a remarkable instance; we often hear of raising the\nghostly foe, but we are seldom told how it can be done.  This is how\nit was done in February, 1682, at the house of the Hon. Robert\nMontgomery, in Irvine.  Some objects of silver plate were stolen, a\nmaid was suspected, she said 'she would raise the devil, but she\nwould know who the thief was'.  Taking, therefore, a Bible, she went\ninto a cellar, where she drew a circle round her, and turned a sieve\non end twice, from right to left.  In her hand she held nine\nfeathers from the tail of a black cock.  She next read Psalm li.\nforwards, and then backwards Revelations ix. 19.  'He' then\nappeared, dressed as a sailor with a blue cap.  At each question she\nthrew three feathers at him:  finally he showed as a black man with\na long tail.  Meanwhile all the dogs in Irvine were barking, as in\nGreece when Hecate stood by the cross-ways.  The maid now came and\ntold Mrs. Montgomery (on information received) that the stolen plate\nwas in the box of a certain servant, where, of course, she had\nprobably placed it herself.  However the raiser of the devil was\nimprisoned for the spiritual offence.  She had learned the rite 'at\nDr. Colvin's house in Ireland, who used to practise this'.\n\nThe experiment may easily be repeated by the scientific.\n\nThough Mr. Law is strong in witches and magic, he has very few ghost\nstories; indeed, according to his philosophy, even a common wraith\nof a living person is really the devil in that disguise.  The\nlearned Mr. Wodrow, too, for all his extreme pains, cannot be called\na very successful amateur of spectres.  A mighty ghost hunter was\nthe Rev. Robert Wodrow of Eastwood, in Renfrewshire, the learned\nhistorian of the sufferings of the Kirk of Scotland (1679-1734).\nMr. Wodrow was an industrious antiquarian, a student of geology, as\nit was then beginning to exist, a correspondent for twenty years of\nCotton Mather, and a good-hearted kind man, that would hurt nobody\nbut a witch or a Papist.  He had no opportunity to injure members of\neither class, but it is plain, from his four large quarto volumes,\ncalled Analecta, that he did not lack the will.  In his Analecta Mr.\nWodrow noted down all the news that reached him, scandals about 'The\nPretender,' Court Gossip, Heresies of Ministers, Remarkable\nProvidences, Woful Apparitions, and 'Strange Steps of Providence'.\nGhosts, second sight, dreams, omens, premonitions, visions, did\ngreatly delight him, but it is fair to note that he does not vouch\nfor all his marvels, but merely jots them down, as matters of\nhearsay.  Thus his pages are valuable to the student of\nsuperstition, because they contain 'the clash of the country' for\nabout forty years, and illustrate the rural or ecclesiastical\naberglaube of our ancestors, at the moment when witchcraft was\nceasing to be a recognised criminal offence.\n\nA diary of Wodrow's exists, dating from April 3, 1697, when he was\nbut nineteen years of age.  On June 10, 1697, he announces the\nexecution of some witches at Paisley:  seven were burned, among them\none, Margaret Lang, who accused herself of horrible crimes.  The\nvictim of the witches burned in 1697 was a child of eleven, daughter\nof John Shaw of Bargarran.  This family was unlucky in its spiritual\naccidents.  The previous laird, as we learn from the contemporary\nLaw, in his Memorialls, rode his horse into a river at night, and\ndid not arrive at the opposite bank.  Every effort was made to find\nhis body in the stream, which was searched as far as the sea.  The\ncorpse was at last discovered in a ditch, two miles away, shamefully\nmutilated.  The money of the laird, and other objects of value, were\nstill in his pockets.  This was regarded as the work of fiends, but\nthere is a more plausible explanation.  Nobody but his groom saw the\nlaird ride into the river; the chances are that he was murdered in\nrevenge,--certain circumstances point to this,--and that the servant\nwas obliged to keep the secret, and invent the story about riding\nthe ford.\n\nThe daughter of Bargarran's successor and heir was probably a\nhysterical child, who was led, by the prevailing superstition, to\nbelieve that witches caused her malady.  How keen the apprehensions\nwere among children, we learn from a document preserved by Wodrow.\nAn eminent Christian of his acquaintance thought in boyhood that an\nold woman looked crossly at him, and he went in dread of being\nbewitched for a whole summer.  The mere terror might have caused\nfits, he would then have denounced the old woman, and she would\nprobably have been burned.  Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, in his\npreface to Law's Memorialls (p. xcii.), says that Miss Shaw was\n'antient in wickedness,' and thus accounts for her 'pretending to be\nbewitched,' by way of revenging herself on one of the maid-servants.\nTwenty people were finally implicated, several were executed, and\none killed himself.  The child, probably hysterical, and certainly\nsubject to convulsions, was really less to blame than 'the absurd\ncredulity of various otherwise worthy ministers, and some topping\nprofessors in and about Glasgow,' as Sharpe quotes the MS. 'Treatise\non witchcraft' of the Rev. Mr. Bell.  Strangely enough the great\nthread manufactories of Renfrewshire owed their origin to this Miss\nShaw, aided by a friend who had acquired some technical secrets in\nHolland.  She married a minister in 1718, and probably her share in\nan abominable crime lay light on her conscience.  Her fellow-\nsufferer from witchcraft, a young Sandilands, son of Lord Torphichen\n(1720), became a naval officer of distinguished gallantry.\n\nWodrow does not appear to have witnessed the execution at Paisley,\none of the last in Scotland, but he had no doubt that witches should\nbe put to death.  In 1720, when the son of Lord Torphichen exhibited\nsome curious phenomena, exaggerated by report into clairvoyance and\nflying in the air, nobody was punished.  In spite of his\nsuperstition in regard to witches, Wodrow (September 20, 1697)\nsensibly explains a death-wraith by the anxiety of the lady who\nbeheld it.  He also, still in the diary, records a case of second\nsight, but that occurred in Argyleshire.  It will be found, in fact,\nthat all the second-sighted people except some ministers during the\nsufferings (and they reckoned as prophets) were Highlanders.\nConsidering his avidity for ghost-stories, it is remarkable that he\nscarcely ever receives them at even second hand, and that most of\nthem are remote in point of time.  On the other side, he secures a\nfew religious visions, as of shining lights comforting devout\nladies, from the person concerned.  His narratives fall into regular\ncategories, Haunted Houses, Ghosts, Wraiths, Second Sight,\nConsolatory Divine Visions.  Thus Mr. Stewart's uncle, Harry, 'ane\neminent Christian, and very joviall,' at a drinking party saw\nhimself in bed, and his coffin at his bed-foot.  This may be\nexplained as a case of 'the horrors,' a malady incident to the\njovial.  He died in a week, In vino veritas.\n\nLord Middleton's ghost-story Wodrow got from the son of a man who,\nas Lauderdale's chaplain, heard Middleton tell it at dinner.  He had\nmade a covenant with the Laird of Babigni that the first who died\nshould appear to the survivor.  Babigni was slain in battle,\nMiddleton was put in the Tower, where Babigni appeared to him, sat\nwith him for an hour by the clock, and predicted the Restoration.\n'His hand was hote and soft,' but Middleton, brave in the field, was\nmuch alarmed.  He had probably drunk a good deal in the Tower.  This\nanecdote was very widely rumoured.  Aubrey publishes a version of it\nin his Miscellanies, and Law gives another in his Memorialls (p.\n162).  He calls 'Babigni'--'Barbigno,' and 'Balbegno'.  According to\nLaw, it was not the laird's ghost that appeared, but 'the devil in\nhis lykness'.  Law and Aubrey make the spirit depart after uttering\na couplet, which they quote variously.\n\nFor a haunted house, Wodrow provides us with that of Johnstone of\nMellantae, in Annandale (1707).  The authority is Mr. Cowan, who had\nit from Mr. Murray, minister of St. Mungo's, who got it from\nMellantae himself, the worthy gentleman weeping as he described his\nmisfortunes.  His daughter, Miss Johnstone, was milking a cow in the\nbyre, by daylight, when she saw a tall man, almost naked, probably a\ntramp, who frightened her into a swoon.  The house was then\n'troubled and disturbed' by flights of stones, and disappearance of\nobjects.  Young Dornock, after a visit to Mellantae, came back with\na story that loud knockings were heard on the beds, and sounds of\npewter vessels being thrown about, though, in the morning, all were\nfound in their places.  The ghost used also to pull the medium, Miss\nJohnstone, by the foot, and toss her bed-clothes about.\n\nNext, at first hand from Mr. Short, we have a death-wraith beheld by\nhim of his friend Mr. Scrimgeour.  The hour was five a.m. on a\nsummer morning, and Mr. Scrimgeour expired at that time in\nEdinburgh.  Again, we have the affair of Mr. Blair, of St. Andrews,\nthe probationer, and the devil, who, in return for a written\ncompact, presented the probationer with an excellent sermon.  On the\npetition of Mr. Blair, the compact fell from the roof of the church.\nThe tale is told by Increase Mather about a French Protestant\nminister, and, as Increase wrote twenty years before Wodrow, we may\nregard Wodrow's anecdote as a myth; for the incident is of an\nunusual character, and not likely to repeat itself.  We may also set\naside, though vouched for by Lord Tullibardine's butler, 'ane litle\nold man with a fearful ougly face,' who appeared to the Rev. Mr.\nLesly.  Being asked whence he came, he said, 'From hell,' and, being\nfurther interrogated as to _why_ he came, he observed:  'To warn the\nnation to repent'.  This struck Mr. Lesly as improbable on the face\nof it; however, he was a good deal alarmed.\n\nLord Orrery is well known in ghostly circles, as the evidence for a\ngentleman's butler being levitated, and floating about a room in his\nhouse.  It may be less familiar that his lordship's own ghost\nappeared to his sister.  She consulted Robert Boyle, F.R.S., who\nadvised her, if Orrery appeared again, to ask him some metaphysical\nquestions.  She did so, and 'I know these questions come from my\nbrother,' said the appearance.  'He is too curious.'  He admitted,\nhowever, that his body was 'an aerial body,' but declined to be\nexplicit on other matters.  This anecdote was told by Mr. Smith, who\nhad it from Mr. Wallace, who had it from 'an English gentleman'.\nMr. Menzies, minister of Erskine, once beheld the wraith of a friend\nsmoking a pipe, but the owner of the wraith did not die, or do\nanything remarkable.  To see a friendly wraith smoking a pipe, even\nif he take the liberty of doing so in one's bedroom, is not very\nill-boding.  To be sure Mr. Menzies' own father died not long after,\nbut the attempt to connect the wraith of a third person with that\nevent is somewhat desperate.\n\nWodrow has a tame commonplace account of the Bride of Lammermoor's\naffair.  On the other hand, he tells us concerning a daughter of\nLord Stair, the Countess of Dumfries, that she 'was under a very odd\nkind of distemper, and did frequently fly from one end of the room\nto the other, and from the one side of the garden to the other. . .\n.  The matter of fact is certain.'  At a garden party this\naccomplishment would have been invaluable.\n\nWe now, for a change, have a religious marvel.  Mrs. Zuil, 'a very\njudiciouse Christian,' had a friend of devout character.  This lady,\nbeing in bed, and in 'a ravishing frame,' 'observed a pleasant\nlight, and one of the pleasantest forms, like a young child,\nstanding on her shoulder'.  Not being certain that she was not\ndelirious, she bade her nurse draw her curtains, and bring her some\nposset.  Thrice the nurse came in with posset, and thrice drew back\nin dread.  The appearance then vanished, and for the fourth time the\nnurse drew the curtains, but, on this occasion, she presented the\ninvalid with the posset.  Being asked why she had always withdrawn\nbefore, she said she had seen 'like a boyn (halo?) above her\nmistress's head,' and added, 'it was her wraith, and a signe she\nwould dye'.  'From this the lady was convinced that she was in no\nreverie.'  A similar halo shone round pious Mr. Welsh, when in\nmeditation, and also (according to Patrick Walker) round two of the\nSweet Singers, followers of Meikle John Gibb, before they burned a\nBible!  Gibb, a raving fanatic, went to America, where he was\ngreatly admired by the Red Indians, 'because of his much converse\nwith the devil'.  The pious of Wodrow's date distrusted these\nluminous appearances, as they might be angelical, but might also be\ndiabolical temptations to spiritual pride.  Thus the blasphemous\nfollowers of Gibb were surrounded by a bright light, no less than\npious Mr. Welsh, a very distinguished Presbyterian minister.\nIndeed, this was taken advantage of by Mr. Welsh's enemies, who,\nsays his biographer Kirkton, 'were so bold as to call him no less\nthan a wizard'.  When Mr. Shields and Mr. John Dickson were\nimprisoned on the Bass Rock, and Mr. Shields was singing psalms in\nhis cell, Mr. Dickson peeping in, saw 'a figure all in white,' of\nwhose presence Mr. Shields was unconscious.  He had only felt 'in a\nheavenly and elevated frame'.\n\nA clairvoyant dream is recorded on the authority of 'Dr. Clerk at\nLondon, who writes on the Trinity, and may be depended on in such\naccounts'.  The doctor's father was Mayor of Norwich, 'or some other\ntown,' and a lady came to him, bidding him arrest a tailor for\nmurdering his wife.  The mayor was not unnaturally annoyed by this\nappeal, but the lady persisted.  She had dreamed twice:  first she\nsaw the beginning of the murder, then the end of it.  As she was\ntalking to the mayor, the tailor came in, demanding a warrant to\narrest his wife's murderers!  He was promptly arrested, tried, and\nacquitted, but later confessed, and 'he was execut for the fact'.\nThis is a highly improbable story, and is capped by another from\nWodrow's mother-in-law.  A man was poisoned:  later his nephew slept\nin his room, and heard a voice cry, 'Avenge the blood of your\nuncle'.  This happened twice, and led to an inquiry, and the\ndetection of the guilty.  The nephew who received the warning was\nSir John Clerk of Penicuik, ancestor of Sir Walter Scott's friend.\n\nWe next have a Mahatma-like tale about Cotton Mather, from Mr.\nStirling, who had it from a person who had it from the doctor's own\nmouth.  Briefly, Cotton lost his sermon as he was riding to a place\nwhere he had to preach.  He prayed for better luck, and 'no sooner\nwas his prayer over, but his papers wer conveyed to him, flying in\nthe air upon him when riding, which was very surprizing'.  It was,\nindeed!  Wodrow adds:  'Mind to write to the doctor about this'.\nThis letter, if he ever wrote it, is not in the three portly volumes\nof his correspondence.\n\nThe occurrence is more remarkable than the mysterious dispensation\nwhich enabled another minister to compose a sermon in his sleep.\nMr. James Guthrie, at Stirling, 'had his house haunted by the devil,\nwhich was a great exercise to worthy Mr. Guthrie,' and, indeed,\nwould have been a great exercise to almost any gentleman.  Details\nare wanting, and as Mr. Guthrie had now been hanged for sixty years\n(1723), the facts are 'remote'.  Mr. Guthrie, it seems, was\nunpopular at Stirling, and was once mobbed there.  The devil may\nhave been his political opponent in disguise.  Mr. John Anderson is\nresponsible for the story of a great light seen, and a melodious\nsound heard over the house of 'a most singular Christian of the old\nsort,' at the moment of her death.  Her name, unluckily, is\nuncertain.\n\nA case of 'telepathy' we have, at first hand, from Mrs. Luke.  When\nin bed 'a horror of darknes' came upon her about her daughter\nMartha, who was in Edinburgh.  'Sometimes she began to think that\nher daughter was dead, or had run away with some person.'  She\nremained in this anxiety till six in the morning, when the cloud\nlifted.  It turned out that Martha had been in some peril at sea,\nbut got safe into Leith Roads at six in the morning.  A clairvoyant\ndream was also vouchsafed to Dr. Pitcairn, though 'a Jacobite, and a\nperson of considerable sense,' as Wodrow quaintly remarks about\nanother individual.\n\nThe doctor was at Paris when a friend of his, 'David' (surname\nunknown), died in Edinburgh.  The doctor dreamed for several nights\nrunning that David came to him, and that they tried to enter several\ntaverns, which were shut.  David then went away in a ship.  As the\ndoctor was in the habit of frequenting taverns with David, the\ndreams do not appear to deserve our serious consideration.  To be\nsure David 'said he was dead'.  'Strange vouchsafments of Providence\nto a person of the doctor's temper and sense,' moralises Wodrow.\n\nCuriously enough, a different version of Dr. Pitcairn's dream is in\nexistence.  Several anecdotes about the doctor are prefixed, in\nmanuscript, to a volume of his Latin poems, which was shown to Dr.\nHibbert by Mr. David Laing, the well-known historian and\nantiquarian.  Dr. Hibbert says:  'The anecdotes are from some one\nobviously on terms of intimacy with Pitcairn'.  According to this\nnote Robert Lindsay, a descendant of Sir David Lindsay of the Mount,\nwas at college with the doctor.  They made the covenant that\n'whoever dyed first should give account of his condition if\npossible'.  This was in 1671, in 1675 Lindsay died, while Pitcairn\nwas in Paris.  On the night of Lindsay's death, Pitcairn dreamed\nthat he was in Edinburgh, where Lindsay met him and said, 'Archie,\nperhaps ye heard I'm dead?'  'No, Roben.'  The vision said he was to\nbe buried in the Grey Friars, and offered to carry Pitcairn to a\nhappy spiritual country, 'in a well sailing small ship,' like\nOdysseus..  Pitcairn said he must first see his parents.  Lindsay\npromised to call again.  'Since which time A. P. never slept a night\nwithout dreaming that Lindsay told him he was alive.  And, having a\ndangerous sickness, anno 1694, he was told by Roben that he was\ndelayed for a time, and that it was properly his task to carry him\noff, but was discharged to tell when.' {300}  Dr. Hibbert thinks\nthat Pitcairn himself dictated this account, much more marvellous\nthan the form in which Wodrow received the story.\n\nLeaving a solitary Jacobite vision, for a true blue Presbyterian\n'experience,' we learn that Wodrow's own wedded wife had a pious\nvision, 'a glorious, inexpressible brightness'.  The thought which\ncame presently was, 'This perhaps may be Satan, transforming himself\ninto an angel of light'.  'It mout or it moutn't.'  In 1729, Wodrow\nheard of the ghost of the Laird of Coul, which used to ride one of\nhis late tenants, transformed into a spectral horse.  A chap-book\ncontaining Coul's discourse with Mr. Ogilby, a minister, was very\npopular in the last century.  Mr. Ogilby left an account in\nmanuscript, on which the chap-book was said to be based.  Another\nghost of a very moral turn appeared, and gave ministers information\nabout a case of lawless love.  This is said to be recorded in the\nregisters of the Presbytery of Fordoun, but Wodrow is vague about\nthe whole affair.\n\nWe next come to a very good ghost of the old and now rather\nunfashionable sort.  The authority is Mr. William Brown, who had it\nfrom the Rev. Mr. Mercer of Aberdalgie, 'as what was generally\nbelived as to Dr. Rule, Principal at Edinburgh'.  Such is Wodrow's\nway, his ideas of evidence are quite rudimentary.  Give him a ghost,\nand he does not care for 'contemporary record,' or 'corroborative\ntestimony'.  To come to the story.  Dr. Rule, finding no room at an\ninn near Carnie Mount, had a fire lit in a chamber of a large\ndeserted house hard by.  He went to bed, leaving a bright fire\nburning, when 'the room dore is opened, and an apparition, _in shape\nof a country tradsman_, came in, and opened the courtains without\nspeaking a word'.  The doctor determined not to begin a\nconversation, so the apparition lighted the candles, brought them to\nthe bedside, and backed to the door.  Dr. Rule, like old Brer\nRabbit, 'kept on a-saying nothing'.  'Then the apparition took an\neffectuall way to raise the doctor.  He caryed back the candles to\nthe table, and, _with the tongs_, took doun the kindled coals, and\nlaid them on the deal chamber floor.'  Dr. Rule now 'thought it was\ntime to rise,' and followed the appearance, who carried the candles\ndownstairs, set them on the lowest step, and vanished.  Dr. Rule\nthen lifted the candles, and went back to bed.  Next morning he went\nto the sheriff, and told him there 'was murder in it'.  The sheriff\nsaid, 'it might be so,' but, even if so, the crime was not recent,\nas the house for thirty years had stood empty.  The step was taken\nup, and a dead body was found, 'and bones, to the conviction of\nall'.  The doctor then preached on these unusual events, and an old\nman of eighty fell a-weeping, confessing that, as a mason lad, he\nhad killed a companion, and buried him in that spot, while the house\nwas being built.  Consequently the house, though a new one, was\nhaunted from the first, and was soon deserted.  The narrator, Mr.\nMercer, had himself seen two ghosts of murdered boys frequently in\nDundee.  He did not speak, nor did they, and as the rooms were\ncomfortable he did not leave them.  To have talked about the\nincident would only have been injurious to his landlady.  'The\nlonger I live, the more unexpected things I meet with, and even\namong my own relations,' says Mr. Wodrow with much simplicity.  But\nhe never met with a ghost, nor even with any one who had met with a\nghost, except Mr. Mercer.\n\nIn the same age, or earlier, Increase Mather represents apparitions\nas uncommonly scarce in New England, though diabolical possession\nand witchcraft were as familiar as influenza.  It has been shown\nthat, in nearly forty years of earnest collecting, Mr. Wodrow did\nnot find a single supernatural occurrence which was worth\ninvestigating by the curious.  Every tale was old, or some simple\nnatural cause was at the bottom of the mystery, or the narrative\nrested on vague gossip, or was a myth.  Today, at any dinner party,\nyou may hear of bogles and wraiths at first or at second hand, in an\nabundance which would have rejoiced Wodrow.  Charles Kirkpatrick\nSharpe vainly brags, in Law's Memorialls, that 'good sense and\nwidely diffused information have driven our ghosts to a few remote\ncastles in the North of Scotland' (1819).  But, however we are to\nexplain it, the ghosts have come forth again, and, like golf, have\ncrossed the Tweed.  Now this is a queer result of science, common-\nsense, cheap newspapers, popular education, and progress in general.\nWe may all confess to a belief in ghosts, because we call them\n'phantasmogenetic agencies,' and in as much of witchcraft as we\nstyle 'hypnotic suggestion'.  So great, it seems, is the force of\nlanguage! {303}\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LOGIC OF TABLE-TURNING\n\n\nBias in belief.  Difficulty of examining problems in which unknown\npersonal conditions are dominant.  Comte Agenor de Gasparin on\ntable-turning.  The rise of modern table-turning.  Rapping.  French\nexamples.  A lady bitten by a spirit.  Flying objects.  The 'via\nmedia' of M. de Gasparin.  Tables are turned by recondite physical\ncauses:  not by muscular or spiritual actions.  The author's own\nexperiments.  Motion without contact.  Dr. Carpenter's views.\nIncredulity of M. de Gasparin as to phenomena beyond his own\nexperience.  Ancient Greek phenomena.  M. de Gasparin rejects\n'spirits'.  Dr. Carpenter neglects M. de Gasparin's evidence.\nSurvival and revival.  Delacourt's case.  Home's case.  Simon Magus.\nEarly scientific training.  Its results.  Conclusion.\n\nWhile reason is fondly supposed to govern our conduct, and direct\nour conclusions, there is no doubt that our opinions are really\nregulated by custom, temperament, hope, and fear.  We believe or\ndisbelieve because other people do so, because our character is\nattracted to, or repelled by the unusual, the mysterious; because,\nfrom one motive or another, we wish things to be thus, or fear that\nthey may be thus, or hope that they may be so, and cannot but dread\nthat they are otherwise.  Again, the laws of Nature which have been\nascertained are enough for the conduct of life, and science\nconstantly, and with excellent reason, resists to the last gasp\nevery attempt to recognise the existence of a new law, which, after\nall, can apparently do little for the benefit of mankind, and may\nconceivably do something by no means beneficial.  Again, science is\naccustomed to deal with constant phenomena, which, given the\nconditions, will always result.  The phenomena of the marvellous are\nnot constant, or, rather, the conditions cannot be definitely\nascertained.  When Mr. Crookes made certain experiments on Home's\npower of causing a balance to move without contact he succeeded; in\nthe presence of some Russian savants a similar experiment failed.\nGranting that Mr. Crookes's tests were accurate (and the lay mind,\nat least, can see no flaw in them), we must suppose that the\npersonal conditions, in the Russian case, were not the same.\n\nNow an electric current will inevitably do its work, if known and\nascertained conditions are present; a personal current, so to speak,\ndepends on personal conditions which are unascertainable.  It is\ninevitable that science, accustomed to the invariable, should turn\naway from phenomena which, if they do occur, seem, so far, to have a\nwill of their own.  That they have a will of their own is precisely\ntheir attraction for another class of minds, which recognises in\nthem the action of unknown intelligences.  There are also people who\nso dislike our detention in the prison house of old unvarying laws,\nthat their bias is in favour of anything which may tend to prove\nthat science, in her contemporary mood, is not infallible.  As the\nFrenchman did not care what sort of scheme he invested money in,\n'provided that it annoys the English,' so many persons do not care\nwhat they invest belief in, provided that it irritates men of\nscience.  Just as rationally, some men of science denounce all\ninvestigation of the abnormal phenomena of which history and rumour\nare so full, because the research may bring back distasteful\nbeliefs, and revive the 'ancestral tendency' to superstition.  Yet\nthe question is not whether the results of research may be\ndangerous, but whether the phenomena occur.  The speculations of\nCopernicus, of Galileo, of the geologists, of Mr. Darwin, were\n'dangerous,' and it does not appear that they have added to the sum\nof human delight.  But men of science are still happiest when\ndenouncing the 'obscurantism' of those who opposed Copernicus, Mr.\nDarwin, and the rest, in dread of the moral results.  We owe the\nstrugforlifeur of M. Daudet to Mr. Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace,\nand the strugforlifeur is as dangerous and disagreeable as the half-\ncrazy spiritualist.  Science is only concerned with truth, not with\nthe mischievous inferences which people may draw from truth.  And\nyet certain friends of science, quite naturally and normally, fall\nback on the attitude of the opponents of Copernicus:  'These\nthings,' they say, 'should not even be examined'.\n\nSuch are the hostile and distracting influences, the contending\ncurrents, in the midst of which Reason has to operate as well as she\ncan.  Meanwhile every one of us probably supposes himself to be a\nmodel of pure reason, and if people would only listen to him, the\nmeasure of the universe.  This happy and universal frame of mind is\nagreeably illustrated in a work by the late Comte Agenor de\nGasparin, Les Tables Tournantes (Deuxieme edition:  Levy, Paris,\n1888).  The first edition is of 1854, and was published at a time of\ngeneral excitement about 'table-turning' and 'spirit-rapping,' an\nexcitement which only old people remember, and which it is amazing\nto read about.\n\nModern spirit-rapping, of which table-turning is a branch, began, as\nwe know, in 1847-48.  A family of Methodists named Fox, entered, in\n1847, on the tenancy of a house in Hydesville, in the State of New\nYork.  The previous occupants had been disturbed by 'knocking,' this\ncontinued in the Fox regime, one of the little girls found that the\nraps would answer (a discovery often made before) a system of\nalphabetic communication was opened, and spiritualism was launched.\n{307}  In March, 1853, a packet of American newspapers reached\nBremen, and, as Dr. Andree wrote to the Gazette d'Augsbourg (March\n30, 1853), all Bremen took to experiments in turning tables.  The\npractice spread like a new disease, even men of science and\nacademicians were puzzled, it is a fact that, at a breakfast party\nin Macaulay's rooms in the Albany, a long and heavy table became\nvivacious, to Macaulay's disgust, when the usual experiment was\ntried.  Men of science were, in some cases, puzzled, in others\nbelieved that a new force must be recognised, in others talked of\nunconscious pushing or of imposture.  M. Babinet, a member of the\nInstitute, writing in the Revue des Deux Mondes (May, 1854),\nexplained the 'raps' or percussive noises, as the result of\nventriloquism!  A similar explanation was urged, and withdrawn, in\nthe case of the Cock Lane ghost, and it does not appear that M.\nBabinet produced a ventriloquist who could do the trick.  Raps may\nbe counterfeited in many ways, but hardly by ventriloquism.  The\nraps were, in Europe, a later phenomenon than the table-turning, and\naroused far more interest.  The higher clergy investigated the\nmatter, and the Bishop of Mans in a charge, set down the phenomena\nto the agency of some kind of spirits, with whom Christian men\nshould have no commerce.  Granting the facts, the bishop was\nundeniably right.\n\nThere was published at that time a journal called La Table Parlante,\nwhich contained recitals of phenomena, correspondence, and so forth.\nAmong the narratives, that of a M. Benezet was typical, and is\ncurious.  In recent years, about 1872-80, the Rev. Mr. Stainton\nMoses, a clergyman and scholar of the best moral reputation,\nbelieved himself to be the centre of extraordinary, and practically\nincredible, occurrences, a belief shared by observers among his\nfriends.  M. Benezet's narrative is full of precisely parallel\ndetails.  M. Benezet lived at Toulouse, in 1853; and his experiences\nhad for their scene his own house, and that of his relations, M. and\nMme. L.  The affair began in table-turning and table-tilting:  the\ntilts indicated the presence of 'spirits,' which answered questions,\nright or wrong:  under the hands of the L.'s the table became\nvivacious, and chased a butterfly.  Then the spirit said it could\nappear as an old lady, who was viewed by one of the children.  The\nL.'s being alarmed, gave up making experiments, but one day, at\ndinner, thumps were struck on the table.  M. Benezet was called in,\nand heard the noises with awe.  He went away, but the knocks sounded\nunder the chair of Mme. L., she threw some holy water under the\nchair, when _her thumb was bitten_, and marks of teeth were left on\nit.  Presently her shoulder was bitten, whether on a place which she\ncould reach with her teeth or not, we are not informed.  Raps went\non, the L.'s fled to M. Benezet's house, which was instantly\ndisturbed in the same fashion.  Objects were spirited away, and\nreappeared as oddly as they had vanished.  Packets of bonbons turned\nup unbeknown, sailed about the room, and suddenly fell on the table\nat dinner.  The L.'s went back to their own house, where their hats\nand boots contracted a habit of floating dreamily about in the air.\nThings were hurled at them, practical jokes were played, and in\nSeptember these monstrous annoyances gradually ceased.  The most\nobvious explanation is that Mme. L. demoralised by turning tables,\ntook, consciously or unconsciously, to imitating the tricks of which\nhistory and legend are full.  Her modus, operandi, in some\nphenomena, is difficult to conjecture.\n\nWhile opinion was agitated by these violent events, and contending\nhypotheses, while La Table Parlante took a Catholic view, and\nScience a negative view, M. Agenor de Gasparin, a Protestant, chose\na via media.\n\nM. de Gasparin, the husband of the well-known author of The Near and\nthe Heavenly Horizons, was a table-turner, without being a\nspiritualist.  His experiments were made in Switzerland, in 1853; he\npublished a book on them, as we said; M. Figuier attacked it in Les\nMysteres de la Science, after M. de Gasparin's death, and the widow\nof the author replied by republishing part of the original work.  M.\nde Gasparin, in the early Empire, was a Liberal, an anti-Radical, an\nopponent of negro slavery, a Christian, an energetic honest man,\nabsolu et ardent, as he confesses.\n\nHis purpose was to demonstrate that tables turn, that the phenomenon\nis purely physical, that it cannot be explained by the mechanical\naction of the muscles, nor by that of 'spirits'.  His allies were\nhis personal friends, and it is pretty clear that two ladies were\nthe chief 'agents'.  The process was conducted thus:  a 'chain' of\neight or ten people surrounded a table, lightly resting their\nfingers, all in contact, on its surface.  It revolved, and, by\nrequest, would raise one of its legs, and tap the floor.  All this,\nof course, can be explained either by cheating, or by the\n_unconscious_ pushes administered.  If any one will place his hands\non a light table, he will find that the mere come and go of pulse\nand breath have a tendency to agitate the object.  It moves a\nlittle, accompanying it you unconsciously move it more.  The\nexperiment is curious because, on some days, the table will not\nbudge, on others it instantly sets up a peculiar gliding movement,\nin which it almost seems to escape from the superimposed hands,\nwhile the most wakeful attention cannot detect any conscious action\nof the muscles.  If you try the opposite experiment, namely\nconscious pushing of the most gradual kind, you find that the\nexertion is very distinctly sensible.  The author has made the\nfollowing simple experiment.\n\nTwo persons for whom the table would _not_ move laid their hands on\nit firmly and flatly.  Two others (for whom it danced) just touched\nthe hands of the former pair.  Any pressure or push from the upper\nhands would be felt, of course, by the under hands.  No such\npressure was felt, yet the table began to rotate.  In another\nexperiment with another subject, the pressure _was_ felt (indeed the\nowner of the upper hands was conscious of pressing), yet the table\ndid _not_ move.  These experiments are, physiologically, curious,\nbut, of course, they demonstrate nothing.  Muscles can move the\ntable, muscles can apparently act without the consciousness of their\nowner, therefore the movement is caused, or may be irrefutably said\nto be caused, by unconscious muscular action.\n\nM. de Gasparin, of course, was aware of all this; he therefore aimed\nat producing movement _without_ contact.  In his early experiments\nthe table was first set agoing by contact; all hands were then\nlifted at a signal, to half an inch above the table, and still the\ntable revolved.  Of course it will not do this, if it is set agoing\nby conscious muscular action, as any one may prove by trying.  As it\nwas possible that some one might still be touching the table, and\nescaping in the crowd the notice of the observers outside the\ncircle, two ladies tried alone.  The observer, Mr. Thury, saw the\ndaylight between their hands and the table, which revolved four or\nfive times.  To make assurance doubly sure, a thin coating of flour\nwas scattered over the whole table, and still it moved, while the\nflour was unmarked.  M. de Gasparin was therefore convinced that the\nphenomena of movement without mechanical agency were real.  His\nexperiments got rid of Mr. Faraday's theory of unconscious pressure\nand pushing, because you cannot push with your muscles what you do\nnot touch with any portion of your body, and De Gasparin had assured\nhimself that there was _no_ physical contact between his friends and\nthis table.\n\nM. de Gasparin now turned upon Dr. Carpenter, to whom an article in\nthe Quarterly Review, dealing with the whole topic of abnormal\noccurrences, was attributed.  Dr. Carpenter, at this time, had\nadmitted the existence of the hypnotic state, and the amenability of\nthe hypnotised person to the wildest suggestions.  He had also begun\nto develop his doctrine of 'unconscious cerebration,' that is, the\nexistence of mental processes beneath, or apart from our\nconsciousness. {312}  An 'ideational change' may take place in the\ncerebrum.  The sensorium is 'unreceptive,' so the idea does not\nreach consciousness.  Sometimes, however, the idea oozes out from\nthe fingers, through muscular action, also unconscious.  This moves\nthe table to the appropriate tilts.  These two ideas are capable, if\nwe admit them, of explaining many singular psychological facts, but\nthey certainly do not explain the movements of tables which nobody\nis touching.  In face of M. de Gasparin's evidence, which probably\nwas not before him, Dr. Carpenter could only have denied the facts,\nor alleged that the witnesses, including observers outside the\nchaine, or circle, were all self-hypnotised, all under the influence\nof self-suggestion, and all honestly asserting the occurrence of\nevents which did not occur.  His essay touched but lightly on this\nparticular marvel.  He remarked that 'the turning of tables, and the\nsupposed communications of spirits through their agency' are due 'to\nthe mental state of the performers themselves'.  Now M. de Gasparin,\nin his via media, repudiated 'spirits' energetically.  Dr. Carpenter\nthen explained witchcraft, and the vagaries of 'camp-meetings' by\nthe 'dominant idea'.  But M. de Gasparin could reply that persons\nwhose 'dominant idea' was incredulity attested many singular\noccurrences.  At the end of his article, Dr. Carpenter decides that\ntable-turners push unconsciously, as they assuredly do, but they\ncannot push when not in contact with the object.  The doctor did not\nallege that table-turners are 'biologised' as he calls it, and under\na glamour.  But M. de Gasparin averred that no single example of\ntrance, rigidity, loss of ordinary consciousness, or other morbid\nsymptoms, had ever occurred in his experiments.  There is thus, as\nit were, no common ground on which he and Dr. Carpenter can meet and\nfight.  He dissected the doctor's rather inconsequent argument with\na good deal of acuteness and wit.\n\nM. de Gasparin then exhibited some of the besetting sins of all who\nindulge in argument.  He accepted all his own private phenomena, but\nnone of those, such as 'raps' and so forth, for which other people\nwere vouching.  Things must occur as he had seen them, and not\notherwise.  What he had seen was a chaine of people surrounding a\ntable, all in contact with the table, and with each other.  The\ntable had moved, and had answered questions by knocking the floor\nwith its foot.  It had also moved, when the hands were held close to\nit, but not in contact with it.  Nothing beyond that was orthodox,\nas nothing beyond hypnotism and unconscious cerebration was orthodox\nwith Dr. Carpenter.  Moreover M. de Gasparin had his own physical\nexplanation of the phenomena.  There is, in man's constitution, a\n'fluid' which can be concentrated by his will, and which then, given\na table and a chaine, will produce M. de Gasparin's phenomena:  but\nno more.  He knows that 'fluids' are going out of fashion in\nscience, and he is ready to call the 'fluid' the 'force' or\n'agency,' or 'condition of matter' or what you please.  'Substances,\nforces, vibrations, let it be what you choose, as long as it is\nsomething.'  The objection that the phenomena are 'of no use' was\nmade, and is still very common, but, of course, is in no case\nscientifically valid.  Electricity was 'of no use' once, and the\nmost useless phenomenon is none the less worthy of examination.\n\nM. de Gasparin now examines another class of objections.  First, the\nphenomena were denied; next, they were said to be as old as history,\nand familiar to the Greeks.  We elsewhere show that this is quite\ntrue, that the movement of objects without contact was as familiar\nto the Greeks as to the Peruvians, the Thibetans, the Eskimo, and in\nmodern stories of haunted houses.  But, as will presently appear,\nthese wilder facts would by no means coalesce with the hypothesis of\nM. de Gasparin.  To his mind, tables turn, but they turn by virtue\nof the will of a 'circle,' consciously exerted, through the means of\nsome physical force, fluid, or what not, produced by the imposition\nof hands.  Now these processes do not characterise the phenomena\namong Greeks, Thibetans, Eskimo, Peruvians, in haunted houses, or in\npresence of the late Mr. Home,--granting the facts as alleged.  In\nthese instances, nobody is 'circling' round a chair, a bed, or what\nnot, yet the chair or bed moves, as in the story of Monsieur S. at\nSt. Maur (1706), and in countless other examples.  All this would\nnot, as we shall see, be convenient for the theory of M. de\nGasparin.\n\nHis line of argument is that the Greek and Latin texts are\nmisunderstood, but that, if the Greeks did turn tables, that is no\nproof that tables do not turn, but rather the reverse.  A favourite\ntext is taken from Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. xxix. ch. i.  M. de\nGasparin does not appear to have read the passage carefully.  About\n371 A.D. one Hilarius was tortured on a charge of magical operations\nagainst the Emperor Valens.  He confessed.  A little table, made of\nDelphic laurel, was produced in court.  'We made it,' he said, 'that\nconfounded little table, under strange rites and imprecations, and\nwe set it in movement, thus:  it was placed in a room charged with\nperfumes, above a round plate fashioned of various metals.  The edge\nof the plate was marked with the letters of the alphabet separated\nby certain spaces.  A priest, linen clad, bowed himself over the\ntable, balancing a ring tied to a thin thread.  The ring, bounding\nfrom letter to letter, picks out letters forming hexameters, like\nthose of Delphi.'  This is confusing.  Probably the movements of the\ntable, communicated to the thread, caused the bounds of the ring,\notherwise there was no use in the table moving.  At all events the\nring touched THEO (which is not a word that could begin a hexameter)\nwhen they asked who was to succeed Valens.  Some one called out\n'Theodore' and they pursued the experiment no farther.  A number of\nTheodores and Theophiles were put to death, but when Theodosius was\njoined with Gratian in the Empire, the believers held that the table\nhad been well inspired.  Here there was no chaine, or circle, the\ntable is not said to lever le pied legerement, as the song advises,\ntherefore M. de Gasparin rules the case out of court.  The object,\nhowever, really was analogous to planchette, Ouija, and other modern\nmodes of automatic divination.  The experiment of Hilarius with the\n'confounded little table' led to a massacre of Neoplatonists,\nmartyrs of Psychical Research!  In Hilarius's confession we omit a\nset of ritual invocations; as unessential as the mystic rites used\nby savages in making curari.\n\nThe spiritus percutiens, 'rapping spirit' (?) conjured away by old\nCatholic formulae at the benediction of churches, was brought\nforward by some of M. de Gasparin's critics.  As _his_ tables did\nnot rap, he had nothing to do with the spiritus percutiens, who\nproves, however, that the Church was acquainted with raps, and\nexplained them by the spiritualistic hypothesis. {317}\n\nA text in Tertullian's Apologetic was also cited.  Here tabulae and\ncapae, 'tables and she-goats,' are said to divine.  What have she-\ngoats to do in the matter?  De Morgan wished to read tabulae et\ncrepae, which he construes 'tables and raps,' but he only finds\ncrepae in Festus, who says, that goats are called crepae, quod\ncruribus crepent, 'because they rattle with their legs'.  De\nMorgan's guess is ingenious, but lacks confirmation.  We are not, so\nfar, aware of communication with spirits by raps before 856 A.D.\n\nFinally, M. de Gasparin denies that his researches are\n'superstitious'.  Will can move my limbs, if it also moves my table,\nwhat is there superstitious in that?  It is a new fact, that is all.\n'Tout est si materiel, si physique dans les experiences des tables.'\nIt was not so at Toulouse!\n\nMeanwhile M. de Gasparin, firm in his 'Trewth,'--the need of a\nchaine of persons, the physical origin of the phenomena, the entire\nabsence of spirits,--was so unlucky, when he dealt with 'spirits,'\nas to drop into the very line of argument which he had been\ndenouncing.  'Spirits' are 'superstitious,'--well, his adversaries\nhad found superstition in his own experiments and beliefs.  To\nbelieve that spirits are engaged, is 'to reduce our relations with\nthe invisible world to the grossest definition'.  But why not, as we\nknow nothing about our relations with the invisible world?  The\ntheology of the spirits is 'contrary to Scripture'; very well, your\ntales of tables moved without contact are contrary to science.  'No\nspiritualistic story has ever been told which is not to be classed\namong the phenomena of animal magnetism. . . . '  This, of course,\nis a mere example of a statement made without examination, a sin\nalleged by M. de Gasparin against his opponents.  Vast numbers of\nsuch stories, not explicable by the now rejected theory of 'animal\nmagnetism,' have certainly been _told_.\n\nIn another volume M. de Gasparin demolished the tales, but he was\nonly at the beginning of his subject.  The historical and\nanthropological evidence for the movement of objects without\ncontact, not under his conditions, is very vast in bulk.  The modern\nexperiments are sometimes more scientific than his own, and the\nevidence for the most startling events of all kinds is quite as good\nas that on which he relies for his prodigies, themselves\nsufficiently startling.  His hypothesis, at all events, of will\ndirecting a force or fluid, by no means explains phenomena quite as\nwell provided with evidence as his own.  So M. de Gasparin disposes\nof the rival miracles as the result of chance, imposture, or\nhallucination, the very weapons of his scientific adversaries.  His\nown prodigies he has seen, and is satisfied.  His opponents say:\n'You cannot register your force sur l'inclinaison d'une aiguille'.\nHe could not, but Home could do so to the satisfaction of a\nscientific expert, and probably M. de Gasparin would have believed\nit, if he had seen it.  M. de Gasparin is horrified at the idea of\n'trespassing on the territory of acts beyond our power'.  But, if it\nwere possible to do the miracles of Home, it would be possible\nbecause it is _not_ beyond our power.  'The spiritualistic opinion\nis opposed to the doctrine of the resurrection:  it merely announces\nthe immortality of the soul.'  But that has nothing to do with the\nmatter in hand.\n\nThe theology of spirits, of course, is neither here nor there.  A\n'spirit' will say anything or everything.  But Mr. C. C. Massey when\nhe saw a chair move at a word (and even without one), in the\npresence of such a double-dyed impostor as Slade, had as much right\nto believe his own eyes as M. de Gasparin, and what he saw does not\nsquare with M. de Gasparin's private 'Trewth'.  The chair in Mr.\nMassey's experience, was 'unattached' to a piece of string; it fell,\nand, at request, jumped up again, and approached Mr. Massey, 'just\nas if some one had picked it up in order to take a seat beside me'.\n{319a}\n\nSuch were the idola specus, the private personal prepossessions of\nM. de Gasparin, undeniably an honourable man.  Now, in 1877, his old\nadversary, Dr. Carpenter, C.B., M.D., LL.D, F.R.S., F.G.S.,\nV.P.L.S., corresponding member of the Institute of France, tout ce\nqu'il y a de plus officiel, de plus decore, returned to the charge.\nHe published a work on Mesmerism, Spiritualism, etc. {319b}  Perhaps\nthe unscientific reader supposes that Dr. Carpenter replied to the\narguments of M. de Gasparin?  This would have been sportsmanlike,\nbut no, Dr. Carpenter firmly ignored them!  He devoted three pages\nto table-turning (pp. 96, 97, 98).  He exhibited Mr. Faraday's\nlittle machine for detecting muscular pressure, a machine which\nwould also detect pressure which is _not_ muscular.  He explained\nanswers given by tilts, answers not consciously known to the\noperators, as the results of unconscious cerebration.  People may\nthus get answers which they do expect, or answers which they do not\nexpect, as may happen.  But not one word did Dr. Carpenter say to a\npopular audience at the London Institution about M. de Gasparin's\nassertion, and the assertion of M. de Gasparin's witnesses, that\nmotion had been observed without any contact at all.  He might, if\nhe pleased, have alleged that M. de Gasparin and the others fabled;\nor that they were self-hypnotised, or were cheated, but he\nabsolutely ignored the evidence altogether.  Now this behaviour, if\nscientific, was hardly quite _sportsmanlike_, to use a simple\nBritish phrase which does credit to our language and national\ncharacter.  Mr. Alfred Wallace stated a similar conclusion as to Dr.\nCarpenter's method of argument, in language of some strength.  'Dr.\nCarpenter,' he said, 'habitually gives only one side of the\nquestion, and completely ignores all facts which tell against his\ntheory.' {320}  Without going so far as Mr. Wallace, and alleging\nthat what Dr. Carpenter did in the case of M. de Gasparin, he did\n'habitually,' we may briefly examine some portions of his book\nwhich, perhaps, leave something to be desired.  It is written with\nmuch acuteness, with considerable fairness, and is certainly\ncalculated to convince any reader who has not been perplexed by\ncircumstances on which Dr. Carpenter throws little light.\n\nOur own chief perplexity is the continuity and uniformity of the\nhistorical and anthropological evidence for certain marvels.  We\nhave already shown the difficulty of attributing this harmony of\nevidence, first to savage modes of thought, and then to their\nsurvival and revival.  The evidence, in full civilisation, ancient\nand modern, of educated and even sceptical witnesses to phenomena,\nwhich are usually grotesque, but are always the same everywhere, in\nevery age and land, and the constant attendance of these phenomena\non persons of a peculiar temperament, are our stumbling-blocks on\nthe path to absolute negation.  Epilepsy, convulsions, hysterical\ndiseases are startling affairs, we admit.  It was natural that\nsavages and the ignorant should attribute them to diabolical\npossession, and then look out for, and invent, manifestations of the\ndiabolical energy outside the body of the patient, say in movements\nof objects, knocks, and so forth.  As in these maladies the patient\nmay be subject to hallucinations, it was natural that savages or\nignorant men, or polytheists, or ardent Catholics, or excitable\nCovenanters, should regard these hallucinations as 'lucid' or\n'clairvoyant'.  A few lucky coincidences would establish this\nopinion among such observers as we have indicated, while failures of\nlucidity would not be counted.  The professional epileptic medicine-\nman, moreover, would strengthen his case by 'prophesying on velvet,'\nlike Norna of the Fitful Head, on private and early information.\nImposture would imitate the 'spiritual' feats of 'raps,' 'physical\nmovements of objects,' and 'luminous forms'.  All this would\ncontinue after savagery, after paganism, after 'Popery' among the\npeasants who were for so long, and in superstition are even now, a\nconservative class.\n\nAll that 'expectancy,' hysterics, 'the dominant idea' and rude\nhypnotism, 'the sleep of the shadow,' could do, would be done, as\nwitch trials show.  All these elements in folklore, magic and belief\nwould endure, in the peasant class, under the veneer of\ncivilisation.  Now and again these elements of superstition would\nbreak through the veneer, would come to the surface among the\neducated classes, and would 'carry silly women captive,' and silly\nmen.  They, too, though born in the educated class, would attest\nimpossible occurrences.\n\nIn all this, we might only see survival, wonderfully vivacious, and\nrevival astonishingly close to the ancient savage lines.\n\nWe are unable to state the case for survival and revival more\nstrenuously, and the hypothesis is most attractive.  This hypothesis\nappears to be Dr. Carpenter's, though he does not, in the limits of\npopular lectures, unfold it at any length.  After stating (p. 1)\nthat a continuous belief in 'occult agencies' has existed, he adds:--\n\n'While this very continuity is maintained by some to be an evidence\nof the real existence of such [occult] agencies, it will be my\npurpose to show you that it proves nothing more than the wide-spread\ndiffusion, alike amongst minds of the highest and lowest culture, of\ncertain tendencies to thought, which have either created ideal\nmarvels possessing no foundation whatever in fact, or have, by\nexaggeration and distortion, invested with a preternatural character\noccurrences which are perfectly capable of a natural explanation'.\n\nHere Dr. Carpenter does not attempt to show cause why the\n'manifestations' are always the same, for example, why spirits rap\nin the Australian Bush, among blacks not influenced by modern\nspiritualism:  why tables moved, untouched, in Thibet and India,\nlong before 'table-turning' was heard of in modern Europe.  We have\nfilled up the lacuna in the doctor's argument, by suggesting that\nthe phenomena (which are not such as a civilised taste would desire)\nwere invented by savages, and handed on in an unbroken catena, a\nchain of tradition.\n\nBut, in following Dr. Carpenter, we are brought up short at one of\nour old obstacles, we trip on one of our old stumbling-blocks.\nGranting that an epileptic patient made strange bounds and springs,\nwe can conceive savages going farther in fancy, and averring that he\nflew, or was levitated, or miraculously transported through space.\nLet this become matter of traditional belief, as a thing possible in\nepilepsy, i.e., in 'diabolical,' or 'angelical possession'.  Add the\nhonest but hallucinatory persuasion of the patient that he was so\nlevitated, and let him be a person of honour and of sanctity, say\nSt. Theresa, St. Francis, or St. Joseph of Cupertino.  Granting the\nsurvival of a savage exaggeration, granting the hallucinated saint,\nwe may, perhaps, explain the innumerable anecdotes about miraculous\nlevitation of which a few are repeated in our paper on 'Comparative\nPsychical Research.'  The witnesses in witch trials, and in\necclesiastical inquiries, and Lord Orrery, and Mr. Greatrakes, and\nthe Cromwellian soldiery in Scotland, the Spanish in Peru, Cotton\nMather in New England, saw what they expected to see, what tradition\ntaught them to look for, in the case of a convulsionary, or a saint,\nor a catechumen.  The consensus in illusion was wonderful, but let\nus grant, for the sake of argument, that it was possible.  Let us\nadd another example, from Cochin China.\n\nThe witness and narrator is Delacourt, a French missionary.  The\nsource is a letter of his of November 25, 1738, to Winslow the\nanatomist, Membre de l'Academie des Sciences a Paris.  It is printed\nin the Institutiones Theologicae of Collet, who attests the probity\nof the missionary. {324}\n\nIn May or June, 1733, Delacourt was asked to view a young native\nChristian, said by his friends to be 'possessed'.\n\n'Rather incredulous,' as he says, Delacourt went to the lad, who had\ncommunicated, as he believed, unworthily, and was therefore a prey\nto religious excitement, which, as Bishop Callaway found among his\nZulu converts, and as Wodrow attests among 'savoury Christians,'\nbegets precisely such hallucinations as annoyed the early hermits\nlike St. Anthony.  Delacourt addressed the youth in Latin:  he\nreplied, Ego nescio loqui Latine, a tag which he might easily have\npicked up, let us say.  Delacourt led him into church, where the\npatient was violently convulsed.  Delacourt then (remembering the\nexample set by the Bishop of Tilopolis) ordered the demon _in\nLatin_, to carry the boy to the ceiling.  'His body became stiff, he\nwas dragged from the middle of the church to a pillar, and there,\nhis feet joined, his back fixed (colle) against the pillar, he was\ntransported in the twinkling of an eye to the ceiling, like a weight\nrapidly drawn up, without any apparent action on his part.  I kept\nhim in the air for half an hour, and then bade him drop without\nhurting himself,' when he fell 'like a packet of dirty linen'.\nWhile he was up aloft, Delacourt preached at him in Latin, and he\nbecame, 'perhaps the best Christian in Cochin China'.\n\nDr. Carpenter's explanation must either be that Delacourt lied; or\nthat a tradition, surviving from savagery, and enforced by the\nexample of the Bishop of Tilopolis, made a missionary, un peu\nincredule, as he says, believe that he saw, and watched for half an\nhour, a phenomenon which he never saw at all.  But then Dr.\nCarpenter also dismisses, with none but the general theory already\nquoted, the experience of 'a nobleman of high scientific\nattainments,' who 'seriously assures us' that he saw Home 'sail in\nthe air, by moonlight, out of one window and in at another, at the\nheight of seventy feet from the ground.' {326}\n\nHere is the stumbling-block.  A nobleman of high scientific\nattainment, in company with another nobleman, and a captain in the\narmy, all vouched for this performance of Home.  Now could the\nsavage tradition, which attributes flight to convulsive and\nentranced persons, exercise such an influence on these three\neducated modern witnesses; could an old piece of folklore, in\ncompany with 'expectancy,' so wildly delude them?  Can 'high\nscientific attainments' leave their possessor with such humble\npowers of observation?  But, to be sure, Dr. Carpenter does not tell\nhis readers that there were _three_ witnesses.  Dr. Carpenter says\nthat, if we believe Lord Crawford (and his friends), we can 'have no\nreason for refusing credit to the historical evidence of the\ndemoniacal elevation of Simon Magus'.  Let us point out that we have\nno contemporary evidence at all about Simon's feat, while for\nHome's, we have the evidence of three living and honourable men,\nwhom Dr. Carpenter might have cross-examined.  The doings of Home\nand of Simon were parallel, but nothing can be more different than\nthe nature of the evidence for what they are said to have done.\nThis, perhaps, might have been patent to a man like Dr. Carpenter of\n'early scientific training'.  But he illustrated his own doctrine of\n'the dominant idea'; he did not see that he was guilty of a fallacy,\nbecause his 'idea' dominated him.  Stumbling into as deep a gulf,\nDr. Carpenter put Lord Crawford's evidence (he omitted that of his\nfriends) on a level with, or below, the depositions of witnesses as\nto 'the aerial transport of witches to attend their demoniacal\nfestivities'.  But who ever swore that he _saw_ witches so\ntransported?  The evidence was not to witnessed facts, but only to a\ncurrent belief, backed by confessions under torture.  No testimony\ncould be less on a par with that of a living 'nobleman of high\nscientific attainments,' to his own experience.\n\nIn three pages Dr. Carpenter has shown that 'early scientific\ntraining' in physiology and pathology, does not necessarily enable\nits possessor to state a case fully.  Nor does it prompt him to\ndiscriminate between rumours coming, a hundred and fifty years after\nthe date of the alleged occurrences, from a remote, credulous, and\nunscientific age:  and the statements of witnesses all living, all\nhonourable, and, in one case, of 'high scientific attainments.'\n{327}\n\nIt is this solemn belief in his own infallibility as a judge of\nevidence combined with his almost incredible ignorance of what\nevidence is, that makes Dr. Carpenter such an amusing\ncontroversialist.\n\nIf any piece of fact is to be proved, it is plain that the\nconcurrent testimony of three living and honourable men is worth\nmore than a bit of gossip, which, after filtering through a century\nor two, is reported by an early Christian Father.  In matters wholly\nmarvellous, like Home's flight in the air, the evidence of three\nliving and honourable men need not, of course, convince us of the\nfact.  But this evidence is in itself a fact to be considered--'Why\ndo these gentlemen tell this tale?' we ask; but Dr. Carpenter puts\nthe testimony on the level of patristic tattle many centuries old,\nwritten down, on no authority, long after the event.  Yet the worthy\ndoctor calmly talks about 'want of scientific culture preventing\npeople from appreciating the force of scientific reasoning,' and\nthat after giving such examples of 'scientific reasoning' as we have\nexamined. {328}  It is in this way that Science makes herself\ndisliked.  By aid of ordinary intelligence, and of an ordinary\nclassical education, every one (however uncultivated in 'science')\ncan satisfy himself that Dr. Carpenter argued at random.  Yet we do\nnot assert that 'early scientific training' _prevents_ people from\nunderstanding the nature of evidence.  Dr. Carpenter had the\ntraining, but he was impetuous, and under a dominant idea, so he\nblundered along.\n\nDr. Carpenter frequently invoked for the explanation of marvels, a\ncause which is vera causa, expectancy.  'The expectation of a\ncertain result is often enough to produce it' (p. 12).  This he\nproves by cases of hypnotised patients who did, or suffered, what\nthey expected to be ordered to suffer or do, though no such order\nwas really given to them.  Again (p. 40) he urges that imaginative\npeople, who sit for a couple of hours, 'especially if in the dark,'\nbelieving or hoping to see a human body, or a table, rise in the\nair, probably 'pass into a state which is neither sleeping nor\nwaking, but between the two, in which they see, hear, or feel by\ntouch, anything they have been led to expect will present itself.'\n\nThis is, indeed, highly probable.  But we must suppose that _all_\npresent fall into this ambiguous state, described of old by\nPorphyry.  One waking spectator who sees nothing would make the\nstatements of the others even more worthless than usual.  And it is\ncertain that it is not even pretended that all, always, see the same\nphenomena.\n\n'One saw an arm, and one a hand, and one the waving of a gown,' in\nthat seance at Branxholme, where only William of Deloraine beheld\nall,\n\nAnd knew, but how it mattered not,\nIt was the wizard, Michael Scott. {329}\n\nGranting the ambiguous state, granting darkness, and expectancy,\nanything may seem to happen.  But Dr. Carpenter wholly omits such\ncases as that of Mr. Hamilton Aide, and of M. Alphonse Karr.  Both\nwere absolutely sceptical.  Both disliked Home very much, and\nthought him an underbred Yankee quack and charlatan.  Both were in\nthe 'expectancy' of seeing no marvels, were under 'the dominant\nidea' that nothing unusual would occur.  Both, in a brilliantly\nlighted room of a villa near Nice, saw a chair make a rush from the\nwall into the middle of the room, and saw a very large and heavy\ntable, untouched, rise majestically in the air.  M. Karr at once got\nunder the table, and hunted, vainly, for mechanical appliances.\nThen he and Mr. Aide went home, disconcerted, and in very bad\nhumour.  How do 'expectancy' and the 'dominant idea' explain this\nexperience, which Mr. Aide has published in the Nineteenth Century?\nThe expectancy and dominant ideas of these gentlemen should have\nmade them see the table and chair sit tight, while believers\nobserved them in active motion.  Again, how could Mr. Crookes's lack\nof 'a special training in the bodily and mental constitution,\nabnormal as well as normal,' of 'mediums,' affect his power of\nobserving whether a plank of wood did, or did not, move to a certain\nextent untouched, or slightly touched, and whether the difference of\nposition was, or was not, registered mechanically? (p. 70).  It was\na pure matter of skilled and trained observation in mechanics.  Dr.\nHuggins was also present at this experiment in a mode of motion.\nHim Dr. Carpenter gracefully discredited as an 'amateur,' without 'a\nbroad basis of _general_ scientific culture'.  He had devoted\nhimself 'to a branch of research which tasks the keenest powers of\n_observation_'.  Now it was precisely powers of _observation_ that\nwere required.  'There are _moral_ sources of error,' of which a\nmere observer like Dr. Huggins would be unaware.  And 'one of the\nmost potent of these is a proclivity to believe in the reality of\nspiritual communications,' particularly dangerous in a case where\n'spiritual communications,' were not in question!  The question was,\ndid an indicator move, or not, under a certain amount of pressure?\nIndiscreetly enough, to be sure, the pressure was attributed to\n'psychic force,' and perhaps that was what Dr. Carpenter had in his\nmind, when he warned Dr. Huggins against 'the proclivity to believe\nin the reality of spiritual communications'.\n\nAbout a wilderness of other phenomena, attested by scores of sane\npeople, from Lord Crawford to Mr. S. C. Hall, Dr. Carpenter 'left\nhimself no time to speak' (p. 105).  This was convenient, but the\nlack of time prevented Dr. Carpenter from removing our stumbling-\nblock, the one obstacle which keeps us from adopting, with no shadow\nof doubt, the theory that explains all the marvels by the survival\nand revival of savage delusions.  Dr. Carpenter's hypothesis of\nexpectancy, of a dominant idea, acting on believers, in an ambiguous\nstate, and in the dark, can do much, but it cannot account for the\nexperience of wide-awake sceptics, under the opposite dominant idea,\nin a brilliant light.\n\nDr. Carpenter exposed and exploded a quantity of mesmeric\nspiritualistic myths narrated by Dr. Gregory, by Miss Martineau, and\nby less respectable if equally gullible authorities.  But, speaking\nmerely as perplexed and unconvinced students of argument and\nevidence, we cannot say that he removed the difficulties which have\nbeen illustrated and described.\n\nTable-turning, after what is called a 'boom' in 1853-60, is now an\nabandoned amusement.  It is deserted, like croquet, and it is even\nless to be regretted.  But its existence enabled disputants to\nillustrate the ordinary processes of reasoning; each making\nassertions up to the limit of his personal experience; each\nattacking, as 'superstitious,' all who had seen, or fancied they had\nseen, more than himself, and each fighting gallantly for his own\nexplanatory hypothesis, which never did explain any phenomena beyond\nthose attested by his own senses.  The others were declared not to\nexist, or to be the result of imposture and mal-observation,--and\nperhaps they were.\n\nThe truly diverting thing is that Home did not believe in the other\n'mediums,' nor in anything in the way of a marvel (such as matter\npassing through matter) which he had not seen with his own eyes.\nWhether Home's incredulity should be reckoned as a proof of his\nbelief in his own powers, might be argued either way.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GHOST THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION\n\n\nEvolutionary Theory of the Origin of Religion.  Facts misunderstood\nsuggest ghosts, which develop into gods.  This process lies behind\nhistory and experience.  Difficulties of the Theory.  The Theory of\nLucretius.  Objections Mr. Tyler's Theory.  The question of abnormal\nfacts not discussed by Mr. Tylor.  Possibility that such 'psychical'\nfacts are real, and are elements in development of savage religion.\nThe evidence for psychical phenomena compared with that which, in\nother matters, satisfies anthropologists.  Examples.  Conclusion.\n\nAmong the many hypotheses as to the origin of religion, that which\nwe may call the evolutionary, or anthropological, is most congenial\nto modern habits of thought.  The old belief in a sudden, miraculous\nrevelation is commonly rejected, though, in one sense, religion was\nnone the less 'revealed,' even if man was obliged to work his way to\nthe conception of deity by degrees.  To attain that conception was\nthe necessary result of man's reflection on the sum of his relations\nto the universe.  The attainment, however, of the monotheistic idea\nis not now generally regarded as immediate and instinctive.  A slow\nadvance, a prolonged evolution was required, whether we accept Mr.\nMax Muller's theory of 'the sense of the Infinite,' or whether we\nprefer the anthropological hypothesis.  The latter scheme, with\nvarious modifications, is the scheme of Epicurus, Lucretius, Hume,\nMr. Tylor, and Mr. Herbert Spencer.  Man half consciously\ntransferred his implicit sense that he was a living and rational\nbeing to nature in general, and recognised that earth, sky, wind,\nclouds, trees, the lower animals, and so on, were persons like\nhimself, persons perhaps more powerful and awful than himself.  This\ntransference of personality can scarcely be called the result of a\nconscious process of reasoning.  Man might recognise personality\neverywhere, without much more thought or argument than a kitten\nexerts when it takes a cork or a ball for a living playmate.   But\nconsciousness must have reached a more explicit stage, when man\nbegan to ask himself what a _person_ is, what life is, and when he\narrived at the conclusion that life is a spirit.  To advance from\nthat conclusion; to explain all life as the manifestation of\nindwelling spirits; then to withdraw the conception of life and\npersonality from inanimate things, to select from among spirits One\nmore powerful than the rest, to recognise that One as disembodied,\nas superior, then as supreme, then as unique, and so to attain the\nmonotheistic conception, has been, according to the evolutionary\nhypothesis, the tendency of human thought.\n\nUnluckily we cannot study the process in its course of action.\nPerhaps there is no savage race so lowly endowed, that it does not\npossess, in addition to a world of 'spirits,' something that answers\nto the conception of God.  Whether that is so, or not, is a question\nof evidence.  We have often been told that this or the other people\n'has no religious ideas at all'.  But later we hear that they do\npossess a belief in spirits, and very often better information\nproves that, in one stage or other of advance or degradation, the\ntheistic conception of a Maker and Judge of the world is also\npresent.  Meanwhile even civilised and monotheistic peoples also\nadmit the existence of a world of spirits of the dead, of 'demons'\n(as in Platonism), of saints (as in Catholicism), of devils, of\nangels, or of subordinate deities.  Thus the elements of religion\nare universally distributed in all degrees of culture, though one\nelement is more conspicuous in one place or mood, another more\nconspicuous in another.  In one mood the savage, or the civilised\nman, may be called monotheistic, in another mood atheistic, in a\nthird, practically polytheistic.  Only a few men anywhere, and they\nonly when consciously engaged in speculation, assume a really\ndefinite and exclusive mental attitude on the subject.  The orthodox\nmonotheistic Mussulman has his afreets, and djinns; the Jew, or the\nChristian, has his angels, the Catholic has his saints; the\nPlatonist has his demons; Superstition has its ghosts.  The question\nis whether all these spiritual beings are only ghosts raised to\nhigher powers:  or (in the case of deity), to the highest\nconceivable power, while, even when this last process has been\naccomplished, we ask whether other ghosts, on lower grades, continue\nto be recognised.  Meanwhile the whole anthropological hypothesis,\nwhether valid or invalid, lies behind history, behind the experience\nof even the most backward races at present extant.  If it be urged,\nas by Hume, that the conception of a supreme deity is only a\nreflection of kingship in human society, we must observe that some\nmonarchical races, like the Aztecs, seem to have possessed no\nrecognised monarchical Zeus; while something very like the\nmonotheistic conception is found among races so remote from the\nmonarchical state of society as to have no obvious distinctions of\nrank, like the Australian blacks.  Moreover the evidence, on such\ndifficult points, is obscure, and fluctuating, and capable of\nvarious interpretation.  Even among the most backward peoples, the\ntraceable shadow of a monotheistic idea often seems to bear marks of\ndegradation and disuse, rather than of nascent development.  There\nis a God, but He is neglected, and tribal spirits receive prayer and\nsacrifice.  Just as in art there is a point where we find it\ndifficult to decide whether an object is decadent, or archaic, so it\nis in the study of religious conceptions.\n\nThese are a few among the inevitable difficulties and obscurities\nwhich haunt the anthropological or evolutionary theory of the origin\nof religion.  Other difficulties meet us at the very beginning.  The\ntheory regards gods as merely ghosts or spirits, raised to a higher,\nor to the highest power.  Mankind, according to the system, was\ninevitably led, by the action of reason upon apparent facts, to\nendow all things, from humanity itself to earth, sky, rain, sea,\nfire, with conscious personality, life, spirit; and these attributes\nwere as gradually withdrawn again, under stress of better knowledge,\ntill only man was left with a soul, and only the universe was left\nwith a God.  The last scientific step, then, it may be inferred, is\nto deprive the universe of a God, and mankind of souls.\n\nThis step may be naturally taken by those who conceive that the\nwhole process of ghost and god-making is based on a mere set of\nnatural and inevitable fallacies, and who decline to recognise that\nthese progressive fallacies (if fallacies they are) may be steps on\na divinely appointed road towards truth; that He led us by a way\nthat we knew not, and a path we did not understand.  Yet, of course,\nit is plain that a conclusion may be correct, although it was\nreached by erroneous processes.  All scientific verities have been\nattained in this manner, by a gradual modification and improvement\nof inadequate working hypotheses, by the slow substitution of\ncorrectness for error.  Thus monotheism and the doctrine of the soul\nmay be in no worse case than the Copernican theory, or the theory of\nthe circulation of the blood, or the Darwinian theory; itself the\nsuccessor of innumerable savage guesses, conjectures of Empedocles,\nideas of Cuvier, of the elder Darwin, of Lamarck, and of Chambers.\n\nAt present, of course, the theistic hypothesis, and the hypothesis\nof a soul, do not admit of scientific verification.  The difficulty\nis to demonstrate that 'mind' may exist, and work, apart from\n'matter'.  But it may conceivably become verifiable that the\nrelations of 'mind' and 'matter' are, at all events, less obviously\nand immediately interdependent, that will and judgment are less\nclosely and exclusively attached to physical organisms than modern\nscience has believed.  Now, according to the anthropological theory\nof the origin of religion, it was precisely from the opposite of the\nscientific belief,--it was from the belief that consciousness and\nwill may be exerted apart from, at a distance from, the physical\norganism,--that the savage fallacies began, which ended, ex\nhypothesi, in monotheism, and in the doctrine of the soul.  The\nsavage, it is said, started from normal facts, which he\nmisinterpreted.  But suppose he started, not from normal facts\nalone, but also from abnormal facts,--from facts which science does\nnot yet recognise at all,--then it is possible that the conclusions\nof the savage, though far too sweeping, and in parts undeniably\nerroneous, are yet, to a certain extent, not mistaken.  He may have\nhad 'a sane spot in his mind,' and a sane impulse may have led him\ninto the right direction.  Man may have faculties which savages\nrecognise, and which physical science does not recognise.  Man may\nbe surrounded by agencies which savages exaggerate, and which\nscience disregards altogether, and these faculties and agencies may\npoint to an element of truth which is often cast aside as a survival\nof superstition, as the 'after-image' of an illusion.\n\nThe lowest known stage, and, according to the evolutionary\nhypothesis, the earliest stage in religion, is the belief in the\nghosts of the dead, and in no other spiritual entities.  Whether\nthis belief anywhere exists alone, and untempered by higher creeds,\nis another question.  These ghosts are fed, propitiated, receive\nworship, and, to put it briefly, the fittest ghosts survive, and\nbecome gods.  Meanwhile the conception of ghosts of the dead is more\nor less consciously extended, so that spirits who never were\nincarnate as men become credible beings.  They may inform inanimate\nobjects, trees, rivers, fire, clouds, earth, sky, the great natural\ndepartments, and thence polytheism results.  There are political\nprocesses, the consolidation of a state, for example, which help to\nblend these gods of various different origins into a divine\nconsistory.  One of these gods, it may be of sky, or air becomes\nking, and reflection may gradually come to recognise him not only as\nsupreme, but as, theoretically, unique, and thus Zeus, from a very\nlimited monarchy, may rise to solitary all-fatherhood.  Yet Zeus\nmay, originally, have been only the ghost of a dead medicine-man who\nwas called 'Sky,' or he may have been the departmental spirit who\npresided over the sky, or he may have been sky conceived of as a\npersonality, or these different elements may have been mingled in\nZeus.  But the whole conception of spirit, in any case, was derived,\nit is argued, from the conception of ghosts, and that conception may\nbe traced to erroneous savage interpretations of natural and normal\nfacts.\n\nIf all this be valid, the idea of God is derived from a savage\nfallacy, though, of course, it does not follow that an idea is\nerroneous, _because_ it was attained by mistaken processes and from\nfalse premises.  That, however, is the inference which many minds\nare inclined to draw from the evolutionary hypothesis.  But if the\nfacts on which the savage reasoned are, some of them, rare,\nabnormal, and not scientifically accepted; if, in short, they are\nfacts demonstrative of unrecognised human faculties, if these\nfaculties raise a presumption that will, mind, and organism are less\nclosely interdependent than science supposes, then the savage\nreasoning may contain an important element of rejected truth.  It\nmay even seem, at least, conceivable that certain factors in the\nconception of 'spirit' were not necessarily evolved as the\nanthropological hypothesis conceives them to have been.\n\nScience had scarcely begun her secular conflict with religion, when\nshe discovered that the battle must be fought on haunted ground, on\nthe field of the ghosts of the dead.  'There are no gods, or only\ndei otiosi, careless, indolent deities.  There is nothing conscious\nthat survives death, no soul that can exist apart from the fleshly\nbody.'  Such were the doctrines of Epicurus and Lucretius, but to\nthese human nature opposed 'facts'; we see, people said, men long\ndead in our dreams, or even when awake:  the Homeric Achilles,\nbeholding Patroclus in a dream, instantly infers that there verily\n_is_ a shadow, an eidolon, a shadowy consciousness, shadowy\npresence, which outlasts the death of the body.  To this Epicurus\nand Lucretius reply, that the belief is caused by fallacious\ninferences from facts, these facts, appearances beheld in sleep or\nvision, these spectral faces of the long dead, are caused by 'films\npeeled off from the surface of objects, which fly to and fro through\nthe air, and do likewise frighten our minds when they present\nthemselves to us _awake as well as in sleep_, what time we behold\nstrange shapes, and \"idols\" of the light-bereaved,' Lucretius\nexpressly advances this doctrine of 'films' (an application of the\nDemocritean theory of perception), 'that we may not believe that\nsouls break loose from Acheron, or that shades fly about among the\nliving, or that any part of us is left behind after death'. {341a}\nBelievers in ghosts must have replied that they do _not_ see, in\nsleep or awake, 'films' representing a mouldering corpse, as they\nought to do on the Lucretian hypothesis, but the image, or idolon of\na living face.  Plutarch says that if philosophers may laugh, these\nlong enduring 'films,' from a body perhaps many ages deep in dust,\nare laughable. {341b}  However Lucretius is so wedded to his 'films'\nthat he explains a purely fanciful being, like a centaur, by a\nfortuitous combination of the film of a man with the film of a\nhorse.  A 'ghost' then, is, to the mind of Lucretius, merely a\ncasual persistent film of a dead man, composed of atoms very light\nwhich can fly at inconceivable speed, and are not arrested by\nmaterial obstacles.  By parity of reasoning no doubt, if Pythagoras\nis seen at the same moment in Thurii and Metapontum, only a film of\nhim is beheld at one of these two places.  The Democritean theory of\nordinary perception thus becomes the Lucretian theory of dreams and\nghosts.  Not that Lucretius denies the existence of a rational soul,\nin living men, {341c} a portion of it may even leave the body during\nsleep, and only a spark may be left in the embers of the physical\norganism.  If even that spark withdraws, death follows, and the\nsoul, no longer warmly housed in the body, ceases to exist.  For the\n'film' (ghost) is not the soul, and the soul is not the film,\nwhereas savage philosophy identifies the soul with the ghost.  Even\nLucretius retains the savage conception of the soul as a thing of\nrarer matter, a thing partly separable from the body, but that thing\nis resolved for ever into its elements on the death of the body.\nHis imaginary 'film,' on the other hand, may apparently endure for\nages.\n\nThe Lucretian theory had, for Lucretius, the advantages of being\nphysical, and of dealing a blow at the hated doctrine of a future\nlife.  For the public it had the disadvantages of being incapable of\nproof, of not explaining the facts, as conceived to exist, and of\nbeing highly ridiculous, as Plutarch observed.  Much later\nphilosophers explained all apparitions as impressions of sense,\nrecorded on the brain, and so actively revived that they seemed to\nhave an objective existence.  One or two stock cases (Nicolai's, and\nMrs. A.'s), in which people _in a morbid condition_, saw\nhallucinations which they knew to be hallucinations, did, and do, a\ngreat deal of duty.  Mr. Sully has them, as Hibbert and Brewster\nhave them, engaged as protagonists.  Collective hallucinations, and\nthe hallucinations of the sane which coincide with the death, or\nother crisis in the experience of the person who seemed to be seen,\nwere set down to imagination, 'expectant attention,' imposture,\nmistaken identity, and so forth.\n\nWithout dwelling on the causes, physical or psychological, which\nhave been said by Frazer of Tiree (1707), Ferrier, Hibbert, Scott,\nand others, to account for the hallucinations of the sane, for\n'ghosts,' Mr. Tylor has ably erected his theory of animism, or the\nbelief in spirits.  Thinking savages, he says, 'were deeply\nimpressed by two groups of biological phenomena,' by the facts of\nliving, dying, sleep, trance, waking and disease.  They asked:\n'What is the difference between a living body and a dead one?'  They\nwanted to know the causes of sleep, trance and death.  They were\nalso concerned to explain the appearances of dead or absent human\nbeings in dreams and waking visions.  Now it was plain that 'life'\ncould go away, as it does in death, or seems to do in dreamless\nsleep.  Again, a phantasm of a living man can go away and appear to\nwaking or sleeping people at a distance.  The conclusion was reached\nby savages that the phantasm which thus appears is identical with\nthe life which 'goes away' in sleep or trance.  Sometimes it\nreturns, when the man wakes, or escapes from his trance.  Sometimes\nit stays away, he dies, his body corrupts, but the phantasm endures,\nand is occasionally seen in sleeping or waking vision.  The general\nresult of savage thought is that man's life must be conceived as a\npersonal and rational entity, called his 'soul,' while it remains in\nhis body, his 'wraith,' when it is beheld at a distance during his\nlife, his 'ghost,' when it is observed after his death.  Many\ncircumstances confirmed or illustrated this savage hypothesis Breath\nremains with the body during life, deserts it at death.  Hence the\nwords spiritus, 'spirit,' [Greek], anima, and, when the separable\nnature of the shadow is noticed, hence come 'shade,' 'umbra,'\n[Greek], with analogues in many languages.  The hypothesis was also\nstrengthened, by the great difficulty which savages feel in\ndiscriminating between what occurs in dreams, and what occurs to men\nawake.  Many civilised persons feel the same difficulty with regard\nto hallucinations beheld by them when in bed, asleep or awake they\nknow not, on the dim border of existence.  Reflection on all these\nexperiences ended in the belief in spirits, in souls of the living,\nin wraiths of the living, in ghosts of the dead, and, finally, in\nGod.\n\nThis theory is most cogently presented by Mr. Tylor, and is\nconfirmed by examples chosen from his wide range of reading.  But,\namong these normal and natural facts, as of sleep, dream, breath,\nlife, dying, Mr. Tylor includes (not as facts, but as examples of\napplied animistic theory) cases of 'clairvoyance,' apparitions of\nthe dying seen by the living at a distance, second sight, ghostly\ndisturbances of knocking and rapping, movements of objects, and so\nforth.  It is not a question for Mr. Tylor whether clairvoyance ever\noccurs:  whether 'death-bed wraiths' have been seen to an extent not\nexplicable by the laws of chance, whether disturbances and movements\nof objects not to be accounted for by human agency are matters of\nuniversal and often well-attested report.  Into the question of\nfact, Mr. Tylor explicitly declines to enter; these things only\nconcern him because they have been commonly explained by the\n'animistic hypothesis,' that is, by the fancied action of spirits.\nThe animistic hypothesis, again, is the result, naturally\nfallacious, of savage man's reasonings on life, death, sleep,\ndreams, trance, breath, shadow and the other kindred biological\nphenomena.  Thus clairvoyance (on the animistic hypothesis) is the\nflight of the conscious 'spirit' of a living man across space or\ntime; the 'deathbed wraith' is the visible apparition of the newly-\nemancipated 'spirit,' and 'spirits' cause the unexplained\ndisturbances and movements of objects.  In fact it is certain that\nthe animistic hypothesis (though a mere fallacy) does colligate a\ngreat number of facts very neatly, and has persisted from times of\nlow savagery to the present age of reason.  So here is a case of the\nsavage origin and persistent 'survival' of a hypothesis,--the most\npotent hypothesis in the history of humanity.\n\nFrom Mr. Tylor's point of view, his concern with the subject ceases\nhere, it is not his business to ascertain whether the abnormal facts\nare facts or fancies.  Yet, to other students, this question is very\nimportant.  First, if clairvoyance, wraiths, and the other alleged\nphenomena, really do occur, or have occurred, then savage man had\nmuch better grounds for the animistic hypothesis than if no such\nphenomena ever existed.  For instance, if a medicine-man not only\nwent into trances, but brought back from these expeditions knowledge\notherwise inaccessible, then there were better grounds for believing\nin a consciousness exerted apart from the body than if there were no\nevidence but that of non-veridical dreams.  If merely the dream-\ncoincidences which the laws of chance permit were observed, the\nbelief in the soul's dream-flight would win less favourable and\ngeneral acceptance than it would if clairvoyance, 'the sleep of the\nshadow,' were a real if rare experience.  The very name given by the\nEskimos to the hypnotic state, 'the sleep of the shadow,' proves\nthat savages do make distinctions between normal and abnormal\nconditions of slumber.\n\nIn the same way a few genuine wraiths, or ghosts, or 'veridical\nhallucinations,' would be enough to start the animistic hypothesis,\nor to confirm it notably, if it was already started.  As to\ndisturbances and movements of objects unexplained, these, in his own\nexperience, suggested, even to De Morgan, the hypothesis of a\nconscious, active, and purposeful will, _not_ that of any human\nbeing present.  Now such a will is hardly to be defined otherwise\nthan as 'spiritual'.  This order of phenomena, like those of\nclairvoyance and wraiths, might either give rise to the savage\nanimistic hypothesis, or, at least, might confirm it greatly.  In\nfact, if the sets of abnormal phenomena existed, or were held to\nexist, savage man scarcely needed the normal phenomena for the basis\nof his spiritual belief.  The normal phenomena lent him such terms\nas 'spirit,' 'shadow,' but much of his theory might have been built\non the foundation of the abnormal phenomena alone.  A 'veridical\nhallucination,' of the dying would give him a 'wraith'; a recognised\nhallucination of the dead would give him a ghost:  the often\nreported and unexplained movements and disturbances would give him a\nvui, 'house spirit,' 'brownie,' 'domovoy,' follet, lar, or lutin.\nOr these occurrences might suggest to the thinking savage that some\ndiscontented influence survived from the recently dead.\n\nFour thousand years have passed since houses were haunted in Egypt,\nand have left some sane, educated, and methodical men to meet the\nsame annoyances as the ancient Egyptians did, by the same measures.\nWe do not pretend to discover, without examination, the causes of\nthe sounds and sights which baffle trained and not superstitious\ninvestigators.  But we do say that similar occurrences, in a kraal\nor an Eskimo hut, in a wigwam, in a cave, or under a gunyeh, would\ngreatly confirm the animistic hypothesis of savages.  The theory of\nimposture (in some cases) does undeniably break down, for the people\nwho hold it cannot even suggest a modus operandi within the reach of\nthe human beings concerned, as in the case of the Wesleys.  The\ntheory of contagious hallucination of all the senses is the property\nof Coleridge alone.  The hypothesis of a nervous force which sets up\ncentres of conscious action is confined to Hartmann, and to certain\nHighland philosophers, cavalierly dismissed by the Rev. Robert Kirk\nas 'men illiterate'.  Instead of making these guesses, the savage\nthinkers merely applied the animistic hypothesis, which they had\nfound to work very well already, and, as De Morgan says, to\ncolligate the phenomena better than any other theory.  We cannot\neasily conceive men who know neither sleep nor dreams, but if the\nnormal phenomena of sleep and dreams had not existed, the abnormal\nphenomena already described, if they occurred, as they are\nuniversally said to do, could have given rise, when speculated upon,\nto the belief in spirits.\n\nBut, it may reasonably be urged, 'the natural familiar facts of\nlife, death, sleep, waking, dreams, breath, and shadows, are all\nversae causae, do undeniably exist, and, without the aid of any of\nyour abnormal facts, afford basis enough for the animistic\nhypothesis.  Moreover, after countless thousands of years, during\nwhich superstition has muttered about your abnormal facts, official\nscience still declines to hear a word on the topic of clairvoyance\nor telepathy.  You don't find the Royal Society investigating second\nsight, or attending to legends about tables which rebel against the\nlaw of gravitation.'\n\nThese are cogent remarks.  Normal facts, perhaps, may have suggested\nthe belief in spirits, the animistic hypothesis.  But we do not find\nthe hypothesis (among the backward races) where abnormal facts are\nnot alleged to be matters of comparatively frequent experience.\nConsequently we do not _know_ that the normal facts, alone,\nsuggested the existence of spirits to early thinkers, we can only\nmake the statement on a priori grounds.  Like George Eliot's rural\nsage we 'think it sounds a deal likelier'.  But that, after all,\nthough a taking, is not a powerful and conclusive syllogism.\n\nAgain, we certainly do not expect to see the Royal Society inquiring\ninto second sight, or clairvoyance, or thought transference.  When\nthe Royal Society was first founded several of its members, Pepys,\nF.R.S.; Mr. Robert Boyle, F.R.S.; the Rev. Joseph Glanvill, F.R.S.,\nwent into these things a good deal.  But, in spite of their title,\nthey were only amateurs.  They had no professional dignity to keep\nup.  They were well aware that they, unlike the late Mr. Faraday,\ndid not know, by inspiration or by common-sense, the limits of the\npossible.  They tried all things, it was such a superstitious age.\nNow men of science, or the majority of them, for there are some\nexceptions, know what is, and what is not possible.  They know that\ngerms of life may possibly come down on meteorites from somewhere\nelse, and they produced an argument for the existence of a\nbathybius.  But they also know that a man is not a bird to be in two\nplaces at once, like Pythagoras, and that nobody can see through a\nstone wall.  These, and similar allegations, they reckon impossible,\nand, if the facts happen, so much the worse for the facts.  They can\nonly be due to imposture or mal-observation, and there is an end of\nthe matter.  This is the view of official science.  Unluckily, not\nmany years ago, official science was equally certain that the\nordinary phenomena of hypnotism were based on imposture and on mal-\nobservation.  These phenomena, too, were tabooed.  But so many\npeople could testify to them, and they could be so easily explained\nby the suggestive force of suggestion, that they were reluctantly\nadmitted within the sacred citadel.  Many people, sane, not\nsuperstitious, healthy, and even renowned as scientific specialists,\nattest the existence of the still rarer phenomena which are said, in\ncertain cases, to accompany the now more familiar incidents of\nhypnotism.  But these phenomena have never yet been explained by any\ntheory which science recognises, as she does recognise that\nsuggestion is suggestive.  Therefore these rarer phenomena\nmanifestly do not exist, and cannot be the subject of legitimate\ninquiry.\n\nThese are unanswerable observations, and it is only the antiquarian\nwho can venture, in his humble way, to reply to them.  His answer\nhas a certain force ad hominem, that is, as addressed to\nanthropologists.  They, too, have but recently been admitted within\nthe scientific fold; time was when their facts were regarded as mere\ntravellers' tales.  Mr. Max Muller is now, perhaps, almost alone in\nhis very low estimate of anthropological evidence, and, possibly,\neven that sturdy champion is beginning to yield ground.  Defending\nthe validity of the testimony on which anthropologists reason about\nthe evolution of religion, custom, manners, mythology, law, Mr.\nTylor writes:--\n\n'It is a matter worthy of consideration that the accounts of similar\nphenomena of culture, recurring in different parts of the world,\nactually supply incidental proof of their own authenticity. . . .\nThe test of recurrence comes in. . . .  The possibility of\nintentional or unintentional mystification is often barred by such a\nstate of things as that a similar statement is made in two remote\nlands by two witnesses, of whom A lived a century before B, and B\nappears never to have heard of A.'\n\nIf for 'similar phenomena of culture' here, we substitute 'similar\nabnormal phenomena' (such as clairvoyance, wraiths, unexplained\ndisturbances), Mr. Tylor's argument in favour of his evidence for\ninstitutions applies equally well to our evidence for mysterious\n'facts'.  'How distant are the countries,' he goes on, 'how wide\napart are the dates, how different the creeds and characters in the\ncatalogue of the facts of civilisation, needs no further showing'--\nto the student of Mr. Tylor's erudite footnotes.  In place of 'facts\nof civilisation' read 'psychical phenomena,' and Mr. Tylor's\nargument applies to the evidence for these rejected and scouted\nbeliefs.\n\nThe countries from which 'ghosts' and 'wraiths' and 'clairvoyance'\nare reported are 'distant'; the dates are 'wide apart'; the 'creeds\nand characters of the observers' 'are 'different'; yet the evidence\nis as uniform, and as recurrent, as it is in the case of\ninstitutions, manners, customs.  Indeed the evidence for the\nrejected and abnormal phenomena is even more 'recurrent' than the\nevidence for customs and institutions.  Polyandry, totemism, human\nsacrifice, the taboo, are only reported as existing in remote and\nsemi-civilised countries.  Clairvoyance, wraiths, ghosts, mysterious\ndisturbances and movements of objects are reported as existing, not\nonly in distant ages, but today; not only among savages or\nbarbarians, but in London, Paris, Milan.  No ages can be more wide\napart, few countries much more distant, than ancient Egypt and\nmodern England:  no characters look more different than that of an\nold scribe under Pharaoh, and that of a distinguished soldier under\nQueen Victoria.  Yet the scribe of Khemi and General Campbell suffer\nfrom the same inexplicable annoyance, attribute it to the same very\nabnormal agency, and attempt (not unsuccessfully) to communicate\nwith that agency, in precisely the same way.\n\nThis, though a striking, is an isolated and perhaps a casual example\nof recurrence and uniformity in evidence.  Mr. Tylor's Primitive\nCulture is itself a store-house of other examples, to which more may\neasily be added.  For example, there is the old and savage belief in\na 'sending'.  The medicine-man, or medium, or witch, can despatch a\nconscious, visible, and intelligent agent, non-normal, to do his\nbidding at a distance.  This belief is often illustrated in the\nScandinavian sagas.  Rink testifies to it among the Eskimo, Grinnell\namong the Pawnees:  Porphyry alleges that by some such 'telepathic\nimpact' Plotinus, from a distance, made a hostile magician named\nAlexander 'double up like an empty bag,' and saw and reported this\nagreeable circumstance. {352}  Hardly any abnormal phenomenon or\nfaculty sounds less plausible, and the 'spectral evidence' for the\npresence of a witch's 'sending,' when the poor woman could establish\nan alibi for her visible self, appeared dubious even to Cotton\nMather.  But, in their Phantasms of the Living, Messrs. Gurney and\nMyers give cases in which a visible 'sending' was intentionally\nemitted by Baron Schrenck Notzing, by a stock-broker, by a young\nstudent of engineering, and by a French hospital nurse, to take no\nother instances.  The person visited frequently by the 'sendings' in\nthe last cases was a French physician engaged in the hospital, who\nreports and attests the facts.  All the cases are given at first\nhand on the testimony of the senders and of the recipients of the\nsendings.  Bulwer Lytton was familiar with the belief, and uses the\n'shining shadow' in A Strange Story.  Now here is uniform recurrent\nevidence from widely severed ages, from distant countries, from the\nPolar North, the American prairie, Neoplatonic Egypt and Greece,\nEngland and New England of the seventeenth century, and England and\nGermany of today.  The 'creeds and characters of the observers' are\nas 'different' as Neoplatonism, Shamanism, Christianity of divers\nsects, and probably Agnosticism or indifference.  All these\nconditions of unvarying testimony constitute good evidence for\ninstitutions and customs; anthropologists, who eagerly accept such\ntestimony in their own studies, may decide as to whether they\ndeserve total neglect when adduced in another field of anthropology.\n\nTurning from 'sendings,' or 'telepathy' voluntarily brought to bear\non one living person by another, we might examine 'death-bed\nwraiths,' or the telepathic impact--'if that hypothesis of theirs be\nsound'--produced by a dying on a living human being.  A savage\nexample, in which a Fuegian native on board an English ship saw his\nfather, who was expiring in Tierra del Fuego, has the respectable\nauthority of Mr. Darwin's Cruise of the Beagle.  Instances, on the\nother hand, in which Australian blacks, or Fijians, see the\nphantasms of dead kinsmen warning them of their decease (which\nfollows punctually) may be found in Messrs. Fison and Howitt's\nKamilaroi and Kurnai.\n\nFrom New Zealand Mr. Tylor cites, with his authorities, the\nfollowing example:  {353} 'A party of Maoris (one of whom told the\nstory) were seated round a fire in the open air, when there\nappeared, seen only by two of them, the figure of a relative left\nill at home.  They exclaimed, the figure vanished, and, on the\nreturn of the party, it appeared that the sick man had died about\nthe time of the vision.'  A traveller in New Zealand illustrates the\nnative belief in the death-wraith by an amusing anecdote.  A\nRangatira, or native gentleman, had gone on the war-path.  One day\nhe walked into his wife's house, but after a few moments could not\nbe found.  The military expedition did not return, so the lady,\ntaking it for granted that her husband, the owner of the wraith, was\ndead, married an admirer.  The hallucination, however, was _not_\n'veridical'; the warrior came home, but he admitted that he had no\nremedy and no feud against his successor.  The owner of a wraith\nwhich has been seen may be assumed to be dead.  Such is Maori\nbelief.  The modern civilised examples of death-wraiths, attested\nand recorded in Phantasms of the Living, are numerous; but\nstatistics prove that a lady who marries again on the strength of a\nwraith may commit an error of judgment, and become liable to the\npenalty of bigamy.  The Maoris, no statisticians, take a more\nliberal and tolerant view.  These are comparatively scanty examples\nfrom savage life, but then they are corroborated by the wealth of\nrecurrent and coincident evidence from civilised races, ancient and\nmodern.\n\nOn the point of clairvoyance, it is unnecessary to dwell.  The\nsecond-sighted man, the seer of events remote in space or not yet\naccomplished in time, is familiar everywhere, from the Hebrides to\nthe Coppermine River, from the Samoyed and Eskimo to the Zulu, from\nthe Euphrates to the Hague.  The noises heard in 'haunted houses,'\nthe knocking, routing, dragging of heavy bodies, is recorded, Mr.\nTylor says, by Dayaks, Singhalese, Siamese, and Esths; Dennys, in\nhis Folklore of China, notes the occurrences in the Celestial\nEmpire; Grimm, in his German Mythology, gives examples, starting\nfrom the communicative knocks of a spirit near Bingen, in the\nchronicle of Rudolf (856), and Suetonius tells a similar tale from\nimperial Rome.  The physician of Catherine de Medicis, Ambroise\nPare, describes every one of the noises heard by the Wesleys, long\nafter his day, as familiar, and as caused by devils.  Recurrence and\nconformity of evidence cannot be found in greater force.\n\nThe anthropological test of evidence for faith in the rejected\nphenomena is thus amply satisfied.  Unless we say that these\nphenomena are 'impossible,' whereas totemism, the couvade,\ncannibalism, are possible, the testimony to belief in clairvoyance,\nand the other peculiar occurrences, is as good in its way as the\nevidence for the practice of wild customs and institutions.  There\nremains a last and notable circumstance.  All the abnormal\nphenomena, in the modern and mediaeval tales, occur most frequently\nin the presence of convulsionaries, like the so-called victims of\nwitches, like the Hon. Master Sandilands, Lord Torphichen's son\n(1720), like the grandson of William Morse in New England (1680),\nand like Bovet's case of the demon of Spraiton. {355}\n\nThe 'mediums' of modern spiritualism, like Francis Fey, are, or\npretend to be, subject to fits, anaesthesia, jerks, convulsive\nmovements, and trance.  As Mr. Tylor says about his savage\njossakeeds, powwows, Birraarks, peaimen, everywhere 'these people\nsuffer from hysterical, convulsive, and epileptic affections'.  Thus\nthe physical condition, all the world over, of persons who exhibit\nmost freely the accepted phenomena, is identical.  All the world\nover, too, the same persons are credited with the _rejected_\nphenomena, clairvoyance, 'discerning of spirits,' powers of\nvoluntary 'telepathic 'and 'telekinetic' impact.  Thus we find that\nuniform and recurrent evidence vouches for a mass of phenomena which\nscience scouts.  Science has now accepted a portion of the mass, but\nstill rejects the stranger occurrences.  Our argument is that their\ninvariably alleged presence, in attendance on the minor occurrences,\nis, at least, a point worthy of examination.  The undesigned\ncoincidences of testimony represent a great deal of smoke, and\nproverbial wisdom suggests a presumption in favour of a few sparks\nof fire.  Now, if there are such sparks, the animistic hypothesis\nmay not, of course, be valid,--'spirits' may not exist,--but the\nuniversal belief in their existence may have had its origin, not in\nnormal facts only, but in abnormal facts.  And these facts, at the\nlowest estimate, must suggest that man may have faculties, and be\nsurrounded by agencies, which physical science does not take into\naccount in its theory of the universe and of human nature.\n\nWe have already argued that the doctrines of theism and of the soul\nneed not to be false, even if they were arrived at slowly, after a\nsuccession of grosser opinions.  But if the doctrines were reached\nby a process which started from real facts of human nature, observed\nby savages, but not yet recognised by physical science, then there\nmay have been grains of truth even in the cruder and earlier ideas,\nand these grains of gold may have been disengaged, and fashioned,\nnot without Divine aid, into the sacred things of spiritual\nreligion.\n\nThe stories which we have been considering are often trivial,\nsometimes comic; but they are universally diffused, and as well\nestablished as universally coincident testimony can establish\nanything.  Now, if there be but one spark of real fire to all this\nsmoke, then the purely materialistic theories of life and of the\nworld must be reconsidered.  They seem very well established, but so\nhave many other theories seemed, that are long gone the way of all\nthings human.\n\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n\n{0a}  Fortnightly Review, February 1866, and in a lecture, 1895.\n\n{0b}  This diary was edited for private circulation, by a son of Mr.\nProctor's, who remembers the disturbances.\n\n{0c}  See essays here on Classical and Savage Spiritualism.\n\n{0d}  This was merely a cheerful obiter dictum by the learned\nPresident.\n\n{4}  Not the house agent.\n\n{9}  Porphyry, Epistola xxi.  Iamblichus, De Myst., iii. 2.\n\n{11}  The Port Glasgow story is in Report of the Dialectical\nSociety, p. 200.  The flooring was torn up; walls, ceilings,\ncellars, were examined by the police, and attempts were made to\nimitate the noises, without success.  In this case, as at Rerrick in\nthe end of the seventeenth century, and elsewhere, 'the appearance\nof a hand moving up and down' was seen by the family, 'but we could\nnot catch it:  it quietly vanished, and we only felt cold air'.  The\nhouse was occupied by a gardener, Hugh McCardle.  Names of\nwitnesses, a sergeant of police, and others, are appended.\n\n{12}  Report of Dialectical Society, p. 86.\n\n{17a}  For ourselves, we have never seen or heard a table give any\nresponses whatever, any more than we have seen the ghosts, heard the\nraps, or viewed the flights of men in the air which we chronicle in\na later portion of this work.\n\n{17b}  Report on Spiritualism, Longmans, London, 1871.\n\n{18}  Report, p. 229.\n\n{21}  Mr. Wallace may be credited with scoring a point in argument.\nDr. Edmunds had maintained that no amount of evidence would make him\nbelieve in certain obvious absurdities, say the lions in Trafalgar\nSquare drinking out of the fountains.  Mr. Wallace replied:  'The\nasserted fact is either possible or not possible.  If possible, such\nevidence as we have been considering would prove it; if not\npossible, such evidence could not exist.'  No such evidence exists\nfor the lions; for the phenomena of so-called spiritualism, we have\nconsentient testimony in every land, period and stage of culture.\nThat certainly makes a difference, whatever the weight and value of\nthe difference may be.\n\n{26a}  This illustration is not Mr. Lecky's.\n\n{26b}  We have here thrown together a crowd of odd experiences.  The\nsavages' examples are dealt with in the next essay; the Catholic\nmarvels in the essay on 'Comparative Psychical Research'.  For\nPascal, consult L'Amulette de Pascal, by M. Lelut; for Iamblichus,\nsee essay on 'Ancient Spiritualism'.  As to Welsh, the evidence for\nthe light in which he shone is printed in Dr. Hill Burton's Scot\nAbroad (i. 289), from a Wodrow MS. in Glasgow University.  Mr. Welsh\nwas minister of Ayr.  He was meditating in his garden late at night.\nOne of his friends 'chanced to open a window towards the place where\nhe walked, and saw clearly a strange light surround him, and heard\nhim speak strange words about his spiritual joy'.  Hill Burton\nthinks that this verges on the Popish superstition.  The truth is\nthat eminent ministers shared the privileges of Mediums and of some\nsaints.  Examples of miraculous cures by ministers, of clairvoyance\non their part, of spirit-raps attendant on them, and of prophecy,\nare current on Presbyterian hagiology.  No ministers, to our\nknowledge, were 'levitated,' but some _nearly_ flew out of their\npulpits.  Patrick Walker, in his Biographia Presbyteriana, vol. ii.\np. 21, mentions a supernatural light which floated round The Sweet\nSingers, Meikle John Gibb and his friends, before they burned a\nbible.  Mr. Gibb afterwards excelled as a pow-wow, or Medicine Man,\namong the Red Indians.\n\n{30}  Teutonic Mythology, English translation, vol. ii. p. 514.  He\ncites Pertz, i. 372.\n\n{31}  A very early turning table, of 1170, is quoted from Giraldus\nCambrensis by Dean Stanley in his Canterbury Memorials, p. 103.  The\ntable threw off the weapons of Becket's murderers.  This was at\nSouth Malling.  See the original in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, ii. 425.\n\n{35}  See Mr. Tylor's Primitive Culture, chap, xi., for the best\nstatement of the theory.\n\n{38}  Petitot, Traditions Indiennes du Canada Nord-Ouest, p. 434.\n\n{40}  Very possibly the whirring roar of the turndun, or [Greek], in\nGreek, Zuni, Yoruba, Australian, Maori and South African mysteries\nis connected with this belief in a whirring sound caused by spirits.\nSee Custom and Myth.\n\n{41a}  Proc. S. P. R., xix. 180.\n\n{41b}  Brough Smyth, i. 475.\n\n{42}  Auckland, 1863, ch. x.\n\n{45a}  [Greek].--Iamblichus.\n\n{45b}  Kohl, Kitchi-Gami, p. 278.\n\n{48}  Hind's Explorations in Labrador, ii. 102.\n\n{50a}  Rowley, Universities' Mission to Central Africa, p. 217:\ncited by Mr. Tylor.\n\n{50b}  Quoted in La Table Parlante, a French serial, No. I, p. 6.\n\n{51}  Colonel A. B. Ellis, in his work on the Yorubas (1894),\nreports singular motions of a large wooden cylinder.  It is used in\nordeals.\n\n{52}  The Natural and Morall History of the East and West Indies, p.\n566, London, 1604.\n\n{53}  February 9, 1872.  Quoted by Mr. Tylor, in Primitive Culture,\nii. 39, 1873.\n\n{57}  Revue des Deux Mondes, 1856, tome i. p. 853.\n\n{60}  Hallucinations, English translation, p. 182, London, 1859.\n\n{62}  Laws, xi.\n\n{63}  Records of the Past, iv. 134-136.\n\n{65a}  The references are to Parthey's edition, Berlin, 1857.\n\n{65b}  [Greek], 4, 3.\n\n{65c}  All are, for Porphyry, 'phantasmogenetic agencies'.\n\n{66a}  Jean Brehal, par P.P. Belon et Balme, Paris, s.a., p. 105.\n\n{66b}  Proces de Condemnation, i. 75.\n\n{67a}  Appended to Beaumont's work on Spirits, 1705.\n\n{67b}  See Mr. Lillie's Modern Mystics, and, better, Mr. Myers, in\nProceedings S. P. R., Jan., 1894.\n\n{68a}  Origen, or whoever wrote the Philosophoumena, gives a recipe\nfor producing a luminous figure on a wall.  For moving lights, he\nsuggests attaching lighted tow to a bird, and letting it loose.\nMaury translates the passages in La Magie, pp. 58-59.\nSpiritualists, of course, will allege that the world-wide theory of\nspectral lights is based on fact, and that the hallucinations are\nnot begotten by subjective conditions, but by a genuine\n'phantasmogenetic agency'.  Two men of science, Baron Schrenk-\nNotzing, and Dr. Gibotteau, vouch for illusions of light\naccompanying attempts by _living_ agents to transfer a hallucinatory\nvision of themselves to persons at a distance (Journal S. P. R.,\niii. 307; Proceedings, viii. 467).  It will be asserted by\nspiritualists that disembodied agencies produce the same effect in a\nhigher degree.\n\n{68b}  [Greek].\n\n{69}  [Greek].\n\n{70a}  Damascius, ap. Photium.\n\n{70b}  [Greek].\n\n{71}  Life of Hugh Macleod (Noble, Inverness).  As an example of the\ngrowth of myth, see the version of these facts in Fraser's Magazine\nfor 1856.  Even in a sermon preached immediately after the event, it\nwas said that the dreamer _found_ the pack by revelation of his\ndream!\n\n{72}  iii. 2.  [Greek].\n\n{73}  Greek Papyri in the British Museum; edited by F. G. Kenyon,\nM.A., London, 1893.\n\n{74}  See notice in Classical Review, February, 1894.\n\n{75a}  See oracles in Eusebius, Praep. Evang., v. 9. The medium was\ntied up in some way, he had to be unloosed and raised from the\nground.  The inspiring agency, in a hurry to be gone, gave\ndirections for the unbinding.  [Greek].  The binding of the Highland\nseer in a bull's hide is described by Scott in the Lady of the Lake.\nA modern Highland seer has ensconced himself in a boiler!  The\npurpose is to concentrate the 'force'.\n\n{75b}  Praep. Evang., v. 8.\n\n{75c}  Ibid., v. 15, 3.\n\n{78a}  Dr. Hodgson, in Proceedings S. P. R., Jan., 1894, makes Mr.\nKellar's evidence as to Indian 'levitation' seem far from\nconvincing!  As a professional conjurer, and exposer of\nspiritualistic imposture, Mr. Kellar has made statements about his\nown experiences which are not easily to be harmonised.\n\n{78b}  Proceedings S. P. R. Jan., 1894.\n\n{86}  The Miraculous Conformist.  A letter to the Honourable Robert\nBoyle, Esq.  Oxford:  University Press, 1666.\n\n{88a}  Fourth edition, London, 1726.\n\n{88b}  In Kirk's Secret Commonwealth, 1691.  London:  Nutt, 1893.\n\n{90a}  In the Salem witch mania, a similar case of levitation was\nreported by the Rev. Cotton Mather.  He produced a cloud of\nwitnesses, who could not hold the woman down.  She would fly up.\nMr. Mather sent the signed depositions to his opponent, Mr. Calef.\nBut Calef would not believe, for, said he, 'the age of miracles is\npast'.  Which was just the question at issue!  See Beaumont's\nTreatise of Spirits, p. 148, London, 1705.\n\n{90b}  Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, p. 7.  London:  Burns,\n1875.\n\n{90c}  Popular Tales, iv. 340.\n\n{94}  The anecdote is published by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, in a\nletter of Lauderdale's, affixed to Sharpe's edition of Law's\nMemorialls.\n\n{95}  See Ghosts before the Law.\n\n{96}  Proceedings S. P. R., xv. 33.\n\n{100a}  See many examples in Li Fiorette de Misser Santo Francesco.\n\n{100b}  Ch. cxviii.\n\n{101}  D. D. Home; his Life and Mission, p. 307, London, 1888.\n\n{102}  Sept. 18, vol. v., 1866.\n\n{107a}  See Colonel Yule's Marco Polo.\n\n{107b}  Quarterly Journal of Science, July, 1871.\n\n{108a}  Proceedings S. P. R., xix. 146.\n\n{108b}  North American Review, 1893.\n\n{108c}  Proceedings S. P. R., x. 45-100; xix. 147.\n\n{109a}  Incidents in my Life, i. 170.\n\n{109b}  A Paris, chez la Veuve du Carroy, 1621.\n\n{110a}  Folklore of China, 1876, p. 79.\n\n{110b}  Op. cit., p. 74.\n\n{110c}  Paris.  Quarto.  Black letter.  1528.  The original is\nextremely rare.  We quote from a copy once in the Tellier\ncollection, reprinted in Recueil de Dissertations Anciennes et\nNouvelles sur les Apparitions.  Leloup:  Avignon, 1751, vol. ii. pp.\n1-87.\n\n{112}  Proceedings S. P. R., xix. 186.  'C.' is a Miss Davis,\ndaughter of a gentleman occupying 'a responsible position as a\ntelegraphist'.  The date was 1888.\n\n{114a}  Satan's Invisible World Discovered.  Edinburgh:  Reid, 1685.\nPp. 67-69.\n\n{114b}  Manuscript 7170, A, de la Bibliotheque du Roi.\nDissertations, ut supra, vol. i. pp. 95-129.\n\n{115}  Dufresnoy, op. cit., i. 95-129.\n\n{117}  Compare Bastian, Mensch., ii. 393, cited by Mr. Tylor.\n\n{118}  De Materia Daemon. Isagoge, p. 539.  Ap. Corn. Agripp., De\nOccult.  Philosoph.  Lyons, 1600.\n\n{122}  Aubrey gives a variant in his Miscellanies, on the authority\nof the Vicar of Barnstaple.  He calls Fey 'Fry'.\n\n{123a}  The Devonshire case, 'Story of a Something,' in Miss\nO'Neill's Devonshire Idylls, is attested by a surviving witness.\n\n{123b}  Trials of Isobell Young, 1629, and of Jonet Thomson, Feb. 7,\n1643.  Darker Superstitions of Scotland, p. 593.\n\n{124}  Witness Rev. E. T. Vaughan, King's Langley. 1884.\n\n{125a}  Segraisiana, p. 213.\n\n{125b}  Crookes's Notes of an Enquiry into the Phenomena usually\ncalled Spiritual.  86.  London:  Burns (second edition).\n\n{126a}  Satan's Invisible World Discovered, p. 75.\n\n{126b}  A New Confutation of Sadducism, p. 5, writ by Mr. Alexander\nTelfair, London, 1696.\n\n{129}  Primitive Culture, vol. i. 368; ii. 304.\n\n{130}  The reader may also consult Notes on the Spirit Basis of\nBelief and Custom, a rough draft printed for the Indian Government.\nWhile rich in curious facts, the draft contains very little about\n'manifestations,' except in 'possession'.\n\n{131a}  Gregory, Dialogues, iv. 39.\n\n{131b}  De Rerum Varietate, xvi. cap. xciii.\n\n{132}  De Praestigiis Daemon.\n\n{133}  Si fallere possunt, ut quis videre se credat, cum videat\nrevera extra se nihil:  non poterunt fallere, ut credat quis se\naudire sonos, quos revera non audit?  (p. 81).\n\n{135}  Proceedings S. P. R., xv. 42.\n\n{137}  There is one possible exception to this rule.\n\n{139}  S. P. R., viii. 81.\n\n{140a}  Geschichte des Neueren Occultismus, p. 451.\n\n{140b}  Opera, 1605.\n\n{142}  S. P. R., vi. 149.\n\n{146}  Proc. S. P. R., viii. 133.\n\n{147}  Proc. S. P. R., Nov., 1889, p. 269.\n\n{149}  This is rather overstated; there were knocks, and raps, and\nfootsteps (Proc. S. P. R., Nov., 1889, p. 310).\n\n{150}  Proc. S. P. R., April, 1885, p. 144.\n\n{151}  To be frank, in a haunted house the writer did once see an\nappearance, which was certainly either the ghost or one of the\nmaids; 'the Deil or else an outler quey,' as Burns says.\n\n{153}  London, 1881, pp. 184-185.\n\n{156}  S. P. R., xv. 64.\n\n{158a}  Proceedings S. P. R., xvi. 332.\n\n{158b}  Sights and Shadows, p. 60.\n\n{165}  British Chronicle, January 18, 1762.\n\n{166}  Annual Register.\n\n{167}  Praep. Evang., v. ix. 4.\n\n{170a}  Rudolfi Fuldensis, Annal., 858, in Pertz, i. 372.  See\nGrimm's Teutonic Mythology, Engl. transl., p. 514.\n\n{170b}  Pseudo-Clemens, Homil., ii. 32, 638.  In Mr. Myers's\nClassical Essays, p. 66.\n\n{178}  Avignon, 1751.\n\n{183}  Compare the case of John Beaumont, F.R.S., in his Treatise of\nSpirits (1705).\n\n{186}  Proceedings S. P. R., viii. 151-189.\n\n{189}  Mrs. Ricketts was a sister of Lord St. Vincent, who tried, in\nvain, to discover the cause of the disturbances.  Scott says\n(Demonology and Witchcraft, p. 360):  'Who has heard or seen an\nauthentic account from Lord St. Vincent?'  There is a full account\nin the Journal of the S. P. R.  It appeared much too late for Sir\nWalter Scott also complains of lack of details for the Wynyard\nstory.  They are now accessible.  People were, in his time, afraid\nto make their experiences public.\n\n{190}  The story is told by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, in his\nIntroduction to Law's Memorialls, p. xci.  Sharpe cites no source of\nthe tradition.\n\n{191}  We are not discussing Dreams, which are many, but waking\nhallucinations, which are, relatively rare, and are remembered,\nunlike Dreams, whether they are coincidental or not.\n\n{192}  Gurney, op. cit., p. 187.\n\n{193a}  The writer knows a case in which a gentleman, who had gone\nto bed about eleven p.m., in Scotland, was roused by hearing his own\nname loudly called.  He searched his room in vain.  His brother died\nsuddenly, at the hour when he heard the voice, in Canada.  But the\ndifference of time proves that the voice was heard several hours\n_before_ the death.  Here, then, is a chance coincidence, which\nlooked very like a case of Telepathy.  Another will be found in Mr.\nDale Owen's Debatable Land, p. 364.  A gentleman died 'after\nbreakfast' in Rhenish Prussia, and appeared, before noon, in New\nYork.  Thus he appeared hours after he died.\n\n{193b}  Polack, New Zealand, i. 269.\n\n{194a}  Proceedings S. P. R., xv. 10.\n\n{194b}  The writer has known a case in which a collector of these\nstatistics, disdained non-coincidental hallucinations as 'of no use'\n\n{195}  Proceedings S. P. R., xv. 7.\n\n{196}  Animal Magnetism, pp. 61-64, 1887.\n\n{199}  The Psychical Society has published the writer's encounter\nwith Professor Conington, at Oxford, in 1869, when the professor was\nlying within one or two days of his death at Boston, a circumstance\nwholly unknown to the percipient.  But no jury would accept this as\nanything but a case of mistaken identity, natural in a short-sighted\nman's vague experiences.  Mr. Conington was not a man easily to be\nmistaken for another, nor were many men likely to be mistaken for\nMr. Conington.  Yet this is what must have occurred.  There was no\nconceivable reason why the professor should 'telepathically'\ncommunicate with the percipient, who had never exchanged a word with\nhim, except in an examination.\n\n{205}  Proceedings of Society for Psychical Research, viii. 111.\n\n{206}  Proceedings of Society for Psychical Research, xiv. 442.\n\n{207a}  Modern Spirit Manifestations.  By Adin Ballou.  Liverpool,\n1853.\n\n{207b}  Proceedings of Society for Psychical Research, xiv. 469.\n\n{209}  Edinburgh, 1827, vol. i. p. xxxii.\n\n{214}  In the author's case the hypnagogic phantasms seem to be\ncreated out of the floating spots of light which remain when the\neyes are shut.  Some crystal-gazers find that similar points de\nrepere in the glass, are the starting-points of pictures in the\ncrystal.  Others cannot trace any such connection.\n\n{215}  Compare Blackwood, August, 1831, in Noctes Ambrosianae.\n\n{216a}  Paus., ii. 24, I.\n\n{216b}  Bouche Leclercq, i. 339.\n\n{223}  The accomplished scryer can see as well in a crystal\nringstone, or in a glass of water, as in a big crystal ball.  The\nlatter may really be dangerous, if left on a cloth in the sun it may\nset the cloth on fire.\n\n{224}  Animal Magnetism, second edition, p. 135.\n\n{228}  Thus an educated gentleman, a Highlander, tells the author\nthat he once saw a light of this kind 'not a meteor,' passing in air\nalong a road where a funeral went soon afterwards.  His companions\ncould see nothing, but one of them said:  'It will be a death-\ncandle'.  It seems to have been hallucinatory, otherwise all would\nhave shared the experience.\n\n{231a}  Darker Superstitions of Scotland, p. 481, Edinburgh, 1834.\n\n{231b}  Op. cit., p. 473.\n\n{232a}  Op. cit., p. 470\n\n{232b}  It is, perhaps, needless to add that the unhappy patients\nwere executed.\n\n{232c}  Miscellanies, 1857, p. 184.\n\n{233a}  Wodrow, i. 44.\n\n{233b}  Aulus Gellius, xv. 18.  Dio Cassius, lib. lxvii.  Crespet,\nDe la Hayne de Diable, cited by Dalyell.\n\n{234}  Miscellanies, 177.\n\n{235}  A copy presented by Scott to Sir Alexander Boswell of\nAuchinleck is in the author's possession; it bears Scott's\nautograph.\n\n{237}  Information from Mr. Mackay, Craigmonie.\n\n{238}  2 Kings, v. 26.\n\n{244}  i. 259.  Longmans, London, 1811.\n\n{245}  Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. 143.\n\n{246}  This belief is not confined to the Highlands.  Mr. Podmore\nquotes Ghost 636 in the Psychical Society's collections:  'The\nnarrator's mother is said to have seen the figure of a man'.  The\nfather saw nothing till his wife laid her hand on his shoulder, when\nhe exclaimed, 'I see him now' (S. P. R., Nov., 1889, p. 247).\n\n{250}  'Spectral evidence' was common in witch trials.  Wierus (b.\n1515) mentions a woman who confessed that she had been at a witch's\ncovin, or 'sabbath,' when her body was in bed with her husband.  If\nthere was any confirmatory testimony, if any one chose to say that\nhe saw her at the 'sabbath,' that was 'spectral evidence'.  This\nkind of testimony made it vain for a witch to take Mr. Weller's\nadvice, and plead 'a halibi,' but even Cotton Mather admits that\n'spectral evidence' is inconclusive.\n\n{253}  Papon.  Arrets., xx. 5, 9.  Charondas, Lib. viii.  Resp. 77.\nCovarruvias, iv. 6.  Mornac, s. v., Habitations, 27 ff., Locat. and\nConduct.  Other doctors do not deny hauntings, but allege that a\nbrave man should disregard them, and that they do not fulfil he\nlegal condition, Metus cadens in constantem virim.  These doctors\nmay never have seen a ghost, or may have been unusually courageous.\nThey held that a man might get accustomed to the annoyances of\nbogles, s'apprivoiser avec cette frayeur, like the Procter family at\nWillington.\n\n{259}  Miscellanies, p. 94, London, 1857.\n\n{262}  Hibbert, Philosophy of Apparitions, second edition, p. 224.\nHibbert finds Graime guilty, but only because he knew where the body\nlay.\n\n{263}  Notices Relative to the Bannatyne Club, 1836, p. 191.\nRemarkable Trial in Maryland.\n\n{267}  Paris, 1708.  Reprinted by Lenglet Dufresnoy, in his\nDissertations sur les Apparitions.  Avignon, 1751, vol. iii. p. 38.\n\n{269}  Second edition, Buon, Paris, 1605.  First edition, Angers,\n1586.\n\n{273}  Dr. Lee, in Sights and Sounds (p. 43), quotes an Irish\nlawsuit in 1890.  The tenants were anxious not to pay rent, but were\nnon-suited.  No reference to authorities is given.  There was also a\ncase at Dublin in 1885.  Waldron's house was disturbed, 'stones were\nthrown at the windows and doors,' and Waldron accused his neighbour,\nKiernan, of these assaults.  He lost his case (Evening Standard,\nFebruary 23, 1885, is cited).\n\n{275}  p. 195, London, 1860.\n\n{276}  The account followed here is that of the narrator in La Table\nParlante, p. 130, who differs in some points from the Marquis de\nMirville in his Fragment d'un Ouvrage Inedit, Paris, 1852.\n\n{277}  For bewitching by touch see Cotton Mather's Wonders of the\nInvisible World, p. 150.  'Library of Old Authors,' London, 1862.\n\n{279a}  Cotton Mather, op. cit., p. 131.\n\n{279b}  Table Parlante, p. 151.  A somewhat different version is\ngiven p. 145.  The narrator seems to say that Cheval himself deposed\nto having witnessed this experiment.\n\n{283a}  Gazette des Tribunaux, February 2, 1846, quoted in Table\nParlante, p. 306.\n\n{283b}  Table Parlante, p. 174.\n\n{300}  Hibbert, Apparitions, p. 211.\n\n{303}  Mather's own account of the lost sermon (p. 298) is in his\nLife, by Mr. Barrett Wendell, p. 118.  It is by no means so romantic\nas Wodrow's version.\n\n{307}  An account of the method by which the Miss Foxes rapped is\ngiven, by a cousin of theirs, in Dr. Carpenter's Mesmerism (p. 150).\n\n{312}  See Dr. Carpenter's brief and lucid statement about 'Latent\nThought' and 'Unconscious Cerebration,' in the Quarterly Review,\nvol. cxxxi. pp. 316-319.\n\n{317}  A learned priest has kindly looked for the alleged spiritus\npercutiens in dedicatory and other ecclesiastical formulae.  He only\nfinds it in benedictions of bridal chambers, and thinks it refers to\nthe slaying spirit in the Book of Tobit.\n\n{319a}  S. P. R., x. 81.\n\n{319b}  London:  Longmans, Green, & Co., 1877.\n\n{320}  Quoted by Dr. Carpenter, op. cit., p. vii.\n\n{324}  Tom. ii. pp. 312, 435, edition of 1768.\n\n{326}  In the Quarterly Review, vol. cxxxi. pp. 336-337, Dr.\nCarpenter criticises an account given by Lord Crawford of this\nperformance.  He asks for the evidence of the other witnesses.  This\nwas supplied.  He detects a colloquial slovenliness in a phrase.\nThis was cleared up.  He complains that the light was moonlight.\n'The moon was shining full into the room.'  A minute philosopher has\nconsulted the almanack and denies that there was any moon!\n\n{327}  Lord Crawford's evidence is in the Report of the Dialectical\nSociety, p. 214\n\n{328}  Quarterly Review, vol. cxxxi. p. 303.\n\n{329}  Observe the caution of the Mosstrooper, even in that\nagitating moment!  How good it is, and how wonderfully Sir Walter\nforecasts a seance.\n\n{341a}  Lucretius, iv. 26-75, Munro's translation.\n\n{341b}  Def. Orac., 19.\n\n{341c}  Ibid., iv. 193.\n\n{352}  Porphyry, Vita Plotini.\n\n{353}  Primitive Culture, i. 404.\n\n{355}  In the Pandemonium, or Devil's Cloyster, of Richard Bovet,\nGent.  (1684).","title":"Cock Lane and Common-Sense","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":96502}