{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19376/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19376","id":"gutenberg_19376","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19376","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Mediums -- Practice -- Great Britain","Parapsychology -- Investigation -- Great Britain","Piper, Leonora, 1859-1950","Spiritualism"],"text":"E-text prepared by Stacy Brown, Suzanne Lybarger, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nMRS PIPER & THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH\n\nTranslated & Slightly Abridged from the French of M. Sage\n\nBy Noralie Robertson\n\nWith a Preface by Sir Oliver Lodge\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nScott-Thaw Co.\nNew York\n1904\n\n\n\n\nPUBLISHER'S NOTE\n\n\nIt is obvious that such a body of men, pledged to impartial\ninvestigation, as the Society for Psychical Research could not\nofficially stand sponsor to the speculative comments of M. Sage, however\nadmittedly clear-sighted and philosophical that French critic may be.\n\nBut the publication of this translation has been actually desired and\nencouraged by many individuals in the Society, it has been revised\nthroughout by a member of their Council, and it is introduced to the\ngeneral reader by their President.\n\nThe Society, indeed, is prepared to accept M. Sage's volume as a\nfaithful and convenient _resume_ of experiments conducted under its own\nauspices, and so far as it contains statements of fact, these statements\nare quoted from authoritative sources. For the comments, deductions or\ncriticisms therein contained, the acute intellect of M. Sage is alone\nresponsible.\n\nIt remains only to state in detail the principles on which the original\ntext has been \"slightly abridged\" by the translator. No facts or\ncomments have been left out that bear directly on the main subject of\nthe book, the omissions are wholly of matters which might be regarded as\nsuperfluous for the understanding of the case of Mrs Piper. Occasionally\nparagraphs have been condensed, a tendency to vague theorising has been\nchecked throughout, and certain irrelevant matter has been altogether\nomitted. Such omissions are confined, indeed, to single sentences or\nparagraphs, with only the exception of a somewhat technical discussion\nof the Cartesian philosophy in Chapter XVII. It had at first been\nintended to omit the whole of Chapter XI., as containing only fanciful\nand non-evidential matter; but statements of this kind form an integral\npart of the communications, and so, on the whole, it was thought fairer\nto retain M. Sage's chapter on the subject, especially as it may be\nfound of popular interest.\n\nThe original appendix has been incorporated, after modifications, in\nChapter XII., since the incident here discussed was in progress as M.\nSage wrote and has since been closed. His conjectures as to its possible\ndevelopment are naturally omitted. Finally all references to the\n_Proceedings_ (or printed reports) of the Society itself have been\ncarefully verified. In every case the words of the reports themselves\nare given in preference to any re-rendering of M. Sage's translations.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                PAGE\n\nPreface by Sir Oliver Lodge                                       xi\n\nObjects of the Society                                           xix\n\n\nChapter I                                                          1\n\nMrs Piper's mediumship--Is mediumship a neurosis?\n\n\nChapter II                                                         7\n\nDr Richard Hodgson--Description of the trance--Mrs\nPiper not a good hypnotic subject.\n\n\nChapter III                                                       13\n\nEarly trances--Careful first observations by Professor\nWilliam James of Harvard University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.\n\n\nChapter IV                                                        20\n\nThe hypothesis of fraud--The hypothesis of\nmuscle-reading--\"Influence.\"\n\n\nChapter V                                                         27\n\nA sitting with Mrs Piper--The hypothesis of\nthought-transference--Incidents.\n\n\nChapter VI                                                        39\n\nPhinuit--His probable origin--His character--What\nhe says of himself--His French--His\nmedical diagnosis--Is he merely a secondary\npersonality of Mrs Piper?\n\n\nChapter VII                                                       52\n\nMiss Hannah Wild's letter--The first text given\nby Phinuit--Mrs Blodgett's sitting--Thought-reading\nexplains the case.\n\n\nChapter VIII                                                      65\n\nCommunications from persons having suffered\nin their mental faculties--Unexpected communications\nfrom unknown persons--The respect due\nto the communicators--Predictions--Communications\nfrom children.\n\n\nChapter IX                                                        77\n\nFurther consideration of the difficulties of the\nproblem--George Pelham--Development of the\nautomatic writing.\n\n\nChapter X                                                         87\n\nHow George Pelham has proved his identity--He\nrecognises his friends and alludes to their opinions--He\nrecognises objects which have belonged to\nhim--Asks that certain things should be done for\nhim--Very rarely makes an erroneous statement.\n\n\nChapter XI                                                        99\n\nGeorge Pelham's philosophy--The nature of the\nsoul--The first moments after death--Life in the\nnext world--George Pelham contradicts Stainton\nMoses--Space and time in the next world--How\nspirits see us--Means of communication.\n\n\nChapter XII                                                      117\n\nWilliam Stainton Moses--What George Pelham\nthinks of him--How Imperator and his assistants\nhave replaced Phinuit.\n\n\nChapter XIII                                                     126\n\nProfessor Hyslop and the journalists--The so-called\n\"confession\" of Mrs Piper--Precautions taken by Professor\nHyslop during his experiments--Impressions of the sittings.\n\n\nChapter XIV                                                      134\n\nThe communications of Mr Robert Hyslop--Peculiar\nexpressions--Incidents.\n\n\nChapter XV                                                       147\n\nThe \"influence\" again--Other incidents--Statistics.\n\n\nChapter XVI                                                      154\n\nExamination of the telepathic hypothesis--Some\narguments which render its acceptance difficult.\n\n\nChapter XVII                                                     161\n\nSome considerations which strongly support the\nspiritualistic hypothesis--Consciousness and\ncharacter remain unchanged--Dramatic play--Errors\nand confusions.\n\n\nChapter XVIII                                                    169\n\nDifficulties and objections--The identity of\nImperator--Vision at a distance--Triviality of the\nmessages--Spiritualist philosophy--Life in the\nother world.\n\n\nChapter XIX                                                      176\n\nThe medium's return to normal life--Speeches\nmade while the medium seems to hover between\nthe two worlds.\n\n\nChapter XX                                                       182\n\nEncouraging results obtained--The problem must be solved.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nBY THE\n\nPresident of the Society for Psychical Research\n\n\n_One of the facts which by general consent in the present stage of\npsychological science require study is the nature, and if possible the\ncause, of a special lucidity, a sensitiveness of perception, or\naccessibility to ideas appearing to arrive through channels other than\nusual organs of sense, which is sometimes met with among simple\npeople[1] in a rudimentary form, and in a more developed form in certain\nexceptional individuals. This lucidity may perhaps be regarded as a\nmodification or an exaggeration of the clearness of apprehension\noccasionally experienced by ordinary persons while immersed in a brown\nstudy, or while in the act of waking out of sleep, or when\nself-consciousness is for a time happily suspended._\n\n_In men of genius the phenomenon occurs in the most dignified form at\npresent known to us, and with them also it accompanies a lapse of\nordinary consciousness, at least to the extent that circumstances of\ntime and place and daily life become insignificant and trivial, or even\ntemporarily non-existent; but the notable thing is that a few persons,\nnot of genius at all, are liable to an access of something not\naltogether dissimilar, and exhibit a kind of lucidity or clairvoyant\nperceptivity, which, though doubtless of a lower grade, is of a\nwell-defined and readily-investigated type, during that state of\ncomplete lapse of consciousness known to us as a specific variety of\ntrance._\n\n_Not that all trance patients are lucid, any more than all brown studies\nresult in brilliant ideas; nor should it be claimed that some measure of\nlucidity, even of the ultra-normal kind now under consideration, cannot\nexist without complete bodily trance. The phenomenon called \"automatic\nwriting\" is an instance to the contrary,--when a hand liberated from\nordinary conscious control is found, automatically as it were, to be\nwriting sentences, sometimes beyond the knowledge of the person to whom\nthe hand belongs. Some approach to unconsciousness, however, either\ngeneral or local, seems essential to the access of the state, and such\nconditions as ordinarily induce reverie or sleep are suitable for\nbringing it on; no one, for instance, would expect to experience it\nwhile urgently occupied in affairs. Whether it is desirable to give way\nto so unpractical an attitude, and to encourage the influx of ideas\nthrough non-sensory channels, is another question which need not now\nconcern us. It suffices for us that the phenomenon exists, and that it\noccasionally though very rarely takes on so well marked and persistent a\nform as to lend itself to experimental investigation. It is true that in\nthese cases nothing of exceptional and world-compelling merit is\nproduced; the substance of the communication is often, though not\nalways, commonplace, and the form sometimes grotesque. It is true also\nthat a complete record of a conversation held under these\ncircumstances--perhaps a full record of a commonplace conversation held\nunder any circumstances--readily lends itself to cheap ridicule;\nnevertheless, the evidence of intimate knowledge thus displayed becomes\noften of extreme interest to the few persons for whom the disjointed\nutterances have a personal meaning, although to the outsider they must\nappear dull, unless he is of opinion that they help him to interpret the\nmore obscure workings of the human mind, or unless he thinks it possible\nthat the nature and meaning of inspiration in general may become better\nunderstood by a study of this, its lowest, but at the same time its most\ndefinite and controllable, form. Undoubtedly information is attainable\nunder these conditions from sources unknown, undoubtedly the entranced\nor semi-conscious body or part of a body has become a vehicle or medium\nfor ostensible messages from other intelligences, or for impersonations;\nbut the cause of the lucidity so exhibited, the nature of the channel by\nwhich the information is obtained, and the source of the information\nitself, are questions which, although they are apt to be treated glibly\nby a superficial critic, to whom they appear the most salient feature\nand the easiest of explanation, are really the most difficult of all._\n\n_It was to study such questions as this that a special society--the\nSociety for Psychical Research--was founded some twenty-two years ago._\n\n_Perhaps the most remarkable, and certainly the most thorough, of all\nthe investigations made under the auspices of this Society has been the\ncase of the American lady, Mrs Piper; which, begun in 1887, has\ncontinued ever since, with only such intervals as were necessitated by\nthe circumstances of the case. She was already known to the Professor of\nPsychology at Harvard and to some other American savants, but she was\nbrought to the notice of the leaders of the English Society by Dr\nRichard Hodgson, who has been for some years, and is still, acting as\nits representative in America, and Secretary of its American Branch. A\ncomplete record of the whole investigation has not yet been published,\nbut large portions of it have appeared from time to time in the\nProceedings of the Society._\n\n_It is not to be supposed that the case is unique by any means; on the\ncontrary, it may in some senses be regarded as typical, but its features\nare exceptionally well-marked, and the record has been more carefully\nand continuously kept than that of any other case. Accordingly, some\nemphasis has been given to it, and a general vague notion concerning the\ncase has diffused itself among educated persons beyond the limits of the\nSociety._\n\n_And indeed it is one of really general interest, since the hypothesis\nof fraud is entirely inapplicable to it, and in the opinion of the most\nsceptical critics who have made an adequate study of the case, no\nexplanation more commonplace than that of telepathy will bear\nexamination. Other critics--and these are they who have gone into the\nmatter most thoroughly--find the hypothesis of telepathy to be\ninsufficient, and hold that some further explanation is necessary.\nOpinions differ as to what that further explanation may be, and so far\nas I know it has not been scientifically formulated as yet. To me it\nappears probable that no one explanation will fit all the facts, and\nthat the subject is not yet ripe for theory. Working hypotheses must be\nmade, must be tested, and in all probability must be rejected, but our\nmain duty at the present stage is the careful examination and record of\nfacts. The working hypothesis most widely prevalent among the general\npublic, whether for the purpose of scoffing or for a foundation of\nbelief, is some crude form of the idea that the persistent intelligence\nof persons who have severed their connection with matter is willing, and\noccasionally even anxious, to take up temporarily the broken thread, and\nso to operate as to transmit, through any channel which may be open, to\nus who are still associated with planetary matter, messages which shall\nserve as a sign of their continued existence and affection; and that the\nbiological organism or part of an organism of a living but unconscious\nor semi-conscious person is an instrument which may, though with\ndifficulty, be utilised to that end._\n\n_It is easy to express this hypothesis in such a way that it is\nrepugnant to common sense. It may be possible hereafter to formulate it\nso that it shall correspond in some measure with the truth. But even\nthough it should turn out that intelligences can exist apart from the\nsurface of planets and the usual material concomitants, it by no means\nfollows that they must all at some period have been incarnate on the\nearth. The recognition of modes of existence differing greatly from our\nown, if it can ever be properly effected, will have an illuminating\nbearing on many fundamental problems of life and death; but this is not\nthe place to attempt to discuss such a question, even if the time were\nripe for the discussion at all._\n\n_The Society for Psychical Research, though it has now for some time\nstudied this among other questions, has arrived at no sort of agreement\nconcerning it; the only fact on which its members are generally agreed\nis as to the reality of some kind of telepathy, an apparently direct\ninfluence between mind and mind; and telepathy is no doubt an important\nfact, but it by no means follows that it is a master-key capable of\nfurnishing the solution of every variety of psychical problem. The chief\nwork of the Society has not been the construction of theories; it has\naccumulated and sifted a mass of evidence dealing with ultra-normal\nhuman faculty, it has published much material and criticism in its\nProceedings, has printed more in its private Journal, and its members\nhave written books. To these accessible sources of information students\ncan be referred._\n\n_But it is necessary to get some inkling of a subject before becoming a\nstudent of it--people have not time to read a tithe of what is printed;\nand inasmuch as many erroneous notions and misconceptions are prevalent,\neven among educated persons, concerning the method and motives of the\nSociety, as well as concerning its ascertained results, it occurred to\nthe Council that perhaps a more popular account of the outline of some\nof the facts, with abridged examples or illustrations of some of the\ndetails, might be of service in spreading the rudiments of a wider\nknowledge concerning at least one branch of a subject which must\ncertainly be of interest to the human race when it is rightly\napprehended._\n\n_A popular statement was perhaps the more desirable since a number of\ninsignificant bodies have recently sprung up, showing considerable\nenergy in the business of advertisement, assuming colourable imitations\nof our Society's designation, but having very different\nobjects--unscientific always, sometimes frankly pecuniary--so that it\nwas quite likely that a certain amount of confusion might occur._\n\n_The idea of the Council, in the first instance, was to have a short\npopular account or summary of the Piper case specially written by one of\ntheir own members; but it was brought to their notice that a French\nwriter had already issued a small book of a character not very different\nfrom that contemplated, and had steered his way cleverly through the\nintricacies of a subject bristling with difficulty below the surface and\nchoked with detail throughout; so it was thought best to utilise the\nskilful work of the French writer, and simply see to it that a faithful\ntranslation was made, only introducing changes in the direction of still\nfurther abbreviation occasionally._\n\n_This is the book for which I consented, though I admit with some\nmisgivings, to write a preface when it was ready to appear; and now that\nI see it in its English dress I find my misgivings justified._\n\n_The author speaks deprecatingly of his purpose in writing it,\ndescribing it as_ \"un modeste ouvrage de vulgarisation,\" _and thereby\ndisarms criticism, for, considered from this point of view, it is\nsuccessful; but I must guard not only myself but all other members of\nthe Council of the S.P.R. from any endorsement of the sentiments and\ncomments which M. Sage scatters somewhat liberally through his pages.\nTaken as they were intended in the original, they were not out of\nkeeping; they seemed to harmonise with the general tone and formed part\nof a consistent artistic scheme. Translated they appear less\nappropriate, but to omit them altogether would be to give the book a\ndifferent character, and probably to spoil it. As it stands, it is\nreadable, more readable than a profounder treatise would be. Let it\npass, therefore, as conveying to readers who have neither time nor\ninclination to enter upon a detailed study some conception of the most\nremarkable modern instance of the phenomenon to which I began by\nreferring--a phenomenon of which a better, but by no means yet a\ncomplete or final, treatment can be studied in the work of Mr Myers\ncalled_ Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death.\n\n_OLIVER LODGE._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Under the name \"Second Sight,\" for instance.\n\n\n\n\nOBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY\n\n\nThe Society for Psychical Research was founded at the beginning of 1882,\nfor the purpose of making an organised and systematic attempt to\ninvestigate various sorts of debatable phenomena which are _prima facie_\ninexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis. From the recorded\ntestimony of many competent witnesses, past and present, including\nobservations recently made by scientific men of eminence in various\ncountries, there appeared to be, amidst much illusion and deception, an\nimportant body of facts to which this description would apply, and which\ntherefore, if incontestably established, would be of the very highest\ninterest. The task of examining such residual phenomena had often been\nundertaken by individual effort, but never hitherto by a scientific\nsociety organised on a sufficiently broad basis. The following are the\nprincipal departments of work which the Society at present undertakes:--\n\n    1. An examination of the nature and extent of any influence which may\n    be exerted by one mind upon another, otherwise than through the\n    recognised sensory channels.\n\n    2. The study of hypnotism and mesmerism; and an inquiry into the\n    alleged phenomena of clairvoyance.\n\n    3. A careful investigation of any reports, resting on testimony\n    sufficiently strong and not too remote, of apparitions coinciding with\n    some external event (as for instance a death) or giving information\n    previously unknown to the percipient, or being seen by two or more\n    persons independently of each other.\n\n    4. An inquiry into various alleged phenomena apparently inexplicable by\n    known laws of nature, and commonly referred by Spiritualists to the\n    agency of extra-human intelligences.\n\n    5. The collection and collation of existing materials bearing on the\n    history of these subjects.\n\nThe aim of the Society is to approach these various problems without\nprejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact\nand unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many\nproblems, once not less obscure nor less hotly debated. The founders of\nthe Society have always fully recognised the exceptional difficulties\nwhich surround this branch of research; but they nevertheless believe\nthat by patient and systematic effort some results of permanent value\nmay be attained.\n\nInvestigating Committees (with the exception of the Committee for\nExperiments) are not appointed by the Council; but any group of Members\nand Associates may become an investigating Committee; and every such\nCommittee will, it is hoped, appoint an Honorary Secretary, and through\nhim report its proceedings to the Council from time to time.\n\nThe Council, if it accepts a report so made for presentation to the\nSociety, will be prepared to consider favourably any application on the\npart of the Committee for funds to assist in defraying the expenses of\nspecial experimental investigation.\n\nThe Council will also be glad to receive reports of investigation from\nindividual Members or Associates, or from persons unconnected with the\nSociety.[2]\n\nAny such report, or any other communication relating to the work of the\nSociety, should be addressed to Miss Alice Johnson (as Editor of the\n_Proceedings_ and _Journal_), 20 Hanover Square, London, W., or to J. G.\nPiddington, Esq., 87 Sloane Street, London, S.W.; or in America to Dr\nRichard Hodgson, 5 Boylston Place, Boston, Mass.\n\nMeetings of the Society, for the reading and discussion of papers, are\nheld periodically; and the papers then produced, with other matter, are,\nas a general rule, afterwards published in the _Proceedings_.\n\nThe Proceedings of the Society may be obtained directly from the\nSecretary, 20 Hanover Square, London, W., or from the Secretary of the\nAmerican Branch, or from any bookseller, through Mr R. Brimley Johnson,\n4 Adam Street, Adelphi, London, W.C.\n\nA Monthly Journal (from October to July inclusive) is also issued to\nMembers and Associates. The Journal contains evidence freshly received\nin different branches of the inquiry, which is thus rendered available\nfor consideration, and for discussion by correspondence, before\nselections from it are put forward in a more public manner.\n\nThe Council, in inviting the adhesion of Members, think it desirable to\nquote a preliminary Note, which appeared on the first page of the\nConstitution of the original Society, and which still holds good.\n\n    \"Note.--To prevent misconception, it is here expressly stated that\n    Membership of the Society does not imply the acceptance of any\n    particular explanation of the phenomena investigated, nor any belief as\n    to the operation, in the physical world, of forces other than those\n    recognised by Physical Science.\"\n\n\nConditions of Membership.\n\nThe conditions of Membership are thus defined in Articles 11-18:--\n\n    The Society shall consist of: (_a_) _Members_, who shall subscribe two\n    guineas annually, or make a single payment of twenty guineas, (_b_)\n    _Associates_, who shall subscribe one guinea annually, or make a single\n    payment of ten guineas.\n\n    All Members and Associates of the Society shall be elected by the\n    Council. Every candidate for admission shall be required to give such\n    references as shall be approved by the Council, and shall be proposed\n    in writing by two or more Members or Associates.\n\n    All subscriptions shall become payable immediately upon election, and\n    subsequently on the first day of January in each year. In the case of\n    any Member or Associate elected on or after the 1st October, his\n    subscription shall be accepted as for the next following year.\n\n    Article 22 provides that if any Member or Associate desire to resign,\n    he shall give written notice thereof to the Secretary. He shall,\n    however, be liable for all subscriptions which shall then remain\n    unpaid.\n\n    Ladies are eligible either as Members or Associates.\n\n\nPrivileges of Membership.\n\nArticles 19 and 20 provide that Members and Associates are eligible to\nany of the offices of the Society, and are entitled to the free receipt\nboth of the _Proceedings_ and of the _Journal_, to the use of Library\nbooks in the Society's rooms, and to attend all the General Meetings of\nthe Society, to which they are also allowed to invite friends. They are\nfurther entitled to purchase the _Proceedings_ of the Society issued\nprevious to their joining it,--and also additional copies of any Part or\nVolume,--at half their published price.\n\nMembers have the additional privileges of borrowing books from the\nLibrary, and of voting in the election of the Council, and at all\nmeetings of the Society.\n\nA contents sheet of the whole series of _Proceedings_ may be had on\napplication to the Secretary, 20 Hanover Square, London, W.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] Any reports or papers which may be printed in the _Proceedings_ will\nbecome the Society's property; but author or authors will be entitled to\nreceive 50 copies of any such report or paper gratis, and additional\ncopies, if required, at a small charge.\n\n\n\n\nMrs Piper\n\nand the\n\nSociety for Psychical Research\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMrs Piper's mediumship--Is mediumship a neurosis?\n\n\nMrs Piper is what the spiritualists call a _medium_, and what the\nEnglish psychologists call an automatist, which is to say, a person who\nappears at times to lend her organism to beings imperceptible to our\nsenses, in order to enable them to manifest themselves to us. I say that\nit appears to be thus, not that it is so. It is difficult for many\nreasons to admit the existence of these problematical beings. We shall\ndeny it or remain sceptical till the day comes when the evidence proves\ntoo strong for us.\n\nMrs Piper's mediumship is one of the most perfect which has ever been\ndiscovered. In any case, it is the one which has been the most\nperseveringly, lengthily and carefully studied by highly competent men.\nMembers of the Society for Psychical Research have studied the phenomena\npresented by Mrs Piper during fifteen consecutive years. They have\ntaken all the precautions necessitated by the strangeness of the case,\nthe circumstances, and the surrounding scepticism; they have faced and\nminutely weighed all hypotheses. In future the most orthodox\npsychologists will be unable to ignore these phenomena when constructing\ntheir systems; they will be compelled to examine them and find an\nexplanation for them, which their preconceived ideas will sometimes\nrender it difficult to do.\n\nPraise and warm gratitude are due to the men who have studied the case\nof Mrs Piper. But we owe no less to Mrs Piper, who has lent herself to\nthe investigations with perfect good faith and pliability. None of those\nwho have had any continued intercourse with her have a shadow of doubt\nof her sincerity. She has not taken the view that she was exercising a\nnew kind of priesthood; she has understood that she was an interesting\nanomaly for science, and she has allowed science to study her. A vulgar\nsoul would not have done this. Her example, and also that of Mlle.\nSmith, of whom Professor Flournoy has lately written,[3] deserve to be\nfollowed. If the strange phenomena of mediumship have not yet been\nsufficiently studied by as many persons as could be wished, scientific\nmen are chiefly to blame for the fact. Many of them regard with\ndisfavour facts which upset painfully-erected systems on which they have\nrelied for years. But the mediums are also to blame, for their vanity is\nsometimes great, and their sincerity frequently doubtful.\n\nMrs Piper is American. Her husband is employed in a large shop in\nBoston. Although of a home-loving disposition, Mrs Piper has travelled;\nshe has several times consented to leave her ordinary surroundings in\norder to prevent all suspicion of fraud; she has given sittings in New\nYork and other places, and has paid a three months' visit to England.\n\nHer education does not appear to have been carried very far. She has\ndoubtless read much, like all American women, but without method, and\nprobably very superficially. Her language is commonplace, sometimes even\ntrivial, but the records do not give me the impression that she is\nreally trivial-minded; language may be trivial when ideas are not. On\nthe whole, Mrs Piper's personality is attractive.\n\nThe point which naturally interests the man of science, and particularly\nthe doctor, is the state of health and the morbid heredity of Mrs Piper.\nWe have very insufficient information about these. I can find no\ncircumstantial report on this important matter anywhere. Mrs Piper was\nrather seriously ill in 1890; a doctor attended her for several\nconsecutive months; this gentleman was also present at a sitting she\ngave on the 4th December of this same year, 1890. It is evident that he\nwas in a position to study Mrs Piper closely. Dr Hodgson asked him for a\nreport, which would have been appended to the other documents. But this\ndoctor had the wisdom of the serpent. He promised, but changed his mind,\nand absolutely refused to furnish any report whatever. Dr Hodgson asked\nthe subject a series of questions with the object of ascertaining the\nstate of health of her immediate ancestors, particularly from the\nneuropathic point of view. She belongs to a family which appears to have\nbeen very healthy and not in any way subject to nervous maladies.\n\nMrs Piper's own general state of health is even more interesting to our\ninquiry than that of her ancestors, since most doctors persist in seeing\nin mediumship a neurosis, sister or cousin to hysteria or epilepsy.\n\nIt is undeniable that many mediums present some physiological\npeculiarity or other. Eusapia Paladino, for example, has a depression of\nthe left parietal bone. But, on the other hand, Mlle. Smith of Geneva,\nwho has been studied by Professor Flournoy, seems to enjoy health as\ngood as anybody's--even flourishing health. Perhaps, if a thorough\nsearch were made, some defect might be discovered, but the person who\nshould not betray some inherited peculiarity probably could not be\nfound.\n\nAs far as Mrs Piper is concerned, she seems to have enjoyed\nirreproachable health till towards 1882 or 1883. The exact date is not\nstated. About that time she suffered from a tumour, caused by a blow\nfrom a sledge, and she feared cancer. This illness brought about the\ndiscovery of her mediumship. Up to this time absolutely nothing abnormal\nhad occurred to her. Her husband's parents had had, in 1884, a sitting\nwith a medium which had much impressed them. They frequently advised\ntheir daughter-in-law to take the advice of some medium who gave medical\nconsultations. To please them, she went to a blind medium named J. R.\nCocke, and there she had her first loss of consciousness or \"trance.\"\nBut we shall return to this.\n\nIt is to be concluded that the prescription of the medium had no more\ninfluence on the disease than those of ordinary doctors, for this tumour\ncontinued to make Mrs Piper's health rather precarious for a long time.\nShe only decided in 1893 to undergo a surgical operation--laparotomy. No\ncomplications resulted from it, and her convalescence was rapid.\nHowever, in 1895, the after-effect of this operation was a serious\nhernia, which necessitated a second operation in February 1896. She only\nrecovered thoroughly in October of the same year.\n\nMany persons will be disposed to believe that Mrs Piper's tumour is the\nexplanation of her mediumship, particularly as the mediumship only\nappeared after the tumour. It is rather difficult to prove them wrong.\nThere is, however, a fact which seems to indicate that they would be\nmistaken. When Mrs Piper is ill, her mediumship decreases or becomes\nless lucid; she only furnishes incoherent, fragmentary, or quite false\ncommunications. The syncope or \"trance,\" which is easy when she is well,\nbecomes difficult or even impossible when she is ill. Her health has\nbeen good since her last operation, the syncopes are easy, and the\ncommunications obtained in this state have acquired a degree of\ncoherence and plausibility which was previously wanting.\n\nIf, then, Mrs Piper's mediumship was the result of illness, it is\nstrange that her recovery should have favoured the development and\nperfecting of this same mediumship. There appears to be a contradiction\nhere. I am not competent regarding the question, but, on examining the\nfacts, I can hardly believe that mediumship is a mere neurosis. After\nall, are there not famous men of science who declare that genius itself\nis only a neurosis? In their eyes the bandit is only a sick man; but the\ngenius also is only a sick man.\n\nIf it is true that the best and worst in humanity are only opposite\nfaces of the same medal, we should be tempted to think mankind even more\npitiable than we have hitherto believed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] _Des Indes a la Planete Mars; etude sur un cas de somnambulisme_, by\nTh. Flournoy. Pub. Alcan, Paris.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nDr Richard Hodgson--Description of the trance--Mrs Piper not a good\nhypnotic subject.\n\n\nBefore proceeding further, I must ask my readers' permission to\nintroduce Dr Hodgson, the man who has studied Mrs Piper's case with the\ngreatest care and with the most perseverance. Dr Richard Hodgson went to\nAmerica expressly to observe this medium, and during some fifteen years\nhe has, so to say, hardly lost sight of her for a moment. All the\npersons who have had sittings for a long time past have passed through\nhis hands; he introduces them by assumed names, and takes all possible\nprecautions that Mrs Piper, in her normal state, shall not obtain any\ninformation about them. These precautions are now superfluous. Mrs Piper\nhas never had recourse to fraud, and everyone is thoroughly convinced of\nthe fact. But the slightest relaxation of supervision would lay the most\ndecisive experiments open to suspicion.\n\nDr Hodgson is one of the earliest workers for the Society for Psychical\nResearch. He has been a terrible enemy to fraud all his life. At the\ntime of the formation of the Society, Mme. Blavatsky, foundress of the\nTheosophical Society, was making herself much talked about. The most\nextraordinary phenomena were supposed to have occurred at the\nTheosophical Society's headquarters in India. Dr Hodgson was sent there\nto study them impartially. He quickly made the discovery that the whole\naffair was charlatanry and sleight-of-hand. On his return to England he\nwrote a report--which has not killed Theosophy, because even new-born\nreligions have strong vitality--but which has discredited this doctrine\nfor ever in the eyes of thoughtful people.\n\nAfter this master stroke, Dr Hodgson continued to hunt down fraudulent\nmediums. He learned all their tricks, and acquired a conjurer's skill.\nIt was he again who discovered the unconscious[4] frauds of Eusapia\nPaladino during the sittings which this Italian medium gave at\nCambridge. When such a man, after long study of Mrs Piper's phenomena,\naffirms their validity, we may believe him. He is not credulous, nor an\nenthusiast, nor a mystic. I have written of him somewhat at length,\nbecause, by force of circumstances, his name will often appear in these\npages.\n\nTo return to Mrs Piper and the phenomena which specially interest us.\nMrs Piper falls into trance spontaneously, without the intervention of\nany magnetiser. I shall explain later, at length, what must be\nunderstood by \"trance.\"\n\nProfessor Charles Richet was one of the persons who had a sitting with\nour medium while she was staying at Cambridge. He describes the trance\nin these terms:--\n\n\"She is obliged to hold someone's hand in order to go into a trance. She\nholds the hand several minutes, silently, in half-darkness. After some\ntime--from five to fifteen minutes--she is seized with slight spasmodic\nconvulsions, which increase, and terminate in a very slight epileptiform\nattack. Passing out of this, she falls into a state of stupor, with\nsomewhat stertorous breathing; this lasts about a minute or two; then,\nall at once, she comes out of the stupor with a burst of words. Her\nvoice is changed; she is no longer Mrs Piper, but another personage, Dr\nPhinuit, who speaks in a loud, masculine voice in a mingling of negro\npatois, French, and American dialect.\"\n\nSir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., well-known among English men of science, and\nat the time Professor of Physics at Liverpool, describes the opening of\nthe trance in very nearly the same words as Professor Richet in the\nremarkable report which he published in 1890 on the sittings he had with\nMrs Piper. He also notices the slight epileptiform attack, although he\nadds that he is not \"pretending to speak medically.\"[5]\n\nThe Phinuit personality, of which Professor Richet speaks in the passage\nabove quoted, is what the Spiritualists call a \"control.\" By \"control\"\nis meant the mysterious being who is supposed to have temporarily taken\npossession of the organism of the medium. Are these controls only\nsecondary personalities, or are they, as they themselves declare,\ndisincarnated human spirits, spirits of dead men who come back to\ncommunicate with us by using an entranced organism as a machine? In\neither case they must have a name. Phinuit has been one of Mrs Piper's\nprincipal controls, but he is far from having been the only one. On the\ncontrary, they have been legion, and, what is strange, these controls\nappear to be personalities as distinct from each other as possible, each\nwith his own style of language, his belief, his opinions, his tricks of\nspeech or manner.\n\nMrs Piper's trance has changed its aspect a little with the development\nand perfecting of her mediumship. Formerly the controls communicated\nonly by using her voice; then some of them began to write. In some of\nthe sittings one personality communicated through the voice, while\nanother, entirely different, and speaking of utterly different matters,\ncommunicated simultaneously in writing. For some years now the controls\nhave only communicated in writing, and have used the right hand only.\nThe right arm of the medium is in lively movement, while the rest of her\nbody lies inert, leaning forward upon cushions.\n\nIn a long report which has just appeared,[6] Mr James Hyslop, Professor\nof Logic and Ethics at the University of Columbia, in the State of New\nYork, describes the beginning of the trance in detail as it now takes\nplace. At the first sitting he had with Mrs Piper he seated himself more\nthan a yard from her, in a position which enabled him to observe\nattentively all that happened.\n\nThe medium remained quietly seated in an armchair for three or four\nminutes. Then her head shook and her right eyebrow twitched; all this\ntime she was trimming her nails. She then leant forward on the cushions\nwhich had been placed on the table for her head to rest upon, and closed\nand rubbed her eyes; her face was slightly congested for some instants.\nShe opened her eyes again, and the ocular globes were visible, slightly\nupturned; she blew her nose, and began to attend to her nails again. Her\ngaze became slightly fixed. Her face once more changed; the redness\ndisappeared, and she grew slightly pale. The muscles relaxed, the mouth\nwas a little drawn on one side, and the stare became more fixed. Finally\nher mouth opened and the trance came on gently, like a fainting fit,\nwithout struggle. Then Dr Hodgson arranged her head on the cushions with\nher right cheek on her left hand, so that her face was turned to the\nleft, and she was unable to see her right hand, which soon began to\nwrite automatically.\n\nDuring the trance the sensibility of Mrs Piper's organism to exterior\nexcitation is much blunted. If her arm is pricked, even severely, it is\nwithdrawn but slowly; if a bottle of ammonia is put to her nostrils, and\ncare is taken that it is inhaled, her head does not betray sensation by\nthe least movement. One day, if I am not mistaken, Dr Hodgson put a\nlighted match to her arm, and asked Phinuit if he felt it.[7]\n\n\"Yes,\" replied Phinuit, \"but not much, you know. What is it? Something\ncold, isn't it?\"\n\nThese and numerous other experiments show that if sensibility is not\nabolished, it is at least very much blunted.\n\nIt might be concluded from the above that Mrs Piper would be an\nexcellent hypnotic subject. She is nothing of the kind. Without being\nprecisely refractory to hypnotism, she is only an indifferently good\nhypnotic subject. Professor William James of Harvard has made\nexperiments to elucidate this point. His two first attempts to hypnotise\nMrs Piper were entirely fruitless. Between the second and third,\nProfessor William James asked Phinuit, during a mediumistic trance, to\nbe kind enough to help him to make the subject hypnotisable. Phinuit\npromised; in fact, he always promises all that is asked. At the third\nattempt Mrs Piper fell slightly asleep, but only at the fifth sitting\nwas there a real hypnotic sleep, accompanied by the usual automatic and\nmuscular phenomena. But it was impossible to obtain anything more.\nHypnosis and trance, in Mrs Piper, have no points of resemblance. In the\ntrance, muscular mobility is extreme. In hypnosis, just the contrary is\nthe case. If she is ordered during hypnosis to remember what she has\nsaid or done, she remembers. During the trance, the control has more\nthan once been asked to arrange that Mrs Piper should recall, on waking,\nwhat she had said; but this has never succeeded. During the mediumistic\ntrance she seems to read the deepest recesses of the souls of those\npresent like a book. During hypnosis there is no trace of this\nthought-reading. In short, the mediumistic trance and the hypnotic sleep\nare not one and the same thing. Whatever may be the real nature of the\ndifference, this difference is so great that it strikes the least\nattentive observer at once.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] In the opinion of the chief witnesses of the Cambridge sittings the\nfrauds of Eusapia Paladino were not unconscious. Mr Myers said, in the\nreport to the Society immediately after the sittings:--\"I cannot doubt\nthat we observed much conscious and deliberate fraud, of a kind which\nmust have needed long practice to bring it to its present level of\nskill.\"--_Journal of Society for Psychical Research_ for 1895, p. 133,\n_Trans._\n\n[5] _Proc. of the S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 444.\n\n[6] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi.\n\n[7] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 5.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nEarly trances--Careful first observations by Professor William James of\nHarvard University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.\n\n\nI have already explained on what occasion Mrs Piper had her first\ntrance. Suffering from a traumatic tumour, she had gone to ask advice of\na blind medium named Cocke. This medium gave medical consultations, but\nhe also asserted that he had the power of developing latent mediumship.\nAt this first sitting Mrs Piper felt very strange thrills, and thought\nshe was going to faint. At the following sitting Mr Cocke put his hands\non her head. She felt at once that she was on the point of losing\nconsciousness. She saw a flood of light, as well as unrecognised human\nfaces, and a hand which fluttered before her face. She does not remember\nwhat happened afterwards. But when she woke she was told that a young\nIndian girl named _Chlorine_ had manifested through her organism, and\nhad given a remarkable proof of survival after death to a person who\nhappened to be present.\n\nMrs Piper was therefore really a medium. Her personal friends\nimmediately began to arrange sittings with her. Little by little\nstrangers were admitted to this private circle. Various self-styled\nspirits communicated by her means in the earlier days. Phinuit, who\nlater took almost sole possession of Mrs Piper's organism, was far from\nbeing alone at first; his place was disputed. The first controls, if\nthey themselves are to be believed, were the actress Mrs Siddons, the\nmusician John Sebastian Bach, the poet Longfellow, Commodore Vanderbilt\nthe multi-millionaire, and a young Italian girl named Loretta Ponchini.\n\nAt the outset Dr Phinuit, when he appeared, confined himself to\ndiagnosing and giving medical advice. He thought everything else beneath\nhim.\n\nAt last, one evening, John Sebastian Bach announced that he and all his\ncompanions were about to concentrate their power on Dr Phinuit, and make\nhim the principal control. Naturally we do not know what they did, but\nit is certain that from that time Dr Phinuit became so much the\nprincipal control that he had almost sole possession of Mrs Piper's\norganism for years. As we shall see, he ceased to confine himself to\ngiving medical consultations. He willingly replied to all questions\naddressed to him, and he even talked readily on all sorts of subjects\nwithout being questioned at all.\n\nThe first person of educated intelligence who had an opportunity to\nexamine and study, although somewhat summarily, Mrs Piper's trance\nphenomena, was Professor William James of Harvard University. In 1886 he\nmade a brief report of them, which he published in the _Proceedings of\nthe American Society for Psychical Research_. Professor James did not at\nfirst recognise all the importance of the Piper case. No shorthand\nreport of the sittings was made, and he did not even take complete\nnotes. However, he assured himself that fraud had nothing to do with the\nphenomena, but without taking all the minute precautions which others\nhave since taken. He satisfied himself that here was an interesting\nmystery, and says so in his report, but he left the charge of looking\nfor the key to others. But I shall give an account of the sittings of\nProfessor James, in the first place because it would be improper to\nneglect even the superficial studies of a man of such eminence, and\nsecondly, because they will give my readers a clear idea of the\nphenomena.[8]\n\nProfessor James made Mrs Piper's acquaintance in the autumn of 1885 in\nthe following way. His mother-in-law, Mrs Gibbens, had heard a friend\nspeak of Mrs Piper, and as she had never seen a medium, she asked for a\nsitting out of curiosity. Mrs Gibbens, who went sceptical, returned\nrather impressed. She had heard a number of private details which she\nbelieved were unknown outside her family. On the day following Professor\nJames's sister-in-law went in her turn to see Mrs Piper, and obtained\neven better results than her mother. For example, the inquirer had\nplaced a letter in Italian on the medium's forehead. It must be observed\nthat Mrs Piper is entirely ignorant of that language. Nevertheless,\nPhinuit gave a number of perfectly correct details about the writer of\nthe letter. The mystery became interesting, as the young Italian who had\nwritten it was only known to two people in the whole United States.\nLater on, at other sittings, Phinuit gave the exact name of this young\nman, which he had been unable to do at first.\n\nProfessor James's attitude when these facts were related to him can be\nimagined. He did what most of us do, or have done. He played the _esprit\nfort_, joked his relatives about their credulity, and thought that women\nwere decidedly deficient in critical spirit. His curiosity was none the\nless awakened. Some days after, in the company of his wife, and having\ntaken all possible precautions that Mrs Piper should not know his name\nor intentions beforehand, he went and asked her for a sitting. Intimate\ndetails, principally about Mrs James's family, were repeated. Others\neven more circumstantial were given. What was the least easily obtained\nwas just what could have been learned with the greatest facility if Mrs\nPiper had acquired these details fraudulently or by normal means,\nnamely, proper names. Professor James was the first to notice a fact\nwhich a large number of observers have since remarked. The impression\nthat the names are shouted to Phinuit by a spirit is unavoidable.\nPhinuit, who is to transmit them, hears imperfectly, doubtless on\naccount of his position, which all the controls describe as very\nuncomfortable and painful--the organism of the medium seems to plunge\nthe controls into a semi-somnolence.\n\nThus Phinuit mangles the names he repeats. It appears that the\ncommunicating spirit is conscious of this and corrects. Phinuit repeats\nthe name thus several times, and very often only succeeds in giving it\nexactly after several attempts. It even sometimes happens that a name\ncannot be given all at a sitting, but then it is generally given at a\nsubsequent one.\n\nThus, at this first sitting of Professor James, the name of his\nfather-in-law, _Gibbens_, was first given as _Niblin_, and then as\n_Giblin_. Professor James had lost a child a year before. He was\nmentioned, and his name, _Herman_, was given as _Herrin_. But the\ndetails which accompanied the enunciation of the name prevented mistake,\non the part of the sitters, about the person intended.\n\nProfessor James brought away from this first sitting the conclusion that\nunless Mrs Piper, by some chance inexplicable to him, knew his own and\nhis wife's families intimately, she must be possessed of supernormal\npowers. In short, his first scepticism was shaken, and he had twelve\nfurther sittings with Mrs Piper in the course of the winter. Moreover,\nhe obtained circumstantial details from relatives and friends who\nlikewise had sittings.\n\nThe following are some examples of Phinuit's clairvoyance.[9]\n\nProfessor James's mother-in-law had, on her return from Europe, lost her\nbank-book. At a sitting held soon afterwards Phinuit was asked if he\ncould help her to find it. He told her exactly where it was, and there\nit was found.\n\nAt another sitting, Phinuit said to Professor James, who this time was\nnot accompanied by Mrs James, \"Your child has a boy named Robert F. as a\nplayfellow in our world.\" The Fs. were cousins of Mrs James, who lived\nin a distant town.\n\nOn returning home Professor James said to his wife, \"Your cousins the\nFs. have lost a child, haven't they? But Phinuit made a mistake about\nthe sex; he said it was a boy.\" Mrs James confirmed the perfect\nexactness of Phinuit's information; her husband had been wrong.\n\nAt the second sitting which Mrs Gibbens had she was told among other\nthings that one of her daughters, mentioned by name, had at the time a\nbad pain in her back, to which she was by no means subject. The detail\nwas found to be exact.\n\nOn another occasion Phinuit announced to Mrs James and her brother,\nbefore the arrival of any telegram, the death of their aunt, which had\njust occurred in New York. It is true that this death was momentarily\nexpected.\n\nAt another sitting Phinuit said to Professor James, \"You have just\nkilled a grey and white cat with ether. The wretched animal spun round\nand round a long time before dying.\" This was quite true.\n\nPhinuit, again, told Mrs James that her aunt in New York, the one whose\ndeath he had announced, had written her a letter warning her against all\nkinds of mediums. And he sketched the old lady's character, not very\nrespectfully, in a most amusing way.\n\nI quote these examples to give an idea of the kind of information\nfurnished by Mrs Piper's controls. But it must not be believed that this\nis all. The controls do not need to be entreated to speak. Phinuit is\nparticularly loquacious, and he often talks for an hour on end. His\nremarks are frequently incoherent, and often also obviously false. But,\nat the very least, in the good sittings, truthfulness and exactitude\nmuch preponderate, whatever may be the source from which Phinuit\nobtains his facts; whether he gets them from disincarnated spirits, as\nhe asserts; whether he reads them in the consciousness or\nsub-consciousness of the sitter, or whether they are furnished him by\nwhat he calls the \"influence\" which the persons to whom the objects\npresented to him belonged have left upon them.\n\nI have forgotten to say that Phinuit asks to have brought to him objects\nof some sort which have belonged to the persons about whom he is\nconsulted. He feels the objects, and says at once, \"I feel the influence\nof such-a-one; he is dead or he is alive; such a thing has happened to\nhim.\" Detail follows on detail, for the most part exact.\n\nAs I have already said when speaking of Professor James, Phinuit showed\nintimate knowledge of Mrs James's family. Now, there were no members of\nthe family in the neighbourhood; some were dead, others in California,\nand others in the State of Maine.\n\nWhat I have said will suffice to give the reader a first idea of the\ngeneral features of the phenomena. I shall be able in future, while\nreporting the facts, to examine as I proceed the hypotheses which they\nsuggest.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 651.\n\n[9] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 657.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nThe hypothesis of fraud--The hypothesis of muscle reading--\"Influence.\"\n\n\nWhen phenomena of this nature are related, the first hypothesis that\noccurs to the reader's mind is that of fraud. The medium is an impostor.\nHis trick may be ingenious and carefully dissimulated, but it is\ncertainly merely a trick. Therefore, in order to pursue these studies\nwith any good results, this hypothesis must be disposed of once for all.\nNow this is not easy. Most men are so made that they have a high opinion\nof their own perspicuity, but a very unfavourable one generally of that\nof other men. They always believe that if they had been there they could\nhave quickly discovered the imposture. Consequently, no precaution must\nbe omitted; all safeguards must be employed, and it will be seen that\nthe observers of Mrs Piper's phenomena have not neglected to do this.\n\nProfessor James concealed the identity of as many as he could of the\nsitters whom he introduced to Mrs Piper. Personally, he was soon\nconvinced that fraud had nothing to do with the phenomena. But the point\nwas to convince others. It occured to a member of the Society for\nPsychical Research that it would be a good plan to cause Mrs Piper to\nbe followed by detectives when she went out, and not only herself, but\nall the other members of her family. A singular idea, in my opinion.\nHowever, if detectives had not been employed, many people would even\nto-day believe that it would be possible to clear up the Piper mystery\nin a very short time, in the most natural way in the world. This is why\nDr Hodgson, on his arrival in America, set detectives on the tracks of\nMr and Mrs Piper. Absolutely nothing was discovered; Mr and Mrs Piper\nasked nobody indiscreet questions, made no suspicious journeys, did not\nvisit cemeteries to read the names on graves. Finally, Mrs Piper, whose\ncorrespondence is at all times limited, received no letters from\nIntelligence Agencies.\n\nLater on, the method taken to make sure of her good faith was revealed\nto Mrs Piper. She was not at all offended; on the contrary, she saw how\nabsolutely legitimate was the precaution. This is another proof of her\nuprightness and intelligence.\n\nAgain, the idea that Mrs Piper could obtain the information she gives by\nmeans of inquiries made abroad is _a priori_ absurd to anyone who has\nstudied the phenomena with any care. Her sitters, whom she received\nunder assumed names, to the number of several hundreds, came from all\npoints of the United States, from England, and even from other parts of\nEurope. The greater number passed through the hands of Professor James\nand Dr Hodgson, and all necessary precautions were taken that Mrs Piper\nshould see them for the first time only a few moments before the\ncommencement of the trance. Indeed, they were often only introduced\nafter the trance had begun. These precautions have never injured the\nresults. The sittings, at least those which were not spoilt by the\nmedium's state of health, have always been marked by a large number of\nperfectly accurate details.\n\nIf Mrs Piper obtained the information through spies in her employment,\nthese spies would be obliged to send her private details about all the\nfamilies in the United States and Europe, since she hardly ever knows to\nwhom she will give a sitting the next day. Dr Hodgson arranges for her.\nFormerly Professor James did this, at least in a large number of cases.\nNow the scientific honesty of Dr Hodgson or Professor James (I mention\nthis only for foreign readers who may not be acquainted with the\nreputation of these two gentlemen) can no more be suspected than that of\na Charcot, a Berthelot, or a Pasteur. Then, what interest could they\nhave in deceiving us? These experiments had cost them considerable sums,\nnot to speak of time and trouble; they have never profited by them.\n\nAgain, Mrs Piper is without fortune. She would not have the means to pay\nsuch a police as she would need. She is paid for her sittings, it is\ntrue; she gains about two hundred pounds a year, but such a police\nservice would cost her thousands. But there was an excellent way of\nputting the hypothesis of fraud out of question; it was to take Mrs\nPiper out of her habitual environment, to a country where she knew\nnobody. This was done. Certain members of the Society for Psychical\nResearch invited her to England, to give sittings in their houses. She\nconsented without any difficulty. She arrived in England on 19th\nNovember 1889, _on_ the Cunard Company's steamer _Scythia_. Frederic\nMyers, whose recent loss is deplored by psychology, should have gone to\nthe docks and have taken her to his house at Cambridge. But at the last\nmoment he was called to Edinburgh, and asked his friend, Professor\nOliver Lodge, of whom we have already spoken, to receive Mrs Piper in\nhis stead. Professor Lodge installed her in an hotel with her two little\ngirls who came with her. The same evening Mr Myers arrived, and took her\nto his house next day.\n\nExperiments at Cambridge began at once. This is what Mr Myers says about\nthem:--[10]\n\n\"I am convinced that Mrs Piper, on her arrival in England, brought with\nher a very slender knowledge of English affairs or English people. The\nservant who attended on her and on her two young children was chosen by\nmyself, and was a young woman from a country village whom I had full\nreason to believe both trustworthy and also quite ignorant of my own or\nmy friends' affairs. For the most part I had myself not determined upon\nthe persons whom I would invite to sit with her. I chose these sitters\nin great measure by chance; several of them were not resident in\nCambridge, and except in one or two cases, where anonymity would have\nbeen hard to preserve, I brought them to her under false names,\nsometimes introducing them only when the trance had already begun.\"\n\nProfessor Oliver Lodge in his turn invited Mrs Piper to come and give\nsittings at his home in Liverpool. She went, and remained from 18th\nDecember to 27th December 1889. During this time she gave at least two\nsittings a day, which fatigued her much. Professor Lodge gave up for the\ntime all other work to study her. He enumerates at length all the\nprecautions he took to prevent fraud. He also declares that Mrs Piper,\nwho was perfectly aware of the watch kept upon her, never showed the\nleast displeasure, and thought it quite natural. He wondered whether, by\nchance, she might not have among her luggage some book containing\nbiographies of men of the day, and asked permission to look through her\ntrunks. She consented with the best possible grace. But Professor Lodge\nfound nothing suspicious. Mrs Piper also handed over to be read the\ngreater number of the letters she received; they were not numerous;\nabout three a week. The servants in the house were all new; they knew\nnothing of the family's private affairs, and thus could not inform the\nmedium about them. Besides, Mrs Piper never tried to question them. Mrs\nLodge, who was very sceptical at first, kept guard over her own speech,\nso as not to give any scraps of information. The family Bible (on the\nfirst pages of which, according to custom, memorable events are\nrecorded) and the photographic albums were locked away. Professor Lodge,\nlike the others, presented most of his sitters under false names.\nFinally, he affirms that Mrs Piper's attitude never justified the least\nsuspicion; she was dignified, reserved, and not in any way indiscreet.\n\nIn short, during the fifteen years the experiments have continued, all\nthe suggestions made by sceptical and sometimes violent objectors have\nbeen kept in view, that the fraud might be discovered, if fraud there\nwere. All has been in vain. The explanation of the phenomena must\nconsequently be sought elsewhere.\n\nAs for the trance itself, all those who have seen it agree in saying\nthat it is genuine and in no way feigned.\n\nThe hypothesis of fraud being disposed of, recourse has been had to\nanother, which it has also become necessary to abandon--that of the\nreading of muscular movements. It appears that the thought-readers who\nexhibit themselves on the platform accomplish their wonderful feats by\ninterpreting, with remarkable intelligence, sharpened by long practice,\nthe unconscious movements of the persons whose wrists they are holding.\n\nNow it is true that formerly Mrs Piper became entranced while holding\nboth hands, or at least one hand, of the sitter. She kept their hands in\nhers during most of the trance. But Professor Lodge says this was far\nfrom being always the case. She often dropped the sitter's hands and\nlost contact with them for half an hour at a time. Phinuit, or some\nother control, nevertheless continued to furnish exact information.\nShall we say that while he was holding hands he had laid in a provision\nof knowledge for the whole half-hour? Seriously we cannot.\n\nBut as this objection had often been made, the sitters endeavoured to\navoid contact with the medium. For a long time Mrs Piper has fallen into\nthe trance without holding anyone's hand. Her whole body reposes,\nplunged in a deep sleep, except the right hand, which writes with giddy\nrapidity and only rarely endeavours to touch the persons present.\nProfessor Hyslop, in the report which has just appeared,[11] affirms\nthat he avoided the slightest contact with the medium with all possible\ncare, and yet we shall see farther on how exact were the facts he\nobtained, since he believes that he has established the identity of his\ndead father without the possibility of a doubt. Therefore the hypothesis\nof thought-reading by means of muscular indications must also be put\naside.\n\nFinally, Phinuit affirms that the objects presented to him, and which he\ntouches, furnish him with information about their former possessors,\nthanks to the \"influence\" such persons have left on the articles; and in\na multitude of cases we should be almost forced to admit that it may be\nso. But here we are already plunged into depths of mystery. What can\nthis \"influence\" be? We know nothing about it. Must we believe in it?\nMust we believe Phinuit when he says that he obtains his information\nsometimes from the \"influence\" left upon the objects, sometimes directly\nfrom the mouths of the disembodied spirits? Before reaching that point,\nother hypotheses must be examined.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 438.\n\n[11] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nA sitting with Mrs Piper--The hypothesis of\nthought-transference--Incidents.\n\n\nThe reader may not be displeased to have a specimen of these strange\nconversations between human beings and the invisible beings, who assert\nthat they are the disincarnated spirits of those who day by day quit\nthis world of woe. It will not be difficult to give the reader a\nspecimen of them. At least one half of the fourteen or fifteen hundred\npages dedicated to the Piper case in the _Proceedings of the Society for\nPsychical Research_ are composed of reports of sittings, either taken\ndown in shorthand or given in great detail. In some of these reports\neven the most insignificant exclamations of those present are noted.\n\nI have chosen the 47th of the sittings which took place in England, not\nbecause it is peculiarly interesting, but because Professor Lodge's\npublished report of it is not too long, and I have no room for more\nextended developments.\n\nThe account of this sitting will perhaps disappoint some readers.\n\"What!\" they will say, \"is that all that spirits who return from the\nother world have to say to us? They talk as we do. They speak of the\nsame things. They are not spirits.\" This conclusion would perhaps be too\nhasty. I do not assert that they are spirits or that they return from\nanother world. I know nothing about it. But if this other world existed\nwe should expect that there would not be an abyss between it and our\nown. Nature makes no leaps. That is surely a true principle in, and for,\nall worlds.\n\nWe have a means, although an imperfect one, of endeavouring to discover\nif the communicators are really returning spirits. It is to ask them to\nprove their identity by relating as large a number of facts as possible\nconcerning their life upon earth. The investigators of the Piper case\nhave for fifteen years devoted themselves to this task, apparently easy,\nin reality difficult and ungrateful.\n\nIn the earlier experiments in the Piper case the conversation almost\nalways takes place between the sitters and Dr Phinuit. Dr Phinuit does\nnot willingly give up his post, though he does so sometimes. When he is\ngiving information which he says he has received from other spirits he\nsometimes talks in the third person; sometimes, on the contrary, he\nreports word for word in the first person. This detail must not be\nforgotten in reading the reports. The following is a report of the 47th\nsitting in England.\n\nThe sitters are Professor Oliver Lodge and his brother Alfred Lodge. The\nlatter takes notes. The phrases between parentheses are remarks made by\nProfessor Lodge after the sitting.[12]\n\nPhinuit.--\"Captain,[13] do you know that as I came[14] I met the medium\ngoing out, and she's crying. Why is that?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Well, the fact is she's separated from her children for a few\ndays and she is feeling rather low about it.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"How are you, Alfred? I've your mother's influence strong.\n(Pause.) By George! that's Aunt Anne's ring (feeling ring I had put on\nmy hand just before sitting) given over to you. And Olly dear,[15]\nthat's one of the last things I ever gave you. It was one of the last\nthings I said to you in the body when I gave it you for Mary. I said,\n'For her, through you.'\" [This is precisely accurate.]\n\nO. L.--\"Yes, I remember perfectly.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"I tell you I know it, I shall never forget it. Keep it in\nmemory of me, for I am not dead. Each spirit is not so dim (?) that it\ncannot recollect its belongings in the body. They attract us if there\nhas been anything special about them. I tell you, my boy, I can see it\njust as plain as if I were in the body. It was the last thing I gave\nyou, for her, through you, always in remembrance of me.\" (Further\nconversation and advice ending, \"Convince yourself,[16] and let others\ndo the same. We are all liable to mistakes, but you can see for\nyourself. There's a gentleman wants to speak to you.\")\n\nMr E.[17]--\"Lodge, how are you? I tell you I'm living, not dead. That's\nme. You know me, don't you?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Yes, delighted to see you again.\"\n\nMr E.--\"Don't give it up,[18] Lodge. Cling to it. It's the best thing\nyou have. It's coarse in the beginning, but it can be ground down fine.\nYou'll know best and correct (?). It can only come through a trance. You\nhave to put her in a trance. You've got to do it that way to make\nyourself known.\"\n\nO. L.--\"Is it bad for the medium?\"\n\nMr E.--\"It's the only way, Lodge. In one sense it's bad, but in another\nit's good. It's her work. If I take possession of the medium's body and\nshe goes out, then I can use her organism to tell the world important\ntruths. There is an infinite power above us. Lodge, believe it fully.\nInfinite over all, most marvellous. One can tell a medium, she's like a\nball of light. You look as dark and material as possible, but we find\ntwo or three lights shining. It's like a series of rooms with candles at\none end. Must use analogy to express it. When you need a light you use\nit, when you have finished you put it out. They are like transparent\nwindows to see through. Lodge, it's a puzzle. It's a puzzle to us here\nin a way, though we understand it better than you. I work at it hard. I\ndo. I'd give anything I possess to find out. I don't care for material\nthings now, our interest is much greater. I'm studying hard how to\ncommunicate; it's not easy. But it's only a matter of a short time\nbefore I shall be able to tell the world all sorts of things through one\nmedium or another. [And so on for some time.] Lodge, keep up your\ncourage, there's a quantity to hope for yet. Hold it up for a time.\nDon't be in a hurry. Get facts; no matter what they call you, go on\ninvestigating. Test to fullest. Assure yourself, then publish. It will\nbe all right in the end--no question about it. It's true.\"\n\nO. L.--\"You have seen my Uncle Jerry, haven't you?\"[19]\n\nMr E.--\"Yes, I met him a little while ago--a very clever man--had an\ninteresting talk with him.\"\n\nO. L.--\"What sort of person is this Dr Phinuit?\"\n\nMr E.--\"Dr Phinuit is a peculiar type of man. He goes about continually,\nand is thrown in with everybody. He is eccentric and quaint, but\ngood-hearted. I wouldn't do the things he does for anything. He lowers\nhimself sometimes--it's a great pity. He has very curious ideas about\nthings and people; he receives a great deal about people from themselves\n(?), and he gets expressions and phrases that one doesn't care\nfor--vulgar phrases he picks up by meeting uncanny people through the\nmedium. These things tickle him, and he goes about repeating them. He\nhas to interview a great number of people, and has no easy berth of it.\nA high type of man couldn't do the work he does. But he is a\ngood-hearted old fellow. Good-bye, Lodge! Here's the doctor coming.\"\n\nO. L.--\"Good-bye, E.! Glad to have had a chat with you.\"\n\n[_Doctors voice reappears._][20]\n\nPhinuit.--\"This [ring] belongs to your aunt. Your Uncle Jerry tells me\nto ask.... By the way, do you know Mr E.'s been here; did you hear him?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Yes, I've had a long talk with him.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Wants you to ask Uncle Bob about his cane. He whittled it out\nhimself. It has a crooked handle with ivory on the top. Bob has it, and\nhas cut initials in it.\" [There is a stick, but description inaccurate.]\n\"He has the skin also, and the ring. And he remembers Bob killing the\ncat and tying its tail to the fence to see him kick before he died. He\nand Bob and a lot of the fellows all together in Smith's field, I think\nhe said. Bob knew Smith. And the way they played tit-tat-too on the\nwindow pane on All Hallows' Eve, and they got caught that night too.\"\n(At Barking, where my uncles lived as children, there is a field called\nSmith's field, but my Uncle does not remember the cat incident.) \"Aunt\nAnne wants to know about her sealskin cloak. Who was it went to Finland,\nor Norway?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Don't know.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Do you know Mr Clark--a tall, dark man, in the body?\"[21]\n\nO. L.--\"I think so.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"His brother wants to send his love to him. Your Uncle Jerry,\ndo you know, has been talking to Mr E. They have become very friendly.\nE. has been explaining things to him. Uncle Jerry says he will tell all\nthe facts, and all about families near, and so on, that he can recall.\nHe says if you will remember all this and tell his brother, he will\nknow. If he doesn't fully understand he must come and see me himself,\nand I will tell him. How's Mary?\"[22]\n\nO. L.--\"Middling; not very well.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Glad she's going away.\" [She was, to the Continent; but Mrs\nPiper knew it.] \"William[23] is glad. His wife used to be very\ndistressed about him. You remember his big chair where he used to sit\nand think?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Yes, very well.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"He often goes and sits there now.[24] Takes it easy, he says.\nHe used to sit opposite a window sometimes with his head in his hands,\nand think and think and think.\" (This was at his office.) \"He has grown\nyounger in looks, and much happier. It was Alec that fell through a hole\nin the boat, Alexander Marshall, her first father.\"[25] (Correct, as\nbefore.) \"Where's Thompson? The one that lost the purse?\"\n\nO. L.--\"Yes, I know.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Well, I met his brother, and he sent love to all--to sister\nFanny, he told me especially. He tried to say it just as he was going\nout, but had no time--was too weak.\"\n\nO. L.--\"Oh, yes, we just heard him.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Oh, you did? That's all right. She's an angel; he has seen\nher to-day. Tell Ike I'm very grateful to him. Tell Ike the girls will\ncome out all right. Ted's mother and.... And how's Susie? Give Susie my\nlove.\"\n\nO. L.--\"I couldn't find that Mr Stevenson you gave me a message to.\nWhat's his name?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"What! little Minnie Stevenson? Don't you know his name is\nHenry? Yes, Henry Stevenson. Mother in spirit too, not far away.[26]\nGive me that watch.\" (Trying to open it.) \"Here, open it. Take it out of\nits case. Jerry says he took his knife once and made some little marks\nwith it up here, up here near the handle, near the ring, some little\ncuts in the watch. Look at it afterwards in a good light and you will\nsee them.\" (There is a little engraved landscape in the place described,\nbut some of the sky-lines have been cut unnecessarily deep, I think,\napparently out of mischief or idleness. Certainly I knew nothing of\nthis, and had never had the watch out of its case before.--O. J. L.)\n\nThis example shows the kind of information given. Much of it is true;\nother assertions are unverifiable, which does not prove that they are\nuntrue; others contain both truth and errors; finally, there are\ncertainly some which are entirely untrue. For this reason these\ntranscendental conversations very much resemble the conversations of\nincarnated human beings. _Errare humanum est._ And it would appear that\nthe heavy corpse we drag about with us is not alone to blame when we\nsacrifice to Error.\n\nBut, since the hypothesis of fraud and of unconscious muscular movement\nmay not be invoked, where shall we find the source of the mass of exact\ninformation Mrs Piper gives us? The simplest hypothesis, after those we\nhave been obliged to set aside, consists in believing that the medium\nobtains her information from the minds of those present. She must be\nable to read their souls, as others read in a book; thought-transference\nmust take place between her and them. With these data, she would be\nsupposed to construct marionettes so perfect, so life-like, that a large\nnumber of sitters leave the sittings persuaded that they have\ncommunicated with their dead relatives. If this were true, the fact\nalone would be a miracle. No genius, neither the divine Homer, nor the\ncalm Tacitus, nor Shakespeare, would have been a creator of men to\ncompare with Mrs Piper. Even were it thus, science would never have met\nwith a subject more worthy of its attention than this woman. But the\ngreater number of those who have had sittings with Mrs Piper affirm that\nthe information furnished was not in their consciousness. If they\nthemselves furnished it, the medium must have taken it, not from their\nconsciousness, but from their subconsciousness, from the most hidden\ndepths of their souls, from that abyss in which lie buried, far out of\nour reach, facts which have occupied our minds for a moment even very\nsuperficially, and have left therein, it appears, indelible traces.\n\nThus the mystery grows deeper and deeper. But this is not all. At every\nmoment Mrs Piper gives the sitters details which they maintain that they\nnever could have known. Consequently she must read them instantaneously\nin the minds of persons, sometimes very far distant, who do know them.\nThis is the telepathic hypothesis, upon which for the moment we will not\ninsist, for we shall be obliged to study it carefully later on.\n\nProfessor Lodge has made a list, necessarily incomplete, of incidents\nmentioned by the medium in the English sittings which the sitters had\nentirely forgotten, or which they had every reason to suppose they had\nnever known, or which it was impossible they should ever have known.\nThis list contains forty-two such incidents. To give my readers some\nidea of their nature, I will quote four or five of them. I will take\nthese incidents from the history of the Lodge family, in order to avoid\nintroducing new personages unnecessarily.\n\nAt the 16th sitting,[27] on November 30, 1889, Phinuit tells Professor\nLodge that one of his sons has something wrong in the calf of his leg.\nNow at the time the child was merely complaining of pain in his heel\nwhen he walked. The doctor consulted had pronounced it rheumatism, and\nthis was vaguely running in Dr Lodge's mind. However, some time after\nthe sitting, in May 1890, the pain localised itself in the calf. Now\nthere could be no auto-suggestion in this case, for Professor Lodge\ntells us he had said nothing to his son.\n\nAt the 44th sitting,[28] Professor Lodge asked his Uncle Jerry, who is\nsupposed to be communicating, \"Do you remember anything when you were\nyoung?\" Phinuit (for him) replies at once, \"Yes, I pretty nigh got\ndrowned. Tried to swim the creek, and we fellows all of us got into a\nlittle boat. We got tipped over. He will remember it. Ask Bob if he\nremembers that about swimming the creek; he ought to remember it.\" Uncle\nRobert, consulted, remembers the incident perfectly, but gives different\ndetails. This sort of confusion about the details of a distant event,\nthe partial memory, occurs often to all of us.\n\nThus disincarnated beings would seem to resemble incarnate ones on this\npoint also. Apparently it was not the boat which upset, but the two\nyoung Lodges, Jerry and Robert, on getting out of it, began some\nhorse-play on the bank, and fell into the stream. They were obliged to\nswim, fully dressed and against a strong current, which was carrying\nthem under a mill-wheel.\n\nAt the 46th sitting,[29] Phinuit reports that the last visit the father\nof Professor Lodge paid was to this Uncle Robert, and that he didn't\nfeel very well. Professor Lodge knew nothing of this fact, or, if he had\nonce known it, had so completely forgotten it that he was obliged to\napply to one of his cousins to know if it was true. The cousin replied\nin confirmation of the fact.\n\nAt the 82nd sitting,[30] Uncle Jerry, speaking of his brother Frank, who\nis still living, expresses himself thus about an event of their\nchildhood,--\n\n\"Yes, certainly! Frank was full of life; he crawled under the thatch\nonce and hid. What a lot of mischief he was capable of doing. He would\ndo anything; go without shirt, swop hats, anything. There was a family\nnear named Rodney. He pounded one of their boys named John. Frank got\nthe best of it, and the boy ran; how he ran! His father threatened\nFrank, but he escaped; he always escaped. He could crawl through a\nsmaller hole than another. He could shin up a tree quick as a monkey.\nWhat a boy he was! I remember his fishing. I remember that boy wading up\nto his middle. I thought he'd catch his death of cold; but he never\ndid.\"\n\nThis Uncle Frank was aged about 80, and was living in Cornwall: the\ngeneral description is characteristic. Professor Lodge wrote to him to\nask if the above details were correct. He replied, giving exact details:\n\"I recollect very well my fight with a boy in the corn field. It took\nplace when I was ten years old, and I suppose a bit of a boy-bully.\"\n\nOn the 29th November[31] Professor Henry Sidgwick, of Cambridge, had a\nsitting with Mrs Piper. It was arranged that Mrs Sidgwick, who stayed at\nhome, should do something specially marked during the sitting. Mrs Piper\nwas to be asked to describe it, to prove her power of seeing at a\ndistance. Phinuit, when questioned, replied, \"She is sitting in a large\nchair, she is talking to another lady, and she is wearing something on\nher head.\" These details were perfectly correct. Mrs Sidgwick was\nsitting in a large chair, talking to Miss Alice Johnson, and she had a\nblue handkerchief on her head. However, Phinuit was wrong about the\ndescription of the room in which this happened.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] For detailed report of these sittings see _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol.\nvi.\n\n[13] At the first sitting in Liverpool there was some talk of a sea\ncaptain. Phinuit, who was rather fond of nicknames, jocularly attached\nthe epithet \"Captain\" to Professor Lodge.\n\n[14] _I.e._, \"As I entered the medium's organism.\"\n\n[15] Here Phinuit is supposed to be reporting in the first person words\nof Aunt Anne, treated as if present.\n\n[16] Of a future life.\n\n[17] Phinuit seems to have left, and Mr E. takes his place. This Mr E.\nwas an intimate friend of Professor Lodge; he had appeared at a\npreceding sitting and had offered proofs of his identity, which were\nverified later. Professor Lodge recognised his mode of address. Phinuit,\nwe remember, always addressed Professor Lodge as \"Captain.\"\n\n[18] The investigation into psychic matters.\n\n[19] In accordance with a statement previously made by Phinuit.\n\n[20] These changes in the medium's voice are very surprising. If there\nis fraud in the case, Mrs Piper must be the most accomplished actress\nwho has hitherto appeared.\n\n[21] _I.e._, still living.\n\n[22] Mrs Lodge.\n\n[23] Mrs Lodge's step-father.\n\n[24] These assertions, that spirits return to the places they have lived\nin, and unknown to us, do what they were accustomed to do, are very odd.\nBut the literature of the subject is full of such accounts.\n\n[25] Mrs Lodge's father. Phinuit had alluded to this accident in a\nprevious sitting, but without being able to explain if it had happened\nto Mrs Lodge's father or her step-father.\n\n[26] In these communications the self-styled spirits always affirm that\nthe dead get farther and farther by degrees from our universe, in\naccordance with time, and their own progress. The Stevenson episode,\nreferred to above, is described on page 71.\n\n[27] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 467.\n\n[28] _Ibid._ p. 503.\n\n[29] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 514.\n\n[30] _Ibid._, p. 549.\n\n[31] _Proc. of S.P.R._, p. 627.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nPhinuit--His probable origin--His character--What he says of\nhimself--His French--His medical diagnosis--Is he merely a secondary\npersonality of Mrs Piper?\n\n\nAn interesting question arises at the point we have reached--\"What is\nPhinuit? Whence his name? Whence does he come? Should we believe that he\nis a disincarnated human spirit, as he himself obstinately affirms, or\nmust we think him a secondary personality of Mrs Piper?\" If he is a\nspirit, that spirit is not endowed with a love of truth, as we shall\nsee, and on this point he too much resembles many of ourselves. In any\ncase we may notice in passing the obstinacy of these controls in wishing\nto pass for disincarnated spirits; the fact is at least worthy of\nattention. I am willing to allow that this may be a suggestion imposed\nby the medium on her secondary personalities; but I ask myself why this\nsuggestion can never be annulled. Numerous efforts have been made, above\nall in the case of Phinuit; they have ended only in provoking jests from\nthe disincarnated doctor, who absolutely insists on remaining a spirit.\nHowever this may be, we will here endeavour to discover the origin of\nthis control.\n\nIt will not have been forgotten that Mrs Piper's mediumship blossomed\nforth, if I may thus express myself, during the sittings she had with\nthe blind medium J. R. Cocke. Now this medium was then, and has, I\nbelieve, always since been, controlled by a certain doctor called Albert\nG. Finnett, a French doctor of the old school which produced Sangrado.\nThis old barber-surgeon, as his medium calls him, is very modest. He\nsays that he is \"nobody particular\"; I hope he does not mean to say that\nhe resembles Jules Verne's Captain Nemo. There is a considerable\nresemblance between this name Finnett and the English pronunciation of\nPhinuit. Therefore we may well inquire whether the medium Cocke, when\ndeveloping Mrs Piper's mediumship, may not also have made her a present\nof his control. Dr Hodgson has questioned Phinuit on this point several\ntimes. But Phinuit asserts that he does not know what is meant, and that\nMrs Piper's is the first human organism through which he has manifested.\nI will not try to settle the question.\n\nIf Phinuit has not varied about his own name, he has certainly varied in\nits orthography. Till 1887, whenever he consented to sign his name, he\nsigned Phinnuit, with two _n_'s. Dr Hodgson accuses himself of being the\noriginator of the orthographic variation. He carelessly took the habit\nof writing Phinuit with one _n_, and gave this orthography to his\nfriends. Mrs Piper, in the normal state, often had occasion to see the\nname thus written. And so, in the first half of 1888, Phinuit also began\nto write his name with one _n_. Dr Hodgson only discovered the mistake\nlater on looking over his notes.\n\nThe reader will perhaps be astonished that I speak of the Phinuit\npersonality as if it were already established that the hypothetical\ndoctor were really a spirit; that is to say, a personality as distinct\nfrom that of the medium as the reader and I are from one another. I must\nhold this point in reserve. The investigators of the Piper case, finding\nas decided a difference between the controls and the subject in a normal\nstate as exists between individuals of flesh and blood, have adopted the\nlanguage of these controls for convenience' sake, while warning us that,\nin so doing, they have no intention of prejudging their nature. I do,\nand shall continue to do, the same. There is no impropriety in this so\nlong as it is well understood.\n\nTo return to Phinuit's character. This doctor in the Beyond is not a bad\nfellow; on the contrary, he is very obliging, and his chief desire is to\nplease everybody. He repeats all he is asked to repeat, makes all the\ngestures suggested to him by the communicators in order that they may be\nrecognised; even those of a little child. In his rather deep voice he\nsings to a weeping mother the nursery song or the lullaby which she sang\nto her sick child, if the song will serve as a proof of identity. I find\nat least one such case in Dr Hodgson's report. The couplet sung was\nprobably well-known to Mrs Piper; it is a common one. But as this song\nhad often been sung during her last illness by the child who was\ncommunicating, and as it was the last she sang upon earth, the\ncoincidence is at least surprising. Probably Mrs Piper took the air and\nthe words from the source whence she takes so many other details--a\nsource unknown to us.\n\nHowever, if Dr Phinuit is good-hearted, he is also occasionally\ndeplorably trivial. His language is rarely elevated, and his expressions\nare almost always vulgar. On occasion he does not dislike a joke or a\ntouch of humour. Thus we have seen that he mischievously persisted in\naddressing Professor Lodge as \"Captain.\" On another occasion he is a\nlong time in finding a person's name--Theodora. Then he adds, mockingly,\n\"Hum! it is a fine name once one has got hold of it.\" This does not\nprevent Phinuit from altering Theodora into Theosophy, and calling the\nperson in question Theosophy! I could easily give other examples of\nPhinuit's wit. But on this point I must remark that the word \"Theosophy\"\nastonishes me in Phinuit's mouth, even when he is making a joking use of\nit. Evidently Mrs Piper knows the name and the thing well. But at the\ntime when Dr Phinuit attended his contemporaries in flesh and blood,\nthere was, I believe, no question of Theosophy, nor of its foundress,\nMadame Blavatsky. There was indeed a sect of Theosophists at the end of\nthe eighteenth century, but it was very obscure.\n\nDr Phinuit is, besides, very proud of his exploits. He likes to make\npeople believe that he knows and sees everything. Indeed, perhaps it is\nbecause he likes to seem not to be ignorant of anything that he\nsometimes asserts so many controverted facts. And this is to be\ndeplored; for how much more useful service he would render if his facts\nwere not doubtful! Unluckily, this is far from being the case. Phinuit\noccasionally seems to tell falsehoods deliberately. This has been made\nevident when he has been asked to prove his identity by giving details\nof his terrestrial life.\n\nIn December 1889,[32] he replies to Professor Alfred Lodge, the brother\nof Professor Oliver Lodge,--\n\n\"I have been from thirty to thirty-five years in spirit, I think. I died\nwhen I was seventy, of leprosy; very disagreeable. I had been to\nAustralia and Switzerland. My wife's name was Mary Latimer. I had a\nsister Josephine. John was my father's name. I studied medicine at Metz,\nwhere I took my degree at thirty years old, married at thirty-five. Look\nup the town of ----, also the Hotel Dieu in Paris. I was born at\nMarseilles, am a Southern French gentleman. Find out a woman named\nCarey. Irish. Mother Irish; father French. I had compassion on her in\nthe hospital. My name is John Phinuit Schlevelle (or Clavelle), but I\nwas always called Dr Phinuit. Do you know Dr Clinton Perry? Find him at\nDupuytren, and this woman at the Hotel Dieu. There's a street named\nDupuytren, a great street for doctors.... This is my business now, to\ncommunicate with those in the body, and make them believe our\nexistence.\"\n\nI think a bad choice was made of Dr Phinuit to fill this part. The\ninformation he here gives us about himself does not bear marks of\nabsolute sincerity. We might say he was an Englishman or American trying\nto pass himself off for a Frenchman to his fellow-countrymen, and having\na very small acquaintance with France and French affairs. And if he had\neven stopped there! But no. He has often contradicted himself. He tells\nDr Hodgson[33] that his name is Jean Phinuit Scliville. He could not\ntell the date of his birth or death. But, on comparing the facts he\ngives, we might conclude that he was born in 1790, and that he died in\n1860. He tells Dr Hodgson that he studied medicine in Paris, at a\ncollege called _Merciana_ or _Meerschaum_, he does not know exactly\nwhich. He adds that he also studied medicine at \"Metz in Germany.\" It is\nno longer he who had a sister named Josephine; it is his wife.\n\"Josephine,\" he says, \"was a sweetheart of mine at first, but I went\nback on her, and married Marie after all.\" This Marie Latimer is\nsupposed to have been thirty when she married Dr Phinuit, and to have\ndied at fifty. He asks Dr Hodgson, \"Do you know where the Hospital of\nGod is (Hospital de Dieu)?\" \"Yes, it is at Paris.\" \"Do you remember old\nDyruputia (Dupuytren)?\" \"He was the head of the hospital, and there is a\nstreet named for him.\" Phinuit asserts that he went to London, and from\nLondon to Belgium, and travelled a great deal, when his health broke\ndown.\n\nIn the above-quoted passage, Phinuit asserts that he had set himself to\nprove the existence of spirits. If he had set himself the contrary task\nhe would have been more likely to succeed, when he gives us such\ninformation as the above. If we went no further, we should need to ask\nourselves how serious men can have concerned themselves during so long a\nperiod with such idle stories. Happily, as we shall see later, others\nhave succeeded in establishing their identity better than Phinuit has\ndone. Phinuit himself, even if he tells the most foolish stories when he\nspeaks of himself, reveals profoundly intimate and hidden secrets when\nhe speaks of others. Truly, it is correctly said that these phenomena\nare disconcerting. But they are none the less interesting to science\nwhen their authenticity and the sincerity of the medium are beyond\ndiscussion, as in the present case. I will therefore go on examining the\nPhinuit personality; it will be the reverse side of the medal.\n\nAn American doctor, whom Dr Hodgson designates by the initials C. F. W.,\nhas a sitting with Mrs Piper on May 17, 1889. Here is a fragment of the\ndialogue between him and Phinuit.[34]\n\nC. F. W.--\"What medical men were prominent in Paris in your time?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Bouvier and Dupuytren, who was at Hotel Dieu.\"\n\nC. F. W.--\"Was Dupuytren alive when you passed out?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"No; he passed out before me; I passed out twenty or thirty\nyears ago.\"\n\nC. F. W.--\"What influence has my mind on what you tell me?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"I get nothing from your mind; I can't read your mind any more\nthan I can see through a stone wall.\" (Phinuit added that he saw the\npeople of whom he spoke objectively, and that it was they who gave him\nhis information.)\n\nC. F. W.--\"Have you any relatives living in Marseilles?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"I had a brother who died there two or three years ago.\"\n\nA little later on, at the same sitting, Phinuit says,\n\n\"Many people think I am the medium; that is all bosh.\"\n\nWell, so much the better. But if Phinuit is not Mrs Piper, neither does\nhe appear to be a Frenchman. A further proof of this is that he is\nincapable of keeping up a conversation in French. He speaks English with\na pronounced _cafe-concert_ French accent, it is true, but that is not a\nproof. He likes to count in French, and sometimes he pronounces two or\nthree consecutive words more or less correctly. But who would venture to\nmaintain that Mrs Piper's sub-consciousness has not received them in\nsome way; it would be all the more likely, because at one time our\nmedium had a governess for her children who spoke French fluently.\nHowever, Dr C. F. W., quoted above, says that Phinuit understood all\nthat he said to him in French, which Mrs Piper in her normal state could\nnot have done. On the other hand, Professor William James says that\nPhinuit does not understand his French. Whom shall we believe? One thing\nis certain, French or not, Phinuit does not speak French. Dr Hodgson\nasked him why this was. Phinuit, who is never at a loss, explained as\nfollows:--\"He had been a long time in practice at Metz, and as there are\na great many English there he had ended by forgetting his French.\" This\nis just such a piece of childishness as the secondary personalities\ninvent.[35] Dr Hodgson pointed out the absurdity of the explanation to\nPhinuit, and added, \"As you are obliged to express your thoughts through\nthe organism of the medium, and as she does not know French, it would be\nmore plausible if you said that it would be impossible to express your\nthoughts in French by means of Mrs Piper.\"\n\nPhinuit found the explanation magnificent, and some days after served it\nup whole to another inquisitive person who questioned him.\n\nAs Dr Hodgson continued to tease him about his name, he ended by\nadmitting, or believing, that his name was not Phinuit at all.\n\n\"It was the medium Cocke who insisted that my name was Phinuit one day\nat a sitting. I said, 'All right, call me Phinuit if you like, one name\nis as good to me as another.' But you see, Hodgson, my name is\nScliville, I am Dr John Scliville. But, when I think about it, I had\nanother name between John and Scliville.\"\n\nPhinuit did think about it, and at another sitting he said he had\nremembered. His name now was Jean Alaen Scliville. Alaen, as we see, is\nunmistakably French. In short, these are wretched inventions, quite as\nwretched and much less poetic than the Martian romance, due to the\nsubconsciousness of Mlle. Smith.\n\nDoes Phinuit better justify the title of doctor which he assumes? On\nthis point opinions are less divided. His diagnosis is often\nsurprisingly exact, even in cases where the patient does not himself\nknow what his illness is. As long ago as 1890, Professor Oliver Lodge\nexpresses himself as follows with regard to Phinuit's medical knowledge.\nThe opinion of a man of science like Professor Lodge is of great weight,\nthough he is a physicist and not a doctor.\n\n\"Admitting, however, that 'Dr Phinuit' is probably a mere name for Mrs\nPiper's secondary consciousness, one cannot help being struck by the\nsingular correctness of his medical diagnosis. In fact, the medical\nstatements, coinciding as they do with truth just as well as those of a\nregular physician, but given without any ordinary examination, and\nsometimes without even seeing the patient, must be held as part of the\nevidence establishing a strong _prima facie_ case for the existence of\n_some_ abnormal means of acquiring information.\"[36]\n\nDr C. W. F., of whom we have spoken above, asks Phinuit to describe his\nphysical state for him, and Phinuit describes it perfectly. But here,\nevidently, seeing that C. W. F. was a doctor, and must have known about\nhimself, we may only be concerned with thought-transference. Being\ncurious, Dr C. W. F. asked Phinuit how many years he had to live.\nPhinuit replied by counting on his fingers in French up to eleven. This\nhappened in 1889. If the prophecy was fulfilled, Dr C. W. F. must have\ngone to rejoin his colleague in the other world. It would be interesting\nto know whether this is the case.\n\nIn general, the other doctors who have had sittings with Mrs Piper find\nmore fault with Dr Phinuit's prescriptions than with his diagnosis. They\nblame the prescriptions as being more those of a herbalist than a\ndoctor. This would not be a great reproach. If a Dr Phinuit has really\nexisted, he must have practised fifty or sixty years ago, and must have\nstudied at the beginning of the last century. Therapeutics of that epoch\ndiffered considerably from those of the present day. For this reason Dr\nC. W. F. asks whether Dr Phinuit's medical knowledge really exceeds\nwhat Mrs Piper might have read in a manual of domestic medicine. As far\nas the diagnosis is concerned, his knowledge assuredly exceeds this.\n\nDr C. W. F. reports a fact which, though it would not prove Dr Phinuit's\nmedical ignorance, would once more prove his ignorance of French, and\neven of the Latin of botanists. Dr F. asked,[37] \"Have you ever\nprescribed _chiendent_ or _Triticum repens_?\" using both the French and\nLatin names. Phinuit seemed much surprised, and said, \"What is the\nEnglish of that?\" It is certain that a French doctor, and, above all, a\ndoctor in the beginning of the last century, must know _chiendent_, and\neven _Triticum repens_.\n\nMrs Piper told Dr Hodgson that Phinuit had often been shown medicinal\nplants, and had been asked their names, and that he had never made a\nmistake. Dr Hodgson procured specimens of three medicinal plants from\none of his friends. He himself remained entirely ignorant of their names\nand uses. Phinuit carefully examined the plants, and was unable to\nindicate their names or their uses. But neither would this incident\nprove much. The living practitioners who could not be caught in this way\nmust be rare.\n\nI will give two or three of Phinuit's diagnoses as examples. I will\nchoose those which have been given to Dr Hodgson about himself, as my\nreaders now know him well.\n\nAt one of the first sittings[38] Dr Hodgson had with Mrs Piper, Phinuit\npronounced the following judgment on his physical constitution, \"You are\nan old bach (bachelor), and will live to be a hundred.\" And he added\nthat Dr Hodgson had at the time a slight inflammation of the nasal\nmembranes, though there was no external sign to guide him.\n\nOn another occasion Dr Hodgson asked him a question about a pain he had\nhad but which he no longer felt. Phinuit was evasive at first, saying,\n\"I have told you already that you are perfectly well.\" He then passed\nhis hand over Dr Hodgson's left shoulder, placed his finger under the\nleft shoulder-blade scapula, on the exact spot where the pain had been,\nand said it must have been caused by a draught, which was probably true.\nAnother time, Dr Hodgson complained of a pain, without explaining where.\nPhinuit instantaneously put his finger on the painful spot, below the\nchest. He said at first that the pain was caused by indigestion, but\nthen corrected himself spontaneously and said it was caused by a muscle\nstrained in some unusual exercise. Dr Hodgson had not thought of this\nexplanation; but it was true that, two days before, when going to bed,\nand after some weeks' interruption, he had exercised himself with\nbending his body backwards and forwards. The pain appeared next day.\nPhinuit ordered applications of cold water on the painful spot, and\nfriction with the hand. Naturally there exist other diagnoses more\ncomplicated and extraordinary than those I have quoted.\n\nIn terminating this study of Phinuit, I must return to the eternal\nquestion--Is Phinuit a different personality from Mrs Piper, or is he\nonly a secondary personality? None of those who have studied the\nquestion closely have ventured to decide it categorically. There is no\nso clearly defined distinction between the normal personality and the\nsecondary personalities which have so far been studied as there is\nbetween Mrs Piper and Phinuit. In fact, the medium and her control have\nnot the same character, nor the same turn of mind, nor the same\ninformation, nor the same manner of speech. It is not so with normal and\nsecondary personalities. Our personality may split into fragments,\nwhich, at a cursory glance, may appear to be so many different\npersonalities. But when these fragments are closely studied numerous\npoints of contact are found. When suggestion is added to this\nsegregation, the separation between the normal and secondary\npersonalities is even more emphatic. But then there are traces of\nautomatism present which are not to be found in Phinuit. He seems to be\nas much master of his mental faculties and of his will as you or I.\n\nFinally, if we consider that many of Mrs Piper's controls carry the love\nof truth further than Phinuit, that they have succeeded in proving their\nidentity in the eyes of their intimates, who were none the less sceptics\nto begin with; if we consider the George Pelham and Hyslop cases, among\nothers, which we shall fully discuss a little further on, we shall be\nalmost tempted to let Phinuit benefit by the doubt about his colleagues,\nand to believe that he is really a consciousness different from that of\nMrs Piper.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[32] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 520.\n\n[33] _Ibid._, vol. viii. p. 50.\n\n[34] _Proc. of the S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 98.\n\n[35] _Proc. of S.P.R._, part xxi. vol. viii. p 51.\n\n[36] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 449.\n\n[37] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 51.\n\n[38] _Ibid._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nMiss Hannah Wild's letter--The first text given by Phinuit--Mrs\nBlodgett's sitting--Thought-reading explains the case.\n\n\nThere is a case of which I shall speak with some detail in this chapter,\nfor three reasons:--(1) The good faith of the experimenters being\nunquestioned, if the experiment had succeeded we should certainly have\nhad a first step towards proof of a future life. Experiments of this\nkind must be arranged if the desired end is to be attained. Even if only\none out of ten were successful, we should have established a method of\nprocedure, and should certainly in time discover the truth. (2) This\nexample will once again show the reader the character of Phinuit, who\nhesitates at no invention, and risks being caught in the act of\nimposture sooner than own to his ignorance or incapacity. (3) The reader\nwill find in it examples of the untrue assertions which are found in all\nthe bad sittings.\n\nThis dishonesty of Phinuit certainly complicates the problem singularly.\nBut I wish to present it as it actually is, with its dark and bright\nsides. Science must endeavour to explain both.[39]\n\nMiss Hannah Wild died on July 28, 1886. She was a strong Baptist, and\nremained so to her last moments. About a year before her death a Boston\nspiritualist paper published a message supposed to have come from her\ndead mother. Miss Hannah Wild was much struck by it.\n\nHer sister advised her to try the following experiment. Miss Hannah Wild\nshould write a letter whose contents she alone knew, and when she died,\nshe should return, if not prevented by circumstances stronger than her\nwill, and communicate the contents of the letter to her sister through\nsome medium. The letter would only be opened when some message bearing\nall the marks of authenticity should arrive.\n\nThis was done. Hannah Wild wrote the letter, sealed it and enclosed it\nin a tin box. It was understood that no mortal hand was to touch it.\nWhen giving it to her sister she said, \"If I can come back it will be\nlike ringing the City Hall bell!\"\n\nMrs Blodgett, Hannah Wild's sister, adds, \"Hands have never touched that\nletter; it was in my husband's safe. When I sent it to Professor James I\ntook it out with scissors.\"\n\nMrs Blodgett having, in the last half of 1886, seen Professor James's\nname in a journal concerned with Psychical Research wrote to him and\ntold him the above circumstances. In consequence he tried to get the\nletter read through Mrs Piper. He sent her, not the letter, of course,\nbut a glove which Miss Hannah Wild had worn on the day she wrote the\nletter, and the lining of her hat.\n\nMr J. W. Piper, Mrs Piper's father-in-law, acted as sitter. Phinuit took\nhis time, and tried for the contents of the letter during several\nsittings. The result was a long dramatic elucubration, which reminds us\ninvoluntarily of certain of Mlle. Smith's subliminal productions. I will\ngive three paragraphs of it. The remarks between parentheses are Mrs\nBlodgett's; the reader will appreciate the facts by the light the\nremarks throw upon them. However, it may not be useless to remark that\nPhinuit found Miss Hannah Wild's exact name, which had been carefully\nhidden from him.\n\n1. \"Dear Sister,--In the bottom of my trunk in the attic with my clothes\nI have placed a little money and some jewels, given to me, as you know,\nby mother, and given to her by grandfather, who has now passed away.\nBessie, I now give to you; they are all I have, I wish I could have\nmore. It has grieved me not a little not to have given the Society\nsomething, but as you know, sister, I am unable to do so. If it be\npossible I will give them my presence in spirit.\" (Sister left no trunk.\nNever lived in any house with an attic. Mother never gave her any\njewels. Mother's father died in 1835. Mother died in 1880, and gave all\nher jewels to me. These jewels had previously been given to mother by\nmyself. Sister left money, and could have given the Society some had she\nchosen to do so.)\n\n2. \"The table-cover which I worked one year ago I want you to give\nsister Ellen, John's wife. The reason I did not dispose of them before\nwill be a satisfactory proof of spirit return. My dearest sister, should\nyou ever marry, as I think you will, take the money and use it as you\nthink best, to buy a wedding outfit.\" (She never worked a table-cover. I\nworked one and gave her. Brother John died when five years old. There\nis no one by the name of Ellen connected with the family. She did think\nI would marry, but knew that I had plenty of money to buy an outfit.)\n\n3. \"Do not dress in mourning for me, for if it be true the spirit can\nreturn I want to see you dressed in light, not black. Not for me now, my\ndear sister Bessie. Try to be cheerful and happy through your married\nlife, and when you hear from me--this for you a copy, 'remember sister\nHannah is not dead, only passed out of the body.' I will give you a\nbeautiful description of our life there and of my darling mother if I\nsee her.\" (Hannah always wore black, and often said it would be wicked\nfor me to take it off, for my child always said, \"Mamma, you will always\nwear black for me,\" and I have worn black for twenty years, ever since\nmy child died.)\n\nAnd so forth.\n\nPhinuit's elucubrations were six good manuscript pages long. Except\nHannah Wild's name everything was wrong. And yet Mr J. W. Piper affirms\nthat during all the sittings he had the feeling that he was talking to\nthe spirit of Miss Hannah Wild. Phinuit was asked for a description of\nthe communicator; all the details were false. After this it is\nunnecessary to say that the letter Miss Hannah Wild had written before\nher death, when opened by Professor James, after receiving the Phinuit\nletter, differed totally from that document.\n\nSo far the Blodgett-Wild case is on the whole commonplace. Phinuit lied\nwhen he pretended to communicate with Hannah Wild's spirit; for there is\nno more reason here than elsewhere to suppose conscious fraud on Mrs\nPiper's part. But this is the point at which the case becomes\ninteresting, and where it may perhaps throw some light on Phinuit's\nmanner of procuring information, and on the character of Phinuit\nhimself. If we judged only from this case, it would seem that Phinuit\nwas merely a secondary personality of Mrs Piper, possessing the\nextraordinary power of reading people's minds unhindered by distance.\nBut let us say at once that a number of other cases render the problem\nmuch more complex. The conclusion to be drawn from what follows is, that\nif Phinuit is really what he asserts that he is, he does not draw his\ninformation only from disincarnated spirits, whom he is supposed to\nperceive objectively; he also reads the minds of the living, and with\nthe information he finds there he creates personages, apparently\nlife-like, and bearing a strong resemblance to deceased persons.\n\nOn the 30th of May 1888[40] Mrs Blodgett in person had a sitting with\nMrs Piper. The time was fixed by Dr Hodgson, who took care, as usual,\nnot to name the future sitter, and not to give any hint of her identity.\nIn my eyes this sitting is remarkable. Mrs Blodgett, with great good\nsense, sums it up thus: \"All the details which were in my mind Phinuit\ngave exactly. On all the points of which I was ignorant he gave false\nreplies, or said nothing.\"\n\nDuring the whole sitting Phinuit asserted that he was literally\nrepeating the words of Miss Hannah Wild, present. I shall quote the most\ntypical incidents. The remarks between parentheses are taken from Mrs\nBlodgett's comments.\n\nHannah Wild.[41]--\"Bessie, Betsie Blodgett, my sister. How glad I am to\nsee you! I am Anna, Hannah, your sister, Hannah Wild. How's father and\nall the folks? Oh, I am so glad to see you!\" (All this time Mrs Piper\nkept on slapping me with her hand just like sister. When she died my\nname was not Blodgett but Bessie Barr.)\n\nH. W.--\"Saw you once before in that audience. Threw a message at you.\"\n(Four weeks after sister's death, John Slater, a medium, said, pointing\nto me amongst a large audience, \"There is a lady here who wants to have\nyou know she is here. She says she will tell you what is in that paper\nsoon.\")\n\nH. W.--\"How's the Society, Lucy Stone and all of them?\" (Lucy Stone is\nthe editor of the _Woman's Journal_, and wrote a piece about sister when\nshe died.)\n\nH. W.--\"My photo in that bag.\"\n\nMrs Blodgett had brought a bag containing several things which had\nbelonged to her sister. Mrs Piper tried to open it, but could not. It\nseems that Miss Hannah Wild, living, could only open the bag with\ndifficulty. Mrs Blodgett opened it. The so-called Hannah Wild threw the\nobjects out pell-mell, saying, \"Picture of mine in here.\" This was so.\nNow this photograph was the only thing in the bag which Mrs Blodgett did\nnot know was there; she had slipped her sister's will into an envelope\nin which the photograph already was, but she had not consciously noticed\nit was there. Her subconsciousness had probably been more\nperspicacious, and it is from that Phinuit had probably drawn the\ndetail; at least unless he has the power of seeing certain things\nthrough opaque bodies.\n\nH. W.--(Takes her will, which she had shaken out of the envelope\ncontaining the photograph.) \"This is to you. I wrote it and gave it to\nyou. That was my feelings at the time I wrote it. You did not think as I\ndid. You made me feel sad sometimes. But you did take good care of me. I\nalways felt there was something that would never part us. Do just as I\ntold you to. You remember about my dress? Where's my comb? You remember\nall about my money? I told you what to do with that. That ain't written\nin this paper. I told you that on my death-bed.\" (All this is correct,\nexcept that I know nothing about a comb. The will disposed of her books\nand dresses and all her things, except her money.)\n\nH. W.--\"How is Alice?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"What Alice?\"\n\nH. W.--\"The little girl that's a namesake.\" (Our living sister Alice had\na child named Alice Olivia, and Hannah always called her Alice: it was\nour mother's name. The others called her Ollie. Hannah did not like\nthis, and did all she could to make us know that she did not want the\nAlice dropped.)\n\nH. W.--\"Mother is here. Where's doctor? Where's brother?\" (My husband is\na doctor; Hannah knew him. We have one brother living named Joseph, who\ntravels most of the time.) Hannah Wild takes a gold chain wrapped in\nsilk. Mrs Blodgett says, \"Hannah, tell me whose and what is that?\"\n\nH. W.--(Feeling tassel at end of chain) \"My mother's chain.\" (The chain\nwas a long chain of mother's. It was cut in two after she died. Hannah\nhad worn one half. The half which I took to the sitting had not been\nworn since mother's death, and it had a tassel on the end, different\nfrom the half Hannah had worn.)\n\nH. W.--\"Who's Sarah?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"Sarah Grover?\"\n\nH. W.--\"No, Sarah Obb--Hodg--\" (The medium's hand points to Mr Hodgson,\nand the voice says it belongs to him.) Then Hannah Wild adds, \"Sarah\nHodson.\" (Sarah Hodson was a friend of sister's at Waterbury,\nConnecticut. I had thought of her the night before when I met Mr\nHodgson, as she also came from London, England.)\n\nH. W.--\"Where is my big silk handkerchief?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"I gave it to Clara. You told me to.\"\n\nH. W.--\"Where is my thimble?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"I don't know.\"\n\nH. W.--\"I saw you put it into this bag.\" (The handkerchief was a large\nsilk one given to sister by a lady who lived with us for years, and it\ncame from England. I did not know I had put Hannah's thimble in the bag,\nbut found on return to the hotel that it was there on the bed, with the\nrest of the things I had taken out of the bag before starting for the\nsitting.)\n\nMrs B.--\"Can you tell me, sister, how many brothers you have in spirit\nlife?\"\n\nH. W.--\"One, two, three.\" (I asked her how many brothers, because\nWilliam had only been dead since March 27 in the same year (1888).\n\"Three\" was correct.)\n\nMrs B.--\"Can you tell me where that letter is now that you wrote?\"\n\nH. W.--\"It is at home, in tin box.\"\n\nMrs B.--\"Can't you tell me more about it?\"\n\nH. W.--\"I have told you. It would be like ringing church bells if I\ncould come back.\" (The letter was in the bag wrapped up in rubber cloth.\nSister did say when we put the letter in tin box, \"It would be like\nringing the City Hall bell if I can come back.\")\n\nH. W.--\"Where's William and doctor?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"Hannah, you tell me where William is.\"\n\nH. W.--\"He is here. I found him.\"\n\nMrs B.--\"How long has he been?\"\n\nH. W.--\"Weeks. You know all about it. He sticks to you all the time\nevery day. William wants to know how you like that lot.\"\n\nMrs B.--\"What lot?\"\n\nH. W.--\"You ought to know. You bought it to bury him in. William is\nbetter out of the world than in it. He was a strange fellow. He don't\nlike that lot. Do you?\"\n\nMrs B.--\"No.\" (I had bought him a lot in Woodlawn Cemetery, N.Y. His\nwife wanted him buried there. We wanted to take him to our home and bury\nhim by mother. Brother was very proud, and we thought the lot was not as\nnice as he would like.)\n\nAt the end of the sitting the so-called Hannah Wild said that she must\ngo because it was church time, and she would not miss it. Mrs Blodgett\nremarks that this is also characteristic of her sister. It was\nDecoration Day, and the living Hannah Wild would certainly not have\nmissed it. This last incident is odd; but there are many analogous ones\nin the literature of the subject and in Mrs Piper's sittings. Often the\ncommunicator will not allow that he is dead, or has passed into another\nworld; if he is asked what he is doing, he appears surprised, and\naffirms that he is carrying on his usual occupation; if he is a doctor,\nhe asserts that he continues to visit his patients. Phinuit is often\nasked to describe the people of whom he speaks. He pictures them as they\nwere on earth, in their customary dress, and he affirms that he so sees\nthem. At the end of one sitting Professor Hyslop's father exclaims,\n\"Give me my hat!\" Now this was an order he often gave in his lifetime\nwhen he rose painfully from his invalid chair to accompany a visitor to\nthe gate. I repeat, these incidents are odd and embarrassing for the\nspiritistic hypothesis. It is difficult to admit that the other world,\nif it exists, should be a servile copy of this. Should we suppose that\nthe bewilderment caused by death is so great in certain individuals that\nit is some time before they perceive the change in their environment? It\nis difficult to admit this. Should we suppose these speeches are\nautomatisms of the communicator, rendered half unconscious towards the\nend of the sitting by the heavy atmosphere of the medium's organism?\nBut, when the communication is not direct, when an intermediary is\nspeaking through the organism, what should we think? Are these traits\nthrown in intentionally by the communicator, the better to prove his\nidentity? No doubt these incidents are very embarrassing to the\nspiritistic hypothesis. On the other hand, if we allow that the\nself-styled communicators are created by the entranced Mrs Piper from\nthe elements she finds here and there in the minds of living persons,\nthese incidents are quite natural; it would be surprising not to meet\nwith them. I mention the difficulty in passing; it will not fall to my\nlot to solve it.\n\nHowever this may be, Mrs Blodgett left the sitting convinced that she\nhad been conversing with her own consciousness externalised, and not\nwith the spirit of her sister. But if it had not been for the previous\nincident of the letter, which had invited distrust, and if Mrs Blodgett\nhad had less judgment, she would probably have left the sitting\nconvinced that she had been talking to her defunct sister. Many\nspiritualists must commit like errors every day. This shows what\ncircumspection is needed in such studies as these.\n\nMrs Blodgett asked Dr Hodgson to have some sittings for her, to try\nagain to obtain the text of the famous letter.[42] At the sitting of\nAugust 1, 1888, Dr Hodgson gave Phinuit a lock of Hannah Wild's hair.\nPhinuit began by saying it was not her hair; he then recognised his\nmistake, but said that someone else must have touched it. Then he gave a\nnew version of the letter. \"This letter is concerned with an incident in\nHannah's former life,\" he affirmed. Then he dictated, \"It's something\nabout Hannah's early history, that letter is. At one time I met a person\nwhom I loved. A circumstance in our affection changed my whole life. Had\nit not been for this one thing I should have been married and happy.\nConsequently I went into religious work, and did all the good I could.\nWhoever reads this letter after I am gone will know why I remained\nHannah Wild....\" Mrs Blodgett's comment on this text is very\ninteresting. She says, \"This is not what my sister wrote on her\ndeathbed, but it is perfectly true. It was the great grief of sister's\nlife.\"\n\nHow could Phinuit guess this by simply touching a lock of hair? Can it\nbe that our feelings, our sorrows and joys, leave a persistent vibration\non the objects we touch, which sensitives can perceive after even a long\ninterval? Numerous and well-observed facts would almost compel us to\nbelieve so. It would seem as if the vibrations of the soul imprinted\nthemselves on matter as sound waves are recorded on the cylinder of a\nphonograph. Certain subjects, in an abnormal state, would be able to\nrecover them. There is, after all, nothing in this repugnant to science.\n\nThis abnormal state, which allows sensitives to apprehend past\nvibrations, is perhaps only a partial abandonment of the body by the\nspirit. In that case it would be easier to understand that those who,\nlike Phinuit, have entirely quitted their bodies, those who are in\nanother world, can read these vibrations as easily as we can read a\nbook. But if this is so, why does not Phinuit own it? It would be marvel\nenough to satisfy his vanity. It would not, in any event, prevent his\nobtaining information directly from disincarnated beings. But he ought\nto state precisely in each case from what source he derives his\nknowledge. He does nothing of the kind, and thus renders it almost\nimpossible for us to believe in his individuality.\n\nAt this same sitting Phinuit asserted that he would give the letter word\nfor word if he had a longer lock of hair. So Mrs Blodgett sent a longer\nlock, which was given to him on October 3, 1888. The text he gave was as\nincorrect as the preceding ones. A last effort was made in 1889, again\nwithout result. Miss Hannah Wild has not come back from the other world\nto tell us what she wrote on her death-bed.\n\nI will end with another example which demonstrates Phinuit's cleverness\nin reading people's minds even at a distance. On June 3, 1891,[43] Mrs\nBlodgett wrote a letter to Phinuit. Dr Hodgson read it to him at a\nsitting on the 15th of the same month. This drew from Phinuit the\nfollowing statement, which had nothing to do with the contents of the\nletter: \"She's been reading a funny book--a life of somebody. She called\non an old friend of Hannah's--somebody I told her to go and see. Mrs\nBlodgett has a friend named Severance.\" Mrs Blodgett writes on June 17,\n\"Really Phinuit is doing wonderfully well as far as thought-transference\ngoes. Saturday night, June 13, I gave a talk to the Young Women's Rooms\nabout Helen Gardener's new book, _Is this your Son, my Lord?_\" (On the)\n\"14th I did not go to see the friend in body, but I know my mind went,\nand I wrote him the letter to ask him what Phinuit told me to do when\nthere.\" Mrs Blodgett adds:--\"I had a friend named Severance, but sister\nHannah had never heard of him.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[39] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 69.\n\n[40] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 75.\n\n[41] Phinuit is speaking, but as he is supposed to be repeating Miss\nHannah Wild's words literally, it is easier to speak as if she were\nspeaking directly.\n\n[42] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 78.\n\n[43] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 83.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nCommunications from persons having suffered in their mental\nfaculties--Unexpected communications from unknown persons--The respect\ndue to the communicators--Predictions--Communications from children.\n\n\nThe Blodgett-Hannah Wild case is, I repeat, of a kind to throw discredit\non the spiritualist hypothesis. If it and analogous cases alone were\nconsidered, it would be needful to ask why earnest men, after long\nhesitation, have finally given the preference to this hypothesis. But\npsychic phenomena, and mediumistic phenomena in particular, are\ninfinitely various; they present a multitude of aspects, and it would\nnot be wise to consider them separately.\n\nIn this Hannah Wild case everything seems to support the telepathic\nhypothesis. By this must be understood, not only the reading of thoughts\nin the consciousness, and even in the subconsciousness, of the persons\npresent, but also in that of absent persons, however far off they may\nbe. And what Phinuit calls \"the influence\" must be added. This\nmysterious \"influence\" might be the traces of vibrations left on objects\nby our thoughts and feelings. Evidently this hypothesis plunges us into\nmystery, at least as much as does the spiritualist hypothesis.\nNevertheless, we should be obliged to give it the preference, if it\nwere sufficiently supported, because it is, after all, more in touch\nwith our present conceptions than its rival.\n\nEven the incident of the medium who, designating Mrs Blodgett amidst a\nnumerous audience, said to her, \"There is a lady here who wants to speak\nto you; she will soon give you the contents of the paper,\" can easily be\nexplained by telepathy. Mrs Blodgett was in the presence of a medium.\nNow some medium was to reveal to her the mysterious text of her sister's\nletter. That was enough to bring the recollection of the letter into the\nforeground of her consciousness, where the medium may have read it\ntelepathically.\n\nBut again, there are an infinite number of other cases which telepathy\ndoes not explain at all, or only insufficiently. I shall try to show\nthis by repeating some of the arguments put forward by Dr Hodgson in his\nremarkable report in 1898, and in the chapter entitled \"Indications that\nthe 'Spirit' Hypothesis is True.\"[44]\n\nThe most important of these arguments is founded upon the communications\nof persons whose mental faculties had been impaired by illness for a\nmore or less long period before their deaths. A long series of\nconcordant observations inspired Dr Hodgson with this argument. It is as\nfollows:--\"If we had to do with telepathy, the communications should be\nmost clear and abundant in the cases where the memories of the dead are\nmost clear and abundant in the minds of the living.\"\n\nBut experience shows that this is not so. When the self-styled\ncommunicator has suffered from mental illness before his death, the\ncommunications repeat the trouble feature by feature; they are full of\nconfusion and incoherence. This confusion and incoherence is all the\ngraver, as the mental trouble preceding death was graver. It disappears\nslowly, but sometimes traces of it appear years after. Telepathy does\nnot explain this. If there is madness in the mind of the dead person,\nthere is none in the minds of the living who remember him. On the other\nhand, if we introduce the spiritualist hypothesis, the fact is quite\nadmissible, either because the mental trouble may only slowly disappear,\nor because (and the controls assert this) the mere fact of the\ndisincarnated spirits plunging again into the atmosphere of a human\norganism temporarily reproduces the trouble.\n\nBesides, there is always more or less incoherence in the communications\nmade very shortly after death, even when the communicator has kept his\nfull mental faculties up to his last moments. But if the communicator\nwere really what he says he is, we should expect this, for three\nreasons--the violent shock of disincarnation must trouble the mind; the\narrival in an entirely new environment, where he must at first be unable\nto distinguish much, should trouble him still more; and lastly, these\nfirst attempts at communication may be impeded by his want of skill in\nusing the strange organism; he would require a sort of apprenticeship.\n\nBut when no mental trouble has preceded death, the incoherence of the\nfirst communications does not last. They soon become as clear as the\nimperfection of the means which the dead man has to use permits. In the\nGeorge Pelham case, which we shall examine later on, the first\ncommunications were also incoherent. Yet George Pelham was soon to\nbecome one of the most clear and lucid, if not the most clear and lucid,\nof all the dead persons who have claimed to manifest through Mrs Piper's\norganism. But George Pelham died suddenly by an accident, and his\nintellectual faculties, which, moreover, were above the average, had\nnever been injured.\n\nThis is, I repeat, what experience seems to show. But doubtless many\nmore observations are needed before we can affirm that it is really\nproved.\n\nHowever, unless Dr Hodgson and his colleagues are mistaken, these facts\nare contrary to what we should expect on the telepathic theory. I will\nquote some examples.\n\nDr Hodgson tried to obtain communications from one of his friends,\ndesignated by the initial A., more than a year after the latter's death.\nHe spent six sittings over it, but the result was meagre. He obtained\nsome names, and with difficulty some mention of certain incidents of\nA.'s life. Some of the incidents were even unknown to Dr Hodgson at the\ntime, but all was full of incoherence and confusion. Finally he gave it\nup on the advice of George Pelham, who said that A.'s spirit would not\nbe clear for some time yet. This A. had suffered from violent headaches\nand nervous exhaustion for some years before his death, though the\ntroubles had not amounted to insanity. Now, just at the time when A. was\nincapable of manifesting clearly, other spirits were manifesting with\nall desirable lucidity in identical circumstances. Another case quoted\nby Dr Hodgson is that of a Mr B. who had committed suicide in a fit of\ninsanity. He was not personally known to Dr Hodgson. During several\nyears Mr B.'s communications were extremely confused, even about matters\nwith which Dr Hodgson was well acquainted.\n\nA third communicator, an intimate friend of Dr Hodgson's, had also\ncommitted suicide. About a year after his death he still seemed to be\nignorant of events which he had known well in his lifetime and which\nwere quite clear in the inquirer's mind. More than seven years after his\ndeath he wrote through the medium's hand, \"My head was not clear, and is\nnot yet, when I speak to you.\"\n\nOn December 7,[45] 1893, M. Paul Bourget, of the _Academie Francaise_,\nand his wife, had a sitting with Mrs Piper. M. Paul Bourget much wished\nto communicate with an artist who had committed suicide at Venice by\nthrowing herself out of a gondola. There exists no written report of\nthis sitting, and consequently we do not know exactly what it was worth.\nBut on December 11[46] M. Bourget had another sitting, and this time Dr\nHodgson accompanied him and took notes. The artist seemed to make\ndesperate efforts to communicate and to write herself, but she could\nonly produce two or three French words, amongst which apparently was the\nexclamation, \"Mon Dieu!\" Nevertheless her Christian name was given and\nthe place where she had killed herself, Venice, and the syllable _Bou_,\nthe beginning of Bourget, was often repeated. Why were the results so\npoor? M. and Mme. Bourget knew this person well, and their minds were\nfull of reminiscences on which the medium had only to draw.\n\nHowever, some people might reason as follows. Objects having been used\nby the persons with whom it is desired to communicate are nearly always\ngiven to Mrs Piper. If the medium obtains her information not only from\nthe minds of the living, but likewise from the \"influence,\" that is,\nfrom the vibrations which our thoughts and feelings may have left\nrecorded on these objects, the imperfections of the earlier\ncommunications of persons whose minds have been disturbed might be\nexplained by the theory that the \"influence\" left by an insane person\nwould be neither so clear nor so easy to read as that left by a sane\none. But then why should the communicators grow clear with time? Why\nshould they become lucid at the time when they ought to be still more\nconfused, if the telepathic hypothesis is the correct one?\n\nBut this interpretation falls to the ground entirely when we take into\naccount the numerous communicators who are unknown, or almost unknown,\nto the sitters, of whom absolutely nobody is thinking, and who come in\nthe middle of a sitting to send a message to their surviving relatives.\nMrs Piper cannot have produced these communications by means of the\n\"influence\" left on objects, unless we suppose that the presence of\nthese objects is not necessary and that any \"influence\" may strike the\nmedium from any point of the compass at the moment when she least\nexpects it. That would perhaps be stretching the hypothesis beyond\nallowable limits. And these cases are, I repeat, numerous and very\ninteresting. I quote three for my readers' edification.\n\nDuring the 46th[47] of the English sittings with Messrs Oliver and\nAlfred Lodge as sitters, Phinuit suddenly exclaimed,--\n\n\"Oh, dear, there is something very bad about this. Here's a little child\ncalled Stevenson--two of them--one named Mannie (Minnie?) wants to send\nher love to her father in the body and the mother in the body--she had\nsore throat and passed out. He is very bad and has gone away very\nunhappy. She's clinging to me and begging me to tell you that she's\nlittle Mannie Stevenson, and that her father's almost dead with grief,\nhe sits crying, crying dreadful, and he's gone away very unhappy. Tell\nhim she's not dead, but sends her love to him; and tell him not to cry.\"\n\nProfessor Lodge.--\"Can she send her name any better?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Oh, they called her Pet, and when she was ill they called her\nBirdie. And tell mamma too, do.\"\n\nProfessor L.--\"Well, I will if I can.\"\n\nProfessor Lodge could not discover the Stevenson family, which was a\npity, for two reasons; first, that a message from beyond the tomb might\nhave restored the despairing parents to a little hope and calm; and\nsecondly, because cavillers could not have attributed the incident to\nthe medium's cunning, which they would not fail to do if other\nincidents of the same nature did not make this interpretation almost\ninadmissible.\n\nAt the 45th English sitting,[48] when Messrs Oliver and Alfred Lodge and\nMr and Mrs Thompson were the sitters, Phinuit suddenly said,--\n\n\"Do you know Richard Rich, Mr Rich?\"\n\nMrs Thompson.--\"Not well; I knew a Dr Rich.\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"That's him; he's passed out. He sends kindest regards to his\nfather.\" And Phinuit began directly to speak of something else.\n\nAt the 83rd sitting, when Mr and Mrs Thompson were again present,\nPhinuit said all at once,--\n\n\"Here's Dr Rich;\" upon which Dr Rich proceeds to speak.\n\nDr Rich.--\"It is very kind of this gentleman\" (_i.e._, Dr Phinuit) \"to\nlet me speak to you. Mr Thompson, I want you to give a message to\nfather.\"\n\nMr Thompson.--\"I will give it.\"\n\nDr R.--\"Thank you a thousand times; it is very good of you. You see I\npassed out rather suddenly. Father was very much troubled about it, and\nhe is troubled yet. He hasn't got over it. Tell him that I am\nalive--that I send my love to him. Where are my glasses\" (the medium\npasses her hands over her eyes)? \"I used to wear glasses\" (true). \"I\nthink he has them, and some of my books. There was a little black case I\nhad; I think he has that too. I don't want that lost. Sometimes he is\nbothered about a dizzy feeling in his head--nervous about it--but it is\nof no consequence.\"\n\nMr T.--\"What does your father do?\"\n\n(The medium took up a card and appeared to write on it, and pretended to\nput stamp in corner.)\n\nDr R.--\"He attends to this sort of thing. Mr Thompson, if you will give\nthis message I will help you in many ways. I can and I will.\"\n\nProfessor Lodge remarks about this incident, \"Mr Rich, senior, is head\nof Liverpool Post Office. His son, Dr Rich, was almost a stranger to Mr\nThompson, and quite a stranger to me. The father was much distressed by\nhis son's death, we find. Mr Thompson has since been to see him and\ngiven him the message. He (Mr Rich, senior) considers the episode very\nextraordinary and inexplicable, except by fraud of some kind. The\nphrase, 'Thank you a thousand times,' he asserts to be characteristic,\nand he admits a recent slight dizziness. Mr Rich did not know what his\nson means by _a black case_. The only person who could give any\ninformation about it was at the time in Germany. But it was reported\nthat Dr Rich talked constantly about a black case when he was on his\ndeathbed.\"\n\nNo doubt Mr and Mrs Thompson knew Dr Rich, having met him once. But they\nwere quite ignorant of all the details here given. Whence did the medium\ntake them? Not from the \"influence\" left on some object, because there\nwas no such object at the sitting.\n\nAt a sitting on the 28th November 1892,[49] at the house of Mr Howard,\nwhen those present were Mr and Mrs Howard, their daughter Katherine, and\nDr Hodgson, Phinuit suddenly asked,--\n\n\"Who is Farnan?\"\n\nMr Howard.--\"Vernon?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"I don't know how you pronounce it. It is\nF-a-r-n-s-w-o-r-t-h.\" (Phinuit spelt it.)\n\nDr Hodgson.--\"What about it?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"He wants to see you.\"\n\nDr H.--\"He wants to see me?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"Not you, but this lady.\"\n\nMrs H.--\"Well, what does he want to say to me? Is it a woman or a man?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"It is a gentleman; and do you remember your Aunt Ellen?\"\n\nMrs H.--\"Yes; which Aunt Ellen?\"\n\nPhinuit.--\"She has got this gentleman.\" (_I.e._, this man was in her\nservice.)\n\nFurther on, Phinuit adds, \"That gentleman wanted to send his love to\nher, and to be remembered to you--so that you may know he is here, and\nit is a test. These little things sometimes interrupt me greatly and\nwhen I go to explain it to you, you can't understand it. But sometimes\nwhen I am talking to you, I am suddenly interrupted by somebody who\ndon't realise what they are doing, and then I give you what they say as\nnear as I can, you understand that, and it is very difficult sometimes\nfor me to discern it and place it in the right place.\"\n\nMrs Howard asked her Aunt Ellen if she had known anyone named\nFarnsworth, without telling her more. Phinuit was right: a gardener\nnamed Farnsworth had worked for her uncle and then for her grandfather\nthirty-five or forty years before. Mrs Howard had never heard of him.\n\nIncidents like those I have just related are evidently difficult to\nexplain on the telepathic theory.\n\nBut a more complete refutation of the telepathic hypothesis would be to\nget a certain number of fulfilled predictions. The medium could not read\nevents which have not yet occurred, either in the minds of the living or\nin the \"influence\" left on objects. Phinuit has often tried his hand at\npredictions; I will quote one.\n\nAt M. Bourget's second sitting,[50] in 1893, a Mrs Pitman appeared, who\nhad lived a long time in France and spoke French well, and who offered\nto help the artist with whom M. Bourget wished to talk in her efforts to\ncommunicate.\n\nIn 1888, Mrs Pitman, who was a member of the American Society for\nPsychical Research, had had two sittings with Mrs Piper. Among other\nthings, Phinuit said to her, \"You are going to be very sick; you will go\nto Paris; you will be very sick: you will have great weakness in the\nstomach and head. A sandy complexioned gentleman will attend you while\nyou are ill beyond the sea.\" In consequence of this, Mrs Pitman asked\nPhinuit what the end of the illness would be. Phinuit made evasive\nreplies. Mrs Pitman asked Dr Hodgson's intervention; he insisted in his\nturn, and Phinuit got out of it by saying, \"After she gets over the\nsickness she will be all right.\"\n\nMrs Pitman replied that there was nothing the matter with her stomach;\nshe contradicted Phinuit on every point, and he appeared much annoyed.\nBut Mrs Pitman soon fell ill. She was attended by a Dr Herbert, who was\nvery fair; he diagnosed inflammation of the stomach. Then Mrs Pitman\nbegan to believe in Phinuit's prediction; but interpreting his last\nwords wrongly, she believed she should recover. Dr Charcott attended her\nat Paris for a nervous illness. She suffered from weakness in the head,\nand her mental faculties were impaired. In short, she died.\n\nAgain, other communications which do not fit in with the telepathic\ntheory are those from very young children. When they communicate a short\ntime after death, they reproduce their childish gestures, they repeat\nthe few words they had begun to stammer; they ask by gestures for the\ntoys they liked. All these details are evidently to be found in the\nminds of the parents. But when these children communicate long years\nafter their death, it is as if they had grown in the other world; they\nonly rarely allude to the impressions of their babyhood, even when these\nimpressions remain vivid in the minds of the father and mother. George\nPelham was one day acting as intermediary for a child who had been dead\nmany years. The mother naturally spoke of him as a child, and George\nPelham remonstrated, \"Roland is a gentleman; he is not a little\nboy.\"[51]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[44] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 370.\n\n[45] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 494.\n\n[46] _Ibid._, p. 495.\n\n[47] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 514.\n\n[48] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 509.\n\n[49] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 416.\n\n[50] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 496.\n\n[51] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 512.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nFurther consideration of the difficulties of the problem--George\nPelham--Development of the automatic writing.\n\n\nPhinuit's empire remained uncontested till the month of March 1892. He\nsometimes yielded his place to other controls, but rarely through a\nwhole sitting. However, in March 1892, a new communicator appeared, who\nimposed his collaboration on Phinuit, with the latter's consent or\nwithout it. This newcomer called himself George Pelham,[52] and asserted\nthat he was the disincarnated spirit of a young man of thirty-two, who\nhad been killed four or five weeks before by a horse accident. However\nthat may be, this new control had more culture, more moral elevation,\nand a greater love of truth than the so-called French doctor. The latter\nbenefited by the companionship; he tried to be more truthful, and seemed\nto make fewer appeals to his imagination; in short, all the sittings\nimproved, even those in which Phinuit appeared alone.\n\nThe newcomer did everything in his power to establish his identity. His\nsuccess is still a matter open to discussion, in the view of some\npersons, and their doubts at least prove that, in order to solve this\ngreatest of all problems, it is not enough that the communicators\nshould give us numerous details which would seem at a first glance to\nestablish their identity, though the few cases in which identity appears\nto be proved furnish us with a strong presumption in favour of survival\nafter death. If George Pelham is what he says he is, future generations\nwill _owe_ him profound gratitude; he has done all that he could, under\ncircumstances which are, it appears, very unfavourable, although we are\nnot in a position to understand the difficulties.\n\nIt is not always easy to prove identity, even between the living.\nImagine a man in England, at the end of a telegraph or telephone wire;\nimagine that a certain number of his friends at the other end of the\nwire, in France, refuse to believe him when he says he is So-and-so, and\nsay, \"Please prove your identity.\" The unfortunate man will be in\ndifficulties. He will say, \"Do you remember our being together in such a\nplace?\" The reply will be, \"Nonsense; somebody has told you of that\nincident, and it does not in the least prove that you are the person you\nsay you are.\" And so on, and so on. One fact is incontestable, however;\nthere is somebody at the end of the wire. The telepathic theory asserts\nthat, in spite of appearances, there is no one at the end of the wire,\nor, at least, that no one is there but the medium, temporarily endowed\nwith powers as mysterious as they are extraordinary. But to return to\nGeorge Pelham.\n\nPelham is not his exact name. The last syllable has been slightly\nmodified, from motives of discretion. He belonged to a good family in\nthe United States, which counts Benjamin Franklin amongst its\nancestors. He had studied law, but when his studies were finished he\ngave himself up exclusively to literature and philosophy. He had\npublished two works, which brought him much praise from competent\njudges. He had lived for a long time in Boston or its neighbourhood. The\nlast three years of his life were passed in New York. In February 1892\nhe fell from his horse and was killed on the spot.\n\nHe had interested himself in Psychical Research, though very sceptical\nabout the matter. He was a member of the American Society, and later of\nthe American Branch of the Society for Psychical Research. Dr Hodgson\nknew him very well, and liked to talk to him on account of the soundness\nof his judgment and the liveliness of his intelligence. But neither time\nnor circumstances had allowed ties of affection or real friendship to be\nestablished between them.\n\nTwo years before George Pelham's death, he and Dr Hodgson had a long\ndiscussion regarding a future life. George Pelham maintained that it was\nnot only improbable, but also inconceivable. Dr Hodgson maintained that\nit was at least conceivable. After much exchange of argument, George\nPelham ended by allowing so much, and finished the conversation by\nsaying that, if he should die before Dr Hodgson, and should find himself\n\"still existing,\" he would \"make things lively\" in the effort to reveal\nthe fact.\n\nGeorge Pelham, more fortunate than many others who, before or after him,\nhave made the same promise, seems to have kept his word. That many\nothers have been unable to do so proves nothing. The means of\ncommunication are still definitely rare; Mrs Piper is an almost unique\nmedium of her kind up to the present day. It may be that the great\nmajority of the inhabitants of the other world are in the same position\nas the great majority in this, and are ignorant of the possibility of\ncommunication. Even if those who promise to return know of this\npossibility, the difficulty of recognising their friends must be great,\nsince they do not seem to perceive matter. Their friends who are still\nin the body should, it appears, call them by thinking intently of them,\nby presenting to good mediums articles which belonged to the dead, and\nto which a strong emotional memory is attached, and by asking the\ncontrols of these mediums to look for them.\n\nWhen these precautions are not taken, the survivors are wrong to blame\ntheir friends' failure to keep their word, or to conclude that all is\nended with the death of the body.\n\nGeorge Pelham may have been enabled to manifest himself by particularly\nfavourable circumstances. He knew of Mrs Piper's existence, although,\nmost probably, Mrs Piper did not know him. In 1888 the American Society\nfor Psychical Research had nominated a commission for the investigation\nof mediumistic phenomena; this commission asked Mrs Piper for a series\nof sittings. I do not know whether George Pelham was a member of the\ncommission, but he was present at one of the sittings. The names of all\nthe sitters were carefully kept private, and nothing happened of a\nnature to draw the attention of the medium to George Pelham, who in all\nprobability passed unnoticed.\n\nDr Hodgson thinks he can affirm that Mrs Piper only quite recently\nlearned that George Pelham had been present at one of her sittings. The\nname of George Pelham must have been revealed to her considerably later\non, for, in her normal state, she is quite ignorant of what she has said\nin her trance state; she learns it, as do all those who are interested\nin these questions, by reading the _Proceedings of the Society for\nPsychical Research_ except when Dr Hodgson thinks proper to tell her\nanything.\n\nWith the appearance of George Pelham there arose a new method of\ncommunication--the method of automatic writing.\n\nIt was only on March 12, 1892,[53] that it was granted to Dr Hodgson to\nbe present for the first time when this writing was produced; although\nit had occurred on rare occasions before. Phinuit was serving as\nintermediary for a communicator who called herself Annie D. Towards the\nend of the sitting Mrs Piper's arm rose slowly till the hand was over\nthe top of her head. The arm remained rigid in this position, but the\nhand trembled very rapidly. Phinuit exclaimed, \"She's taken my hand\naway,\" and added, \"she wants to write.\" Dr Hodgson put a pencil between\nMrs Piper's fingers and a block-book on her head. \"Hold the hand,\" said\nPhinuit. Dr Hodgson grasped the wrist and stopped the trembling. Then\nthe hand wrote, \"I am Annie D. I am not dead but living,\" and some other\nwords; then Phinuit murmured, \"Give me back my hand.\" The arm remained\ncontracted and in the same position for a short time, but finally,\nslowly, and as though with much difficulty, it moved down to the side.\nDuring the following sittings the writing was produced in the same\ninconvenient position. But on April 29, 1892, Dr Hodgson arranged a\ntable so that Mrs Piper's right arm could rest comfortably on it; then,\nseizing the arm and commanding with all his power, \"You must try to\nwrite on the table,\" he succeeded, by using not a little force, in\ngetting the arm down. Since then the writing has been produced with the\narm resting more or less on the table. When a control takes possession\nof the arm to write, it is seized with violent spasmodic convulsions.\nThe block-books, writing-books, pencils, and everything on the table are\nthrown in confusion on to the floor. Sometimes considerable force must\nbe employed to keep the arm still. Then a pencil is placed between the\nfingers, and the writing begins. Sometimes, but rarely, the writing is\ninterrupted by a spasm; the hand is firmly closed and the wrist bent,\nbut after a few seconds the spasm disappears, and the writing begins\nagain.\n\nOn most occasions, since the automatic writing has become easy, two\ncontrols have manifested simultaneously--one by means of the voice, the\nother by writing; Phinuit continuing to use the voice, according to his\nformer custom. George Pelham, although he also uses the voice\noccasionally, prefers writing. On the 24th February 1894 a control\nwrote, \"There is no reason why various spiritual minds cannot express\ntheir thoughts at the same time, through the same organism.\" This is\nreally what happens. The voice may keep up a conversation with a sitter\nwhile the hand keeps up another in writing with someone else on a wholly\ndifferent subject. If the sitter who is talking with the hand allows his\nattention to be distracted by what the voice says, the hand recalls his\nattention by its movements. When anyone is speaking to the hand control,\nit is necessary to speak to the hand, and close to the hand, or there is\na risk of not being understood. In short, one must behave as if the hand\nwere a complete and independent being.\n\nObservation of this phenomenon suggested to Dr Hodgson that by using the\nleft hand he could perhaps obtain three communications on three\ndifferent subjects. He tried and succeeded, although imperfectly; no\ndoubt because, in the normal state, the left hand is not used to\nwriting.\n\nFormerly Phinuit used to protest when the hand was seized, and asked at\nonce that it should be returned to him, as we have seen above. Since the\nautomatic writing has been developed the hand may be used by one control\nwithout the fact being perceived by the control who is using the voice.\nOne day Phinuit was talking with a sitter about his relations, when the\nhand suddenly, and so to say surreptitiously, wrote for Dr Hodgson a\ncommunication supposed to come from an intimate friend, and treating of\na subject altogether different from those of which the voice was\nspeaking. Dr Hodgson adds that it was \"precisely as if a caller should\nenter a room where two strangers to him were conversing, but a friend\nof his also present, and whisper a special message into the ear of the\nfriend without disturbing the conversation.\"[54]\n\nPhinuit seems to prefer not to notice what the hand is doing. He talks\nas long as he has an interlocutor, but, when the messages given through\nthe hand distract the attention of this interlocutor, Phinuit often\nsays, \"I'll help him.\" What does he mean by this? It is a mystery. But\nif it is wished to continue the conversation with him, the ear must be\naddressed directly he is ready to resume. All this does not interrupt\nthe writing; the head and the hand do not interfere with one another.\n\nThe observers of these strange phenomena, especially Dr Hodgson,\nmaintain that the controls write without consciousness that they are\nwriting, as, no doubt, they speak without consciousness that they are\nspeaking. According to what they say, these controls perceive in the\nbody of the medium two principal masses of the mysterious fluid, the\nunknown energy which appears like light to them, and which they call the\n\"light.\" One of these masses is in the head, the other in the hand. The\ncontrols think \"in\" this light, and their thoughts are transmitted to us\nautomatically through the organism.\n\nThe automatic writing differs according to the controls. They do not\nalways succeed in reproducing the characteristics of their handwriting\nwhen alive. George Pelham has tried to do so at least once, and did not\nsucceed. But this should not surprise us; we do not work as well with\nother people's tools as with our own. In any case this difference in the\nhandwriting is a presumption the more in favour of the difference of\nindividuality.\n\nThe writing often looks like that on a lithographic stone, and can only\nbe read when reflected in a glass; this writing, which is called\nmirror-writing, is produced as rapidly as ordinary writing, though Mrs\nPiper, in her normal state, would be unable to write in this way. This\nmirror-writing has been often observed in subjects who write\nautomatically; the cause for it is still to be found.\n\nOn other occasions words are written backwards. Thus for _hospital_,\n_latipsoh_ will be obtained. With certain mediums not only words but\nwhole sentences are thus written. To read them, they must be begun at\nthe last letter and read backwards to the first. Syllables are also\noften misplaced in Mrs Piper's automatic writing; thus _hospital_ may be\nwritten _hostipal_. I remind the reader that I am referring to facts\nwell attested by competent men, about which there can be no question of\nfraud.\n\nThere exist detailed minutes of many of the sittings, copied from\nstenographic notes. An attempt was made to introduce a phonograph.\nPhinuit jokingly felt the mouth with his hands and asked, \"What is this\nthing with a tube?\" The attempt to explain its use to him was\nunsuccessful. However, the phonograph recorded the sitting fairly well,\nbut the experiment was not repeated--why, I do not know, for the\nintonations of the controls would have been an interesting study.\n\nI have often used expressions of affirmation in this chapter, and the\nreader might therefore conclude that the existence of spirits is no\nlonger a hypothesis in my eyes, but a reality. I have already warned\nhim, and warn him again, that I speak thus only for convenience' sake,\nand that the existence of spirits is still as hypothetical to me as to\nanyone else.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[52] Not the real name. _See_ p. 78, _Trans._\n\n[53] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 291.\n\n[54] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 294.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nHow George Pelham has proved his identity--He recognises his friends and\nalludes to their opinions--He recognises objects which have belonged to\nhim--Asks that certain things should be done for him--Very rarely makes\nan erroneous statement.\n\n\nSome of my readers must have asked themselves what the returning George\nPelham can have said to make grave and intelligent men think he has\nproved his identity. I shall try to give them some idea by relating such\nincidents as I can report without entering into too slight or complete\ndetails. I cannot relate everything, in the first place for want of\nspace, and secondly, because I should be tiresome--a thing to be avoided\nin a popular work like the present.\n\nWhen Dr Hodgson wrote the report which appeared in 1898, George Pelham,\nwho, like Phinuit, is always ready to act as intermediary (though\nemploying writing instead of speech) had had occasion to see one hundred\nand fifty sitters, among whom thirty were old friends of his. He\nrecognised the whole thirty, and never mistook a stranger for a friend.\nHe not only addressed them all by name but took with each of them the\ntone he had been accustomed to take.\n\nWe do not speak in the same way to all our friends. The tone of our\nconversation differs according to the character and the age of the\nperson we address, and according to the degree of esteem or affection we\nhave for him. These shades of manner are typical, though instinctive,\nand therefore are difficult to reproduce artificially.\n\nGeorge Pelham, then, addressed the thirty friends whom he had the\nopportunity of meeting through the medium in the tone which he was in\nthe habit of taking formerly with each one of them. The incidents I\nshall quote are only examples; I have said why I cannot recapitulate all\nthat has been published about these sittings.[55] Besides, the sitters,\nfor reasons easy to imagine, have declined to permit the publication of\nall that was most private, and consequently most convincing, in the\nsittings.\n\nFrom the beginning George Pelham asks to see his father. He says that he\nwishes to talk to him about private affairs, and also that he should\nlike to convince him, if possible, of his existence in a new world. Mr\nPelham was at once informed, and though he was very sceptical both by\nnature and education, he, with his second wife, George Pelham's\nstep-mother, visited Mrs Piper at once. They were introduced under false\nnames. Quite at the beginning of the sitting George Pelham wrote,\n\"Hullo, father and mother, I am George!\" The communications which\nfollowed were altogether what Mr Pelham, senior, would have expected\nfrom his living son.\n\nAt one of the earliest sittings he asks after one of his friends, a\nyoung writer, and urges that he should edit one of his, George Pelham's,\nunpublished papers.\n\nWhile George Pelham was living in Boston he was connected by bonds of\nstrong affection with the Howard family. He lived with them often and\nfor long periods. He and James Howard often discussed serious\nphilosophical problems together. At the first sitting George Pelham\ninsistently asked for the Howards.[56] \"Tell Jim I want to see him. He\nwill hardly believe me, believe that I am here. I want him to know where\nI am. O good fellow!\" He welcomes Mr and Mrs Howard in a characteristic\nway: \"Jim, is that you? Speak to me, quick. I am not dead. Don't think\nme dead. I'm awfully glad to see you. Can't you see me? Don't you hear\nme? Give my love to my father, and tell him I want to see him. I am\nhappy here, and more so since I find I can communicate with you. I pity\nthose people who can't speak.\"\n\nA Mr Vance has a sitting. George Pelham had known him. At first the\ncommunicator does not appear to notice him, being occupied in giving\nmessages to Dr Hodgson. But presently George Pelham recognises him, and\nsays, \"How is your son? I want to see him some time.\" \"George, where did\nyou know my son?\" \"In studies in college.\" \"George, where did you stay\nwith us?\" \"Country, peculiar house, trees around, porch that projects at\nthe front. Vine at the side. Porch at the front, and swing on the other\nside.\" All this was correct.[57]\n\nMiss Helen Vance and George Pelham had belonged at the same time to a\nsociety formed for mutual aid in the art of writing. She came to a\nsitting some time after it had begun. Mrs Piper, in her normal state,\nhad never met her. Nevertheless, George Pelham asks her at once, \"How is\nthe society getting on?\" A little later on, the following dialogue takes\nplace between Miss Vance and George Pelham: \"Now, whom do you have to\ncorrect your writings?\" \"We correct one another's.\" \"But do they give\nsatisfaction?\" \"Yes.\" \"What, in their corrections?\" \"Yes, but not as\nmuch as you; your corrections were better than theirs.\" \"Well, that is\nwhat I am trying to get out of you.\" \"In other words, George, you wanted\na compliment from me.\" \"Oh, bosh, you know me better than that.\"\n\nMiss Warner had two sittings with Mrs Piper[58] five years after George\nPelham's death. He had known her when she was quite a child, but he had\nnot seen her for three years before he died, and in eight years a child\nbecomes a tall young girl. Consequently, at the first sitting, George\nPelham did not recognise Miss Warner at all. At the second sitting he\nadmitted this and said, \"I do not think I ever knew you very well.\"\n\"Very little. You used to come and see my mother.\" \"I heard of you, I\nsuppose.\" \"I saw you several times. You used to come with Mr Rogers.\"\n\"Yes, I remembered about Mr Rogers when I saw you before.\" \"Yes, you\nspoke of him.\" \"Yes, but I cannot seem to place you. I long to place all\nmy friends, and could do so before I had been gone so long. You see, I\nam farther away--every day I get further away from you. I do not recall\nyour face; you must have changed.\" At this moment Dr Hodgson said, \"Do\nyou remember Mrs Warner?\" \"Of course, oh, very well. For pity's sake,\nare you her little daughter?\" \"Yes.\" \"By Jove! how you have grown! I\nthought so much of your mother, a charming woman.\"\n\nGeorge Pelham not only recognises his friends,[59] as we have just seen;\nhe also remembers their opinions, their occupations, their habits. James\nHoward is an author. He asks him, \"Why don't you write on this subject?\"\n(the future life). Rogers writes also. He asks, \"What is Rogers writing\nnow?\" \"A novel.\" \"I don't mean that. Isn't he writing something about\nme?\" \"Yes, he is preparing a memoir of you.\" \"That is kind of him. One\nis pleased not to be forgotten. He was always very good to me when I was\nalive.\"\n\nHe remembers the opinions of his father, and the discussions they had\nupon philosophical questions. \"I should like to convince my father,\" he\nsays; \"but it will be hard. My mother will be easier.\" He says to James\nHoward, \"Do you remember how we used to ask each other for books of\ncertain kinds, about certain books, where they were, and you always knew\njust where to find them.\" Formerly, when James Howard and George Pelham\nwere talking together in the evening, the first-named habitually smoked\na long pipe. At a sitting held in the library where these conversations\nused to take place, George Pelham said to Mr Howard, \"Get the long pipe\nand smoke.\" Katharine is one of James Howard's daughters, who plays the\nviolin. Formerly her practising used to greatly annoy George Pelham, who\nlived with the Howards. He said to her at a sitting, \"Katharine, how is\nthe violin? To hear you playing is horrible, horrible.\" Mrs Howard\nreplies, \"Yes, George, but don't you see she likes her music because it\nis the best she has.\" \"No, but that is what I used to say.\"\n\n\"Marte\" is a pseudonym adopted by Dr Hodgson to designate a well-known\nAmerican writer. He is a monist, a partisan of Darwinism, convinced that\nthe death of the body is for us the end of all. At a sitting George\nPelham said to him, \"Evolution is all right in the real life, as Darwin\nsays, but it goes on evoluting in the ideal life, which fact he, of\ncourse, knew nothing of until he came here.\"\n\nGeorge Pelham also recognises objects which have belonged to him,\nprincipally those which have some remembered emotional association.\n\nJohn Hart, at the first sitting at which George Pelham appeared, gave\nsome sleeve-links he was wearing, and asked, \"Who gave them to me?\"\n\"That's mine. I sent that to you.\" \"When?\" \"Before I came here. That's\nmine. Mother gave you that.\" \"No!\" \"Well, father then, father and mother\ntogether. You got those after I passed out. Mother took them, gave them\nto father, and father gave them to you. I want you to keep them. I will\nthem to you.\" All this is correct.\n\nAt another sitting Mrs Howard gives a photograph. She placed it on the\ntop of the medium's head. \"Do you recognise this?\" \"Yes, it is your\nsummer house; but I have forgotten the name of the town.\" \"Don't you\nremember D.?\" \"Oh, the little brick house and the vine, grape-vine some\ncall it. Yes, I remember it all; it comes back as distinctly as the\ndaylight. Where is the little outhouse?\" All this is correct. The\nouthouse which George Pelham was surprised not to see was a henhouse\nleft just out of the photograph. At another sitting Mrs Howard put a\nbook on the medium's head. We must not forget that the medium's eyes are\nshut, and the ocular globes upturned. \"Do you recognise this book?\" \"Oh,\nyes, it is my French Lyrics.\" Needless to add that this was correct.\nGeorge Pelham asks for information on the subjects which interested him\nin life. He asks to have things done for him. At the first sitting he\nsaid to the sitter, John Hart, \"Go up to my room, where I write. I left\nthings all mixed up. I wish you'd go up and straighten them out for me.\nLots of names, lots of letters. You answer them for me.\"\n\nEvelyn is another of Mr. Howard's daughters. George Pelham had given her\na book, and had written her name in it. He asks her if she remembers it.\n\nHe has not forgotten his former speeches either. He was fond of Evelyn,\nbut this did not prevent his constantly teasing her. Thus she is weak in\nmathematics. At one sitting George Pelham says to her, \"I won't\ntantalise Evelyn now; I used to torment her a great deal, but she will\nforgive me, I know.\" Which does not prevent his adding directly after,\n\"Evelyn is a girl that can always tell how much two and two is. You\nhave just learned, haven't you? You are not a great one for mathematics,\nare you?\" But he adds quickly, \"Now be good, Evelyn. It doesn't matter\nso much about your lessons; being good is the most important point of\nall.\"\n\nJames Howard had asked George Pelham several questions to which the\nlatter had not replied, asserting that he had forgotten. On this account\nJames Howard still doubted George Pelham's identity. One day the former\nsaid, \"George, tell me something that you and I alone know. I ask you,\nbecause several things I have asked you you have failed to get hold of.\nWe spent a great many summers and winters together and talked on a great\nmany things and had a great many views in common, went through a great\nmany experiences together. Tell me something now that you remember.\" The\nhand at once began to write eagerly: the occurrences related were so\nprivate that they cannot be published. At a given moment the hand wrote\n\"Private.\" Dr Hodgson then left the room. On his return James Howard\ntold him that he had obtained all the proof he could desire, and that he\nwas \"perfectly satisfied, perfectly.\"\n\nAt the first sitting at which George Pelham appeared, when John Hart was\nthe sitter, George spoke suddenly of Katharine, James Howard's daughter,\nand he said something which at the time had no meaning for John Hart.\n\"Tell her, she'll know. I will solve the problems, Katharine.\" When John\nHart reported these words to the Howards they were more struck than by\nanything else. During George Pelham's last stay with them he had talked\nfrequently with Katharine upon deep philosophical questions, such as\nTime, Space, Eternity, and had pointed out to her how unsatisfactory the\ncommonly-accepted solutions were. Then he had added the words of the\ncommunication almost textually, \"I will solve those problems some day,\nKatharine.\" Remark that at this time the Howards had never yet seen Mrs\nPiper, that John Hart knew absolutely nothing of these conversations,\nand that Dr Hodgson, who took notes at the sitting, did not at the time\nknow the Howards or of the conversations.\n\nGeorge Pelham had received a good classical education. He was a\nHumanist. Consequently a rather large number of Latin expressions are\nfound in his language; usual, no doubt, with people of his education,\nbut with which Mrs Piper is not acquainted in her normal state. Phinuit,\nwho cannot have been a good Latinist, does not employ them either.\nObservation of this fact inspired Professor Newbold[60] with the idea of\nasking George Pelham to translate a short fragment of Greek, and he\nproposed the first words which occurred to him; the beginning of the\nPaternoster: [Greek: Pater hemon ho en tois ouranois]. George Pelham\nmade some attempts, and finally translated \"Our Father is in heaven.\"\nProfessor Newbold then proposed a longer phrase, which he composed\nhimself on the spot for the occasion: [Greek: Ouk esti thanatos; hai gar\nton thneton psychai zoen zosin athanaton, aidion, makarion]. This means,\n\"There is no death; the souls of mortals really live an immortal eternal\nhappy life.\" George Pelham called to his aid Stainton Moses, who in his\nlifetime passed for a good Hellenist. Both together only succeeded in\nunderstanding the first proposition, \"There is no death.\" These\nexperiments, at all events, prove that Mrs Piper in the trance state can\nunderstand a little Greek, though in her normal state she does not even\nknow the letters. Again, George Pelham and Stainton Moses may have known\nGreek tolerably well and have forgotten it: it is an accident which has\nhappened to many of us.\n\nWith regard to this translation of Greek, we might form another\nhypothesis. We might suppose that the spirits of George Pelham and\nStainton Moses--if there are spirits--perceiving thought directly, and\nnot its material expression, have partly understood what Professor\nNewbold wanted to say, without knowing in what language it was\nexpressed. If they did not understand wholly and completely, it would be\nbecause a thought expressed in a foreign language has in our minds a\ncertain vagueness. We might go further; we might suppose that Mrs\nPiper's subconsciousness perceives the thought directly, independently\nof the form in which it is expressed. Mrs Piper has often pronounced\nwords and short sentences in foreign languages. Phinuit likes to say,\n\"Bonjour, comment vous portez vous? Au revoir!\" and to count in French.\nMme. Elisa, an Italian, the dead sister of Mrs Howard, succeeded in\nwriting or pronouncing some short sentences in more or less odd Italian.\nI find also at a sitting where the communicator was supposed to be a\nyoung Hawaian three or four words of Hawaian very appropriate to the\ncircumstances. Mrs Piper is ignorant of all this in her normal state. I\nhave just said that spirits--if there are spirits--perceive thought\ndirectly. They themselves tell us this. On the other hand, they do not\nperceive matter, which is non-existent to them. This brings me to a new\nfeature of the sittings, principally of those with George Pelham. If\nthis feature does not increase the proofs of identity, it is at least an\nevidence of the abnormal powers of the medium.[61] George Pelham is\nasked to go and see what a certain person is doing at a given time and\nto come back and relate it. He goes, and partially succeeds. This is\nwhat appears to happen: if the act is strongly conceived in the mind of\nthe person he is watching, he perceives it clearly; if it is nearly\nautomatic, he perceives it vaguely; if it is wholly automatic, he does\nnot perceive it at all. He often says that actions have occurred which\nhave only been planned and not executed, at other times he reports past\nactions as present. This is because spirits have not, it appears, a\nclear notion of time. I have unfortunately neither time nor space to\ngive examples of this.\n\nCan we say that the communicator George Pelham has never made a\npartially or wholly erroneous assertion? No. But the number of such\nassertions is very small, which was not the case when Phinuit reigned\nalone. Here is one such assertion, at which there has been much\ncavilling; people have insisted on seeing in it the stamp of Mrs Piper\nand her social environment, and not at all the stamp of the aristocratic\nGeorge Pelham. George Pelham is asked, \"Could you not tell us something\nwhich your mother has done?\" He replies,[62] \"I saw her brush my\nclothes and put them away. I was by her side as she did it. I saw her\ntake my sleeve buttons from a small box and give them to my father. I\nsaw her put some papers in a tin box.\" When Mrs Pelham is questioned by\nletter, she replies, \"George's clothes were brushed and put away, not by\nme, but by the man who had valeted him.\" And the hasty conclusion is,\nMrs Piper on this occasion thought herself among her own class. She\nforgot that Mrs Pelham did not brush and put away clothes herself. This\nis perhaps a too hasty triumph. The most highly-bred women may\noccasionally brush and put away clothing. Now suppose that what I have\nsaid above about the way in which spirits perceive our actions should be\ntrue. George Pelham may have seen the project of the action in his\nstep-mother's mind, and not its execution by the valet. It may be\nobjected that he ought to have supposed she would not do it herself.\nWhy? I do not see it. Perhaps he knew that his step-mother was capable,\noccasionally, of putting away clothes herself.\n\nGeorge Pelham is often asked questions which he cannot answer. But he\ndoes not at all pretend to have forgotten nothing. If there is another\nworld, spirits do not go there to ruminate on what has happened in our\nincomplete life. They go there to be carried away in the vortex of a\nhigher and greater activity. If, therefore, they sometimes forget, it is\nnot astonishing. Nevertheless, they seem to forget less than we do.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[55] Those readers who are interested in this question are recommended\nto read Dr Hodgson's Report, _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii., _Trans._\n\n[56] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 300.\n\n[57] _Ibid._, p. 458.\n\n[58] _Proc. of S.P.R._, p. 324.\n\n[59] For reports of these sittings see _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.\n413-441.\n\n[60] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiv. p. 46.\n\n[61] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 329.\n\n[62] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 303.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nGeorge Pelham's philosophy--The nature of the soul--The first moments\nafter death--Life in the next world--George Pelham contradicts Stainton\nMoses--Space and time in the next world--How spirits see us--Means of\ncommunication.\n\n\nThe communicator, George Pelham, did not confine himself to obtaining\nrecognition from his friends; he talked a great deal of philosophy with\nthem, especially with Dr Hodgson. Indeed, if he had not done so, the\nomission might have created a doubt as to his identity, for in his\nlifetime he was fond of such discussions. But for the present Dr Hodgson\nhas kept back these speculations from the other side of the grave,\nthinking quite rightly that no value would attach to them until\nunmistakable evidence had been produced for the existence of \"another\nworld.\" Still there are to be found among the reports of the sittings\nsome fragments of these philosophic theories, and they form an\ninteresting subject of study.\n\nThe philosophy may be only that of Mrs Piper. But it may on the other\nhand be the philosophy of the discarnate George Pelham, and for that\nreason it is not unworthy of examination. Supposing, however, that the\nassertions made are actually those of an inhabitant of the other world\nwho in this world was intelligent, honest and cultivated, the question\nstill arises whether we must regard them as expressing Absolute Truth.\nSurely not; if another world exists beyond this one, its inhabitants\nhave mounted one step--but one step only--above us on the infinite\nladder of existence. They do not see the Eternal face to face. It is\nquite possible that they may be able to see clearly truths of which we\nhave no glimpse, but we are not bound to believe more than we like of\nwhat they tell us.\n\nIf the existence of the discarnate George Pelham is established, a new\nlight is undoubtedly thrown on the old problem as to the nature of the\nsoul, a problem as old as the world itself. The disciples of Plato's\nSocrates tried to interpret it by the charming analogy of the lyre and\nits harmony; asking whether man may not be compared to a lyre and his\nsoul to its harmony, a harmony which ceases to exist when the instrument\nis broken. Using more modern terms, we may ask whether the soul is the\nresultant of the forces of the bodily organism, or whether it is the\nindestructible and mysterious motor which produces the action of that\norganism.\n\nGeorge Pelham declares that the soul is in truth the motor, and that the\nbody is merely a machine used temporarily by the soul to act upon the\nobscure world of matter. He speaks to this effect: Thought exists\noutside matter and is in no way dependent upon matter. The destruction\nof the body does not have as its consequence the destruction of thought.\nAfter the dissolution of the body the Ego continues its existence, but\nit then perceives thought directly, is much more free, and can express\nitself much more clearly than when it was stifled by matter. The soul\nand thought are one; thought is the inseparable attribute of the Ego or\nindividual soul. On its arrival in this world the soul is ready to\nregister innumerable new thoughts; it is a _tabula rasa_ upon which\nnothing has been inscribed.\n\nThis is a noble thought, if true, and one that wonderfully widens our\nnarrow outlook. But, as I have said, I reserve my right of critical\nexamination. Elsewhere George Pelham says, \"We have an astral\nfacsimile--the words are his--of our physical body, a facsimile which\npersists after the dissolution of the physical body.\" This would seem to\nbe the astral body of the Theosophists. But the term \"facsimile\" is\nperplexing, as I have always believed that the particular form which\nHumanity actually has was entirely determined by the laws of our\nphysical universe, that it was an adaptation to its surroundings, and\nthat if a modification, however slight, were made in, for instance, the\nlaws of gravity, the human shape would undergo a corresponding\nvariation. Sir William Crookes has lately made some interesting\nobservations on this subject. But to this question I will return again.\n\nNow, the physics of the next world must be very different from the\nphysics of this world, seeing that the next world is not material, or at\nleast that its matter is excessively subtle. How then should the shape\nwe men have in this world persist in the next?\n\nNow, if we have an astral body which accompanies our Ego in the next\nworld, and if that astral body consists of a fluid similar to what we\nsuppose ether to be, or identical with that ether, this fluid must be\nmatter in some form, though matter obviously subject to quite other laws\nthan those of our world of palpable substance. Moreover, there is no\nproof that the soul is not the resultant of the organic forces of this\nastral body. If this astral body, as is probable, in its turn suffers\ndisintegration, there is no proof that the soul survives this second\ndisaggregation. If all these suppositions were proved, the old problem\nconcerning the nature of the soul would have been carried back a stage,\nbut it would not have been solved.\n\nBut, as things are, this is, perhaps, to carry speculation too far. Let\nus curb our ambition and ask George Pelham what are the sensations felt\nimmediately after death. Everything was dark, he says; by degrees\nconsciousness returned and he awoke to a new life. \"I could not\ndistinguish anything at first.[63] Darkest hours just before dawn, you\nknow that, Jim. I was puzzled, confused.\" This is probable enough. If\nthings are thus, death must be a sort of birth into another world, and\nit is easy to understand that the soul which has been just born into\nthat new world cannot see or comprehend much in it till some time after\nsuch birth.\n\nJames Howard remarked to George Pelham that he must have been surprised\nto find himself still living, to which George Pelham replied, \"Perfectly\nso. Greatly surprised. I did not believe in a future life. It was beyond\nmy reasoning powers. Now it is as clear to me as daylight.\" Elsewhere he\nsays that when he found that he actually lived again he jumped for joy.\nThis joy is comprehensible enough; those of us who are resigned to the\nprospect of annihilation are few. The thought that death is annihilation\nmakes us, against all principles of logic, shiver to the very marrow.\nSuch a feeling perhaps points to a revolt of the soul within that knows\nitself immortal and cannot without a shiver of fear face the idea of\nnon-existence, an idea in opposition to its very nature.\n\nWith the impressions of George Pelham may be compared those of another\ncommunicator called Frederick Atkin Morton, who had passed into the next\nworld in quite a different way. This Morton had lately started a\nnewspaper; anxiety, overwork, and perhaps other causes made him lose his\nreason. His insanity lasted but a short time; in one of its attacks he\nshot himself in the head and was killed on the spot. The first time that\nhe tried to communicate, his remarks showed great incoherence;--no\nmatter for surprise if Dr Hodgson's observations on this subject are\nrecalled. But his thoughts soon became clear, and at the second sitting\nhis communications were definite enough. This is how he relates to his\nbrother Dick his impressions about his own death. He does not speak of\nsuicide, an action which he probably committed without full\nconsciousness of what he was doing, but at the end of the sitting Mrs\nPiper's hand wrote the word \"Pistol.\" Death had been due to a pistol\nshot.[64] \"When on Sunday,\" he says, \"I began to lose my mental\nequilibrium, then suddenly I realised nothing and nobody.\" In answer to\nthe question as to what his next experience was he goes on: \"I found I\nwas in this world. I did not know for the moment where I was only I\nfelt strange and freer; my head was light in weight, also my body ... my\nthoughts began to clear when I observed I had departed from my material\nbody. Ever since then I have been trying to reach you, Dick. I saw a\nlight and many faces beckoning me on and trying to comfort me, showing\nand assuring me I should soon be all right, and almost instantly I found\nI was. Then I called for you and tried to tell you all about where and\nhow I was, and, with one exception, this is the only chance I have had.\nNow you see I am taking advantage of the opportunity.\"\n\nAfter the question of how a man passes into the next world, the most\ninteresting one to us is how he feels when he gets there. Generally\nspeaking, the reports are satisfactory. One of Professor Hyslop's\nuncles, though he seems to have had a happy life here, says to his\nnephew, among other things,[65] \"I would not return for all I ever\nowned--music, flowers, walks, drives, pleasures of all kinds, books and\neverything.\" Another communicator, John Hart, the first sitter to whom\nGeorge Pelham appeared, said on his own first appearance, \"Our world is\nthe abode of Peace and Plenty.\" If this is the case, what a pleasant\nsurprise awaits us, for in this world we have not much experience of\nPeace and Plenty. But I fear that John Hart has exaggerated; every day\nthe Reaper's sickle casts from this world into the other such elements\nof discord, not to reckon those who must long ago have been there, that\nI wonder what means are taken to prevent their creating a disturbance.\nHowever this may be, if when we leave this world we pass into another,\nlet us hope that the new world will be a better place than the old one,\nor else we shall have every reason to regret that death is not\nannihilation.\n\nBut George Pelham, in his turn, assures us that we do not lose by the\nchange. He died, it will be remembered, at the age of thirty-two. When\nDr Hodgson asked him whether he had not gone too soon, he replied with\nemphasis, \"No, Hodgson, no, not too soon.\"\n\nIf, however, spirits are happy, more or less happy, according to the\nspiritualists, as they are more or less developed--and there seems\nnothing inadmissible in this theory--we must suppose that their\nhappiness is not purely contemplative. One could soon have enough of\nsuch happiness as that. They are active; they are, as we are, occupied,\nthough we cannot understand wherein their occupation consists. That this\nis so is affirmed and reaffirmed in the sittings, and we might assume\nit, even if the spirits did not assert it. George Pelham says to his\nfriend, James Howard, that he will have an occupation soon.[66] The\nfirst time that I read this statement, in a review which only reproduced\na short fragment and in no way gave the real effect of these sittings, I\nremember that the impression produced on me was very disagreeable. How\nunsophisticated, I thought, must these so-called investigators be not to\nsee that such a phrase as that cannot come from a spirit; it bears too\nclearly the stamp of earth!\n\nSince then reflection has made me admit that spirits might very well\nalso have their occupations; the next world, if it exists, must be a\nsphere of fresh activity. Work is the universal law. When George Pelham\nwas asked in what consisted the occupations of spirits, he replied that\nthey were like the noblest occupations of men, and consisted in helping\nothers to advance. This reply will doubtless not satisfy those who are\nactuated only by an idle curiosity, but it contains a profound\nphilosophic truth. If our varied occupations upon earth are regarded\nfrom a somewhat superior point of view, it will be seen that their\nultimate end is nothing else than the perfection of mankind. Those of us\nwho have evolved furthest realise this, and the rest do not; the case\nmust be the same in the next world, though George Pelham does not say\nso. All our efforts and exertions are regarded with indifference by\nnature who has no use for them, but the necessities of life make men\nfeel that they are brothers, and oblige them to polish one another, like\nthe stones of the beach rolled to and fro by the waves and rounded and\npolished by rubbing one against another. Willingly or not, consciously\nor unconsciously, we force one another to advance and to improve in all\nrespects. The world has been, I think with justice, compared to a\ncrucible in which souls are purified by pain and work and prepared for\nhigher ends. I should not like to go as far as Schopenhauer and say that\nit is a mere penal settlement.\n\nA celebrated English medium, William Stainton Moses, in a book well\nknown to spiritualist readers, _Spirit Teachings_, developed, or rather\nallowed his spirit-guides to develop, the theory that souls leave this\nearth taking with them all their desires and all their evil passions.\nHaving no body in the next world to enable them to gratify these desires\nthey are subjected to a veritable punishment of Tantalus. Thereupon they\nendeavour to satisfy their material passions at least, if I may so say,\nvicariously; they urge on incarnate men, all unaware, to abandon\nthemselves to these vices and passions. They incite the gambler to play,\nthe drunkard to drink; in a word, they push, as far as in them lies,\nevery vicious man to the bottom of the abyss created by his own vice;\ncrime and debauchery intoxicate them and fill them with joy. Further\ndeveloped and noble souls, in spite of all their efforts, are unable to\nconjure away the influence of the undeveloped and evil souls. In a word,\nwe have here the old fable of demons and angels arranged to suit the\ndoctrines of modern spiritualism. It is indeed the old fable with a\ndifference; demons desire the perdition of man from jealousy, because\nbeing themselves eternally condemned they wish to drag down with them as\nmany souls as possible; the evil souls of Stainton Moses desire the\nperdition of man to gratify their own bad inclinations. Demons are\nspirits, wicked indeed, but yet spirits, whereas the evil souls of\nStainton Moses are only miserable ghosts driven mad by love of matter.\nCertainly everything is possible, as Professor Flournoy says, but this\ntheory is somewhat astonishing, for it seems to make the inhabitants of\nthe next world gravitate round our miserable earth, and is like the old\nastronomical theory that placed our little globe in the centre of the\nuniverse. If there be another world, it is hard to believe that its\ninhabitants spend the greater part of their time in attending to us,\nsome of them to harm us and the rest to do us good.\n\nProfessor William Romaine Newbold, in a sitting which took place on June\n19, 1895, asked George Pelham what we ought to think of this theory of\nStainton Moses.[67]\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"Does the soul carry with it into its new life all\nits passions and animal appetites?\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"Oh, no, indeed, not at all. Why, my good friend and\nscholar, you would have this world of ours a decidedly material one if\nit were so.\"\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"The writings of Stainton Moses claimed that the\nsoul carried with it all its passions and appetites, and was very slowly\npurified of them.\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"It is all untrue.\"\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"And that the souls of the bad hover over the earth\ngoading sinners on to their own destruction.\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"Not so. Not at all so. I claim to understand this, and\nit is emphatically not so. Sinners are sinners only in one life.\"\n\nThe result of this denial of Moses's doctrine was that George Pelham was\nasked to find Stainton Moses and beg him to come himself and\ncommunicate. Here is a fragment of conversation between Professor\nNewbold and the discarnate Stainton Moses.\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"You taught that evil spirits tempt sinners to their\nown destruction?\"\n\nW. S. Moses.--\"I have found out differently since I came over here. This\nparticular statement given me by my friends as their medium when I was\nin the body is not true.\"[68]\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"Your second statement was that the soul carries its\npassions and appetites with it.\"\n\nW. S. Moses.--\"Material passions. Untrue. It is not so. I believed that\nwe had every desire after reaching this life as when in the body, but I\nfind that we leave all such behind; in other words, evil thoughts die\nwith the body.\"\n\nSo on this point the teaching of George Pelham differs from that of\nStainton Moses. But, says Professor Newbold, for the most part they\nagree pretty well.\n\nNow when we reach this other world it is certain that we shall at first\nbe completely at a loss there, as all that we here regard as\nindispensable conditions of existence will there be lacking. Spirits say\nthat they do not perceive matter which is for them as if non-existent,\nwhereas here present-day science asserts that outside matter moved by\nforce there is nothing. It would be strange if the science of to-morrow\nwere to prove that matter is only a sort of temporary illusion of mind.\nHere we conceive nothing outside space and time, whereas spirits seem to\nhave but confused notions of space and time. Such, in the first place,\nis the view which they constantly assert; and, in the next place, if\nthey are asked, for example, how long it is since they died they are\ngenerally unable to say. In their communications again, they often\nrelate as occurring in the present actions that have taken place long\nago. I have said already that George Pelham has often been asked to go\nand see what certain absent persons are doing and to return and report\nit; he has generally been successful, but he has sometimes made the\ncurious mistake of taking the past for the present. Here is an\nillustration. He is told to go and see what Mrs Howard, absent at the\ntime, was doing; he returns and reports. Dr Hodgson writes to ask Mrs\nHoward what she was doing at the time of the sitting, and hears from her\nin reply that she did none of the things reported on the day of the\nsitting, but that she had done them all in the course of the afternoon\nand evening of the preceding day.[69] It seems likely that George Pelham\nhad read the thoughts of Mrs Howard, and in his inability to appreciate\ntime had taken the past for the present.\n\nThe same sort of thing seems to occur in the case of space. Phinuit, to\noblige Professor Newbold, goes to find Stainton Moses. Phinuit says that\nhe inhabits a great sphere, and that Stainton Moses lives in a very\ndistant part of this sphere. But in spite of this he brings him back\nalmost at once. When the medium is presented with objects likely to\nattract the so-called spirits with whom the sitters are anxious to\ncommunicate, these spirits for the most part arrive at once, no matter\nwhere they may have died; John Hart, who died at Naples, communicates\ntwo days afterwards at Boston. But it is hardly to be presumed that the\nspirits are there waiting for us. If their appearance can be hastened\nor delayed by sympathy or antipathy, on the other hand what we call\ndistance seems not to disturb them in the least; and yet we are\nperpetually finding in the communications such phrases as, \"Every day I\nam getting further from you,\" \"Now I am very far away from you.\" But\nsuch phrases are probably not to be interpreted literally. The spirits\ngo further from us as they make progress in the spiritual world and\ndoubtless also as the things of this world occupy less and less place in\ntheir recollections.\n\nThe spirits see us but they do not see our bodies, since they do not\nperceive matter. They see the spirit within us but it appears to them\nmore or less obscure, as long as it is within the body. \"It is by the\nspiritual part of your being that I see you,\" says George Pelham, \"that\nI am able to follow you and to tell you from time to time what you are\ndoing.\"\n\nAnd what do they think of our life upon earth? Here is a quotation from\nGeorge Pelham which will tell us:[70] \"Remember we always shall have our\nfriends in the dream life, _i.e._, your life so to speak, which will\nattract us for ever and ever, and so long as we have any friends\nsleeping in the material world; you to us are more like as we understand\nsleep, you look shut up as one in prison.\"\n\nProfessor Hyslop had a sister who died as a very young child; she sends\na short message to her brother saying that he dreams while she lives and\nthat she sends him her love.\n\nOur life then would seem to be but a sleep accompanied by dreams which\nare sometimes terrible nightmares. If this be so we can but hope for\ndawn and waking, and wish soon to hear the crowing of the cock which\nwill put to flight the phantoms of the night. Happy should we be if we\nhad a certainty that it would be so!\n\nThis reminds me of a fine passage in a Spanish poet, which I cannot\nrefrain from quoting: \"To live is to dream; experience teaches that man\ndreams what he is till the moment of awakening. The king dreams that he\nis a king and passes his days in the error, giving orders and disposing\nof life and property. The rich man dreams the wealth that is the cause\nof his anxiety; the poor man dreams the poverty and need from which he\nsuffers. I too dream that I am here laden with chains, and in by-gone\ndays I dreamt that I was happy. Our dreams are but dreams within a\ndream.\"\n\nSo our world may be compared with the cave of which Plato speaks in the\nSeventh Book of the _Republic_. In the conversation between Dr Hodgson\nand George Pelham, when George Pelham promised that if he were the first\nto die and if he found that he had another life he would do all that he\ncould to prove its existence, they referred to the old Platonic myth. In\nthe communications of the so-called George Pelham allusion was made to\nthe allegory, and that justifies me in briefly recalling it.\n\nPlato imagines prisoners who from their birth have been enchained in a\ndark cave in such a way that they are not able either to move or to turn\ntheir heads, and can only look straight in front of them. Behind and\nabove the captives a great fire burns, and between the fire and the\ncaptives men pass to and fro carrying in their hands vessels, statues,\nimages of animals and plants, and many other objects. The shadows of\nthese men and of the objects that they carry are thrown upon that wall\nof the cavern which is opposite to the captives, who thus know nothing\nof the external world but these shadows which they take to be realities,\nand they spend their time discussing the shadows, naming them and\nclassifying them.\n\nOne of the captives is carried off from the gloomy place and transported\ninto the external world. At first the light dazzles him and he can\ndistinguish nothing. But by degrees, as time goes on, his sight adapts\nitself to its surroundings and he learns to look upon the stars and\nmoon, and the sun itself. When he has been brought back into the cave\nand again sits beside his companions, he takes part in their discussions\nand tries to make them understand that what they take for realities are\nonly shadows. But they, confident in the results of their lengthy\nreflections on the subject, laugh him to scorn. The same thing would\nhappen to a soul which had dwelt for a time in the world of spirit and\nhad been brought back into the world of matter.\n\nWhen Plato's captive is brought back into the cave, his eyes, no longer\nused to half-darkness, can distinguish nothing for some time; if he is\nquestioned about the shadows of the passing objects he does not see\nthem, and his answers are full of confusion. Perhaps something like this\nhappens to the discarnate spirits who try to manifest themselves to us\nby borrowing the organism of a medium. Such at least is the suggestion\nof George Pelham; in that way he would explain the incoherence, the\nconfusion, the false statements made by many of the communicating\nspirits:[71] \"For us to get into communication with you, we have to\nenter into your sphere, as one like yourself asleep. This is just why we\nmake mistakes as you call them, or get confused and muddled so to put\nit. I am not less intelligent now. But there are many difficulties. I am\nfar clearer on all points than I was, shut up in the body. 'Don't view\nme with a critic's eye, but pass my imperfections by.'\"\n\nGeorge Pelham also tells us how we may summon the spirits of those with\nwhom we desire to communicate. The thoughts of his friends reach him; if\nhe is to come and make himself manifest his friends must think of him.\nHe adds that, so far from the communications being injurious to the\ncommunicating spirits or the sitters, they are positively to be desired.\n\nOn one occasion Dr Hodgson asked what became of the medium during the\ntrance.[72]\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"She passes out as your ethereal goes out when you\nsleep.\"\n\nDr Hodgson.--\"Well, do you see that there is a conflict, because the\nbrain substance is, so to speak, saturated with her tendencies of\nthought?\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"No, not that, but the solid substance called brain--it\nis difficult to control it simply because it is material; her mind\nleaves the brain empty as it were, and I myself, or other spiritual mind\nor thought, take the empty brain, and there is where and when the\nconflict arises.\"\n\nAll this is very unintelligible in the present condition of our\nknowledge. But here is another passage even less intelligible and one\nwhich in its _naivete_ almost suggests that the speaker is playing with\nus. George Pelham says to his friend James Howard at the first sitting\nat which James Howard was present:[73] \"Your voice, Jim, I can\ndistinguish with your accent and articulation, but it sounds like a big\nbrass drum. Mine would sound to you like the faintest whisper.\"\n\nJ. Howard.--\"Our conversation, then, is something like telephoning?\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"Yes.\"\n\nJ. Howard.--\"By long-distance telephone.\"\n\nGeorge Pelham laughs.\n\nUnderstand who may! Are these only analogies? One does not know what to\nthink. Another difficult thing to understand is the \"weakness\" which the\nspirits complain that they feel, especially towards the end of the\nsittings. George Pelham actually says that we must not demand from\nspirits just what they have not got, namely, strength. If the spirits\nmean that the medium's \"light\" grows weak and no longer provides them\nwith the unknown something that they require in order to communicate,\nwhy do they not express themselves more clearly?\n\nIt will perhaps be thought that I have dwelt a little too long on what\nI have called the philosophy of George Pelham. I have thought it best to\ndo so, and there is no harm done so long as I leave it to my readers to\nbelieve as much as they like.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[63] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 301.\n\n[64] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiv. p. 18.\n\n[65] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 315.\n\n[66] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 301.\n\n[67] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiv. p. 36.\n\n[68] In another sitting W. S. Moses says that, as he held this view very\nstrongly in life, he felt sure that he had been told it by his\nspirit-guides.\n\n[69] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. pp. 305, 306.\n\n[70] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 362.\n\n[71] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. pp. 362, 363.\n\n[72] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 434.\n\n[73] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 301.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nWilliam Stainton Moses--What George Pelham thinks of him--How Imperator\nand his assistants have replaced Phinuit.\n\n\nFor those of my readers who are unacquainted with spiritualist\nliterature, and in order to facilitate the understanding of what\nfollows, I must give a short sketch of the life of the English medium,\nWilliam Stainton Moses. He was born in 1839, and died in 1892. He\nstudied at Oxford, and was then curate at Maughold, near Ramsey, in the\nIsle of Man. His great kindness made him beloved by all his parishioners\nthere. When an epidemic of smallpox drove even the doctors away, he\nremained faithfully at his post, caring for bodies and comforting souls.\nBut he had precarious health, and was overworked at Maughold. He\nobtained another curacy, where there was less work, at Saint George's,\nDouglas, also in the Isle of Man. It was at Douglas that the friendship,\nbroken only by death, was formed between him and Dr Stanhope Speer. A\nthroat-affection soon after prevented his preaching, and he left the\nservice of the Church to give himself up to teaching. He went to London,\nwhere he became tutor to the son of Dr Stanhope Speer, who was living\nthere. Finally, at the beginning of 1871, he obtained a mastership in\nUniversity College School, and there he remained till 1889.\n\nTill 1872 William Stainton Moses knew nothing of spiritualism. If he had\nvaguely heard of it, he had no doubt hastened to condemn the new\nsuperstition which carried off sheep from his flock.\n\nHowever, in 1872, Mrs Speer, being ill and confined to her room, read\nDale Owen's book, _The Debatable Land_. The book interested her, and she\nasked Stainton Moses to read it. He did so, but only to please his\nfriend's wife. Nevertheless he became curious to know how much truth\nthere might be in the matter. He visited mediums, and took Dr Speer with\nhim, and both were soon convinced that here was a new force.\n\nIt was at the time when spiritualistic phenomena were attracting much\nattention in the United States and England, and when learned bodies were\nappealed to from all sides to put an end to these phantasmagoria. It was\nthe period when the materialised apparition of Katie King appeared and\ntalked to numerous spectators who came from widely separated places. Sir\nWilliam Crookes could see her and photograph her as much as he pleased;\nheedless of his environment, he published what seemed to him the truth.\n\nThereupon the man whose brain had till then been considered one of the\nmost lucid and best organised which humanity has produced, lost\nconsiderably in the opinion of his contemporaries. But no doubt the\nfuture will avenge him.\n\nThe Speer family and Stainton Moses now began to hold sittings by\nthemselves. Stainton Moses[74] at once showed himself to be an\nextraordinarily powerful medium. Neither he nor anybody else had\nsuspected this mediumship till now. Many other mediumships have been\nrevealed in the same way, suddenly, by experiment. This shows that\nfaculties, valuable for the study of these disturbing problems, may\nexist in some of us who least expect it.\n\nThe physical phenomena which occurred in the presence of Stainton Moses\nwere numerous and varied.\n\nThese phenomena cannot be due to the subconsciousness of Stainton Moses,\nand they seem to point to external intervention more clearly than do the\ncommunications he has left us. The best known of these communications is\nentitled _Spirit Teachings_. It is a long dialogue between self-styled\ndisincarnated spirits and Stainton Moses. Stainton Moses also wrote\nautomatically without being entranced. _Spirit Teachings_, among other\nthings, was obtained in this way. The medium is still saturated with his\ntheological education; he discusses, he cavils, and his spirit-guides\nshow him the absurdity of a great part of his beliefs. We know that his\nrobust faith began to be shaken by doubt about the time when his\nmediumship revealed itself. If we left the above-mentioned phenomena out\nof consideration, we might not unreasonably be tempted to see in these\ndialogues only a doubling of personality; on one hand the personality of\nthe clergyman defending his doctrines foot by foot, on the other hand\nthe personality of the reasoning man formulating his own objections to\nthem.\n\nThe self-styled spirit-guides of Stainton Moses formed a united group\nobeying one chief, who called himself Imperator. Rector, Doctor,\nPrudens, were his subordinates. Naturally, they asserted they were the\nsouls of men who had lived on earth; the above names were borrowed for\nthe circumstance; their real names were revealed to Stainton Moses, who\nwrote them in one of his note-books, but always refused to publish them.\nI beg the reader to observe this detail, which will become important\nlater.\n\nStainton Moses had the temperament of an apostle but not at all that of\na man of science. The contents of the messages interested him much more\nthan their origin. The former clergyman liked better to discuss a\ndoubtful text than patiently to accumulate facts while guarding himself\nin all possible ways against fraud. Certainly he was scrupulously\nhonourable; no conscious falsehood ever passed his lips, but his\ntemperament makes his interpretations doubtful, and with reason. He was\none of the first members of the Society for Psychical Research, but the\nmethods which the Society adopted from the beginning were not of a kind\nto please him; for his part, he believed that abundant proofs already\nexisted, and he saw no use in minutely examining a large number of small\nfacts.\n\nDr Speer's son, whom Stainton Moses had taught, praises his judgment,\nhis modesty, his inexhaustible charity. Modest he really was, and it\nnever occurred to him to be vain of the miraculous phenomena which\noccurred in his presence; he never thought of making a venal use of his\nmediumship. Although he published his communications, he hardly ever\npublished reports of his phenomena. It was Frederic Myers who published\nthese from the note-books of the Speer family and of Stainton Moses\nhimself. The notes are in agreement, although they were made separately,\nand without any idea of publication.\n\nThe son of Dr Speer asserts that Stainton Moses never refused a\ndiscussion, and never despised an opponent. But, on the other hand,\nFrederic Myers, who knew him well, assures us that he bore contradiction\nbadly, and was quickly irritated by it. The manner in which he retired\nfrom the Society for Psychical Research tends to prove that it is Myers\nwho is right. The son of Dr Speer, in his gratitude to his former\nmaster, must have deceived himself.\n\nI will now explain the reason of this long preamble about Stainton\nMoses. At a sitting which took place on June 19, 1895, Professor\nNewbold, conversing with George Pelham, obtained from him the\nenunciation of doctrines which contradicted those given by Stainton\nMoses in _Spirit Teachings_. Professor Newbold[75] then asked,--\n\n\"Do you know of Stainton Moses?\"\n\nGeorge Pelham.--\"No, not very much. Why?\"\n\nProfessor Newbold.--\"Did you ever know of him or know what he did?\"\n\nG. P.--\"I only have an idea from having met him here.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Can you tell me what he said?\"\n\nG. P.--\"No, only that he was W. Stainton Moses. I found him for E.[76]\nand Hodgson.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Did you tell Hodgson this?\"\n\nG. P.--\"I do not think so.\"\n\nAt the sitting on the next day, Professor Newbold returns to the charge.\n\n\"Can you bring Stainton Moses here?\"\n\nG. P.--\"I will do my best.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Is he far advanced?\"\n\nG. P.--\"Oh, no, I should say not. He will have to think for a while\nyet.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"What do you mean?\"\n\nG. P.--\"Well, have you forgotten all I told you before?\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"You mean about progression by repentance?\"\n\nG. P.--\"Certainly I do.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Was not he good?\"\n\nG. P.--\"Yes, but not perfect by any means.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Was he a true medium?\"\n\nG. P.--\"True, yes, very true; his 'light' was very true, yet he made a\ngreat many mistakes and deceived himself.\"\n\nPhinuit, sent to find Stainton Moses, ends by bringing him. George\nPelham warns the sitter against the confusions and incoherences of\nStainton Moses's communications. \"When he arrives,\" says George Pelham,\n\"I will wake him up.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Is he asleep?\"\n\nG. P.--\"Oh, Billie, you are stupid, I fear, at times. I do not mean wake\nhim up in a material sense.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Nor did I.\"\n\nG. P.--\"Well, then, old man, don't be wasting light.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"I'm not wasting light, but I am obliged to find out what\nyou mean.\"\n\nG. P.--\"Well, this is what I wish also.\"\n\nProfessor N.--\"Stainton Moses has been nearly three years in the\nspirit.... Do you mean to say that he is not yet free from confusion?\"\n\nThese explanatory passages would be of great value if we were sure that\nwe were not dealing with a secondary personality of Mrs Piper.\n\nLater still, George Pelham returns to the probable mental confusion of\nStainton Moses, and to the necessity for taking certain precautions in\norder to obtain clear communications. He was quite right. These\nsittings, in which Stainton Moses was the self-styled communicator, are\nexactly those which make the spiritualist hypothesis most difficult to\naccept. All the exact information given existed already in the minds of\nthose present; all the rest was untrue. Stainton Moses had an excellent\nchance of proving his identity. We have said that he had written down\nthe real names of his \"spirit-guides\" or \"controls\" in one of his\nnote-books. At the time these sittings were taking place in America,\nFrederic Myers, in England, was studying these note-books in order to\npublish so much of them as he thought fit. He knew these names, but I\nbelieve he was the only person in the world who knew them. Stainton\nMoses was told, \"Give us the names of your spirit-guides; it will be a\nsplendid proof. Mr Myers knows them, but we do not. We will send them to\nhim, and if they are correct we shall no longer be able to have a\nreasonable doubt of your identity.\" The self-styled Stainton Moses\nseemed perfectly to understand what was asked of him; he gave the names,\nand every one of them was wrong.\n\nIn October 1896 Dr Hodgson made George Pelham understand the necessity\nof obtaining exact information from Stainton Moses, in order that the\nproblem, which seemed to interest George Pelham as much as it did Dr\nHodgson, might be solved. Stainton Moses then said that he would ask the\nhelp of his former spirit-guides. The latter communicated directly\nseveral times, in November and December 1896 and in January 1897. But\nfinally they demanded that the \"light\" of the medium should be put at\ntheir exclusive disposal. Imperator explained that these unconsidered\nexperiments with all sorts of spirits--more or less undeveloped and\ndisturbed--as communicators, had made Mrs Piper as a medium into a\nmachine \"worn out,\" and incapable of being really useful. He, Imperator,\nand his friends would be able to restore her in time. But they must have\nthe right to keep away such communicators as they should judge likely to\ninjure her again. Dr Hodgson explained the importance of trying this\nexperiment to Mrs Piper in her normal state. Mrs Piper, docile as usual,\nconsented. The last appearance of Phinuit occurred on January 26, 1897.\nPhinuit had formerly said, \"They find fault with me, they won't\nunderstand that I do all I can, but when they do not hear my voice any\nlonger they will regret me.\" However, he is not regretted. Whoever the\ncontrols Imperator, Rector, Doctor and Prudens may be, since they have\ncontrolled the communications, these have acquired a coherence,\nclearness and exactness unknown before; errors are rare, and evident\nfalsehood unknown. Besides, Mrs Piper enters the trance differently.\nFormerly there was more or less painful struggle; she had violent\nconvulsions and spasmodic movements; at present she enters the trance\nquietly, as if she were falling asleep.\n\nIf, in truth, Mrs Piper entranced is merely an automaton, a \"machine,\"\nof which use is made to communicate between two worlds, it is perfectly\nevident that, on this side as well as the other, it is well to have\nhonourable and experienced experimenters. Phinuit was not perhaps\nwanting in experience, but he was assuredly wanting in honesty; or\npossibly he did not perceive the extreme importance of veracity in these\nmatters; he did not lie for the pleasure of lying, but he did not\nhesitate to lie, if needs were, to escape from some difficulty.\n\nThe new report of Professor Hyslop, which I am about briefly to analyse,\nwill show us the new phase of Mrs Piper's mediumship. The results are\nalready good. Imperator asserts nevertheless that the \"machine\" still\nneeds repair, and that he will obtain still more wonderful results\nby-and-by.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[74] For an account of the mediumship of W. Stainton Moses the reader is\nreferred to Mr F. W. H. Myers's articles in the _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol.\nix. p. 245, and vol. xi. p. 24.\n\n[75] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiv. p. 36.\n\n[76] Another communicator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nProfessor Hyslop and the journalists--The so-called \"confession\" of Mrs\nPiper--Precautions taken by Professor Hyslop during his\nexperiments--Impressions of the sittings.\n\n\nThe last report[77] we possess of the phenomena accompanying Mrs Piper's\ntrance is that of Professor James Hervey Hyslop, of Columbia University,\nNew York. This report appeared in November 1901. The minutes of the\nsittings, the notes, the remarks of the sitter, the discussion of\nhypotheses, the account of experiments made at the University in order\nto throw light on certain points, all together make a report of 650\npages of close reading. It refers, notwithstanding, only to sixteen\nsittings, of which the first took place on December 23, 1898. But the\nsmallest incidents and the slightest arguments are scrupulously weighed.\nIt is, in short, a work of considerable extent.\n\nProfessor Hyslop has an absolutely sincere and very lucid mind. It is a\npleasure to follow him through this mass of facts and arguments;\neverything is scrupulously classified, and the whole is illuminated by a\nhigh intelligence. Professor Hyslop occupies with good right an eminent\nplace amongst the thinkers of the United States. Besides his classes,\nhe gives numerous lectures, which are well attended.\n\nThe report he has published has been long waited for. As he is a man of\nmark and has long occupied himself with Psychical Research, the\ninquisitive journalists on the other side of the Atlantic quickly found\nout that he had been experimenting with Mrs Piper. He was interviewed;\nhe was prudent, and contented himself with recommending the reporters to\nstudy the preceding reports published upon the same case. But reporters\nare not so easily contented; they have to satisfy an exacting master in\nthe public, which wants to know everything, and which would cease to\npurchase any paper simple enough to say, \"I have done all I could to get\ninformation on this point for you, but I have failed.\" The public will\nhave none of such honesty as that, though if a falsehood is offered, it\nis not angry; in the first place, because at the moment it does not\nrecognise the falsehood, and in the second, because by the time it finds\nout it is busy over something else. Consequently, as they must live,\njournalists find themselves sometimes obliged to invent. So the\nreporters put into Professor Hyslop's mouth the following sensational\nwords, \"In a year I shall be able to demonstrate the immortality of the\nsoul scientifically.\" These words were reproduced by the greater number\nof the American papers and by a large number of English ones. Specialist\npublications in France in their turn commented on them. It will be\nunderstood with what eagerness the report was expected after this by\nall men interested in psychical studies. They have not been\ndisappointed. Professor Hyslop is too modest for such unbounded\npretension; he knows that the great problem will not be solved at one\nstroke, nor by one man. \"I do not claim,\" he says, \"to demonstrate\nanything scientifically, not even the facts I offer.\" This phrase does\nnot at all resemble the declaration put into his mouth. But if he has\nnot definitively and scientifically proved the immortality of the soul,\nhe has approached the problem very nearly and thrown a vivid light on\nmore than one point. In any case the journalists have advertised him\nthoroughly, perhaps without intending it.\n\nSpeaking of journalists, I must relate another quite recent incident,\nwhich is interesting to us, as it concerns Mrs Piper personally. One of\nthe editors of the _New York Herald_ interviewed Mrs Piper and on\nOctober 20, 1901, published an article somewhat speciously entitled,\n\"The Confessions of Mrs Leonora Piper.\" In this article it was stated\nthat Mrs Piper intended to give up the work she had been doing for the\nS.P.R. in order to devote herself to other and more congenial pursuits,\nthat it was on account of her own desire to understand the phenomena\nthat she first allowed her trances to be investigated and placed herself\nin the hands of scientific men, with the understanding that she should\nsubmit to any tests they chose to apply, and that now, after fourteen\nyears' work, the subject not being yet cleared up, she felt disinclined\nfor further investigation. Her own view of the phenomena was expressed\nin this article as follows:--\"The theory of telepathy strongly appeals\nto me as the most plausible and genuinely scientific solution of the\nproblem.... I do not believe that spirits of the dead have spoken\nthrough me when I have been in the trance state.... It may be that they\nhave, but I do not affirm it.... I never heard of anything being said by\nmyself during a trance which might not have been latent in my own mind\nor in the mind of the person in charge of the sitting, or in the mind of\nthe person trying to get communication with someone in another state of\nexistence, or of some companion present with such a person, or in the\nmind of some absent person alive somewhere else in the world.\"\n\nIn the _Boston Advertiser_ of October 25, 1901, there appeared a\nstatement dictated by Mrs Piper to a representative of the paper, saying\nthat she had made no such statement as that published in _the New York\nHerald_ to the effect that \"spirits of the departed do not control\" her,\nand later in the _Boston Journal_ for October 29, 1901, there appeared\nan account of interviews with Dr Hodgson and Mrs Piper, in which Mrs\nPiper stated that though she had said \"something to the effect that\" she\n\"would never hold another sitting with Mr Hodgson,\" and that she \"would\ndie first\" to a _New York Herald_ reporter the summer before, when she\ngave the original interview, she now intended, regardless of whatever\nmay have been said, to go on with the present arrangement with Dr\nHodgson and the Society as formerly. She still held and expressed the\nview that the manifestations are not spiritualistic, and felt that the\ntelepathic theory is more probable than the spiritualistic hypothesis.\n\nIt will be seen that in none of these reports is there any justification\nfor the somewhat sensational use of the word \"Confessions\" in the\noriginal article. Mrs Piper made no statements, as the use of that word\nsuggests, concerning the source of her knowledge; she expressed her\npreference for one of two hypothetical explanations of the origin of\nthat knowledge. No question was raised in the original article as to Mrs\nPiper's honesty or as to the genuineness of her trance phenomena; on the\ncontrary she is represented by the reporter of the _New York Herald_ as\nholding a view of those phenomena which asserts that they are not\nfraudulent. She expresses her personal preference for the telepathic\nhypothesis rather than the spiritualist hypothesis as an explanation of\nthem; on this point it should be remembered that the medium is not in a\nmore favourable position for forming an opinion than those who sit with\nher, since she does not remember what passes while she is in trance, and\nis therefore dependent for her knowledge on the reports of the sitters.\n\nThe allegation of the _New York Herald_ as to her intention to\ndiscontinue the sittings was unfounded; after a suspension of some\nmonths owing to the state of her health, she gave a sitting to Dr\nHodgson on October 21, the day after the article in the _Herald_\nappeared, and it was then arranged to resume the sittings after a\nfurther interval of three months. This has been done, and Mrs Piper gave\nsittings to Dr Hodgson all through the spring of last year, and is still\ndoing so through the winter of 1902-1903.\n\nThe reader will excuse this digression on a subject which made some stir\nat the time, and is interesting as throwing light on the medium's own\nattitude towards her trance phenomena.\n\nTo return to Professor Hyslop's report.\n\nProfessor Hyslop told only his wife and Dr Hodgson of his intention to\nhave sittings with Mrs Piper. The days were fixed, not with Mrs Piper in\nthe normal state, but with Imperator, the chief of the present controls,\nwhile she was in trance. Now we must never forget that Mrs Piper has no\nrecollection of what happens during the trance. Professor Hyslop's name\nwas not given to Imperator; Dr Hodgson called him the \"four times\nfriend,\" because Professor Hyslop had at first asked for four sittings.\nI should not call this a transparent pseudonym.\n\nProfessor Hyslop had once been present at one of Mrs Piper's sittings,\nand his name had been pronounced. Although there seemed to be small\nchance of her recognising him, as the sitting had taken place six years\nbefore, and Professor Hyslop did not then wear a beard as he now does,\nhe put on a mask while he was in a closed carriage at some distance from\nMrs Piper's house. He kept on his mask during the first two sittings,\nand then the precaution became useless, because his father's name was\npronounced by Mrs Piper at the end of the second. Dr Hodgson presented\nhim as Mr Smith, which name is given to all new sitters. Professor\nHyslop never spoke before Mrs Piper in her normal state, except twice to\nutter short sentences, and he took pains to change his voice as much as\npossible. He avoided all contact with the medium throughout all the\nsitting. Most of the facts were obtained from the communicators without\nprevious questioning. When Professor Hyslop was obliged to ask a\nquestion, he did so in such a way that it did not contain a suggestion\nof the answer. To prevent Mrs Piper's seeing him during the sitting, he\nkept always behind her right shoulder, the easiest position too for\nreading the writing.\n\nBut when we recollect that Mrs Piper's head is always buried in pillows\nduring the trance, we shall think this a superfluous precaution.\n\nAs I have said in the preceding chapter, Phinuit no longer manifests.\nThis is what now appears to take place on the \"other side.\" Rector\nplaces himself in the \"machine,\" and it is he who produces the automatic\nwriting. This Rector seems to have had much experience of these\nphenomena. The communicator comes close to Rector and speaks to him, in\nwhatever manner spirits may speak. Imperator remains outside the\n\"machine,\" and prevents the approach of all those likely to injure it,\nor who have nothing to do with the sitter. Besides, before he allows a\ncommunicator to enter the \"machine,\" he gives him advice as to what he\nshould do, and helps him to arrange and clear up his ideas. Imperator's\ntwo other helpers, Doctor and Prudens, appear but rarely. George Pelham\nappears sometimes, when his services are needed.\n\nThe communicators were few in number during Professor Hyslop's sixteen\nsittings. They were, his father, Robert Hyslop, who gave much the most\nimportant communications; his uncle, Carruthers; his cousin, Robert\nHarvey MacClellan; his brother Charles, who died in 1864, aged four\nyears and a half; his sister Annie, who also died in 1864, aged three\nyears; his uncle, James MacClellan; and lastly, another MacClellan named\nJohn.\n\nProfessor Hyslop's father, Robert Hyslop, is the communicator who takes\nup the greater part of the sittings. But he cannot remain long in the\n\"machine,\" he complains of having his ideas confused, of suffocating or\ngetting weak; for example, he says, \"I am getting weak, James, I am\ngoing away for a moment; wait for me.\" During these absences Imperator\nsends another member of the family in his place \"so that the light may\nnot be wasted.\" It would thus seem that the \"weakness\" which the spirits\ncomplain of is only a feeling they have when they have been in contact\nwith the \"machine\" for a certain time; Imperator says that then they are\nlike a sick and delirious man. This explains the words of George Pelham,\n\"You must not ask of us just what we have not got--strength.\" But it is\nindispensable to say that the former communicators did not explain\nenough about this weakness; and they were not sufficiently well inspired\nto go out when they felt it coming on. Dr Hodgson at last, having often\nremarked this semi-delirium of the communicators towards the end of a\nsitting, when the light was failing, succeeded in suggesting to them to\ngo away when they felt themselves getting weak. The possibility of this\nsuggestion is interesting to those who prefer the hypothesis of\ntelepathy.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[77] Professor Hyslop's report is contained in _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol.\nxvi.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nThe communications of Mr Robert Hyslop--Peculiar expressions--Incidents.\n\n\nAfter we have read the report of Professor Hyslop, weighed the slightest\nfacts with him, discussed the arguments for and against with him, we\ncannot be surprised at his having ended by adhering to the spiritualist\nhypothesis; in other words, we cannot be surprised that, in spite of his\nprevious prejudice, he should have ended by exclaiming, \"I have been\ntalking with my father, my brother, my uncles. Whatever supernormal\npowers we may be pleased to attribute to Mrs Piper's secondary\npersonalities, it would be difficult to make me believe that these\nsecondary personalities could have thus completely reconstituted the\nmental personality of my dead relatives. To admit this would involve me\nin too many improbabilities. I prefer to believe that I have been\ntalking to my dead relatives in person; it is simpler.\" This is the\nconclusion at which Professor Hyslop has arrived, and he takes the\nreader with him, in spite of himself. As may be imagined, I do not\npretend to do the same in a hurried sketch like the present. Here, as\nwas the case with George Pelham, the incidents quoted are only examples\nselected from a great number; some important detail of the said\nincidents may even be accidentally omitted. If the forgotten detail\nlays the incident open to some great objection, the reader must blame me\nonly for it, and turn to Professor Hyslop's book for himself.[78]\n\nProfessor Hyslop's father, Mr Robert Hyslop, was a private person in the\nstrictest sense of the word; he never did anything to attract public\nattention to him; he did not write in the papers, and never, or hardly\never, lived in towns. He was born in 1821, and lived on his farm in Ohio\ntill 1889, when he went into a neighbouring State. He returned to his\nold home in August 1896, ill with a sort of cancer of the larynx. The\nold home then belonged to his brother-in-law, James Carruthers, and he\ndied there on the 29th of the same month. In 1860 he had contracted a\nspinal affection, the result of over-exertion, and this had degenerated,\nsome years later, into locomotor ataxy; he lost by degrees the use of\none of his legs and used a crutch; there was afterwards an improvement,\nbut he could never walk without a stick. In 1876 he had a slight attack\nof apoplexy, which affected his hearing, one ear being quite deaf. Three\nyears before his death he further had the misfortune to lose his voice,\nprobably from paralysis of the larynx. A year before his death a fresh\naffliction was added to all the others; he thought it was catarrh, but\nit was probably cancer of the larynx; and it was accompanied by frequent\nspasms which threatened his life.\n\nIn short, for thirty-five years at least, Mr Robert\n\nHyslop was an invalid. His life was by necessity passed indoors, or at\nleast on his farm. This life was necessarily without events calculated\nto attract a stranger's notice. There was consequently very little\npossibility that the medium could obtain information about him by normal\nmeans. But when an obscure man like Mr Robert Hyslop returns from the\nBeyond to establish his identity by relating a number of small facts,\ntoo slight and unimportant to have been observed outside his intimate\ncircle, such a man furnishes us with a much stronger presumption in\nfavour of a future life than a personage in public life could do. Even\nif the latter only reported incidents of his private life, it would be\neasier to suppose that the medium had been able to procure them. During\nnearly all his life, but principally during the last twenty years, the\nthoughts of Mr Robert Hyslop turned on a small number of subjects--his\nsolicitude for his family; the administration of his farm, which gave\nhim much care; the fulfilment of his religious duties, in which he never\nfailed; and lastly, political events, which much interested him, because\nthey naturally reacted upon his private affairs. Consequently the\ngreater part of the facts I shall quote belonged to one or other of\nthese four categories of his preoccupations.\n\nBut, to begin with, it will be useful to speak of a point which\ncharacterises an individual as clearly as his features do--I mean his\nspeech. Each of us has his own language, his familiar expressions; each\nof us expresses himself in his own way under given circumstances. When\nBuffon said \"the style is the man,\" he expressed an absolute truth. When\nsomebody talks to us by telephone, without giving his name, we say,\nwithout a shade of hesitation, \"It is So-and-so. I know him by his\nstyle.\" I repeat that everybody has this individuality of expression; it\nis, however, less marked in educated people. But men only slightly\ncultivated use stereotyped expressions, above all when they are growing\nold; the language of some of them is almost entirely composed of\naphorisms and proverbs. If Mr Robert Hyslop did not altogether belong to\nthis class, he yet, his son tells us, used particular expressions, and\nalways the same in analogous cases; some of them indeed were altogether\npeculiar to him.\n\nNow, when he communicates through Mrs Piper, he uses the same language\nthat he used when alive. Professor Hyslop has incessantly occasion to\nremark, \"This expression is quite like my father; he would have used it\nwhen he was alive in such a case.\" There is even a passage of the\ncommunications so characteristic in this way that it is nearly too much\nso; it would almost suggest fraud. I will reproduce one of these\npassages.[79] \"Keep quiet, don't worry about anything, as I used to say.\nIt does not pay. You are not the strongest man, you know, and health is\nimportant for you. Cheer up now and be quite yourself. Remember it does\nnot pay, and life is too short there for you to spend it in worrying.\nWhat you cannot have, be content without, but do not worry, and not for\nme. Devoted you were to me always, and I have nothing to complain of\nexcept your uneasy temperament, and that I will certainly help.\"\n\nWhen a father has repeated the same advice in the same terms hundreds of\ntimes in his life, and when, after his death, he repeats it again\nthrough an intermediary, it must certainly be difficult to say, \"That is\nnot he; it is not my father.\"\n\nI should much like to give the reader the greatest possible number of\nthese small facts, which convince us almost in spite of ourselves. But\nit is impossible to do so without surrounding them with commentaries\nindispensable to bring out all their importance. Thus, Mr Robert had a\nhorse named Tom, an old and faithful servant. It had grown too old to\nwork, but he would not kill it. He pensioned it, so to speak, and left\nit to die a natural death on the farm. At one sitting he asks, \"Where is\nTom?\" and as James Hyslop did not understand what Tom he was speaking\nof, the communicator added, \"Tom, the horse, what has become of him?\"\n\nMr Robert Hyslop wrote with quill pens, which he trimmed himself; he had\noften trimmed them for his son James. He recalls this detail about the\nquill pens at one of the sittings.\n\nHe was very bald, and had complained of feeling his head cold during the\nnight. His wife made him a black cap which he wore once. At one of the\nsittings he spoke of this cap. James Hyslop, who had been away from home\na long time, had never heard of any black cap. But he wrote to his\nstep-mother, who corroborated the statement.\n\nAt another sitting the communicator, Robert Hyslop, said that there were\nalways two bottles on his desk, one round and one square. Professor\nHyslop was ignorant of this detail, as of the preceding. His\nstep-mother, when questioned, had difficulty in remembering this, but\nhis brother recalled it at once; the round bottle held ink and the\nsquare one contained gum.\n\nAnother time Robert Hyslop asks, \"Do you remember the penknife I cut my\nnails with?\" \"No, father, not very well.\" \"The little penknife with the\nbrown handle. I had it in my vest and then coat pocket. You certainly\nmust remember it?\" \"Was this after you went west?\" \"Yes.\" Professor\nHyslop was unaware of the existence of this penknife. He wrote\nseparately to his step-mother, brother and sister, asking them if their\nfather had possessed a brown-handled penknife with which he cut his\nnails, without telling them why he wanted this information. All three\nreplied, \"Yes, we have it still.\" But it appears that Mr Robert Hyslop\ndid not keep the knife either in his coat or waistcoat pockets, but in\nhis trousers pocket.\n\nThese little facts will suffice as examples. I will go on to more\nimportant ones.\n\nMr Robert Hyslop had a son who had caused him much anxiety all his life.\nHe had often talked of these anxieties to his favourite son James, and\nhad died carrying them with him into the grave. He speaks of them\nrepeatedly during the sittings exactly as he did in life. \"Don't you\nremember, James, that we often talked of your brother and the trouble he\ngave us? Don't worry about it any more, all will go well now, and if I\nknow that you do not worry I shall be all right.\"\n\nHe remembers all the members of his family and names them correctly,\nexcept for two odd mistakes of which I shall speak later. He alludes to\nincidents in the lives, and traits in the characters of each of them. He\nsends them expressions of affection, \"Have I forgotten anybody, James,\nmy son? I should not like to forget anybody.\" He specially asks after\nhis youngest child, Henrietta; he wants to know if she has succeeded in\nher examinations, and he expresses delight when he hears that, on the\nwhole, life promises well for her.\n\nMr Robert Hyslop was an orthodox Calvinist; he belonged to the small,\nvery strict sect of Associate Presbyterians and refused to join the\nUnited Presbyterian Church in 1858. He was extremely rigid in religious\nmatters. When he caused his son James to be educated, he hoped the\nlatter would become a minister, though he left him free choice. When he\nsaw his son modify his religious beliefs he was very much pained. By\ndegrees, however, he became resigned. It is easy to understand from all\nthis that religious preoccupations were in the foreground in his mind.\nHe often talked of religion to his family, he read the Bible and\nnumerous commentaries on it, and sometimes, rather than allow his family\nto go to the church of a less orthodox sect, he himself preached to them\nat home. Consequently, if he had not alluded to his former religious\nlife during the sittings, the omission might have caused a grave doubt\nof his identity. But this is not the case; he constantly alludes to his\nancient religious ideas.\n\nAt one of the first sittings he says, for example, \"Do you remember what\nmy feeling was about this life? Well, I was not so far wrong after all.\nI felt sure that there would be some knowledge of this life but you\nwere doubtful, remember you had your own ideas, which were only yours,\nJames.\"\n\nThis last phrase, \"You have your own ideas,\" Professor Hyslop remarks,\nhad been often repeated to him by his father in his lifetime. \"He meant\nthat I was the only one of his children who was sceptical, and this was\ntrue.\" Robert Hyslop's former religious ideas were the cause of a\nstrange incident. One day Dr Hodgson said to him, \"Mr Hyslop, you ought\nto look for my father and make friends with him. He had religious ideas\nlike yours. I think you would understand each other very well, and I\nshould be pleased.\" At a following sitting the communicator said to Dr\nHodgson, \"I have met your father; we talked, and we liked each other\nvery much, but he was not very orthodox when he was alive.\" Dr Hodgson's\nfather was really a Wesleyan--that is to say, he belonged to a very\nliberal sect. But in another place Robert Hyslop adds, \"Orthodoxy does\nnot matter here; I should have changed my mind about many things if I\nhad known.\" In another sitting he says to his son, alluding to the\ntelepathic hypothesis, \"Let that thought theory alone. I made theories\nall my life, and what good did it do me? It only filled my mind with\ndoubts.\" In short, it appears that Robert Hyslop, the rigid Calvinist,\nhas greatly modified his views since he has been disincarnated.\n\nAt the last visit Professor Hyslop paid to his father, in January or\nFebruary 1895, a long conversation took place between them on religious\nand philosophical subjects. Professor Hyslop spoke of his psychical\nstudies. The possibility of communication between the two worlds was\ndiscussed at length, and Swedenborg and his works were mentioned. During\nthe sittings Robert Hyslop constantly returns to this conversation,\nwhich had made a profound impression on him; much more profound than\nwould have been expected, considering his religious views. He recalls\nthe points which were discussed by him and his son one after another,\nand adds, \"You remember I promised to come back to you after I had left\nthe body, and I have been trying to find an opportunity ever since.\"\nNow, no such promise had been made explicitly. But James Hyslop had\nwritten to his father on his deathbed, \"Father, when all is over, you\nwill try to come back to me.\" Robert Hyslop must from that moment have\nresolved to return if possible; and he must have believed he had told\nhis son so, which was not the case.\n\nWhen he was living in Ohio, Mr Robert Hyslop had a neighbour named\nSamuel Cooper. One day Cooper's dogs killed some sheep belonging to\nRobert Hyslop. An estrangement followed, which lasted several years. At\none of the sittings in which Dr Hodgson represented Professor Hyslop, he\nasked a question which the latter had sent him in writing. Professor\nHyslop hoped the question would turn his father's attention to the\nincidents of his life in Ohio. The question was, \"Do you remember Samuel\nCooper, and can you say anything about him?\" The communicator replied,\n\"James refers to the old friend I had in the West. I remember the visits\nwe used to make to each other well, and the long talks we had concerning\nphilosophical topics.\" At another sitting, when Dr Hodgson was again\nalone, he returned to the same idea. \"I had a friend named Cooper who\nwas of a philosophical turn of mind and for whom I had great respect,\nwith whom I had some friendly discussion and correspondence. I had some\nof his letters ... you will find them.\" Another time, when Professor\nHyslop was present, he said, \"I am trying to remember Cooper's school.\"\nThe next day he returns to the point, \"You asked me, James, what I knew\nabout Cooper. Did you think I was no longer friend of his? I had kept\nsome of his letters; and I think they were with you.\" In all this there\nwas not a trace of Samuel Cooper, and Professor Hyslop did not know what\nto think. He therefore put a direct question in order to bring his\nfather back to the point he had in mind. \"I wanted to know if you\nremembered anything about the dogs killing sheep?\" \"Oh, I should think I\ndid ... but I had forgotten all about it. That was what we had the\ndiscussion about.... Yes, very well, James, but just what you asked me\nthis for I could not quite make out as he was no relation of mine ... if\nI could have recalled what you were getting at I would have tried to\ntell you. He is here, but I see him seldom.\" This episode is\ninteresting. All that Robert Hyslop said at first about Cooper has\nnothing to do with Samuel Cooper, but is entirely true of an old friend\nof his, Dr Joseph Cooper. Robert Hyslop had really had many\nphilosophical discussions with him, and they had corresponded. Professor\nHyslop had perhaps heard his name, but did not know that he was an old\nfriend of his father. It was his step-mother who told him this, in the\ncourse of an inquiry he made amongst his relatives to clear up doubtful\nincidents in the sittings. We see that disincarnated beings are capable\nof misunderstanding as well as ourselves.\n\nBut the following is the most dramatic incident. Professor Hyslop,\nremembering that his father had thought his last illness catarrh, while\nhe himself believed it to be cancer of the larynx, asked the\ncommunicator a question aimed at bringing up the word \"catarrh.\" He\nasked, \"Do you know what the trouble was when you passed out?\" The\ndouble meaning of the word \"trouble\" caused a curious misunderstanding,\nwhich the telepathic hypothesis will find it difficult to explain.\n\nThe communicator replied in distress, \"No, I did not realise that we had\nthe least trouble, James, ever. I thought we were always most congenial\nto each other. I do not remember any trouble--tell me what it was about?\nYou do not mean with me, do you?\" \"Father, you misunderstand me. I mean\nwith the sickness.\" \"Oh, yes, I hear--I know now. Yes, my stomach.\"\n\"Yes, was there anything else the matter?\" \"Yes, stomach, liver and\nhead--difficult to breathe. My heart, James, made me suffer. Don't you\nremember what a trouble I had to breathe? I think it was my heart which\nmade me suffer the most--my heart and my lungs. Tightness of the\nchest--my heart failed me; but at last I went to sleep.\" A little\nfurther on he says, \"Do you know, the last thing I recall is your\nspeaking to me. And you were the last to do so. I remember seeing your\nface; but I was too weak to answer.\"\n\nThis dialogue at first disconcerted Professor Hyslop. He had tried to\nmake his father tell the name of the malady from which the latter\nthought he suffered--catarrh. It was only when he read over the notes of\nthe sitting, a little later, that he perceived all at once that his\nfather had been describing the last hours of his life in the terms\nhabitual to him. Professor Hyslop had been mistaken again. The doctor\nhad noticed pain in the stomach at 7 a.m. The heart action began to\ndecline at 9.30; this was shortly followed by terrible difficulty in\nbreathing, and death followed. When his father's eyelids fell, James\nHyslop said, \"He is gone,\" and he was the last to speak. This last\nincident seems to indicate that consciousness in the dying lasts much\nlonger than is believed.\n\nSoon after Professor Hyslop asked his father if he remembered some\nspecial medicine he had sent him from New York. The communicator had\nmuch trouble in remembering the very strange name of this medicine, but\nended by giving it, though incorrectly spelled.\n\nDuring the first fifteen sittings Professor Hyslop had asked as few\nquestions as possible, and when he was obliged to do so, he had so\nexpressed them that they should not contain the answer. But at the 16th\nsitting he abandoned this reserve intentionally. He wished to see what\nthe result would be if he took the same tone with the communicator as is\ntaken with a friend in flesh and blood. Professor Hyslop says, \"The\nresult was that I talked with my disincarnated father with as much ease\nas if I were talking with him living, through the telephone. We\nunderstood each other at a hint, as in an ordinary conversation.\" They\nspoke of everything--of a fence which Robert Hyslop was thinking of\nrepairing when he died; of the taxes he had left unpaid; of the cares\ntwo of his children had caused him, one of whom had never given him much\nsatisfaction, while the other was an invalid; of the election of\nPresident M'Kinley and of many other things.\n\nCan it be said that there were no inexact statements made by the\ncommunicator during all these sittings? There are some, but very few. I\nshall speak of them in the following chapter. In any case, there is no\ntrace of a single intentional untruth in the whole sixteen sittings.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[78] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. In what follows here there is no\nattempt to give the actual words of Professor Hyslop's communicators.\n_Trans._\n\n[79] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 40.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nThe \"influence\" again--Other incidents--Statistics.\n\n\nAt this point I must return to a fact which is surprising on any\nhypothesis we may prefer: the utility of presenting to the medium\nobjects which have belonged to the person from whom we wish to obtain\nthe supposed communications. Phinuit used to say that he found the\n\"influence\" of the dead persons on these objects, and the \"influence\"\nwas all the stronger if the object had been worn or carried long, and if\nit had passed through few hands; different successive \"influences\" seem\nto weaken one another. I have said that we are totally ignorant of the\nnature of this \"influence,\" but I have also said that it might not\nimprobably be supposed to consist of vibrations left by our thoughts and\nfeelings upon material objects. However this may be, Phinuit seemed to\nread this \"influence,\" and draw from it the greater part of the\ninformation he gave. Generally, in spite of his affirmations to the\ncontrary, he did not appear to be in direct relation with the\ncommunicators at all. Since the disappearance of the Phinuit _regime_\nand the appearance of that of Imperator, the presentation of small\nobjects is still of use; but it must be remarked that it has never been\nindispensable, and that communicators often appear without having been\nattracted by any \"influence.\" But under the present system the\ninformation received appears to be much less read from the \"influence\";\nthere is much more sense of the real presence of the communicators. Of\nwhat use, then, are the small objects given to the medium? Neither the\ncontrols nor the communicators have explained, which is a pity. Under\nthe new system managed by Imperator and his helpers such small articles\nseem chiefly useful for \"holding\" the communicator, for preventing his\ngoing away, and for maintaining a certain cohesion in his thoughts.\nRector constantly repeats, \"Give me something to keep him and clear up\nhis ideas.\" The communicator would apparently need a _point de repere_\nin order to remain at the desired place, and this _point de repere_\nwould be furnished him by some object he has often used, the \"influence\"\nleft on which he seems to perceive more clearly than anything else.\nAccording to George Pelham, we may also suppose that the communicator\nsomehow perceives the mind of the sitter, but this mind is imprisoned in\nmatter, and greatly clouded by it; the communicator only recognises the\nmind of the sitter when it is functioning actively, if I may thus\nexpress it; when the sitter is thinking, and, above all, thinking of the\ncommunicator. This is why, when the communicator perceives that his\nideas are becoming confused, he constantly says reproachfully to the\nsitter, \"Oh! why don't you speak? Say something to me, help me. You want\nme to work for you, but you will not do anything for me.\" The dead\ncousin of Professor Hyslop, Robert MacClellan, says to him, for example,\n\"Speak to me, for Heaven's sake. Help me to reach you.\" Analogous\npassages are very numerous.\n\nI return to Professor Hyslop's report. The most important communicator\nafter his father during the sittings was his uncle Carruthers, whose\nname, however, was always mangled by Rector, and given as _Clarke_ or\n_Charles_. This uncle had died only twenty days before the first\nsitting.[80] At his first communication he inquires anxiously about his\nwife Eliza, Robert Hyslop's sister, whom his death had left desolate.\n\"It is I, James,\" he says to the inquirer. \"Give my love to Eliza; tell\nher not to get discouraged, she will be better soon. I see her often in\ndespair.\" Professor Hyslop asks, \"Do you know why she grieves?\" \"Yes,\nbecause I left her; but I did not really leave her. I wish I could tell\nyou all I would like ... you would not think I had left entirely. Will\nyou comfort her? She ought not to be left lonely.\" \"Yes, I will comfort\nher.\" \"I am so glad!\" At that time Professor Hyslop did not guess that\nhis aunt was so completely alone and in such deep despair. He only found\nthis out on inquiry.\n\nI will quote another incident of \"Uncle Carruthers'\" communications,\nbecause on account of its stamp of vivid realism it is one of those\nwhich the telepathic hypothesis does not explain satisfactorily. Mr\nCarruthers suddenly perceives the presence of Dr Hodgson and says, \"You\nare not Robert Hyslop's son, are you? You are not George.\"[81] Dr\nHodgson replies, \"No, I am not George.\" \"No, James, I know you very\nwell, but this one\" (speaking again to Dr Hodgson), \"Did you know the\nboys? Did you know me?\"\n\nI shall only quote one more incident of these interesting sittings. The\ncommunicator this time is Professor Hyslop's brother Charles, who died\nin 1864 aged four and a half. Robert Hyslop's last child had been born\nlong after Charles's death. \"James, I am your brother Charles. I am\nhappy. Give my love to my new sister Henrietta. Tell her I shall know\nher some day. Our father often talks of her.\" A little further comes\nthis curious phrase, \"Our father would much like you to have his\npictures, _if you are still in the body, James_.\"\n\nI have said there were some inexact statements, but they are very few. I\nwill quote two concerning proper names.\n\nThe family name of \"Uncle Carruthers\" could never be given properly. He\nwas always called Uncle Charles or Clarke. The error is probably\nattributable to Rector, to whom the name Carruthers was not familiar.\n\nThe other mistake is odder still, though it may also be attributed to\nRector. Robert Hyslop's second wife was named Margaret, familiarly\ncalled Maggie. Now, although it was impossible to misunderstand when\nRobert Hyslop was talking of his wife, this name Maggie never came\ncorrectly. Professor Hyslop waited a long time without rectifying the\nmistake; he waited for the communicator to perceive it and correct it\nhimself, but this spontaneous correction was not made. At last he wanted\nthe matter cleared up, and Dr Hodgson explained that the name of\nProfessor Hyslop's step-mother had not been given. Rector, failing to\nunderstand, gave up his place to George Pelham, who began by\nadministering a tolerably sharp scolding to the sitters. \"Well, why do\nyou not come out and say, Give me my step-mother's name, and not confuse\nhim about anything except what you really want? By Jove! I remember how\nyou confused me, and I don't want any more of it. I am going to find\nout, and if your step-mother has a name you shall have it.\" George\nPelham went out of the \"machine\" and returned shortly, saying, \"I do not\nsee any reason for anxiety about _Margaret_.\" Margaret was really the\nname asked for, but one would have expected to obtain it in its more\nhabitual form, Maggie. However, it is easy to understand that Robert\nHyslop should not have given the familiar name of his wife to a stranger\nlike George Pelham.\n\nWhile Professor Hyslop was preparing his report, a number of his friends\nwho knew of his researches asked him what proportion of truth and error\nhe had met with in these manifestations. This frequently-repeated\nquestion suggested to him the idea of making tables in which this\nproportion should be made clear at a glance. This kind of statistics\nwould be important for the class of persons who think themselves\nstronger-minded than the rest, and who tell you, \"I only believe in the\neloquence of figures.\" Such people do not realise that battalions of\nfigures are like battalions of men, not always so strong as is supposed.\n\nHowever, Professor Hyslop took all the \"incidents\" or statements made\nby the communicators and classed them according to the amount of truth\nor error they contained. He then divided the incidents into factors. I\nwill give an example which will help me to define later on what\nProfessor Hyslop means by _incident_ and _factor_[82]: \"My Aunt Susan\nvisited my brother.\" This is an incident, or statement of a complete\nfact. This incident is composed of four factors which are not\nnecessarily connected with one another. The first is _my aunt_, the\nsecond the name _Susan_, the third the _visit_, the fourth _my brother_.\nTherefore an incident may be defined as a name, a conception or a\ncombination of conceptions forming an independent fact; it may be again\na combination of possibly independent facts forming a single whole in\nthe mind of the communicator. The factors would be the facts, names,\nactions, or events which do not necessarily suggest each other, or which\nare not necessarily suggested by a given name or fact.\n\nNaturally, in tables constructed on these lines, the facts cannot be\nclassified according to their importance as _proofs_; they can only be\nreckoned as true or false. Thus incidents which have only a restricted\nvalue as proofs are on a level with others which are in themselves very\nvaluable as proofs. This is really the weak point of these statistics.\nThe proofs need to be examined one by one, and not as a whole.\n\nHowever, the tables have one advantage; the greatest sceptic, after a\nglance at them, can no longer invoke chance, the great _Deus ex machina_\nof the ignorant and indolent.\n\nProfessor Hyslop has constructed a table for each sitting, and a table\nof the sittings as a whole. I cannot reproduce these tables for the\nreaders, who would require the notes of the sittings to understand them.\nI shall only give the definite results.\n\nThus, out of 205 incidents, 152 are classed as true, 37 as\nindeterminate, and only 16 as false. Out of the 927 factors composing\nthese incidents, 717 are classed as true, 167 as indeterminate, and 43\nas false.[83]\n\nIt should be said that Professor Hyslop has perhaps overestimated the\nnumber of false and unverifiable incidents. Many incidents or factors\nclassed as false or unverifiable have been later found to be exact. And\nbesides, the incidents of a transcendental and consequently unverifiable\nnature might have been omitted from these tables. But in this case again\nit has been thought better to give the false and doubtful facts full\nplay. The reader must draw from these results whatever conclusion seems\nto him the most correct.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[80] _See_ Professor Hyslop's Report, _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p.\n90, etc., for \"Carruthers.\"\n\n[81] Name of one of Professor Hyslop's brothers.\n\n[82] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 115.\n\n[83] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 121.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nExamination of the telepathic hypothesis--Some arguments which render\nits acceptance difficult.\n\n\nI have mentioned in passing what should be understood by the word\n_telepathy_. I shall repeat my explanation; it is necessary that the\nreader should have it well in mind, as in this chapter I am about to\nexamine the telepathic hypothesis and endeavour to find out if it will\ncover the facts which we are studying. By telepathy is here meant, not\nonly the power of obtaining information from the consciousness and\nsubconsciousness of the sitters on the part of the secondary\npersonalities of Mrs Piper, but also their power to read the\nconsciousness and subconsciousness of persons somewhere or anywhere else\non earth, no matter where, distance in no way increasing the difficulty\nof this reading. This is evidently among hypotheses a wide and\nfar-reaching one, and yet, if we reject the spiritualistic hypothesis,\nthere is no other which will cover all the facts.\n\nThe following arguments here briefly indicated are, with others,\ndeveloped at length in Professor Hyslop's book. I shall not again go\nover those which circumstances have necessitated my explaining with\nsufficient clearness before in the course of this work.\n\nTo begin with, what is the origin of this telepathic hypothesis? Is it\njustified by the facts of experimental or spontaneous observation among\npsychologists? Certainly not; if we only reckoned the experiments and\nobservations of official psychology, the hypothesis of telepathy, as we\nunderstand it, would be almost unfounded. This hypothesis is in reality\nfounded on our ignorance; we may admit it temporarily, because we are\nignorant of the latent powers of the human mind, and because we have\nevery reason to think these latent powers great and numerous. I think\nthat the first wide use of it was made in the famous book by Gurney,\nMyers, and Podmore, _Phantasms of the Living_. The telepathic hypothesis\nmight very well be admitted as an explanation of the facts recorded in\nthat book, although the spiritualistic hypothesis would explain them as\nwell, or even better. But when we are considering other facts, such as\nthose of Mrs Piper's trance, for example, the telepathic hypothesis, in\norder to explain them, must be stretched beyond permitted limits.\n\nIn the first place, with regard to reading the consciousness of those\npresent, it would seem that, if we were dealing with telepathy, the\nso-called communicator ought generally to bring out the facts of which\nthe sitters have been thinking most intently. But this hardly ever\nhappens; in Professor Hyslop's sittings it never happens. Certainly many\nof the incidents related were in the consciousness of the sitters, but\nthe latter were not thinking about them till the communicator recalled\nthem.\n\nFor the same way, if we were dealing with telepathy, it is to be\nsupposed that the communicators would be the persons whom the sitters\nexpect. Now this is far from being the case. In the fifteen years during\nwhich Mrs Piper's mediumship has been studied, a great number of\ncommunicators have appeared about whom nobody was thinking. Professor\nHyslop, among others, says that he has met with several communicators\nwhom he did not in the least expect. Others whom he expected did not\nappear. It is a fact worthy of remark that in Professor Hyslop's\nsittings only those persons appeared who were capable of telling\nsomething of a nature to prove their identity; the others seem to have\nbeen systematically put aside by Imperator, even when information\nconcerning them was abundant in the consciousness and subconsciousness\nof the sitter.\n\nIt would seem that, if we were dealing with telepathy, the self-styled\ncommunicators would most easily utter the least remote ideas of the\nsitters' minds; the nearest, most vivid ideas ought to appear first. Now\nthis is far from being the case. It seems to make no difference to the\ncommunicator whether the idea is familiar or otherwise to the minds of\nthe living.\n\nWhen it is a question of facts entirely unknown to the sitters and known\nonly to persons living at a great distance, this distance might be\nexpected to affect telepathic mind-reading; nothing in nature authorises\nus to neglect this law of distance. We can only conceive the telepathic\nprocess as a propulsion of waves through space; these waves should\ndecrease with distance; the contrary is absolutely inconceivable. Now\nthis does not happen; if the fact exists only in the consciousness of a\nperson who is at the time at the far ends of the earth, it makes no\ndifference in the precision of the details. If an analogy should be made\nbetween telepathy--as we must conceive it, to explain the phenomena--and\nwireless telegraphy, Mrs Piper entranced must be regarded as a mere\ncoherer of the telepathic waves. But this analogy is non-existent;\nwireless telegraphy is far from being unaffected by distance, and\nbesides, when the coherer functions, it is because another instrument is\nemitting particular waves. When a fact known only to a distant person is\nreported, as in Mrs Piper's phenomena, it rarely happens that the\ndistant person was actively thinking of the fact, which was lying\nunnoticed in the lowest strata of his consciousness. When the\nexperimenter makes his inquiries at the conclusion of the sitting, it is\noften found that a definite effort on the part of the absent person is\nrequired before the fact is recalled to memory.\n\nIt would be well to reflect before we grant to telepathy a power of\nomniscience, independent of all known laws.\n\nAnother well-observed fact, opposed to the telepathic theory, is the\nselection made amongst incidents by the communicator. If we were dealing\nwith telepathy, the secondary personalities of the medium would\nsometimes be mistaken, make blunders, record facts which the so-called\ncommunicator could never have known, but which the sitter alone knows\nwell. Now this never happens. The reported facts are always common to at\nleast two consciousnesses, that of the communicator and that of the\nsitter, or that of the communicator and that of a distant person. The\ninaccuracies prove nothing against this argument; if they are wilful\nfalsehoods they simply prove that the communicator is a liar, and not\nthat he is a secondary personality of Mrs Piper. If the reported facts\nare unverifiable, this does not prove that they are inexact.\n\nIf the telepathic theory expresses the truth, we must grant an almost\ninfinite power to telepathy. This supposition is indispensable to\naccount for the facts. Then how shall we understand the errors and\nconfusions of the communicators? How can an infinite power seem at times\nso limited, so finite, when the conditions remain unchanged? On the\nother hand, the lapses of memory and confusions are quite explicable on\nthe spiritualistic theory; we cannot reasonably think that a change so\ngreat as death should not induce some disturbance of mind, at least\ntemporarily, or should not greatly weaken certain groups of memories\nwhich, in the new surroundings, have no longer any practical use.\n\nA change of communicators has always been frequent, but was especially\nso in Professor Hyslop's sittings. Mr Robert Hyslop constantly says to\nhis son, \"James, I am getting weak; wait for me, I am coming back.\" And\nthen another communicator appears on the spot. The telepathic hypothesis\ncannot explain this fact; it would seem quite natural that the\ncommunicator should be always the same. To explain it, another\nhypothesis--that of suggestion on the part of the sitter--must be added\nto the telepathic hypothesis. But the spiritualistic hypothesis, on the\nother hand, explains this perfectly well, even though we may be\ncompelled to reckon with the complications which the admission of the\nexistence of another world may introduce.\n\nThe existence of the self-styled intermediaries between sitter and\ncommunicator is another fact which does not fit in with the telepathic\ntheory. Formerly Phinuit was the most common intermediary; then George\nPelham collaborated with him; in Professor Hyslop's sittings, and, I\nbelieve, in all subsequent sittings since the installation of the\nImperator _regime_, the intermediary is Rector. It is he who presides at\nthe functioning of the \"machine,\" because he is particularly\ncompetent--so say the communicators. These intermediaries have very\ndefined and life-like characters. Phinuit, George Pelham and Rector are\nas unlike each other as possible. What, on the telepathic hypothesis,\nhas had the power to create them? Mrs Piper's secondary personalities\nshould have incarnated the communicator without intermediary. In order\nto understand this ephemeral reconstitution of a consciousness which has\nfor ever vanished, we should have to allow that the scattered elements\nof this consciousness had temporarily grouped themselves around the\n_point de repere_ formed by the secondary personality of Mrs Piper. We\nshould then see how difficult it is to explain the presence of these\nintermediaries. But if, on the other hand, we accept the spiritualistic\nhypothesis as well founded, we must admit that these intermediaries\naccount for their presence very plausibly.\n\nHere is another argument, which, I think, is very strong, against the\nhypothesis of telepathy. Subjects in the hypnotic state, and the\nsecondary personalities which appear in this hypnotic state, according\nto the precise and decisive experiments made by modern science, have an\nextremely definite notion of time. If you tell a hypnotised subject to\nperform an action in a year, at such an hour and minute, he will never\nfail, so to speak, although when he is awakened there remains in his\nmemory no trace of the order. Now the communicators, in the phenomena we\nare studying, have an extremely vague notion of time, because, they say,\ntime is not a concept of the world in which they live. How is it that\ntelepathy, which can do so much, owns itself incapable, or nearly so, of\ndetermining the moment when an action has been performed? What prevents\nit from reading the idea of time, as well as any other idea, in the\nminds of the persons present, since the notion of time is as clear and\nprecise in them at least as any other notion?\n\nTo conclude, I should say that we are entirely ignorant of the point\nwhere the powers of telepathy begin and end. What I have just said makes\nthe telepathic hypothesis an unlikely explanation; but, as Boileau said\nlong ago, \"Le vrai peut quelque fois n'etre pas vraisemblable\"--Truth\nmay sometimes be unlikely.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nSome considerations which strongly support the spiritualistic\nhypothesis--Consciousness and character remain unchanged--Dramatic\nplay--Errors and confusions.\n\n\nThe unity of character and consciousness in the communicators is one of\nthe reasons which most strongly support the spiritualistic hypothesis.\nIf we were dealing with Mrs Piper's secondary personalities, the first\ndifficulty would be found in their great number. I do not know the exact\nnumber of communicators who have asserted their appearance by means of\nher organism. But several hundreds may be found in the Reports of the\nSociety for Psychical Research, and they are certainly far from being\nall mentioned. Now each communicator has kept the same character\nthroughout, to such an extent that, with a little practice, it is\npossible to recognise the communicator at the first sentence he utters,\nif he has already communicated. Some of the communicators only appear at\nlong intervals, but nevertheless they remain unchanged. But, on the\ntelepathic hypothesis, it is not easy to understand that a self-styled\ncommunicator, a merely ephemeral consciousness reconstituted out of the\nscattered recollections of the sitters, should be thus reconstituted\nonly at long intervals, suddenly, often without apparent cause, and\nalways with the same characteristics. This unity of consciousness and\ncharacter is particularly evident in the controls--that is, in such of\nthe communicators as have appeared uninterruptedly for years, on account\nof their acting as intermediaries for others, and helping them with\ntheir experience. If it cannot reasonably be admitted that the\noccasional communicators are only secondary personalities of the medium,\nthe impossibility must be extended to the controls. Either all the\ncommunicators are, without exception, secondary personalities, or none\nof them are; for all give the same impression of intense life-likeness\nand reality. If they are indeed secondary personalities, science has\nhitherto studied none like them. I have already sketched Phinuit's\ncharacter, which has remained consistently the same during twelve years.\nThe reader should also have a sufficiently clear notion of George\nPelham's individuality, which is also consistent; even now, when George\nPelham appears, we find him unchanged.\n\nThe individualities of the present controls are even more marked, and\nnot less consistent. None of those who, up to the present time, have\ncommunicated through Mrs Piper have in the least resembled Imperator and\nhis assistants. The principal traits of Imperator's character are a\nprofound and sincere religious sentiment, much gravity and seriousness,\ngreat benevolence, an infinite pity for man incarnate on account of the\nmiseries of this life of darkness and chaos; and with this, an imperious\ntemper, so that he does well to call himself Imperator; he commands, and\nwill be obeyed, but he wills only the right. The other spirits who\ngravitate around him--Rector, Doctor, Prudens, and George Pelham--pay\nhim profound respect. This character of Imperator is quite the same as\nwe find in the works of Stainton Moses. Those who decline to accept the\nspiritualist hypothesis on any terms may say that Mrs Piper has drawn\nthe character from this source. She must at least know the book we have\nmentioned--_Spirit Teachings_. When the effort to communicate with\nStainton Moses was made, and nothing was obtained but incoherence and\nfalsehood, Dr Hodgson, wishing to discover what influence the normal Mrs\nPiper's knowledge of Stainton Moses's works might have upon the\nsecondary personality calling itself Stainton Moses (if we are dealing\nwith secondary personalities), took her a copy of _Spirit Teachings_.\nShe read it, or it is to be concluded she did so, but there was no\nresult, and no effect upon the communicator who called himself Stainton\nMoses. Nevertheless, I repeat, it may be asserted with some probability\nthat Mrs Piper took the character of Imperator from this source. But\nthen, from whence did she take the other characters?\n\nImperator and his friends speak in a distinctive biblical style.\nGenerally, at the beginning of the sittings, Imperator either utters a\nprayer himself or dictates one to Rector, who reproduces it. Here is a\nspecimen. \"Holy Father, we are with Thee in all Thy ways, and to Thee we\ncome in all things. We ask Thee to give us Thy tender love and care.\nBestow Thy blessings upon this Thy fellow-creature. Help him to be all\nthat Thou dost ask him. Teach him to walk in the path of righteousness\nand truth. He needs Thy loving care. Teach him in all things to do Thy\nholy will ... and we leave all else in Thy hands. Without Thy care we\nare indeed bereft. Watch over and guide his footsteps and lead him into\ntruth and light. Father, we beseech Thee so to open the blinded eyes of\nmortals that they may know more of Thee and Thy tender love and care.\"\nAmong the phrases which ring familiarly to English ears we notice one\npeculiarity, and one that constantly recurs. Imperator calls God\n\"Father,\" and yet, when he commends man to God, he calls him God's\nfellow-creature, His neighbour, and not His creature. Evidently\nImperator's idea of God differs from ours; it would seem that he thinks\nus an emanation from the Divine, eternal as the Divine itself.\n\nMany readers may not be inclined to attach much value to Imperator's\nprayers. They will take them for one of the diabolical inventions of\nwhich secondary personalities are capable. Evidently, if we take them\napart from the rest, this is the most plausible explanation; but the\ncharacter and ideas of Imperator must be considered as a whole. I can\nassure my readers that there is nothing diabolical about him. If\nStainton Moses and Mrs Piper have created him, they have created a\nmasterpiece; Imperator inspires respect in the most sceptical.\n\nThere is another aspect of the phenomena which telepathy does not\nexplain; the dramatic play. The personages at the other end of the wire\nact, as far as we can judge, with all the appropriateness and\ndistinctive characteristics of reality. There are incidents of this\ndramatic play, which telepathy cannot explain, in nearly all the\nsittings. I have given some of them in passing, and will now give some\nmore examples. At M. Bourget's second sitting Mrs Pitman, whom I have\nmentioned before, suddenly appears, and speaks nearly as follows:[84]\n\"Monsieur, I come to offer you my help. I lived in France and spoke\nFrench fairly well when I was living. Tell me what you want, and I can\nperhaps help you to communicate with this lady.\" In order to understand\nthe appropriateness of this intervention we must remember that George\nPelham, who was acting as intermediary, had complained at the beginning\nof the sitting that the communicating spirit spoke French and that he\ndid not understand her.\n\nOne day George Pelham is asked for information about Phinuit, and is\nabout to give it. But Phinuit, who is manifesting through the voice\nwhile George Pelham is doing so in writing, perceives this and cries,\n\"You had better shut up about me!\" And the spectators witnessed a sort\nof struggle between the head and the hand. Then George Pelham writes,\n\"All right, it is settled; we will say no more about it.\"\n\nDuring a sitting in which the sitter's wife gave proofs of identity of a\nvery private nature to her husband she said, \"I tell you this, but don't\nlet that gentleman hear.\" \"That gentleman\" could not be Dr Hodgson, who\nhad left the room; it was the invisible George Pelham who was habitually\npresent at the sittings at this period.\n\nOn April 30, 1894, Mr James Mitchell has a sitting.[85] Phinuit begins\nby giving him appropriate advice about his health. He ends by saying,\n\"You worry, too.\" Then he adds, \"There's a voice I hear as plainly as\nyou would a bell rung, and she says, 'That's right, doctor, tell him not\nto worry, because he always did so--my dear husband--I want him to enjoy\nhis remaining days in the body. Tell him I am Margaret Mitchell, and I\nwill be with him to the end of eternity, spiritually.'\"\n\nThe communicators often ask one or more of those present to go out of\nthe room, and they give one or other of the following reasons, according\nto circumstances. The first is that very private information is about to\nbe given. I have quoted an example in speaking of George Pelham, when\nJames Howard asked him to tell something which only they two knew.\nGeorge Pelham, preparing to do so, begins by asking Dr Hodgson to leave\nthe room. How oddly discreet for secondary personalities! On other\noccasions certain persons are asked to go out temporarily, because, say\nthe controls, \"You have relations and friends who want very much to\ncommunicate with you, and they prevent all communication by their\ninsistence and their efforts.\"\n\nOn a certain occasion Professor Hyslop rises and goes to the other end\nof the room, passing Mrs Piper, upon which George Pelham, apparently\noffended, writes, \"He has passed in front of Imperator! Why does he do\nthat?\"\n\nIt would need a volume to recount all the little analogous incidents\nwhich telepathy does not explain. These will do as examples. Will it be\nsaid that these small dramas resemble the creations of the same kind\nwhich occur in delirium or dreams? But in the first place, in delirium\nand dreams, the spectator does not realise, as he does here, the\npresence of persons who have given many details tending to prove their\nidentity. Again, the real cause of these creations of dream and delirium\nis unknown to us. We might assert, without being fanciful, that sickness\nis only their opportunity and not their cause. Lastly, a third group of\nfacts, which strongly militates in favour of the spiritualist\nhypothesis, consists of the mistakes and confusions. This would probably\nnot be the opinion of a superficial observer; many take these errors and\nconfusions as a reason for entirely rejecting the spiritualist\nhypothesis; generally because they have a strange notion of a \"spirit,\"\nwithout any analogy in nature. Deceived by absurd and antiquated\ntheological teaching, they imagine that the most pitiable drunkard, for\nexample, becomes a being of ideal beauty and omniscience from the day he\nis disincarnated. It cannot be so. Our spirits, if we have them, must\nprogress slowly. When they leap into the great unknown they do not at\nthe same time leap into perfection; they were finite and limited, and do\nnot become immediately infinite. Disincarnated man, like incarnated man,\nhas lapses of intelligence, memory and morality. The existence of these\nlapses very well explains the greater part of the mistakes in the\ncommunications. I have no room to develop this idea, but the reader can\ndo it easily. I will only quote one example of lapse of memory. Mr\nRobert Hyslop said he had a penknife with a brown handle, which he\ncarried first in his waistcoat pocket and afterwards in his coat. On\ninquiry, it was discovered that he was mistaken, and that he really\ncarried it in his trousers pocket. What man living has not made a\nhundred such mistakes? In order to explain the phenomena we are studying\nby the telepathic hypothesis, we must suppose that telepathy has\ninfinite power with which no obstacle can interfere. Then why does it\nmake mistakes? And why does it make just the mistakes that an imperfect,\nfinite spirit would make? Must we suppose that Dame Telepathy is a mere\nincarnation of the demon of fraud and deceit?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[84] Evidently addressing George Pelham.\n\n[85] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xiii. p. 519.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nDifficulties and objections--The identity of Imperator--Vision at a\ndistance--Triviality of the messages--Spiritualist Philosophy--Life in\nthe other world.\n\n\nUp till now I have said a great deal of evil of telepathy. I believe\nthat I have demonstrated, not that the theory is false, but that it is\nan unlikely explanation of the facts. Shall we say, then, that the\nspiritualistic hypothesis, the only reasonable one after the dismissal\nof telepathy, can be accepted without difficulty and without objections?\nNot at all. Many objections, more or less serious, are still made to the\nspiritualistic hypothesis. To my mind there is only one that is serious;\nI will speak of it in conclusion. Many of the others are raised by\npersons who have a merely superficial acquaintance with the problem;\ntheir arguments are more polemical than scientific.\n\nTo begin with, some of them want to know why the controls, Imperator,\nDoctor, Rector, Prudens, conceal themselves under these pseudonyms. If\nthey are, as they say, disincarnated spirits, who formerly lived in\nbodies, why do they not say who they were? Does not their silence on\nthis point indicate that they are only secondary personalities of the\nmedium?\n\nThis objection is not very serious. In the first place, the controls\ntold Stainton Moses their names. If they do not wish these names\nrevealed, it is without doubt for excellent reasons, which it is not\ndifficult to imagine. There is every indication that these controls\nbelonged to a generation considerably remote from ours; their language,\nthe turn of their minds, and some of their assertions, all point to\nthis. If they were well-known men, and had revealed their names, the\ncritics would merely see a reason the more for crying fraud. They would\nsay, \"The medium has read all that, and repeats it to us in hypnosis.\"\nIf, on the other hand, they were obscure persons, and had given\ninformation about their lives, the information would be unverifiable.\nAnd then the sceptics would cry on the spot, \"Folly; these are the\ninventions of the medium's secondary personality.\" The controls may have\nstill other reasons for not revealing themselves to us. This life, when\nonce it has been left behind, may seem to the spirit to be a more or\nless painful nightmare. There is nothing astonishing in the fact that he\ndoes not care to recall to others the part he played in this nightmare,\neven if the part were a distinguished one. We ourselves know nothing but\nthis life; we do not admit that there is any other. Therefore we all\nwish to shine in it like meteors, if possible. Possibly disincarnated\nspirits, seeing things from a higher point of view, think otherwise. In\nshort, the controls, Imperator, Rector, Doctor and Prudens, may refrain\nfrom speaking of their former life simply because they are wise. Would\nit not have been wiser of Phinuit to hold his tongue than to tell us a\nmass of improbabilities?\n\nAmongst those who study these phenomena there are many who see in the\ntriviality of the greater part of the messages a strong presumption\nagainst the spiritualist hypothesis. Some of these messages are signed,\nit is true, by illustrious names--though that is not the case with Mrs\nPiper. But this regrettable fact may be variously explained. In the\nfirst place, there may be rogues, charlatans and fools on both sides,\nsince it is probable that the soul passes from this world to the other\njust as it is, and that, if it progresses at all, it progresses slowly.\nHow many individuals see in spiritualism only a means of putting forward\ntheir wretched personalities or of exploiting their contemporaries! Such\npersons would not shrink from representing their lucubrations as\ncommunications from the next world; they would sign them with the most\naugust of names if to do so would further their designs. Finally, it is\nnot even necessary to suppose that these messages are due to dishonesty;\nthe number of mystifiers may be at least as great on the other side as\non this; a sort of law of affinity which seems to rule the world of\nspirits may cause these lower beings to be attracted by uncultured\nmediums, while the great spirits are repelled by them. It would be these\nlarvae of the other world who give the messages which disconcert when\nthey do not scandalise us. But the man of science should not be rebuffed\nby these messages which, in spite of their contents, are important, if\nthey result in irresistible proof of the fact that there exist outside\nof us and around us intelligent beings resembling ourselves.\n\nBut when we are dealing with developed spirits, who have begun by giving\nproofs of their identity, it is not true that the messages are always\ntrivial. They often contain ideas of much breadth of view and elevation.\nThe form is generally defective, but those who have studied Mrs Piper's\nphenomena will be indulgent to the form, and sometimes even to the\nmatter. The spirit in contact with the medium's organism suffers, as I\nhave said several times, from a kind of delirium; besides which the\norganism only responds to his efforts imperfectly. \"My dear friends,\"\nsays George Pelham, \"do not look at me too critically; to try to\ntransmit your thoughts through the organism of a medium is like trying\nto crawl through a hollow log.\" In short, the difficulties are enormous.\n\nIt may very well be that great spirits have really been the authors of\nvery poor messages. It has happened to each of us to make poetical or\nother compositions in our dreams which we have thought admirable; we say\nin delight, \"What a pity I shall not be able to remember that when I\nwake!\" But sometimes we do remember, and then we smile with contempt at\nwhat had delighted us during sleep. Now the communicators constantly\nrepeat that they are dreaming while they are in the atmosphere of the\nmedium. \"Everything seems so clear to me,\" says Robert Hyslop to his\nson, \"and when I try to tell you, James, I cannot.\"\n\nThese considerations prove that we must not hasten to conclude, with\nProfessor Flournoy, that if there is a future life it is one of\nwretched degeneration, one more misery added to all the others which\noverwhelm us in this miserable universe.\n\nNo; as Professor James says, in this world we live only at the surface\nof our being; if death is not annihilation, then it is an awakening. It\ndoes not follow that the life of the other world is not higher and more\nintense than this, because communication with it is difficult.\n\nAnother serious objection to the spiritualist hypothesis is the\nphilosophy with which certain too eager persons have connected it.\nSpiritualism, which should at present be but the mere beginning of a\nscience, is, according to them, already a philosophy for which the\nuniverse holds no secrets. How should such puny creatures as ourselves\nhope to solve the problems of the universe by _a priori_ reasoning? All\nthat we can reasonably hope, is to wrench from nature some of the\nsecrets nearest to us, surrounding ourselves with a thousand precautions\nin order not grossly to deceive ourselves.\n\nI rank the spiritualistic philosophy with other philosophies. Perhaps\nsome of its dicta proceed from spirits, if spirits exist, but the system\nas a whole most surely does not. But then, it will be said, the people\nwho have elaborated this philosophy must have been impostors. No, not\ninevitably; I will even venture to say that imposture is unlikely. The\nkey to the mystery may be found in other characteristics of humanity.\n\nThe most formidable obstacle to the admission of the spiritualist\nhypothesis is in the messages which tend to represent the other world,\nin which, it appears, matter is not perceived, and space and time are\nunknown, as being all the same a servile copy of this, or a sketch of\nit. If Phinuit or another control is asked to describe a communicator,\nthe description is generally given with exactness, and is the same there\nas it was here; sometimes the communicator even goes so far as to wear\nthe same clothes, made of the same material. But these descriptions are\nwithout importance, as it may be replied that the communicators or\ncontrols give these details purely to prove identity. However, I know of\nno message in which the communicator has been frank enough to say, \"Of\ncourse you may suppose that the form I have here is not the same as I\nhad in your world.\" Or again, \"The idea of form differs totally in our\nworld and in yours; I cannot make you understand what that idea is here,\nso it is of no use to question me.\" Unfortunately neither communicators\nnor controls speak thus; they all say or allow it to be supposed that\nthe human form is the same in both worlds.\n\nBut when action and events in that world are represented as being the\nsame as in this, then our credulity cries out in remonstrance. That a\ndeceased doctor should tell us that he continues to visit his patients,\na painter that he continues to daub canvas, is more than we can admit.\nBut, it may be explained, the doctor and the painter are temporarily\ndelirious; they do not know what they are saying. Unfortunately these\npassages are too numerous to be always attributed to delirium. Certain\ncommunicators say, with all the gravity in the world, and when they seem\nin full possession of themselves, that they breathe, live in houses,\nlisten to lectures, and that a deceased child is beginning to learn to\nread. This is an enormous difficulty, I repeat. I point it out without\ntrying to solve it; I am unable to offer a plausible explanation.\nProfessor Hyslop has tried, but I do not think he has succeeded.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nThe medium's return to normal life--Speeches made while the medium seems\nto hover between the two worlds.\n\n\nIn Mrs Piper's case, the moments which precede the actual quitting of\nthe trance offer, at least at present, a special interest. I think it\nwell therefore to dwell on this point a little. To avoid endless\ncircumlocutions, I shall speak as if the spiritualistic hypothesis were\nproved. Indeed, whatever the future fate of this hypothesis may be, and\nin spite of the serious objection spoken of in the last chapter, it is,\nI believe, the only one that can be reasonably adopted for the moment.\n\nWhen the sitting is over and the automatic writing has ceased, Mrs Piper\nbegins to return gradually to her normal state. She then utters with\nmore or less distinctness some apparently disconnected phrases which it\nis sometimes difficult to catch. She is like a person talking in sleep.\nDr Hodgson and Professor Hyslop have collected as many of these broken\nsentences as they could, keeping them separately under a different\nheading from the record of the rest of the sitting proper. At the end,\nMrs Piper often asks this odd question, \"Did you hear my head snap?\" And\nafter her head is supposed to have snapped she looks round her in\napparent astonishment and alarm, and then all is over, she no longer\nremembers what she has said or written during the trance.\n\nWe shall see that these scraps of phrase are less incoherent than they\nseem, and that it is worth while to collect them. Very often when\nnumerous unsuccessful efforts have been made to recall a proper name\nduring the sitting, Mrs Piper pronounces it when coming out of the\ntrance; when she is re-entering her body, the communicator or\ncommunicators repeat the name to her insistently, and make great efforts\nto cause her to remember and pronounce it as she comes out of the\ntrance. I have already quoted an example of this. M. Paul Bourget asked\nthe name of the town in which the artist he was communicating with had\nkilled herself. The name did not come, but Mrs Piper pronounced it as\nshe was leaving the trance--_Venice_. Mr Robert Hyslop's name was given\nin the same way the first time, but accompanied by very significant\nscraps of speech as follows. Mrs Piper first tried to pronounce the\nname, then she said _Hyslop_, and went on,--\n\n\"I am he.[86] Tell him I am his father. I--Good-bye, sir. I shouldn't\ntake him away that way. Oh, dear. Do you see the man with the cross[87]\nshut out everybody? Did you see the light? What made the man's hair all\nfall off?\"\n\nDr Hodgson asks, \"What man?\"\n\nMrs Piper.--\"That elderly gentleman that was trying to tell me\nsomething, but it wouldn't come.\"\n\nAt a first glance this passage seems mere incoherence, but all the\nportions of sentences have a very clear meaning when they are examined\ntogether with the events of the sitting. They are, as it seems,\ncommissions with which the medium is charged as she is returning into\nher organism, or they are observations made among themselves by the\nspirits present, which the medium automatically repeats, or they are the\nobservations and questions of the medium herself. All that Mrs Piper\nsays on coming out of the trance belongs to one of these three\ncategories.\n\nIn the passage quoted, the words, \"I am he. Tell him that I am his\nfather,\" are a commission with which the medium is charged by Mr Robert\nHyslop. Mrs Piper takes leave of Robert Hyslop with the formula,\n\"Good-bye, sir.\" The phrases which follow, \"Oh, dear. I shouldn't take\nhim away that way. Do you see the man with the cross shut out\neverybody?\" are the remarks of spirits repeated automatically, or Mrs\nPiper's own remarks on Imperator, who, seeing the light exhausted,\nimperiously sends off everybody, including Mr Robert Hyslop himself, in\nspite of his desire to remain with his son. Imperator must even have\nused some force, to justify the observation, \"I should not take him away\nthat way.\" The final phrases are always Mrs Piper's own questions and\nremarks: When she says, \"Did you see the light?\" she alludes without\ndoubt to the light of the other world, invisible to us. The other\nsentences are clear enough, when we remember that Mr Robert Hyslop was\nentirely bald. There are utterances like these, only apparently\nincoherent on coming out of all the trances; but they vary in length.\nThe last words, if I am not mistaken, always come from Mrs Piper\nherself, which is logically to be expected, since she gradually loses\nthe memory of the world she has just quitted, up to the definite moment\nof waking, marked by the so-called snap in her head.\n\nThese speeches on coming out of trance constitute, in our eyes, one more\nargument against the hypothesis of telepathy and secondary\npersonalities, because there is no trace of simulation. To suppose\nsimulation would be to accord to telepathy too much skill in the arts of\ndeceit.\n\nThese speeches bring into the foreground the question: \"What becomes of\nthe medium's spirit during the trance, if there is a spirit?\" The\ncontrols say that it leaves the organism and remains in the company of\nthe group of communicating spirits.\n\n\"But then,\" it will be said, \"if she lives for the time being in the\nother world, why does she not relate her impressions when she wakes?\"\n\nWe must not forget that for spirits our life is a sleep, and that we are\nonly conscious of what we acquire through the medium of our five senses.\nWhen the spirit is again plunged into the prison of the body, after\nhaving left it for a time, it goes to sleep once more and forgets all;\nit recommences living the fragmentary life which is all that the five\nsenses permit. The complete absence of memory in the medium when awake\nis no more astonishing than the same phenomenon in a subject coming out\nof hypnosis, during which he may have talked, and even done much.\n\nBesides, during the short instants when Mrs Piper is as if suspended\nbetween two worlds, she still has a vague recollection of what she has\njust heard; the fragments of sentences she utters bear sufficient\nwitness to this. She rarely fails to shed a few tears, and to say, \"I\nwant to stop here, I don't want to go back to the dark world!\" Here is a\ncharacteristic passage, as an example. Mrs Piper, coming out of the\ntrance, begins to weep and murmur, \"I do not want to go back to the\ndarkness.... Oh, it is, it is, it must be the window ... but I want to\nknow.... I want to know where they are all gone[88].... It is funny ...\nI forgot that I was alive.... Yes, Mr Hodgson, I forgot.... I was going\nto tell you something, but I have forgotten what it was.... You see,\nwhen my head snaps, I forget what I was going to say.... It must be\nnight. Oh, dear! I feel so weak.... Is that my handkerchief?\"\n\nOn other occasions she uses an odd figure of speech. \"You see Rector\nturns round a dark board and says that's your world--and he turns round\nthe other side and that's light, and he says that's his world. I don't\nwant to go back to the dark world.\"\n\nAnother time she says, quite at the end, \"Is that my body? how it\npricks!\"\n\nIt appears that Imperator, before sending her back to the \"dark world,\"\nprays for her, and she sometimes repeats fragments of the prayers\nautomatically.\n\n\"Is that a blessing? Say it.\"[89]\n\n\"Father be and abide with thee for evermore.\"\n\n\"Servus Dei--I don't know.\"\n\n\"I have all these to look out for. I leave thee well.\"\n\n\"Go and do the duties before thee.\"\n\n\"Blessings on thy head.\"\n\n\"The light shall cease.\"\n\n\"Why do you say that?\"\n\n\"Are you going? Good-bye.\"\n\n\"I want to go along the same path with you.\"\n\n\"Hear the whistle?\" (This was an earthly whistle, which those present\nalso heard.)\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[86] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 322.\n\n[87] That is to say, Imperator, who always signalises his presence by\nmaking a cross on the paper, or, with his hand, in the air.\n\n[88] The spirits in whose company she has been.\n\n[89] _Proc. of S.P.R._, vol. xvi. p. 396.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nEncouraging results obtained--The problem must be solved.\n\n\nAnd now, can there be a conclusion to this work? It does not allow of\nany conclusion. The most I can do in terminating is to record certain\nfacts. Dr Hodgson, Professor Hyslop and others, who, though\nunprejudiced, began these studies as sceptical as anyone, have ended,\nafter long years of hesitation, by giving their adhesion to the\nspiritualist hypothesis. But, as they are careful to point out, they\naccept this hypothesis conditionally, and not definitely. New\nexperiments and new facts may turn their minds in quite another\ndirection.\n\nShould we follow them? Should we each admit conditionally the\nspiritualist hypothesis? Not at all; it is not thus that knowledge is\nattained. Whoever believes that he has excellent reasons for preferring\nany other hypothesis should remain unshakable in his convictions till\nthe time when new facts may oblige him to abandon them. Science does not\nask that we should prefer this or the other explanation; it only asks\nthat we should study the facts unprejudiced, that we should be sincere,\nand not shut our eyes childishly to the evidence.\n\nIf a future life is to be, I will not say proved, but admitted by a\nmajority, a great number of experimenters, or, if you please, observers,\nworking independently of one another in all quarters of the globe, must\nreach identical conclusions. Again, it must be possible for any\nintelligent man willing to make the effort, and retracing the path\nfollowed by the first observers, to arrive at the same conclusions. The\n_magister dixit_ is out of date. Teachers in the present day must show\ntheir disciples the path of truth, and not try to impose upon them what\nthey themselves regard as truth. Modern science knows no infallible\nPope, speaking _ex cathedra_.\n\nFurther, we must not confine ourselves to the study of one side of\nmediumship only. The phenomena produced in the presence of mediums are\nvarious. All the phenomena classified as \"psychical\" must be carefully\nconsidered and thoroughly investigated. The grain must be separated from\nthe chaff; it must be decided which among these phenomena appear to be\ndue to spirits, which, according to the evidence, are due to incarnated\nminds, and finally, which (if there are such) have only ordinary\nphysical causes. The new workmen who are entering the field of science\nhave before them a long task of clearing the ground, but the ground\nseems to be of unexampled fertility; with a very little goodwill we\nshall reap such a harvest as has never been seen.\n\nNo doubt, though mediums able to produce certain second-rate phenomena\nare not rare, good mediums are not easy to discover; they are less rare,\nhowever, than the bones of _Anthropopithecus erectus_. When a good\nmedium is discovered it is not necessary to call a committee together\nand put the value he may have for science to the vote. If the \"other\nworld\" exists, it appears that no \"missing link\" exists between it and\nour own.\n\nThus the general conclusion to be drawn from the work described in this\nlittle book, and from the other work of the Society for Psychical\nResearch, is that devotion to these studies is far from being fruitless.\nEven official science might turn in this direction, if only in order to\ndefend the doctrines dear to it. It will come to that, without doubt,\nbut will it be soon? Humanity is but poor stuff, though the monists do\nnot hesitate to hold it up to us as the highest expression in our corner\nof space of the consciousness of their great god Pan. The great majority\nof human units is composed of minds in first childhood, eager only for\nchildish things.\n\nBy slightly modifying Plato's allegory it is easy to arrive at an\nunderstanding of the state of humanity at the present time. Imagine very\nimperfect, very undeveloped beings, possessing, however, an infinity of\nlatent potentialities; imagine them born in a dark cavern where they\nswarm pell-mell, passing their time chiefly in devouring one another.\nEvery moment this cavern is entered, and a certain number of these poor\nbeings are taken out of it and carried into the light of day, that they\nmay enjoy a higher life, and admire the beauties of nature. Those\nremaining in the cavern weep for their companions and think that they\nhave for ever vanished. But in the vault of the cavern there are\nfissures through which a little light filters. A few inquisitive beings,\na little more developed than their brothers, climb up to these\nfissures; they look out, and believe that signs are made to them from\noutside. They say to themselves, \"Those who are making signs to us are\nperhaps the companions who are constantly being carried off from amongst\nus; in that case they cannot be dead; they must be continuing to live up\nthere.\" And they call to their brothers below, \"Come and see; it looks\nas if our companions who go up yonder every day are making signs to us.\nWe are not sure; but if we unite our efforts and intelligences perhaps\nwe shall end by being certain.\" Do you suppose that the swarms on the\nground of the cave will run? They have quite other things to do. They do\nnot stone the importunate seekers, but they look on them askance and\nheap annoyances upon them. But we will drop allegory; and merely say how\ndeplorable it is that psychical studies do not inspire more enthusiasm.\n\nThe doctors at first declared that mediumship was a form of neurosis.\nNothing is less certain; I will even say that nothing is less probable.\nEducated people of independent social position when by chance they\ndiscover that they possess mediumistic gifts hide them carefully,\ninstead of offering them spontaneously for study; they do not wish to be\nsupposed to be diseased; nobody likes to proclaim his defects in public.\nThis is why well-known mediums are nearly all recruited from the lower\nclasses and the poor; they are obliged to make merchandise of their\ngifts; they are paid to produce phenomena, and, when these do not occur\nspontaneously, they cheat. Mediums should be sought for in the class of\neducated people who are not obliged to work for their daily bread.\nThere are as many or more in this class as in any other if we would only\nlook for them. What should such mediums fear? Do not Mlle. Smith and Mrs\nPiper, when they allow competent persons to study their mediumship,\nrender more valuable services to society than do so many social\nencumbrances, so many flies on the wheel who deafen us with their\nbuzzing? Have they any reason to be ashamed?\n\nFinally, in order to attain to any result in these studies, money is\nneeded--why not say so? Interesting subjects must be paid when they need\npayment, and competent investigators must be paid when they need a\nsalary. If a thousandth part of the sum devoted in a year to the art of\nkilling were devoted to the solution of this problem, before ten years\nwere over we should have settled the question, and humanity could boast\nan unexampled victory.\n\nIn America and all the Anglo-Saxon countries many persons, as noble as\nthey are generous, give for science, for universal instruction, for\nfounding universities and colleges. May they be blessed! They make a\nnoble use of their money. But it is regrettable that as much money as is\nneeded can be found for the search after--let us say--the\n_Anthropopithecus erectus_, and that it cannot be found for Psychical\nResearch.\n\nIf I am not mistaken, a prize has been offered to whoever can find the\nmeans of communicating with the planet Mars. If this communication were\never established, I do not see how humanity would benefit by it, beyond\nthe satisfaction of its curiosity; which is, however, a noble and\nlegitimate curiosity. But how much more helpful and interesting it\nwould be to communicate with the world beyond the grave, if such a world\nthere be, the world whither we are all bound. Perhaps some time mankind\nwill realise this fact.\n\n\nEdinburgh\nColston and Coy. Limited\nPrinters","title":"Mrs. Piper & the Society for Psychical Research","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":51957}