{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37203/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37203","id":"gutenberg_37203","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37203","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Parapsychology -- Investigation","Telepathy"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTELEPATHY AND THE SUBLIMINAL SELF\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: NATHAN EARLY\n\n_Phototype from an Automatic Painting._ (See page 196.)]\n\n\n\n\n  TELEPATHY AND THE SUBLIMINAL SELF\n\n  AN ACCOUNT OF RECENT INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING\n  HYPNOTISM, AUTOMATISM, DREAMS, PHANTASMS,\n  AND RELATED PHENOMENA\n\n\n  BY R. OSGOOD MASON, A.M., M.D.\n  _Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine_\n\n\n  NEW YORK\n  HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY\n  1897\n\n\n\n\n  Copyright, 1897,\n  BY\n  HENRY HOLT & CO.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTo whatever conclusions it may lead us, there is no mistaking the fact\nthat now more than ever before is the public interested in matters\nrelating to the \"New Psychology.\" Scarcely a day passes that notice of\nsome unusual psychical experience or startling phenomenon does not appear\nin popular literature. The newspaper, the magazine, and the novel vie with\neach other in their efforts to excite interest and attract attention by\nthe display of these strange incidents, presented sometimes with\nintelligence and taste, but oftener with a culpable disregard of both\ntaste and truth.\n\nThe general reader is not yet critical regarding these matters, but he is\nat least interested, and desires to know what can be relied upon as\nestablished truth amongst these various reports. There is inquiry\nconcerning Telepathy or Thought-Transference--is it a fact or is it a\ndelusion? Has Hypnotism any actual standing either in science or common\nsense? What of Clairvoyance, Planchette, Trance and Trance utterances,\nCrystal-Gazing and Apparitions?\n\nIn the following papers intelligent readers, both in and out of the\nmedical profession, will find these subjects fairly stated and discussed,\nand to some of the questions asked, fair and reasonable answers given. It\nis with the hope of aiding somewhat in the efforts now being made to\nrescue from an uncertain and unreasoning supernaturalism some of the most\nvaluable facts in nature, and some of the most interesting and beautiful\npsychical phenomena in human experience, that this book is offered to the\npublic.\n\nTo such studies, however, it is objected by some that the principles\ninvolved in these unusual mental actions are too vague and the facts too\nnew and unsubstantiated to be deserving of serious consideration; but it\nshould be remembered that all our knowledge, even that which is now\nreckoned as science, was once vague and tentative; it is absurd,\ntherefore, to ignore newly-found facts simply because they are new and\ntheir laws unknown; nevertheless, in psychical matters especially, this is\nthe tendency of the age.\n\nBut even if upon the practical side these studies should be deemed\nunsatisfactory, it would not follow that they are without use or\ninterest. It is a truism that our western civilization is over-intense and\npractical; it is materialistic, hard, mechanical; it values nothing, it\nbelieves in nothing that cannot be weighed, measured, analyzed, labelled\nand appraised;--feeling, intuition, aspiration, monitions, glimpses of\nknowledge that are from within--not external nor distinctly\ncognizable,--these are all slighted, despised, trampled upon by a\nsupercilious dilettanteism on the one hand and an uninstructed\nphilistinism on the other, and the result has been a development that is\nabnormal, unsymmetrical, deformed, and tending to disintegration.\n\nTo a few, oriental mysticism, to others the hasty deductions of\nspiritualism, and to many more the supernaturalism of the various\nreligious systems, offer at least a partial, though often exaggerated,\nantidote to this inherent vice, because they all contemplate a spiritual\nor at least a transcendental aspect of man's nature in contrast to that\nwhich is purely material. But even these partial remedies are not\navailable to all, and they are unsatisfactory to many.\n\nAs a basis to a more symmetrical and permanent development, some generally\nrecognized facts relative to the constitution and action of these more\nsubtle forces in our being must be certified; and as an introduction to\nthat work, it is hoped that these studies in the outlying fields of\npsychology will not be found valueless.\n\nA portion of the papers here presented are republished, much revised, by\ncourtesy of _The New York Times_.\n\nNEW YORK, _October, 1896_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n    Psychical Research--Telepathy or Thought-Transference            1\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n    Mesmerism and Hypnotism--History and Therapeutic Effects        28\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n    Hypnotism--Psychical Aspect                                     51\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n    Lucidity or Clairvoyance                                        74\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n    Double or Multiplex Personality                                116\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n    Natural Somnambulism--Hypnotic Somnambulism--Dreams            129\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n    Automatism--Planchette                                         151\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n    Automatic Writing, Drawing and Painting                        181\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n    Crystal-gazing                                                 198\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n    Phantasms                                                      224\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n    Phantasms, Continued                                           262\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n    Conclusions                                                    307\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPSYCHICAL RESEARCH--TELEPATHY OR THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.\n\n\nThe status of the old-fashioned ghost story has, within the past ten\nyears, perceptibly changed. Formerly, by the credulous generality of\npeople, it was almost universally accepted without reason and without\ncritical examination. It was looked upon as supernatural, and supernatural\nthings were neither to be doubted nor reasoned about, and there the matter\nended.\n\nOn the other hand, the more learned and scientific, equally without reason\nor critical examination, utterly repudiated and scorned all alleged facts\nand occurrences relating to the subject. \"We know what the laws of nature\nare,\" they said, \"and alleged occurrences which go beyond or contravene\nthese laws are upon their face illusions and frauds.\" And so, with them\nalso, there the matter ended.\n\nIn the meantime, while the irreclaimably superstitious and credulous on\nthe one hand, and the unco-scientific and conservative on the other,\nequally without knowledge and equally without reason, have gone on\nbelieving and disbelieving, a large number of people--intelligent,\ninquiring, quick-witted, and reasonable, some scientific and some\nunscientific--have come to think seriously regarding unusual occurrences\nand phenomena, either witnessed or experienced by themselves or related by\nothers, and whose reality they could not doubt, although their relations\nto ordinary conditions of life were mysterious and occult.\n\nIn the investigation of these subjects some new and unfamiliar terms have\ncome into more or less common use. We hear of mind-reading, telepathy,\nhypnotism, clairvoyance, and psychical research, some of which terms still\nstand for something mysterious, uncanny, perhaps even supernatural, but\nthey have at least excited interest and inquiry. The subjects which they\nrepresent have even permeated general literature; the novelist has made\nuse of this widespread interest in occult subjects and has introduced many\nof the strange and weird features which they present into his department\nof literature. Some have made use of this new material without knowledge\nor taste, merely to excite wonder and attract the vulgar, while others\nuse it philosophically, with knowledge and discrimination, for the purpose\nof educating their readers in a new and important department of knowledge\nand thought.\n\nAmongst the more scientific, societies have been formed, reports have been\nread and published, so that in scientific and literary circles as well as\namong the unlearned the subject has become one of interest.\n\nThe object of these papers will be briefly to tell in connection with my\nown observations, what is known and what is thought by others who have\nstudied the subject carefully, and especially what has been done by the\nEnglish Society for Psychical Research and kindred societies.\n\nWhen an expedition is sent out for the purpose of exploring new and\nunknown regions, it is often necessary to send forward scouts to obtain\nsome general ideas concerning the nature of the country, its conformation,\nwater-courses, inhabitants, and food supplies. The scouts return and\nreport what they have discovered; their reports are listened to with\ninterest, and upon these reports often depend the movements and success of\nthe whole expedition. It will easily be seen how important it is that the\nscouts should be intelligent, sharp-witted, courageous and truthful; and\nit will also be evident that the report of these scouts concerning the new\nand unknown country is much more valuable than the preconceived opinions\nof geographers and philosophers, no matter how eminent they may be, who\nhave simply stayed at home, enjoyed their easy-chair, and declared\noff-hand that the new country was useless and uninhabitable.\n\nThe outlying fields of psychology, which are now the subject of psychical\nresearch, are comparatively a new and unexplored region, and until within\na few years it has been considered a barren and unproductive one, into\nwhich it was silly, disreputable, and even dangerous to enter; the region\nwas infested with dream-mongers, spiritualists, clairvoyants, mesmerists,\nand cranks, and the more vigorously it was shunned the safer would he be\nwho had a reputation of any kind to lose.\n\nSuch substantially was the condition of public sentiment, and especially\nof sentiment in strictly scientific circles, fourteen years ago, when the\nEnglish Society for Psychical Research came into being. The first movement\nin the direction of systematic study and exploration in this new field was\na preliminary meeting called by Prof. W. F. Barrett, Fellow of the Royal\nSociety of Edinburgh, and a few other gentlemen on Jan. 6, 1882, when the\nformation of such a society was proposed; and in the following month the\nsociety was definitely organized and officers were chosen. The first\ngeneral meeting for business and listening to reports took place July 17th\nof the same year.\n\nThe persons associated in this society were of the most staid and\nrespectable character, noted for solid sense, and a sufficient number of\nthem for practical work were also trained in scientific methods, and were\nalready eminent in special departments of science.\n\nProf. Henry Sidgwick, Trinity College, Cambridge, was President; Prof. W.\nF. Barrett, F. R. S. E., Royal College of Science, Dublin, and Prof.\nBalfour Stewart, F. R. S., Owens College, Manchester, were\nVice-Presidents, and among the members were a large number of well-known\nnames of Fellows of various learned and royal societies, professional men,\nand members of Parliament, altogether giving character to the society, as\nwell as assuring sensible methods in its work. Among the subjects first\ntaken up for examination and, so far as possible, for experimental study,\nwere the following:--\n\n(1) Thought-transference, or an examination into the nature and extent of\nany influence which may be exerted by one mind upon another, apart from\nany generally recognized mode of perception or communication.\n\n(2) The study of hypnotism and the forms of so-called mesmeric trance.\n\n(3) An investigation of well-authenticated reports regarding apparitions\nand disturbances in houses reputed to be haunted.\n\n(4) An inquiry into various psychical phenomena commonly called\nSpiritualistic.\n\nThe first report made to the society was concerning thought-reading, or\nthought-transference, and was a description of various experiments\nundertaken with a view to determine the question whether one person or one\nmind can receive impressions or intelligence from another person or mind\nwithout communication by word, touch, or sign, or by any means whatsoever\napart from the ordinary and recognized methods of perception, or the\nordinary channels of communication.\n\nWhat is meant by thought-transference is perhaps most simply illustrated\nby the common amusement known as the \"willing game\"; it is played as\nfollows:--\n\nThe person to be influenced or \"willed\" is sent out of the room; those\nremaining then agree upon some act which that person is to be willed to\naccomplish; as, for instance, to take some particular piece of bric-a-brac\nfrom a table or cabinet and place it upon the piano, or to find some\narticle which has been purposely hidden. The person to be willed is then\nbrought back into the room; the leader of the game places one hand lightly\nupon her shoulder or arm, and the whole company think intently upon the\nact agreed upon in her absence. If the game is successful, the person so\nwilled goes, with more or less promptness, takes the piece of bric-a-brac\nthought of, and places it upon the piano, as before agreed upon by the\ncompany, or she goes with more or less directness and discovers the hidden\narticle. Nervous agitation, excitement, even faintness or actual syncope,\nare not unusual accompaniments of the effort on the part of the person so\nwilled, circumstances which at least show the unusual character of the\nperformance and also the necessity for caution in conducting it.\n\nIf the game is played honestly, as it generally is, the person to be\nwilled, when she returns to the room, is absolutely ignorant of what act\nshe is expected to perform, and the person with whom she is placed in\ncontact does not intentionally give her any clue or information during the\nprogress of the game.\n\nIn the more formal experiments the person who is willed is known as the\nsensitive, subject, or percipient; the person who conducts the experiment\nis known as the agent or operator. The sensitive is presumed to receive,\nin some unusual manner, from the minds of the agent and the company, an\nimpression regarding the action to be performed, without communication\nbetween them in any ordinary manner.\n\nThis is one of the simplest forms of thought-transference; it is, of\ncourse, liable to many errors, and is useless as a scientific test.\n\nBishop, Cumberland, and other mind readers who have exhibited their\nremarkable powers all over the world, were doubtless sensitives who\npossessed this power of perception or receiving impressions in a high\ndegree, so that minute objects, such as an ordinary watch-key, hidden in a\nbarrel of rubbish in a cellar and in a distant part of an unfamiliar city,\nis quickly found, the sensitive being connected with the agent by the\nslightest contact, or perhaps only by a string or wire.\n\nThe question at issue in all these cases is the same, namely, do the\nsensitives receive their impressions regarding what they have to do from\nthe mind of the agent by some process other than the ordinary means of\ncommunication, such as seeing, hearing, or touch; or do they, by the\nexceeding delicacy of their perception, receive impressions from slight\nindications unintentionally and unconsciously conveyed to them by the\nagent through the slight contact which is kept up between them?\n\nThe opinion of a majority of scientific persons has been altogether averse\nto the theory of thought-transference from one mind to another without the\naid of the senses and the ordinary means of communication; and they have\nmaintained that intimations of the thing to be done by the sensitive were\nconveyed by slight muscular movements unconsciously made by the agent and\nperhaps unconsciously received by the sensitive. To explain, or rather to\nformulate these cases, Dr. William B. Carpenter, the eminent English\nphysiologist, proposed the theory of \"unconscious muscular action\" on the\npart of the agent and \"unconscious cerebration\" on the part of the\nsensitive; and his treatment of the whole subject in his \"Mental\nPhysiology,\" which was published twenty years ago, and also in his book on\n\"Mesmerism and Spiritualism,\" was thought by many to be conclusive against\nthe theory of mind-reading or thought-transference. Especially was this\nview entertained by the more conservative portion of the various\nscientific bodies interested in the subject, and also by that large class\nof people, scientific and otherwise, who save themselves much trouble by\ntaking their opinions ready made.\n\nIt was a very easy way of disposing of the matter, so thoroughly\nscientific, and it did not involve the necessity of studying any new force\nor getting into trouble with any new laws of mental action; it was simply\ndelightful, and the physiologists rubbed their hands gleefully over the\napparent discomfiture of the shallow cranks who imagined they had\ndiscovered something new. There was only one troublesome circumstance\nabout the whole affair. It was this: that cases were every now and then\nmaking their appearance which absolutely refused to be explained by the\nnew theory of Dr. Carpenter, and the only way of disposing of these\ntroublesome cases was to declare that the people who observed them did not\nknow how to observe, and did not see what they thought they saw.\n\nThis was the state of the question, and this the way in which it was\ngenerally regarded, when it was taken up for investigation by the Society\nfor Psychical Research.\n\nExperiments on the subject of thought-transference fall naturally into\nfour classes:\n\n(1) Those where some prearranged action is accomplished, personal contact\nbeing maintained between the operator and the sensitive.\n\n(2) Similar performances where there is no contact whatever.\n\n(3) Where a name, number, object, or card is guessed or perceived and\nexpressed by speech or writing without any perceptible means of obtaining\nintelligence by the senses or through any of the ordinary channels of\ncommunication.\n\n(4) Where the same ideas have occurred or the same impressions have been\nconveyed at the same moment to the minds of two or more persons widely\nseparated from each other.\n\nThe first and second of these classes are simply examples of the \"willing\ngame\" carried on under more strict conditions, but they are not counted as\nof special value on account of the possibility of information being\nconveyed when contact is permitted, and by means of slight signals, mere\nmovements of the eye, finger, or lip, which might quickly be seized upon\nand interpreted by the sensitive, even when there was no actual contact.\nThe third and fourth class, however, seem to exclude these and all other\nordinary or recognizable means of communication.\n\nThe following are examples of the third class, namely, where some object,\nnumber, name, or card has been guessed or perceived without the aid of the\nsenses, and without any of the ordinary means of communication between the\noperator and the subject.\n\nThe first experiments here reported were made in the family of a\nclergyman, by himself, together with his five daughters, ranging from ten\nto seventeen years of age, all thoroughly healthy persons, and without any\npeculiar nervous development. The daughters and sometimes, also, a young\nmaid-servant, were the sensitives, and the clergyman, when alone with his\nfamily, acted as agent. The test experiments made in this family were\nconducted by two competent and well-qualified observers, members of the\nsociety, and no member of the family was permitted to know the word, name,\nor object selected, except that the child chosen to act as sensitive was\ntold to what class the object belonged; for instance, whether it was a\nnumber, card, or name of some person or place.\n\nThe child was then sent out of the room and kept under observation while\nthe test object was agreed upon, and was then recalled by one of the\nexperimenters; and while giving her answers she \"stood near the door with\ndowncast eyes,\" and often with her back to the company. The experiments\nwere conducted in perfect silence excepting the child's answer and the\n\"right\" or \"wrong\" of the agent.\n\nIt has been charged that these children, later, were caught signalling\nduring the experiments. This is true by their own confession, but it is\nalso true that there was no signalling during the earlier experiments,\nalso that the signalling when used did not improve the results, and\nfurthermore that after they began signalling the effort to keep the mind\nconsciously active and acute during their trials injured the passive\ncondition necessary for success, and eventually destroyed their\nsensitiveness and thought-reading power altogether.\n\nBesides, most of the tests were made when only the one child was in the\nroom, and, as will be noticed, many of the tests were of such a nature\nthat signalling would be out of the question, especially with their little\nexperience and clumsy code.\n\nThe following results were obtained, the name of the object agreed upon\nbeing given in italics:--\n\n_A white-handled penknife._ Was named and color given on the first trial.\n_A box of almonds._ Named correctly. _A three-penny piece._ Failed. _A\nbox of chocolate._ A button box. _A penknife, hidden._ Failed to state\nwhere it was.\n\nTrial with cards, to be named:--\n\n_Two of clubs._ Right. _Seven of diamonds._ Right. _Four of spades._\nFailed. _Four of hearts._ Right. _King of hearts._ Right. _Two of\ndiamonds._ Right. _Ace of hearts._ Right. _Nine of spades._ Right. _Five\nof diamonds._ Four of diamonds (wrong); then four of hearts, (wrong); then\nfive of diamonds, which was right on the third trial. _Two of spades._\nRight. _Eight of diamonds._ Wrong. _Ace of diamonds._ Wrong. _Three of\nhearts._ Right. _Four of clubs._ Wrong. _Ace of spades._ Wrong.\n\nThe following results were obtained with fictitious names:--\n\n_William Stubbs._ Right. _Eliza Holmes._ Eliza H. _Isaac Harding._ Right.\n_Sophia Shaw._ Right. _Hester Willis._ Cassandra--then Hester Wilson.\n_John Jones._ Right. _Timothy Taylor._ Tom, then Timothy Taylor. _Esther\nOgle._ Right. _Arthur Higgins._ Right. _Alfred Henderson._ Right. _Amy\nFrogmore._ Amy Freemore, then Amy Frogmore. _Albert Snelgrove._ Albert\nSingrore, then Albert Grover.\n\nOn another occasion the following result was obtained with cards, Mary,\nthe eldest daughter, being the percipient: In thirty-one successive\ntrials the first only was an entire failure, six of spades being given in\nanswer for the eight of spades. Of the remaining thirty consecutive\ntrials, in seventeen the card was correctly named on the first attempt,\nnine on the second, and four on the third.\n\nIt should here be observed, that according to the calculus of\nprobabilities, the chances that an ordinary guesser would be correct in\nhis guess on the first trial is, in cards, of course, one in fifty-one,\nbut in these trials, numbering 382 in all, and extending over six days,\nthe average was one in three, and second and third guesses being allowed\nthe successes were more than one in two, almost two in three.\n\nThe chances against guessing the card correctly five times in succession\nare more than 1,000,000 to 1, and against this happening eight times in\nsuccession are more than 142,000,000 to 1, yet the former happened several\ntimes and the latter twice--once with cards and once with fictitious\nnames, the chances against success in the latter case being almost\nincalculable.\n\nThe following experiments were also made among many others, Miss Maud\nCreery being the percipient:--\n\n\"(1) What town have we thought of? A. Buxton: which was correct.\n\n\"(2) What town have we thought of? A. Derby. What part did you think of\nfirst? A. Railway station. (So did I.) What next? A. The market-place. (So\ndid I.)\n\n\"(3) What town have we thought of? A. Something commencing with L. (Pause\nof a minute.) Lincoln. (Correct.)\n\n\"(4) What town have we thought of? A. Fairfield. What part did you think\nof first? A. The road to it. (So did I.) What next? A. The triangular\ngreen behind the Bull's Head Inn. (So did I.)\"\n\nIn seeking an explanation for these remarkable results coincidence and\nchance may, it would seem, be utterly excluded. Touch and hearing must\nalso be excluded, since the guesser did not come in contact with any\nperson during the experiments, and they were conducted in perfect silence\nexcepting the answers of the percipient or the \"yes\" or \"no\" of the agent.\n\nWe have left, then, only the unconscious indications which might possibly\nbe given by look, movement of a finger, lip, or muscle by persons who were\npresent especially on account of their desire and ability to detect any\nsuch communication, and on account of their ability to avoid giving\ninformation in any such manner themselves.\n\nIt seems, in fact, quite incredible that information thus conveyed could\nbe sufficient to affect the result in so large a number of experiments,\nespecially where the experiments included the names of places and\nfictitious names of persons. Even where signalling is successfully carried\non, as, for instance, in stage tricks, it is a regular feat of memory\naccomplished between two people who have studied and practised it\nassiduously for a long time, while here were simply children, brought in\ncontact, without rehearsal, with strangers, whose object it was to detect\nthe trick if any were practised among them.\n\nWe are forced, then, to the conclusion that the knowledge which these\nsensitives exhibited concerning the objects, names, or cards which were\ngiven them as tests, did not come to them by any ordinary sense of\nperception obtained either legitimately or by trick, but came to them\ndirectly from the minds of other persons acting as agents and striving to\nimpress them, and that this knowledge or these impressions were received\nby some means other than through the ordinary channels of communication.\n\nAnother method of demonstrating thought-transference which should be\nmentioned here, is by means of diagrams. The experiment may be made as\nfollows:--The percipient, being blindfolded, is seated at a table with his\nback to the operator, without contact and in perfect silence. A\ndiagram--for instance, a circle with a cross in the centre--is distinctly\ndrawn by a third person and so held as to be in full view of the operator,\nwho looks at it in silence, steadily and with concentrated attention.\n\nThe impression made by the diagram upon the mind of the operator is\ngradually perceived by the percipient, who, after a time varying from a\nfew seconds to several minutes, declares himself ready. The bandages are\nthen removed from his eyes, and to the best of his ability he draws the\nimpression which came to him while blindfolded. The results have varied in\naccuracy, very much as did the results in the experiments with objects and\ncards already described.\n\nThe following diagrams are from drawings and reproductions made in the\nmanner just described. They are from the proceedings of the Society for\nPsychical Research, and were the result of experiments made by Mr. Malcolm\nGuthrie and Mr. James Birchall, two prominent and cultivated citizens of\nLiverpool, together with three or four ladies, personal friends of\ntheirs, all of whom undertook the experiments with the definite purpose of\ntesting the truth or falsity of thought-transference.\n\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  I. Original Drawing.\n  I. Reproduction.\n\n  II. Original Drawing.\n  II. Reproduction.\n\n  III. Original Drawing.\n  III. Reproduction.\n\n  IV. Original Drawing.\n  IV. Reproduction.\n]\n\n\nI will also quote another experiment, which is only a fair example of a\nvery large number, carefully carried out from April to November, 1883. In\nmany of the experiments members of the Committee on Thought-transference\nfrom the S. P. R. were present.\n\nAPRIL 20th, 1883.--Present, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Birchall, Mr. Steel, and four\nladies:--\n\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n   AGENT. |PERCIPIENT.|       OBJECT.         |         RESULT.\n  --------|-----------|-----------------------|--------------------------\n  Mrs. E. | Miss R.   | A square of pink silk | \"Pink ... Square.\"\n          |           | on black satin.       | Answered almost\n          |           |                       | instantly.\n          |           |                       |\n    do.   |   do.     | A ring of white silk  | \"Can't see it.\"\n          |           | on black satin.       |\n          |           |                       |\n  Miss R. | Miss E.   | Word R E S, letter by | Each letter was named\n          |           | letter.               | correctly by Miss E. as\n          |           |                       | it was placed before\n          |           |                       | Miss R.\n          |           |                       |\n    do.   |   do.     | Letter Q.             | \"Q.\" First answer.\n          |           |                       |\n    do.   |   do.     | Letter F.             | \"F.\" First answer.\n          |           |                       |\n  All     |           |                       |\n  present.| Miss R.   | A gilt cross held by  | \"It is a cross.\" Asked,\n          |           | Mr. G. behind the     | which way is it held,\n          |           | percipient.           | percipient replied,\n          |           |                       | \"The right way.\" Correct.\n          |           |                       |\n    do.   |   do.     | A yellow paper knife. | \"Yellow ... is it a\n          |           |                       | feather?... It looks\n          |           |                       | like a knife with a\n          |           |                       | thin handle.\"\n          |           |                       |\n    do.   |   do.     | A pair of scissors    | \"It is silver ... No, it\n          |           | standing open and     | is steel ... It is a pair\n          |           | upright.              | of scissors standing\n          |           |                       | upright.\"\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSuccess was different on different occasions, but this represents an\nordinary series of experiments at one sitting. In these experiments with\nobjects, the percipient was blindfolded and the object moreover was kept\nout of range of vision. In some experiments slight contact was permitted,\nand in some it was not, but it was found that contact had little if any\neffect upon the result.\n\nRemarkable success was also obtained in the transference of sensation,\nsuch as taste, smell, or pain, while the percipient was in a normal\ncondition, that is, not hypnotized.\n\nThe following is an average example of the transference of taste:--\n\nThe tasters, Mr. Guthrie (M. G.), Mr. Gurney (E. G.), and Mr. Myers (M.).\nThe percipients were two young ladies in Mr. Guthrie's employ.\n\n  SEPT. 3, 1883.\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n   TASTERS. |PERCIPIENT.|   SUBSTANCE.   |     ANSWER GIVEN.\n  ----------|-----------|----------------|-----------------------------\n  E. G. & M.|    E.     | Worcestershire |\n            |           | Sauce.         | \"Worcestershire Sauce.\"\n            |           |                |\n  M. G.     |    R.     |    \"           | \"Vinegar.\"\n            |           |                |\n  E. G. & M.|    E.     | Port wine.     | \"Between eau de Cologne\n            |           |                |  and beer.\"\n            |           |                |\n  M. G.     |    R.     |    \"           | \"Raspberry Vinegar.\"\n            |           |                |\n  E. G. & M.|    E.     | Bitter aloes.  | \"Horrible and bitter.\"\n            |           |                |\n  M. G.     |    R.     | Alum.          | \"A taste of ink--of iron--of\n            |           |                |  vinegar. I feel it on my\n            |           |                |  lips--it is as though I had\n            |           |                |  been eating alum.\"\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSome very striking experiments were made by Mr. J. W. Smith of Brunswick\nPlace, Leeds, as agent, and his sister Kate as percipient. Their success\nwith diagrams fully equalled those already given, and with objects the\nresults have seldom been equalled. The following trials were made March\n11th, 1884. The intelligence and good faith of the participants is\nundoubted.\n\nAgent: J. W. Smith. Percipient: Kate Smith.\n\n      OBJECT SELECTED.              NAMED.\n\n      Figure 8                      Correct first time.\n      Figure 5                         \"      \"     \"\n      Black cross on white ground      \"      \"     \"\n      Color blue                       \"      \"     \"\n      Cipher (0)                       \"      \"     \"\n\n    Pair of Scissors.--Percipient was not told what (i. e. what form of\n    experiment, figure, color or object) was to be next--but carefully and\n    without noise a pair of scissors was placed on white ground, and in\n    about one minute and a half she exclaimed: \"Scissors!\"\n\nThe number of facts and experiments bearing upon this division of our\nsubject is well-nigh inexhaustible; those already presented will serve as\nillustrations and will also show upon what sort of evidence is founded the\nprobability that perceptions and impressions are really conveyed from one\nmind to another in some other manner than by the ordinary and recognized\nmethods of communication.\n\nIt remains to give one or two illustrations of the fourth division of the\nsubject, namely, where similar thoughts have simultaneously occurred, or\nsimilar impressions have been made upon the minds of persons at a distance\nfrom each other without any known method of communication between them.\n\nThe first case was received and examined by the society in the summer of\n1885. One of the percipients writes as follows:--\n\n\"My sister-in-law, Sarah Eustance, of Stretton, was lying sick unto death,\nand my wife had gone over there from Lawton Chapel (twelve or thirteen\nmiles off) to see and tend her in her last moments. On the night before\nher death I was sleeping at home alone, and, awaking, I heard a voice\ndistinctly call me.\n\n\"Thinking it was my niece Rosanna, the only other occupant of the house, I\nwent to her room and found her awake and nervous. I asked her whether she\nhad called me. She answered: 'No; but something awoke me, when I heard\nsome one calling.' On my wife returning home after her sister's death she\ntold me how anxious her sister had been to see me, craving for me to be\nsent for, and saying, 'Oh, how I want to see Done once more!' and soon\nafter became speechless. But the curious part was that, about the same\ntime that she was 'craving,' I and my niece heard the call.\"\n\nIn answer to a letter of inquiry he further writes:--\n\n\"My wife, who went from Lawton that particular Sunday to see her sister,\nwill testify, that as she attended upon her (after the departure of the\nminister) during the night, she was asking and craving for me, repeatedly\nsaying, 'Oh, I wish I could see Uncle Done and Rosie once more before I\ngo!' and soon after she became unconscious, or at least ceased speaking,\nand died the next day, of which fact I was not aware until my wife\nreturned on the evening of the Fourth of July.\"\n\nMrs. Sewill, the Rosie referred to, writes as follows:--\n\n\"I was awakened suddenly, without apparent cause, and heard a voice\ncalling me distinctly, thus: 'Rosie, Rosie, Rosie.' We (my uncle and\nmyself) were the only occupants of the house that night, aunt being away\nattending upon her sister. I never was called before or since.\"\n\nThe second case is reported by a medical man of excellent reputation to\nwhom the incident was related by both Lady G. and her sister, the\npercipients in the case. It is as follows:--\n\n\"Lady G. and her sister had been spending the evening with their mother,\nwho was in her usual health and spirits when they left her. In the middle\nof the night the sister awoke in a fright and said to her husband: 'I must\ngo to my mother at once; do order the carriage. I am sure she is taken\nill.' The husband, after trying in vain to convince his wife that it was\nonly a fancy, ordered the carriage. As she was approaching her mother's\nhouse, where two roads meet, she saw Lady G.'s carriage approaching. As\nsoon as they met, each asked the other why she was there at that\nunseasonable hour, and both made the same reply:--\n\n\"'I could not sleep, feeling sure my mother was ill, and so I came to\nsee.' As they came in sight of the house they saw their mother's\nconfidential maid at the door, who told them, when they arrived, that\ntheir mother had been taken suddenly ill and was dying, and that she had\nexpressed an earnest wish to see her daughters.\"\n\nThe reporter adds:--\n\n\"The mother was a lady of strong will and always had a great influence\nover her daughters.\"\n\nMany well-authenticated instances of a similar character could be cited,\nbut the above are sufficient for illustration, which is the object here\nchiefly in view, and other facts still further illustrating this division\nof the subject will appear in other relations.\n\nThe foregoing facts and experiments are sufficient to indicate what is\nunderstood by thought-transference, or telepathy, and also to indicate\nwhat might be called the skirmishing ground between the class of\npsychologists represented by the active workers in the Society for\nPsychical Research and kindred societies on the one hand, and the\nconservative scientists, mostly physiologists, who are incredulous of any\naction of the mind for which they cannot find an appropriate organ and a\nproper method, on the other.\n\nIt is not claimed that thought-transference as here set forth is\nestablished beyond all possibility of doubt or cavil, especially from\nthose who choose to remain ignorant of the facts, but only that its facts\nare solid and their interpretation reasonable, and that\nthought-transference has now the same claim to acceptance by well-informed\npeople that many of the now accepted facts in physical science had in its\nearly days of growth and development.\n\nThe reality of thought-transference being once established, a vast field\nfor investigation is opened up; a new law, as it were, is discovered; and\nhow far-reaching and important its influence and bearing may be upon\nalleged facts and phenomena which heretofore have been disbelieved, or set\ndown as chance occurrences, or explained away as hallucinations, is at\npresent the interesting study of the experimental psychologist.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nMESMERISM AND HYPNOTISM--HISTORY AND THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS.\n\n\nNo department of psychical research is at present exciting so widespread\nan interest as that which is known under the name of Hypnotism; and\ninquiries are constantly made by those to whom the subject is new,\nregarding its nature and effects, and also how, if at all, it differs from\nthe mesmerism and animal magnetism of many years ago.\n\nUnfortunately, these questions are more easily asked than answered, and\nwell-informed persons, and even those considered experts in the subject,\nwould doubtless give different and perhaps opposing answers to them. A\nshort historical sketch may help in forming an opinion.\n\nFrom the remotest periods of human history to the present time, certain\npeculiar and unusual conditions of mind, sometimes associated with\nabnormal conditions of body, have been observed, during which unusual\nconditions, words have unconsciously been spoken, sometimes seemingly\nmeaningless, but sometimes conveying knowledge of events at that moment\ntaking place at a distance, sometimes foretelling future events, and\nsometimes words of warning, instruction, or command.\n\nThe Egyptians and Assyrians had their magi, the Greeks and Romans their\noracles, the Hebrews their seers and prophets, every great religion its\ninspired teachers, and every savage nation had, under some name, its seer\nor medicine-man.\n\nSocrates had his daemon, Joan of Arc her voices and visions, the\nHighlanders their second sight, Spiritualists their mediums and\n\"controls.\" Even Sitting Bull had his vision in which he foresaw the\napproach and destruction of Custer's army.\n\nUntil a little more than a hundred years ago all persons affected in any\nof these unusual ways were supposed to be endowed with some sort of\nsupernatural power, or to be under external and supernatural influence,\neither divine or satanic.\n\nAbout 1773 Mesmer, an educated German physician, philosopher, and mystic,\ncommenced the practice of curing disease by means of magnets passed over\nthe affected parts and over the body of the patient from head to foot.\nAfterward seeing Gassner, a Swabian priest, curing his patients by\ncommand, and applying his hands to the affected parts, he discarded his\nmagnets, concluding that the healing power or influence was not in them,\nbut in himself; and he called that influence animal magnetism.\n\nMesmer also found that a certain proportion of his patients went into a\nsleep more or less profound under his manipulations, during which\nsomnambulism, or sleep-walking, appeared. But Mesmer's chief personal\ninterest lay in certain theories regarding the nature of the\nnewly-discovered power or agent, and in its therapeutic effects; his\ntheories, however, were not understood nor appreciated by the physicians\nof his time, and his cures were looked upon by them as being simply\nquackery.\n\nNevertheless, it was he who first took the whole subject of these abnormal\nor supranormal conditions out of the domain of the supernatural, and in\nattempting to show their relation to natural forces he placed them in the\ndomain of nature as proper subjects of rational study and investigation;\nand for this, at least, Mesmer should be honored.\n\nUnder Mesmer's pupil, the Marquis de Puysegur, the facts and methods\nrelating to the magnetic sleep and magnetic cures were more carefully\nobserved and more fully published. Then followed Petetin, Husson, and\nDupotet, Elliotson in England and Esdaile in India. So from Mesmer in 1773\nto Dupotet and Elliotson in 1838 we have the period of the \"early\nmesmerists.\"\n\nDuring this period the hypnotic sleep was induced by means of passes, the\noperators never for a moment doubting that the influence which produced\nsleep was a power of some sort proceeding from themselves and producing\nits effect upon the patient.\n\nIn addition to the condition of sleep or lethargy, the following\nconditions were well known to the \"early mesmerists\"; somnambulism, or\nsleep-walking, catalepsy, anaesthesia, and amnesia, or absence of all\nknowledge of what transpired during the sleep. Suggestion during sleep was\nalso made use of, and was even then proposed as an agent in education and\nin the cure of vice.\n\nThis was the condition of the subject in 1842, when Braid, an English\nsurgeon, made some new and interesting experiments. He showed that the\nso-called mesmeric sleep could be produced in some patients by other\nprocesses than those used by the early mesmerists; especially could this\nbe accomplished by having the patient gaze steadily at a fixed brilliant\nobject or point, without resorting to passes or manipulations of any\nkind.\n\nHe introduced the word hypnotism, which has since been generally adopted;\nhe also proposed some new theories relating to the nature of the hypnotic\nsleep, regarding it as a \"profound nervous change,\" and he still further\ndeveloped the idea and use of suggestion. Otherwise no important changes\nwere made by him in the status of the subject. It was not looked upon with\nfavor by the profession generally, and its advocates were for the most\npart still considered as cranks and persons whose scientific and\nprofessional standing and character were not above suspicion.\n\nThe period of twenty-five years from 1850 to 1875, was a sort of\noccultation of hypnotism. Braidism suffered nearly the same fate as\nmesmerism--it was neglected and tabooed. A few capable and honest men,\nlike Liebeault of Nancy and Azam of Bordeaux, worked on, and from time to\ntime published their observations; but for the most part these workers\nwere neglected and even scorned.\n\nTo acknowledge one's belief in animal magnetism or hypnotism was bad form,\nand he who did it must be content to suffer a certain degree of both\nsocial and professional ostracism. The field was given over to town-hall\nlectures on mesmerism, by \"professors\" whose titles were printed in\nquotation marks even by the local papers which recorded their exploits.\n\nBut a change was about to be inaugurated. In 1877 Prof. Charcot, then one\nof the most scientific, most widely-known, and most highly-esteemed of\nliving physicians, not only in France but in all the world, was appointed,\nwith two colleagues, to investigate the treatment of hysteria by means of\nmetallic disks--a subject which was then attracting the attention of the\nmedical profession in France.\n\nSo, curiously enough, it happened that Charcot commenced exactly where\nMesmer had commenced a hundred years before. He experimented upon\nhysterical patients in his wards at La Salpetriere, and, as a result, he\nrediscovered mesmerism under the name of hypnotism, just a century after\nit had been discovered by Mesmer and disowned by the French Academy.\n\nBut Charcot, after having satisfied himself by his experiments, did not\nhesitate to announce his full belief in the facts and phenomena of\nhypnotism, and that was sufficient to rehabilitate the long-neglected\nsubject. The attention of the scientific world was at once turned toward\nit, it became a legitimate subject of study, and hypnotism at once became\nrespectable. From that time to the present it has formed one of the most\nconspicuous and interesting subjects of psychical study; it has become to\npsychology what determining the value of a single character is to reading\nan ancient inscription in a lost or unknown language--it is a bit of the\nunknown expressed in terms of the known and helps to furnish clues to\nstill greater discoveries.\n\nWith the scientific interest in hypnotism which was brought about through\nthe great name and influence of Charcot, all doubt concerning the reality\nof the phenomena which it presents disappeared. Hypnotism was a fact and\nhad come to stay.\n\nCharcot, who conducted his experiments chiefly among nervous or hysterical\npatients, looked upon the hypnotic condition as a disease, and considered\nthe phenomena presented by hypnotic subjects as akin to hysteria. In\naddition to the method of producing the hypnotic condition used by Braid,\nhe used, among others, what he called \"massive stimulation,\" which\nconsisted in first fully absorbing the subject's attention and then\nproducing a shock by the loud sounding of a concealed gong, or the sudden\ndisplay or sudden withdrawal of an electric light. By this means\nhysterical subjects were often thrown into a condition of catalepsy, from\nwhich somnambulism and other hypnotic phenomena were sometimes deduced.\n\nI have myself seen nervous patients thrown into the cataleptic state by\nthe \"massive stimulation\" of a huge truck passing by, loaded with clanging\nrails or building iron, or by other sudden shock, but I did not consider\nthe process therapeutic nor in any way useful to the patient. Indeed, I\nhave considered the present method of transporting those beams and rails\nof iron through our streets and past our dwellings, without the slightest\nattempt to modify their shocking din and clangor, a piece of savagery\nwhich should at once be made the subject of special legislation looking to\nthe prompt punishment of the perpetrators of the outrage.\n\nAs a matter of fact, neither the methods employed, the psychical\nconditions induced, nor the therapeutic effects attained at La\nSalpetriere, where most of these experiments were at that time carried on,\nwere such as to particularly commend themselves to students of psychology.\nNevertheless the great name and approval of Charcot served to command for\nhypnotism the attention and the favorable consideration of the scientific\nworld.\n\nSoon after the experiments of Charcot and his associates in Paris were\npublished, Prof. Bernheim commenced a most thorough and important study of\nthe subject in the wards of the hospital at Nancy. These studies were\nmade, not upon persons who were already subjects of nervous disease, as\nwas the case with Charcot's patients, but, on the contrary, upon those\nwhose nervous condition was perfectly normal, and even upon those whose\ngeneral health was perfect.\n\nThe result of Bernheim's experiments proved that a very large percentage\nof all persons, sick or well, could be put into the hypnotic condition. He\nclaimed that suggestion was the great factor and influence, both in\nbringing about the condition, and also in the mental phenomena observed,\nand the cures which were accomplished.\n\nHe claimed, moreover, that the hypnotic sleep did not differ from ordinary\nsleep, and that no magnetism nor other personal element, influence, or\nforce entered in any way into the process--it was all the power and\ninfluence of suggestion.\n\nFour distinct and important periods then are found in the history of\nhypnotism:\n\nFirst, the period of the early mesmerists, extending from the time of\nMesmer, 1773, until that of Braid, 1842--nearly seventy years--during\nwhich the theory of animal magnetism, or of some actual force or subtle\ninfluence proceeding from the operator to the subject, prevailed.\n\nSecond, the period of thirty-five years during which the influence of\nBraid's experiments predominated, showing that other methods, and\nespecially that by the fixed gaze, were efficient in producing the\nhypnotic sleep.\n\nThird, the short period during which the influence of Charcot and the\nParis school prevailed.\n\nFourth, the period since Bernheim began to publish his experiments, and\nwhich may be called the period of suggestion.\n\nWith this brief sketch in mind, we are prepared to examine some of the\nmore important phenomena of hypnotism, both in its early and its later\ndevelopments. A simple case would be as follows:--\n\nA patient comes to the physician's office complaining of continual\nheadaches, general debility, nervousness, and unsatisfactory sleep. She is\nwilling to be hypnotized, and is accompanied by a friend. The physician\nseats her comfortably in a chair, and, seating himself opposite her, he\ntakes her thumbs lightly between his own thumbs and fingers, asks her to\nlook steadily at some convenient object--perhaps a shirt-stud or a\nspecified button upon his coat. Presently her eyelids quiver and then\ndroop slowly over her eyes; he gently closes them with the tips of his\nfingers, holds them lightly for a moment, and she is asleep.\n\nHe then makes several slow passes over her face and down the front of her\nbody from head to foot, also some over her head and away from it, all\nwithout contact and without speaking to her. He lets her sleep ten or\nfifteen minutes--longer, if convenient--and then, making two or three\nupward passes over her face, he says promptly: \"All right; wake up.\"\n\nShe slowly opens her eyes, probably smiles, and looks a little foolish at\nhaving slept. He inquires how she feels. She replies:\n\n\"I feel remarkably well--so rested--as though I had slept a whole night.\"\n\n\"How is your head?\"\n\n(Looking surprised.) \"It is quite well--the pain is all gone.\"\n\n\"Very well,\" he says. \"You will continue to feel better and stronger, and\nyou will have good sleep at night.\"\n\nAnd so it proves. Bernheim or a pupil of his would sit, or perhaps stand,\nnear his patient, and in a quiet but firm voice talk of sleep.\n\n\"Sleep is what you need. Sleep is helpful and will do you good. Already,\nwhile I am talking to you, you are beginning to feel drowsy. Your eyes are\ntired; your lids are drooping; you are growing more and more sleepy; your\nlids droop more and more.\"\n\nThen, if the eyelids seem heavy, he presses them down over the eyes, all\nthe time affirming sleep. If sleep comes, he has succeeded; if not, he\nresorts to gestures, passes, the steady gaze, or whatever he thinks likely\nto aid his suggestion.\n\nWhen the patient is asleep he suggests that when she awakes her pains and\nnervousness will be gone, and that she will have quiet and refreshing\nsleep at night. What is the condition of the patient while under the\ninfluence of this induced sleep? Pulse and respiration are little, if at\nall, changed; they may be slightly accelerated at first, and later, if\nvery deep sleep occurs, they may be slightly retarded. Temperature is\nseldom changed at all, though, if abnormally high before the sleep is\ninduced, it frequently falls during the sleep.\n\nIf the hand be raised, or the arm be drawn up high above the head,\ngenerally it will remain elevated until it is touched and replaced, or\nthe patient is told that he can let it fall, when he slowly lowers it.\n\nIn many cases the limbs of the patient may be flexed or the body placed in\nany position, and that position will be retained for a longer or shorter\nperiod, sometimes for hours, without change. Sometimes the condition is\none of rigidity so firm that the head may be placed upon one chair and the\nheels upon another, and the body will remain stiff like a bridge from one\nchair to the other, even when a heavy weight is placed upon the middle of\nthe patient's body or another person is seated upon it. This is the full\ncataleptic condition.\n\nSometimes the whole body will be in a condition of anaesthesia, so that\nneedles may be thrust deep into the flesh without evoking any sign of pain\nor any sensation whatever. Sometimes, when this condition of anaesthesia\ndoes not appear with the sleep, it may be induced by passes, or by\nsuggesting that a certain limb or the whole body is without feeling. In\nthis condition the most serious surgical operations have been performed\nwithout the slightest suffering on the part of the patient.\n\nFrom the deep sleep the patient often passes of his own accord into a\ncondition in which he walks, talks, reads, writes, and obeys the slightest\nwish or suggestion of the hypnotizer--and yet he is asleep. This is called\nthe alert stage, or the condition of somnambulism, and is the most\npeculiar, interesting, and wonderful of all.\n\nThe two chief stages of the hypnotic condition, then, are, first: the\nlethargic stage; second, the alert stage.\n\nThe stage of lethargy may be very light--a mere drowsiness--or very\ndeep--a heavy slumber--and it is often accompanied by a cataleptic state,\nmore or less marked in degree.\n\nThe alert stage may also vary and may be characterized by somnambulism,\nvarying in character from a simple sleepy \"yes\" or \"no\" in answer to\nquestions asked by his hypnotizer, to the most wonderful, even\nsupranormal, mental activity.\n\nFrom any of these states the subject may be awakened by his hypnotizer\nsimply making a few upward passes or by saying in a firm voice, \"All\nright, wake up,\" or, again, by affirming to the patient that he will awake\nwhen he (the hypnotizer) has counted up to a certain number, as, for\ninstance, five.\n\nGenerally, upon awakening, the subject has no knowledge or remembrance of\nanything which has transpired during his hypnotic condition. This is known\nas amnesia. Sometimes, however, a hazy recollection of what has happened\nremains, especially if the hypnotic condition has been only slight.\n\nUp to the present time hypnotism has been studied from two separate and\nimportant standpoints and for two well-defined purposes: (1) For its\ntherapeutic effects, or its use in the treatment of disease and relief of\npain; (2) for the mental or psychical phenomena which it presents.\n\nThe following cases will illustrate its study and use from the therapeutic\nstandpoint--and, first, two cases treated by the old mesmerists, 1843-53.\nThey are from reports published in The Zoist:--\n\n(1) Q. I. P., a well-known artist, fifty years ago, had been greatly\ntroubled and distressed by weak and inflamed eyes, accompanied by\nulceration of the cornea, a condition which had lasted more than four\nyears. He was never free from the disease, and often it was so severe as\nto prevent work in his studio, and especially reading, for months at a\ntime. He had been under the care of the best oculists, both in New York\nand London, for long periods and at different times, but with very little\ntemporary and no permanent relief.\n\nHe was urged, as a last resort, to try animal magnetism, as it was then\ncalled. Accordingly, he consulted a mesmeric practitioner in London, and\nwas treated by passes made over the back of the head and down the spine\nand from the centre of the forehead backward and outward over the temples\nand down the sides of the head.\n\nAll other treatment was discontinued. No mesmeric phenomena of any kind\nwere produced, not even sleep, but from the first day a degree of comfort\nand also improvement was experienced.\n\nThe treatment was given one hour daily for one month. The improvement was\ndecided and uninterrupted, such as had never before been experienced under\nany form of medical or surgical treatment, no matter how thoroughly\ncarried out. The general health was greatly improved, and the eyes were so\nmuch benefited that they could be relied upon constantly, both for\npainting and reading, and the cure was permanent.\n\n(2) A case of rheumatism treated by Dr. Elliotson of London. The patient,\nG. F., age thirty-five years, was a laborer, and had suffered from\nrheumatism seven weeks. When he applied to Dr. Elliotson, the doctor was\nsitting in his office, in company with three friends--one a medical\ngentleman, and all skeptics regarding mesmerism.\n\nThey all, however, expressed a desire to see the treatment, and,\naccordingly, the patient was brought in. He came with difficulty, upon\ncrutches, his face betokening extreme pain. He had never been mesmerized.\n\nThe doctor sat down opposite his patient, took his thumbs in his hands,\nand gazed steadily in his eyes. In twenty minutes he fell into the\nmesmeric sleep. Several of the mesmeric phenomena were then produced in\nthe presence of his skeptical friends, after which he was allowed to sleep\nundisturbed for two hours. No suggestions regarding his disease are\nreported as having been made to the patient during his sleep.\n\nHe was awakened by reverse passes. Being fairly aroused, he arose from his\nchair, walked up and down the room without difficulty, and was perfectly\nunconscious of all that had transpired during his sleep; he only knew he\ncame into the room suffering, and on crutches, and that he was now free\nfrom pain and could walk with ease without them. He left one crutch with\nthe doctor and went out twirling the other in his hand. He remained\nperfectly well.\n\nDr. Elliotson afterward tried on three different occasions to hypnotize\nhim but without success. Others also tried, but all attempts in this\ndirection failed.\n\nI will here introduce one or two cases from my own notebook:--\n\n(1) A. C., a young girl of Irish parentage, fifteen years old, light skin,\ndark hair and eyes, and heavy eyebrows. Her father had \"fits\" for several\nyears previous to his death. I first saw the patient Dec. 4, 1872; this\nwas five years before Charcot's experiments, and nearly ten years before\nthose of Bernheim.\n\nShe was then having frequent epileptic attacks, characterized by sudden\nloss of consciousness, convulsions, foaming at the mouth, biting the\ntongue, and dark color. She had her first attack six months before I saw\nher, and they had increased in frequency and in severity until now they\noccurred twenty or more times a day, sometimes lasting many minutes, and\nsometimes only a few seconds; sometimes they were of very great severity.\n\nShe had received many falls, burns, and bruises in consequence of their\nsudden accession. They occurred both day and night. On my second visit I\ndetermined to try hypnotism. Patient went to sleep in eight minutes, slept\na short time and awoke without interference. She was immediately put to\nsleep again; she slept only a few minutes, and again awoke.\n\nDEC. 7.--Her friends report that the attacks have not been so frequent and\nnot nearly so violent since my last visit. Hypnotized; patient went into a\nprofound sleep and remained one hour; she was then awakened by reverse\npasses.\n\nDEC. 8.--The attacks have been still less frequent and severe; she has\nslept quietly; appetite good. Hypnotized and allowed her to sleep two\nhours, and then awoke her by the upward passes.\n\nDEC. 9.--There has been still more marked improvement; the attacks have\nbeen very few, none lasting more than half a minute. Hypnotized and\nallowed her to remain asleep three hours. Awoke her with some difficulty,\nand she was still somewhat drowsy when I left. She went to sleep in the\nafternoon and slept soundly four hours; awoke and ate her supper; went to\nsleep again and slept soundly all night.\n\nDEC. 10.--There has been no return of the attacks. A month later she had\nhad no return of the attacks. She soon after left town, and I have not\nheard of her since. In this case no suggestions whatever were made.\n\n(2) B. X., twenty-four years of age, a sporting man; obstinate,\nindependent, self-willed, a leader in his circle. He had been a hard\ndrinker from boyhood. He had been injured by a fall three years before,\nand had been subject to severe attacks of haematemesis. I had known him for\nthree or four months previous to June, 1891. At that time he came into my\noffice one evening somewhat under the influence of alcoholic stimulants.\nAfter talking a few moments, I advised him to lie down on the lounge. I\nmade no remarks about his drinking, nor about sleep. I simply took his two\nthumbs in my hands and sat quietly beside him. Presently I made a few long\npasses from head to feet, and in five minutes he was fast asleep.\n\nHis hands and arms, outstretched and raised high up, remained exactly as\nthey were placed. Severe pinching elicited no sign of sensation. He was in\nthe deep hypnotic sleep.\n\nI then spoke to him in a distinct and decided manner. I told him he was\nruining his life and making his family very unhappy by his habit of\nintemperance. I then told him very decidedly that when he awoke he would\nhave no more desire for alcoholic stimulants of any kind; that he would\nlook upon them all as his enemies, and he would refuse them under all\ncircumstances; that even the smell of them would be disagreeable to him.\nI repeated the suggestions and then awoke him by making a few passes\nupward over his face, I did not inform him that I had hypnotized him, nor\nspeak to him at all about his habit of drinking. I prescribed for some\nailment for which he had visited me and he went away.\n\nI neither saw nor heard from him again for three months, when I received a\nletter from him from a distant city, informing me that he had not drank a\ndrop of spirituous liquor since he was in my office that night. His health\nwas perfect, and he had no more vomiting of blood.\n\nJune, 1892, one year from the time I had hypnotized him, he came into my\noffice in splendid condition. He had drank nothing during the whole year.\nI have not heard from him since.\n\nThe following case illustrates Bernheim's method:--\n\nMlle. J., teacher, thirty-two years old, came to the clinique, Feb. 17,\n1887, for chorea, or St. Vitus's dance. Nearly two weeks previous she had\nbeen roughly reprimanded by her superior which had greatly affected her.\nShe could scarcely sleep or eat; she had nausea, pricking sensations in\nboth arms, delirium at times, and now incessant movements, sometimes as\nfrequent as two every second, in both the right arm and leg.\n\nShe can neither write nor attend to her school duties. Bernheim hypnotizes\nher by his method. She goes easily into the somnambulic condition. In\nthree or four minutes, under the influence of suggestion, the movements of\nthe hand and foot cease; upon waking up, they reappear, but less\nfrequently. A second hypnotization, with suggestion, checks them\ncompletely.\n\nFEB. 19th.--Says she has been very comfortable; the pricking sensations\nhave ceased. No nervous movements until nine o'clock this morning, when\nthey returned, about ten or eleven every minute. New hypnotization and\nsuggestion, during which the motions cease, and they remain absent when\nshe wakes.\n\n21st.--Has had slight pains and a few choraic movements.\n\n25th.--Is doing well; has no movements; says she is cured.\n\nShe returned a few times during the next four months with slight nervous\nmovements, which were promptly relieved by hypnotizing and suggestion.\n\nBernheim, in his book, \"Suggestive Therapeutics,\" gives details of over\none hundred cases, mostly neuralgic and rheumatic, most of which are\ndescribed as cured, either quickly or by repeated hypnotization and\nsuggestion.\n\nThe Zoist, a journal devoted to psychology and mesmerism nearly fifty\nyears ago, gives several hundred cases of treatment and cure by the early\nmesmerists, some of them very remarkable, and also many cases of surgical\noperations of the most severe or dangerous character painlessly done under\nthe anaesthetic influence of mesmerism before the benign effects of ether\nor chloroform were known. These cases are not often referred to by the\nmodern student of hypnotism. Nevertheless, they constitute a storehouse of\nwell-observed facts which have an immense interest and value.\n\nIt will thus be seen that throughout the whole history of hypnotism, under\nwhatever name it has been studied, one of its chief features has been its\npower to relieve suffering and cure disease; and at the present day, while\nmany physicians who are quite ignorant of its uses, in general terms deny\nits practicability, few who have any real knowledge of it are so unjust or\nregardless of facts as to deny its therapeutic effects.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nHYPNOTISM--PSYCHICAL ASPECT.\n\n\nAs before remarked the phenomena of hypnotism may be viewed from two\ndistinct standpoints--one, that from which the physical and especially the\ntherapeutic features are most prominent, the standpoint from which we have\nalready viewed the subject; the other is the psychical or mental aspect,\nwhich presents phenomena no less striking, and is the one which is\nespecially attractive to the most earnest students of psychology.\n\nThe hypnotic condition has been variously divided and subdivided by\ndifferent students and different writers upon the subject; Charcot, for\ninstance, makes three distinct states, which he designates (1) catalepsy,\n(2) lethargy, and (3) somnambulism, while Bernheim proposes five states,\nor, as he designates them, degrees of hypnotism, namely, (1) sleepiness,\n(2) light sleep, (3) deep sleep, (4) very deep sleep, (5) somnambulism.\n\nAll these divisions are arbitrary and unnatural; Bernheim's five degrees\nhave no definite limit or line of separation one from the other, and\nCharcot's condition of catalepsy is only lethargy or sleep in which the\nsubject may, to a greater or less degree, maintain the position in which\nhe is placed by his hypnotizer.\n\nThere are, however, as already stated, two distinct and definite\nconditions, namely, (1) lethargy, or the inactive stage, and (2)\nsomnambulism, or the alert stage, and if, in examining the subject, we\nmake this simple division, we shall free it from much confusion and\nunnecessary verbiage.\n\nWhen a subject is hypnotized by any soothing process, he first experiences\na sensation of drowsiness, and then in a space of time, usually varying\nfrom two to twenty minutes, he falls into a more or less profound slumber.\nHis breathing is full and quiet, his pulse normal; he is unconscious of\nhis surroundings; or possibly he may be quiet, restful, indisposed to\nmove, but having a consciousness, probably dim and imperfect, of what is\ngoing on about him.\n\nThis is the condition of lethargy, and in it most subjects, but not all,\nretain to a greater or less degree whatever position the hypnotizer\nimposes upon them; they sleep on, often maintaining what, under ordinary\ncircumstances, would be a most uncomfortable position, for hours,\nmotionless as a statue of bronze or stone.\n\nIf, now, he speaks of his own accord, or his magnetizer speaks to him and\nhe replies, he is in the somnambulic or alert stage. He may open his eyes,\ntalk in a clear and animated manner; he may walk about, and show even more\nintellectual acuteness and physical activity than when in his normal\nstate, or he may merely nod assent or answer slowly to his hypnotizer's\nquestions; still, he is in the somnambulic or alert stage of hypnotism.\n\nThe following are some of the phenomena which have been observed in this\nstage. It is not necessary to rehearse the stock performances of\nlecture-room hypnotists. While under the influence of hypnotic suggestion\na lad, for instance, is made to go through the pantomime of fishing in an\nimaginary brook, a dignified man to canter around the stage on all fours,\nunder the impression that he is a pony, or watch an imaginary mouse-hole\nin the most alert and interested manner while believing himself a cat; or\nthe subject is made to take castor oil with every expression of delight,\nor reject the choicest wines with disgust, believing them to be nauseous\ndrugs, or stagger with drunkenness under the influence of a glass of pure\nwater, supposed to be whisky.\n\nAll these things have been done over and over for the last forty years,\nand people have not known whether to consider them a species of necromancy\nor well-practiced tricks, in which the performers were accomplices, or,\nperhaps, a few more thoughtful and better-instructed people have looked\nupon them as involving psychological problems of the greatest interest,\nwhich might some day strongly influence all our systems of mental\nphilosophy.\n\nBut whether done by the mesmerist of forty years ago or the hypnotist of\nthe past decade, they were identical in character, and were simply genuine\nexamples of the great power of suggestion when applied to persons under\nthe mesmeric or hypnotic influence. Such exhibitions, however, are\nunnecessary and undignified, if not positively degrading, to both subject\nand operator, whether given by the self-styled professor of the town-hall\nplatform or the aspiring clinical professor of nervous diseases before his\npacked amphitheatre of admiring students.\n\nOne of the most singular as well as important points in connection with\nhypnotism is the rapport or relationship which exists between the\nhypnotizer and the hypnotized subject. The manner in which the hypnotic\nsleep is induced is of little importance. The important thing, if results\nof any kind are to be obtained, is that rapport should be established.\n\nThis relationship is exhibited in various ways. Generally, while in the\nhypnotic state, the subject hears no voice but that of his hypnotizer; he\ndoes no bidding but his, he receives no suggestions but from him, and no\none else can awaken him from his sleep.\n\nIf another person interferes, trying to impose his influence upon the\nsleeping subject, or attempts to waken him, distressing and even alarming\nresults may appear. The degree to which this rapport exists varies greatly\nin different cases, but almost always, perhaps we should say always, the\ncondition exists in some degree. In some rare cases this rapport is of a\nstill higher and more startling character, exhibiting phenomena so\ncontrary to, or rather, so far exceeding, our usual experience as to be a\nsurprise to all and a puzzle to the wisest.\n\nOne of these curious phenomena is well exhibited in what is known as\ncommunity of sensation, or the perception by the subject of sensations\nexperienced by the operator. The following experiment, observed by Mr.\nGurney and Dr. Myers of the Society for Psychical Research, will\nillustrate this phase of the subject.\n\nThe sensitive in this experiment is designated as Mr. C., and the operator\nas Mr. S. There was no contact or any communication whatsoever of the\nordinary kind between them. C. was hypnotized, but was not informed of the\nnature of the experiment which was to be tried. The operator stood behind\nthe hypnotized subject, and Mr. Gurney, standing behind the operator,\nhanded him the different substances to be used in the experiment, and he,\nin turn, placed them in his own mouth.\n\nSalt was first so tasted by the operator, whereupon the subject, C.,\ninstantly and loudly cried out: \"What's that salt stuff?\" Sugar was given.\nC. replied, \"Sweeter; not so bad as before.\" Powdered ginger; reply, \"Hot,\ndries up your mouth; reminds me of mustard.\" Sugar given again; reply, \"A\nlittle better--a sweetish taste.\" Other substances were tried, with\nsimilar results, the last one tasted being vinegar, when it was found that\nC. had fallen into the deeper lethargic condition and made no reply.\n\nAnother experiment is reported by Dr. William A. Hammond of Washington.\nThe doctor said:\n\n\"A most remarkable fact is, that some few subjects of hypnotism experience\nsensations from impressions made upon the hypnotizer. Thus, there is a\nsubject upon whom I sometimes operate whom I can shut up in a room with an\nobserver, while I go into another closed room at a distance of one hundred\nfeet or more with another observer. This one, for instance, scratches my\nhand with a pin, and instantly the hypnotized subject rubs his\ncorresponding hand, and says, 'Don't scratch my hand so;' or my hair is\npulled, and immediately he puts his hand to his head and says, 'Don't pull\nmy hair;' and so on, feeling every sensation that I experience.\"\n\nThis experiment, it must be borne in mind, is conducted in closed rooms a\nhundred feet apart, and through at least two partitions or closed doors,\nand over that distance and through these intervening obstacles peculiar\nand definite sensations experienced by one person are perceived and\ndefinitely described by another person, no ordinary means of communication\nexisting between them. This is an example of the rapport existing between\nthe operator and hypnotized subject carried to an unusual degree.\n\nThe following experiments are examples of hypnotizing at a distance, or\ntelepathic hypnotism, and while illustrating still further the rapport,\nor curious relationship, existing between hypnotizer and subject, are also\nillustrations of the rarer psychic phenomena of hypnotism.\n\nThe first series of experiments is given by Prof. Pierre Janet of Havre\nand Dr. Gibert, a prominent physician of the same city. The subject was\nMme. B., a heavy, rather stolid, middle-aged peasant woman, without any\nambition for notoriety, or to be known as a sensitive; on the contrary,\nshe disliked it, and the experiments were disagreeable to her. She was,\nhowever an excellent example of close rapport with her hypnotizer.\n\nWhile in the deep sleep, and perfectly insensible to ordinary stimuli,\nhowever violent, contact, or even the proximity of her hypnotizer's hand,\ncaused contractures, which a light touch from him would also remove. No\none else could produce the slightest effect. After about ten minutes in\nthis deep trance she usually passed into the alert, or somnambulic stage,\nfrom which also no one but the operator could arouse her. Hypnotization\nwas difficult or impossible unless the operator concentrated his thoughts\nupon the desired result, but by simply willing, without passes or any\nphysical means whatsoever, the hypnotic condition could be quickly\ninduced.\n\nVarious experiments in simply willing post-hypnotic acts, without\nsuggestion through any of the ordinary channels of communication, were\nalso perfectly successful. Dr. Gibert then made three experiments in\nputting this subject to sleep when she was in another part of the town, a\nthird of a mile away from the operator, and at a time fixed by a third\nperson, the experiment also being wholly unexpected by the subject.\n\nOn two of these occasions Prof. Janet found the subject in a deep trance\nten minutes after the willing to sleep, and no one but Dr. Gibert, who had\nput her to sleep, could rouse her. In the third experiment the subject\nexperienced the hypnotic influence and desire to sleep, but resisted it\nand kept herself awake by washing her hands in cold water.\n\nDuring a second series of experiments made with the same subject, several\nmembers of the Society for Psychical Research were present and took an\nactive part in them. Apart from trials made in the same or an adjoining\nroom, twenty-one experiments were made when the subject was at distances\nvarying from one-half to three-fourths of a mile away from her hypnotizer.\nOf these, six were reckoned as failures, or only partial successes; there\nremained, then, fifteen perfect successes in which the subject, Mme. B.,\nwas found entranced fifteen minutes after the willing or mental\nsuggestion. During one of these experiments, the subject was willed by Dr.\nGibert to come through several intervening streets to him at his own\nhouse, which she accomplished in the somnambulic condition, and under the\nobservation of Prof. Janet and several other physicians.\n\nAnother series of experiments was made with another subject by Dr.\nHericourt, one of Prof. Richet's coadjutors. The experiments included the\ngradual extension of the distance through which the willing power was\nsuccessful, first to another room, then to another street, and a distant\npart of the city.\n\nOne day, while attempting to hypnotize her in another street, three\nhundred yards distant, at 3 o'clock P. M., he was suddenly called away to\nattend a patient, and forgot all about his hypnotic subject. Afterward he\nremembered that he was to meet her at 4:30, and went to keep his\nappointment. But not finding her, he thought possibly the experiment,\nwhich had been interrupted might, after all, have proved successful. Upon\nthis supposition, at 5 o'clock he willed her to awake.\n\nThat evening, without being questioned at all, she gave the following\naccount of herself: At 3 P. M. she was overcome by an irresistible desire\nto sleep, a most unusual thing for her at that hour. She went into an\nadjoining room, fell insensible upon a sofa, where she was afterward found\nby her servant, cold and motionless, as if dead.\n\nAttempts on the part of the servant to rouse her proved ineffectual, but\ngave her great distress. She woke spontaneously and free from pain at 5\no'clock.\n\nBy no means the least interesting of the higher phenomena of hypnotism are\npost-hypnotic suggestions, or the fulfilment after waking of suggestions\nimpressed upon the subject when asleep.\n\nA few summers ago at a little gathering of intelligent people, much\ninterest was manifested and a general desire to see some hypnotic\nexperiments. Accordingly, one of the ladies whose good sense and good\nfaith could not be doubted, was hypnotized and put into the condition of\nprofound lethargy. After a few slight experiments, exhibiting anaesthesia,\nhallucinations of taste, plastic pose, and the like, I said to her in a\ndecided manner:\n\n\"Now I am about to waken you. I will count five, and when I say the word\n'five' you will promptly, but quietly and without any excitement, awake.\nYour mind will be perfectly clear, and you will feel rested and refreshed\nby your sleep. Presently you will approach Mrs. O., and will be attracted\nby the beautiful shell comb which she wears in her hair, and you will ask\nher to permit you to examine it.\"\n\nI then commenced counting slowly, and at the word \"five\" she awoke, opened\nher eyes promptly, looked bright and happy, and expressed herself as\nfeeling comfortable and greatly rested, as though she had slept through a\nwhole night. She rose from her chair, mingled with the company, and\npresently approaching Mrs. O., exclaimed:\n\n\"What a beautiful comb! Please allow me to examine it.\"\n\nAnd suiting the action to the word, she placed her hand lightly on the\nlady's head, examined the comb, and expressed great admiration for it; in\nshort, she fulfilled with great exactness the whole suggestion.\n\nShe was perfectly unconscious that any suggestion had been made to her;\nshe was greatly surprised to see that she was the centre of observation,\nand especially at the ripple of laughter which greeted her admiration of\nthe comb.\n\nTo another young lady, hypnotized in like manner, I suggested that on\nawaking she should approach the young daughter of our hostess, who was\npresent, holding a favorite kitten in her arms, and should say to her,\n\"What a pretty kitten you have! What is her name?\"\n\nThe suggestion was fulfilled to the letter. It was only afterward that I\nlearned that this young lady had a very decided aversion to cats, and\nalways avoided them if possible.\n\nSuggestions for post-hypnotic fulfilment are sometimes carried out after a\nconsiderable time has elapsed, and upon the precise day suggested.\n\nBernheim, in August, 1883, suggested to S., an old soldier, while in the\nhypnotic sleep, that upon the 3d of October following, sixty-three days\nafter the suggestion, he should go to Dr. Liebeault's house; that he would\nthere see the President of the Republic, who would give to him a medal.\n\nPromptly on the day designated he went. Dr. Liebeault states that S. came\nat 12:50 o'clock; he greeted M. F., who met him at the door as he came in,\nand then went to the left side of the office without paying any attention\nto any one. Dr. Liebeault continues:--\n\n\"I saw him bow respectfully and heard him speak the word 'Excellence.'\nJust then he held out his right hand, and said, 'Thank your Excellence.'\nThen I asked him to whom he was speaking. 'Why, to the President of the\nRepublic.' He then bowed, and a few minutes later took his departure.\"\n\nA patient of my own, a young man with whom I occasionally experiment,\nexhibits some of the different phases and phenomena of hypnotism in a\nremarkable manner. He goes quickly into the stage of profound lethargy;\nafter allowing him to sleep a few moments, I say to him: \"Now you can open\nyour eyes and you can see and talk with me, but you are still asleep, and\nyou will remember nothing.\"\n\nHe opens his eyes at once, smiles, gets up and walks, and chats in a\nlively manner. If I say: \"Now you are in the deep sleep again,\" and pass\nmy hand downward before his eyes, immediately his eyes close and he is in\na profound slumber. If five seconds later I again say, \"Now you can open\nyour eyes,\" he is again immediately in the alert stage.\n\nFor experiment I then take half a dozen plain blank cards, exactly alike,\nand in one corner of one of the cards I put a minute dot, so that upon\nclose inspection it can be recognized. Holding these in my hand, I say to\nhim:\n\n\"Here are six cards; five of them are blank, but this one (the one I have\nmarked, he only seeing the plain side) has a picture of myself upon it.\nIt is a particularly good picture, and I have had it prepared specially\nfor this occasion. Do you see the picture?\"\n\n\"Of course I do,\" he replies. \"What do you think of it?\" I ask him. He\nlooks at me carefully and compares my face with the suggested picture on\nthe card and replies, \"It is excellent.\"\n\n\"Very well, give me the cards.\"\n\nHe hands them to me and I shuffle and disarrange them as much as possible.\nI then show them to him, holding them in my hand, and say:\n\n\"Now show me the card which has my picture upon it.\"\n\nHe selects it at once. I only know it is correct by looking for the dot\nupon the back, which has all the while been kept carefully concealed from\nhim.\n\nI then say to him: \"Now, I am going to awaken you, and when awake you will\ncome to the desk, select from the cards which I now place there the one\nwhich has my picture, and show it to me.\"\n\nHe awakes at my counting when I reach the word five, as I have suggested\nto him. He remembers nothing of what has passed since he was hypnotized,\nbut thinks he has had a long and delightful sleep. I sit at my desk; he\nwalks up to it, examines the six cards which are lying there, selects one,\nand showing it to me, remarks, \"There is your picture.\" It was the same\nmarked card.\n\nOn another occasion, while he was asleep and in the alert stage, Mrs. M.\nwas present. I introduced her, and he spoke to her with perfect propriety.\nAfterward I said: \"Now, I will awake you, but you will only see me. Mrs.\nM. you will not see at all.\"\n\nI then awoke him, as usual. He commenced talking to me in a perfectly\nnatural and unrestrained manner. Mrs. M. stood by my side between him and\nmyself, but he paid not the slightest attention to her; she then withdrew,\nand I remarked indifferently:\n\n\"Wasn't it a little peculiar of you not to speak to Mrs. M. before she\nwent out?\"\n\n\"Speak to Mrs. M!\" he exclaimed, with evident surprise. \"I did not know\nshe had been in the room.\"\n\nOne day when Drs. Liebeault and Bernheim were together at their clinic at\nthe hospital, Dr. Liebeault suggested to a hypnotized patient that when\nshe awoke she would no longer see Dr. Bernheim, but that she would\nrecognize his hat, would put it on her head, and offer to take it to him.\n\nWhen she awoke, Dr. Bernheim was standing in front of her. She was asked:\n\"Where is Dr. Bernheim?\" She replied: \"He is gone, but here is his hat.\"\n\nDr. Bernheim then said to her, \"Here I am, madam; I am not gone, you\nrecognize me, perfectly.\"\n\nShe was silent, taking not the slightest notice of him. Some one else\naddressed her; she replied with perfect propriety. Finally, when about to\ngo out she took up Dr. Bernheim's hat, put it on her head, saying she\nwould take it to him; but to her Dr. Bernheim was not present.\n\nTo the number of curious phenomena, both physical and mental, connected\nwith hypnotism, it is difficult to find a limit; a few others seem too\nimportant in their bearing upon the subject to be omitted, even in this\nhasty survey.\n\nSome curious experiments in the production of local anaesthesia were\nobserved by the committee on mesmerism from the Society for Psychical\nResearch.\n\nThe subject was in his normal condition and blindfolded; his arms were\nthen passed through holes in a thick paper screen, extending in front of\nhim and far above his head, and his ten fingers were spread out upon a\ntable. Two of the fingers were then silently pointed out by a third person\nto Mr. S., the operator, who proceeded to make passes over the designated\nfingers.\n\nCare was taken that such a distance was maintained between the fingers of\nthe subject and operator that no contact was possible, and no currents of\nair or sensation of heat were produced by which the subject might possibly\ndivine which of his fingers were the subject of experiment. In short, the\nstrictest test conditions in every particular, were observed. After the\npasses had been continued for a minute, or even less time, the operator\nsimply holding his own fingers pointed downward toward the designated\nfingers of the subject, the two fingers so treated were found to be\nperfectly stiff and insensible. A strong current of electricity, wounding\nwith a pointed instrument, burning with a match--all failed to elicit the\nslightest sign of pain or discomfort, while the slightest injury to the\nunmagnetized fingers quickly elicited cries and protests. When told to\ndouble up his fist the two magnetized fingers remained rigid and\nimmovable, and utterly refused to be folded up with the others.\n\nA series of one hundred and sixty experiments of this character was made\nwith five different subjects. Of these, only seven were failures. In\nanother series of forty-one experiments this curious fact was observed. In\nall these experiments the operator, while making the passes in the same\nmanner and under the same conditions as in the former series, silently\nwilled that the effect should not follow; that is, that insensibility and\nrigidity should not occur. In thirty-six of these experiments\ninsensibility did not occur; in five cases the insensibility and rigidity\noccurred--in two cases perfectly, in three imperfectly.\n\nThat some quality is imparted even to inanimate objects by some\nmesmerizers, by passes or handling, through which a sensitive or subject\nis able to recognize and select that object from among many others, seems\nto be a well-established fact. The following experiments are in point:--\n\nA gentleman well known to the committee of investigation, and who was\nequally interested with it in securing reliable results, was selected as a\nsubject. He was accustomed to be hypnotized by the operator, but in the\npresent case he remained perfectly in his normal condition.\n\nOne member of the committee took the subject into a separate room on\nanother floor and engaged him closely in conversation. The operator\nremained with other members of the committee. Ten small miscellaneous\narticles, such as a piece of sealing wax, a penknife, paperweight,\ncard-case, pocketbook, and similar articles were scattered upon a table.\nOne was designated by the committee, over which the mesmerist made passes,\nsometimes with light contact.\n\nThis was continued for one or two minutes, and when the process was\ncompleted the mesmerist was conducted out and to a third room. The\narticles were then rearranged in a manner quite different from that in\nwhich they had been left by the operator, and the subject from the floor\nabove was brought into the room. The several objects were then examined by\nthe sensitive, who upon taking the mesmerized object in his hand,\nimmediately recognized it as the one treated by his mesmerizer.\n\nThe experiment was then varied by using ten small volumes exactly alike.\nOne volume was selected by the committee, over which the operator simply\nmade passes with out any contact whatsoever. Three or four other volumes\nof the set were also handled and passes made over them by a member of the\ncommittee.\n\nThe operator then being excluded, the sensitive was brought in and\nimmediately selected the magnetized volume. This he did four times in\nsuccession. In reply to the question as to how he was able to distinguish\nthe magnetized object from others, he said that when he took the right\nobject in his hand he experienced a mild tingling sensation.\n\nMy own experiments with magnetized water have presented similar results.\nThe water was treated by simply holding the fingers of both hands brought\ntogether in a clump, for about a minute just over the cup of water, but\nwithout any contact whatsoever. This water was then given to the subject\nwithout her knowing that she was taking part in an experiment; but\nalternating it or giving it irregularly with water which had not been so\ntreated, and given by a third person, in every case the magnetized water\nwas at once detected with great certainty. In describing the sensation\nproduced by the magnetized water one patient said the sensation was an\nagreeable warmth and stimulation upon the tongue, another that it was a\n\"sparkle\" like aerated water; it sparkled in her mouth and all the way\ndown into her stomach. Such are a few among the multitude of facts and\nphenomena relating to hypnotism. They suffice to settle and make sure\nsome matters which until lately have been looked upon as questionable,\nand, on the other hand, they bring into prominence others of the greatest\ninterest which demand further study.\n\nAmong the subjects which may be considered established may be placed,\n\n(1) The reality of the hypnotic condition.\n\n(2) The increased and unusual power of suggestion over the hypnotized\nsubject.\n\n(3) The usefulness of hypnotism as a therapeutic agent.\n\n(4) The perfect reality and natural, as contrasted with supernatural,\ncharacter of many wonderful phenomena, both physical and psychical,\nexhibited in the hypnotic state.\n\nOn the other hand, much remains for future study;\n\n(1) The exact nature of the influence which produces the hypnotic\ncondition is not known.\n\n(2) Neither is the nature of the rapport or peculiar relationship which\nexists between the hypnotizer and the hypnotized subject--a relationship\nwhich is sometimes so close that the subject hears no voice but that of\nhis hypnotizer, perceives and experiences the same sensations of taste,\ntouch, and feeling generally as are experienced by him, and can be\nawakened only by him.\n\n(3) Nor is it known by what peculiar process suggestion is rendered so\npotent, turning, for the time being, at least, water into wine, vulgar\nweeds into choicest flowers, a lady's drawing-room into a fishpond, and\nclear skies and quiet waters into lightning-rent storm-clouds and\ntempest-tossed waves; turning laughter into sadness, and tears into mirth.\n\nIn dealing with the subject of hypnotism in this hasty and general way,\nonly such facts and phenomena have been presented as are well known and\naccepted by well-informed students of the subjects. Others still more\nwonderful will later claim our attention.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nLUCIDITY OR CLAIRVOYANCE.\n\n\nWhile there is doubtless a recognized standard of normal perception, yet\nthe acuteness with which sensations are perceived by different\nindividuals, even in ordinary health, passes through a wide scale of\nvariation, both above and below this standard. The difference in the\nability to see and recognize natural objects, signs, and indications,\nbetween the ordinary city denizen and, for instance, the American Indian\nor the white frontiersman, hunter, or scout, is something marvellous.\n\nSo, also, regarding the power to distinguish colors. One person may not be\nable to distinguish even the simple or primary colors, as, for example,\nred from blue or green, while the weavers of Central or Eastern Asia\ndistinguish with certainty two hundred or three hundred shades which are\nentirely undistinguishable to ordinary Western eyes.\n\nSo of sound. One ear can hardly be said to make any distinction whatever\nregarding pitch, while to another the slightest variation is perfectly\nperceptible. Some even do not hear at all sounds above or below a certain\npitch; some persons of ordinary hearing within a certain range of pitch,\nnevertheless, have never heard the song of the canary bird, and perhaps\nhave lived through a large portion of their lives without even knowing\nthat it was a song-bird at all. Its song was above the range of their\nhearing. Some never hear the sound of the piccolo, or octave flute, while\nothers miss entirely the lowest notes of the organ.\n\nThere is the same great difference in perception by touch, taste, and\nsmell. In certain conditions of disease, accompanied by great depression\nof the vital forces, this deviation from normal perception is greatly\nincreased. I have had a patient who presented the following\nbriefly-outlined phenomena:--\n\nAfter a long illness, during which other interesting psychical phenomena\nwere manifested, as convalescence progressed, I had occasion to notice\ninstances of supernormal perception, and to test it I made use of the\nfollowing expedient: Taking an old-fashioned copper cent, I carefully\nenveloped it in a piece of ordinary tissue paper. This was then covered\nby another and then another, until the coin had acquired six complete\nenvelopes of the paper, and formed a little flat parcel, easily held in\nthe palm of my hand.\n\nTaking this with me, I visited my patient. She was lying upon a sofa, and\nas I entered the room I took a chair and sat leisurely down beside her,\nhaving the little package close in the palm of my right hand. I took her\nright hand in mine in such a manner that the little package was between\nour hands in close contact with her palm as well as my own. I remarked\nupon the weather and commenced the routine duty of feeling her pulse with\nmy left hand. A minute or two was then passed in banter and conversation,\ndesigned to thoroughly engage her attention, when all at once she\ncommenced to wipe her mouth with her handkerchief and to spit and sputter\nwith her tongue and lips, as if to rid herself of some offensive taste or\nsubstance. She then looked up suspiciously at me and said:\n\n\"I wonder what you are doing with me now.\"\n\nThen suddenly pulling her hand away from mine she exclaimed:\n\n\"I know what it is; you have put a nasty piece of copper in my hand.\"\n\nThrough all these coverings the coppery emanation from the coin had\npenetrated her system, reached her tongue, and was perceptible to her\nsupernormal taste.\n\nThis patient could distinguish with absolute certainty \"mesmerized\" water\nfrom that which had not been so treated; my finger, also, pointed at her\neven at a distance and when her back was turned to me caused convulsive\naction, and the same result followed when the experiment was made through\na closed door, and when she did not suspect that I was in the\nneighborhood.\n\nIt will be seen, then, how marvellously the action of certain senses may\nbe exalted by long and careful training on the one hand, and suddenly by\ndisease on the other. We have seen, moreover, how some persons known as\nsensitives are able to receive impressions by thought-transference so as\nto name cards, repeat words and fictitious names, both of persons and\nplaces, merely thought of but not spoken by another person known as the\nagent or operator, and to draw diagrams unmistakably like those formed in\nthe mind or intently looked upon by the agent.\n\nWe have also seen how the hypnotized or mesmerized subject is able to\ndetect objects which have only been touched or handled by the mesmerizer,\nand even to feel pain inflicted upon him, and recognize by taste\nsubstances put in the mesmerizer's mouth.\n\nIt will be seen, then, that not only increased but entirely supernormal\nperception on the part of some individuals is a well-established fact. But\nall these conditions of increased power of perception, and especially\nthought-transference, must be carefully distinguished from independent\nclairvoyance. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the method or\nphilosophy of clairvoyance, but simply to call attention to\nwell-authenticated facts illustrating the exercise of this power, and to\nbriefly point to the current theories regarding it.\n\nA belief in supernormal perception, and especially in the clairvoyant\nvision, is apparent in the history, however meagre it may be, of every\nancient nation.\n\nHebrew history is full of instances of it. A striking example is recorded\nas occurring during the long war between Syria and Israel. The King of\nSyria had good reasons for suspecting that in some manner the King of\nIsrael was made acquainted with all his intended military operations,\nsince he was always prepared to thwart them at every point. Accordingly he\ncalled together his chiefs and demanded to know who it was among them who\nthus favored the King of Israel, to which one of the chiefs replied: \"It\nis none of thy servants, O King: but Elisha, a prophet that is in Israel,\ntelleth the King of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy chamber.\"\n\nPythagoras, a century before the time of Socrates, found this faculty\nbelieved in, and made use of in Egypt, Babylon, and India, and he himself,\nas the founder of the early Greek philosophy and culture, practised and\ntaught the esoteric as well as the exoteric methods of acquiring\nknowledge, and he is credited with having acquired by esoteric\nmethods--internal or mental perception and clairvoyant vision--a knowledge\nof the true theory of the solar system as expounded and demonstrated in a\nlater day by Copernicus.\n\nAs an example of responses by the Greek oracles, take the experience of\nCroesus, the rich King of Lydia. He sent messengers to ascertain if the\nPythoness could tell what he, the King of Lydia, was doing on a certain\nspecified day. The answer came:--\n\n  \"I number the sands--I fathom the sea.\n  I hear the dumb--I know the thoughts of the silent.\n  There cometh to me the odor of lamb's flesh.\n  It is seething, mixed with the flesh of a tortoise.\n  Brass is beneath it, and brass is also above it.\"\n\nThe messenger returned and delivered the reply, when he found that\nCroesus, in order to do something most unlikely to be either guessed or\ndiscovered, had cut in pieces a lamb and a tortoise, and seethed them\ntogether in a brazen vessel having a brazen cover.\n\nApollonius Tyaneus, a Pythagorian philosopher and chief of a school of\nphilosophy which was the predecessor of the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists, is\ncredited with most remarkable clairvoyant powers. Many instances of this\nfaculty are recorded and believed upon the best of ancient authority.\n\nOne instance relates to the assassination of Domitian. Apollonius was in\nthe midst of a discourse at Ephesus, when suddenly he stopped as though\nhaving lost his train of thought. After a moment's hesitation, to the\nastonishment of his auditors, he cried out: \"Strike! strike the tyrant.\"\nSeeing the surprise of the people he explained that at the very moment at\nwhich he had stopped in his discourse the tyrant was slain. Subsequent\ninformation proved that Domitian, the reigning tyrant, was assassinated at\nthat very moment.\n\nAncient historians, philosophers and poets all unite in defending the\ntruth of the oracles and their power of perceiving events transpiring at\na distance, and also of foreseeing those in the future. Herodotus gives\nmore than seventy examples of oracular responses, dreams and portents\nwhich he affirms were literally fulfilled. Livy gives more than fifty,\nCicero many striking cases; and Xenophon, Plato, Tacitus, Suetonius, and a\nhost of other writers all give evidence in the same direction. Now whether\nthese responses and visions were, as all these intelligent people\nsupposed, from a supernatural source, or as we shall endeavor to show, had\ntheir origin in certain faculties naturally appertaining to the mind, and\nwhich at certain times and under certain favorable circumstances came into\nactivity, it certainly shows that the most intelligent men amongst all the\nmost cultivated nations of the past have been firm believers in the\nreality of clairvoyance.\n\nComing down to later times, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Frederica Hauffe, the\nseeress of Proverst, were marked examples of the clairvoyant faculty. Some\nhave affected to discredit Swedenborg's clairvoyant powers, but apart from\nhis revelations regarding a spiritual world, which, of course, it is at\npresent impossible to substantiate, whatever may be our belief regarding\nthem, if human testimony is to be regarded of any value whatever in\nmatters of this kind, the following oft-told incident should be counted\nas established for a verity.\n\nOn a Saturday afternoon in September, 1756, Swedenborg arrived in\nGottenburg from England. Gottenburg is three hundred miles from Stockholm,\nwhich was the home of Swedenborg. On the same evening he was the guest of\nMr. William Castel, with fifteen other persons, who were invited to meet\nhim, and who, on that account, may be supposed to have been of more than\nordinary consequence and intelligence.\n\nAbout six o'clock Swedenborg seemed preoccupied and restless. He went out\ninto the street, but soon returned, anxious and disturbed. He said that at\nthat moment a great fire was raging at Stockholm. He declared that the\nhouse of one of his friends was already destroyed, and that his own was in\ndanger. At eight o'clock he announced that the fire was arrested only\nthree doors from his own house.\n\nThe information, and the peculiar manner in which it was imparted, created\na great sensation, not only in the company assembled at Mr. Castel's, but\nthroughout the city. On Sunday morning the governor sent for Swedenborg,\nwho gave him a detailed account of the conflagration and the course it had\npursued. On Monday, the third day, a courier arrived from Stockholm, who\nalso gave the governor a detailed account of the fire, which agreed in\nevery respect with that already given by Swedenborg.\n\nNearly a century after Swedenborg, lived Mme. Hauffe, known as the seeress\nof Proverst. She died in 1829 at the age of twenty-eight years. As a child\nshe exhibited peculiar psychical tendencies, but it was only during the\nlast six years of her life, and after exhausting illnesses, that her\npeculiar clairvoyant powers were conspicuously developed.\n\nJustinus Kerner, an eminent physician and man of letters, was her\nattending physician during the last three years of her life, and afterward\nbecame her biographer. She first came under his care at Weinsberg in 1826.\nAt that time her debility was excessive, and nearly every day she fell\nspontaneously into the somnambulic condition, became clairvoyant, and\nrelated her visions. On the day of her arrival at Weinsberg, having gone\ninto this trance condition, she sent for Kerner but he refused to see her\nuntil she awoke. He then told her that he would never see her nor listen\nto her while she was in this abnormal state. I mention this simply to show\nthat her physician was not then at all in sympathy with her regarding her\npeculiar psychological condition, though afterward he became thoroughly\nconvinced of its genuineness and of her honesty. He relates the following\nincident, which, with many others, came under his own observation:--\n\nSoon after her arrival at Weinsberg, and while still a perfect stranger to\nher surroundings, while in her somnambulic condition, she said that a man\nwas near her and desired to speak with her, but that she could not\nunderstand what he wanted to say. She said he squinted terribly, and that\nhis presence disturbed her, and she desired him to go away. On his second\nappearance, some weeks later, she said he brought with him a sheet of\npaper with figures upon it, and that he came up from a vault directly\nunderneath her room.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the wine vaults of Mr. F., a wine merchant doing\nbusiness the next door, extended under Mme. Hauffe's apartment, and\nKerner, who was an old resident of the place, recognized from the\nseeress's description of her visitor a man who formerly was in Mr. F.'s\nemploy as manager and bookkeeper. This man had died six years before, and\nhad left something wrong with his accounts--in fact, there was a deficit\nof 1,000 florins, and the manager's private book was missing. The widow\nhad been sued for the amount, and the matter was still unsettled. Again\nand again did this apparition come to Mme. Hauffe, bringing his paper and\nentreating her to interest herself in this affair. He declared that the\nnecessary paper to clear up the whole matter was in a building sixty paces\nfrom her bed.\n\nMme. Hauffe said that in that building she saw a tall gentleman engaged in\nwriting in a small room, which opened into a large one where there was a\ndesk and chests; that one of the chests was open, and that on the desk was\na pile of papers, among which she recognized the missing document.\n\nThe wine merchant, being present, recognized the office of the chief\nbailiff, who had the business in charge. Kerner went at once to the office\nand found everything as described, but, not finding the missing paper,\nconcluded that her clairvoyance was at fault.\n\nMme. Hauffe, in her description of the paper said it had columns of\nfigures upon it, and at the bottom was the number 80. Kerner prepared a\npaper corresponding to this description, and at the next seance presented\nit to her as the missing document. But she at once rejected it, saying the\npaper was still where she had before seen it.\n\nOn renewing the search the paper was found as described, and the bailiff\nwas to bring it on the following day. He came accordingly. In her sleep,\nthe seeress exclaimed:\n\n\"The paper is no longer in its place, but this is wonderful. The paper\nwhich the man always has in his hand lies open. Now I can read more: 'To\nbe carried to my private book,' and that is what he always points to.\"\n\nThe bailiff was astonished, for instead of bringing the paper with him as\nKerner had directed, he had left it lying open on his desk. All these\nthings are attested by the bailiff, the wine merchant, Kerner, and others\nwho witnessed them. Kerner himself visited the seeress more than a\nthousand times, and although during the first part of his observations he\nwas skeptical, he was never able to detect her in the slightest attempt at\ndeception. She was in no way elated over her peculiar power, on the\ncontrary, she disliked to speak of it, and would gladly have been free\nfrom it altogether. Her clairvoyant powers were tested by hundreds of\nexcellent observers during the last four years of her life.\n\nThe case of Alexis, the noted French somnambulist and clairvoyant, is\nworthy of notice here. I remember very well the account of a seance at a\ngathering of prominent Americans in Paris in 1853, of which the following\nis an abstract:--\n\nThick masses of cotton were bound firmly over his eyes in such a manner as\nto render it impossible for him to see in the ordinary way, and in this\ncondition he described pictures, read signatures of letters folded in\nseveral envelopes, played games of cards with almost uniform success, and,\nbeing asked to select the best pianist in the room from a number present,\nwho simply presented their hands for his inspection, he quickly selected a\nyoung man not yet eighteen years old, who had won four first prizes at the\nConservatoire, and was really the best pianist of his age in Europe.\n\nIn playing cards he picked up the trick with a rapidity and certainty\nwhich showed how clearly he knew the position of the cards upon the table.\nKeeping those dealt to him in his left hand he held the card he intended\nto play in his right, and never once changed the card upon the play of his\npartner. He knew his adversary's hand as well as his own. The writer adds:\n\"The cards used were bought by myself, half an hour before, so that any\nsuspicion of prepared cards would be idle and absurd.\"\n\nIt remains to note some more recent instances reported by persons well\nknown and specially qualified to judge of their truthfulness and value.\n\nThe first case which I will present is embodied in a report \"On the\nEvidence of Clairvoyance,\" by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, wife of Prof. Sidgwick,\nformerly president of the Society for Psychical Research. It was furnished\nby Dr. Elliott Coues of Washington, D. C., where the incident occurred,\nand was afterward investigated by Mr. F. W. H. Myers, secretary of the\nsociety. Both the persons participating in the incident were well known to\nProf. Coues, and were both persons of prominence, one, Mrs. C., being well\nknown as a writer and lecturer, and the other, designated as Mrs. B., was\nwell known for her rare psychic faculties and her absolute integrity.\n\nThe incidents of the case are simple and unimportant, but they have a\nspecial value on account of their clearness, freedom from the possibility\nof external suggestion, and the well known ability and integrity of the\nreporter. The following are the points in the case:--\n\nIn Washington, D. C., January 14, 1889, between 2 and 3 o'clock P. M.,\nMrs. C., having been engaged in writing in the Congressional Library, left\nthe building at 2:40 o'clock, and one or two minutes later was at her\nresidence, in Delaware Avenue, carrying her papers in her hand. In\nascending the steps leading from the street to the front yard she stumbled\nand fell. She was not hurt, but \"picked herself up\" and went into the\nhouse.\n\nAbout the same hour, certainly between 2 and 3 o'clock, Mrs. B., sitting\nsewing in her room a mile and a half away, sees the occurrence in all its\ndetails. The ladies are friends. They had met the day previous, but not\nsince. The vision is wholly a surprise to Mrs. B. Nevertheless, it is so\nvivid that she at once sits down and writes to Mrs. C., describing\nminutely the occurrence, which letter Mrs. C. receives the next morning\nwith much surprise. The following is an extract from the letter:--\n\n\"I was sitting in my room sewing this afternoon about 2 o'clock, when what\nshould I see but your own dear self--but heavens! in what a position! You\nwere falling up the front steps in the yard.\n\n\"You had on your black skirt and velvet waist, your little straw bonnet,\nand in your hand were some papers. When you fell, your hat went in one\ndirection and your papers in another. You very quickly put on your bonnet,\npicked up your papers, and lost no time in getting into the house. You did\nnot appear to be hurt, but looked somewhat mortified. It was all so plain\nto me that I had ten notions to one to dress myself and come over and see\nif it were true, but finally concluded that a sober, industrious woman\nlike yourself would not be stumbling around at that rate, and thought I'd\nbest not go on a wild-goose chase.\n\n\"Now, what do you think of such a vision as that? Is there any possible\ntruth in it? I feel almost ready to scream with laughter whenever I think\nof it; you did look too funny spreading yourself out in the front yard.\n'Great was the fall thereof.' I can distinctly call to mind the house in\nwhich you live, but for the life of me I cannot tell whether there are any\nsteps from the sidewalk into the yard, as I saw them, or not.\"\n\nIn answer to Mr. Myers' letter of inquiry to Mrs. C., she says that the\nincident was described exactly--the dress as correctly as she could have\ndescribed it herself. There were two steps from the sidewalk to the yard,\nand it was on the top one of these two steps that Mrs. C. stumbled. The\nmanner of the fall, the behavior of the bonnet and papers, and her own\nsensations were all correctly described.\n\nThe next case--also embodied in the same report and examined in the same\ncareful manner by Mr. Myers--was the exhibition of clairvoyant powers by\na woman called Jane, the wife of a pitman in the County of Durham, in\nEngland. She received no fees and was averse to being experimented with\nfor fear of being ridiculed or called a witch by her associates.\n\nShe was a particularly refined woman for one of her class, sweet, gentle,\nwith delicately cut features, religious and conscientious to a remarkable\ndegree. She was a marked example of those who, in the trance condition,\ncould not be induced by suggestion to do a wrong or a mean act, or one\nwhich she would consider wrong in her normal state. In her sleep she was\nanaesthetic, felt herself quite on an equality with the operator, always\nspoke of herself as \"we,\" and of her normal self as \"that girl.\" The\nfollowing instance of her clairvoyance was furnished by Dr. F., who knew\nher well for many years, and is from notes taken at the time:--\n\nOn the morning of the day fixed for the experiment the doctor arranged\nwith a patient in a neighboring village that he should be in a particular\nroom between the hours of 8 and 10 in the evening. The patient was just\nrecovering from a severe illness and was weak and very thin and emaciated.\nThis gentleman and the doctor were the only persons who knew anything of\nthe arrangement or the proposed experiment.\n\nAfter having secured the proper somnambulic condition in the subject, Dr.\nF. directed her attention to the house where his patient was supposed to\nbe awaiting the experiment, as arranged. She entered the house, described\ncorrectly the rooms passed through, in one of which she mentioned a lady\nwith black hair lying on a sofa, but no gentleman. The doctor's report\nthen goes on as follows:--\n\n\"After a little she described the door opening and asked with a tone of\ngreat surprise:\n\n\"'Is that a man?'\n\n\"I replied, 'Yes; is he thin or fat?'\n\n\"'Very fat,' she answered; 'but has the gentleman a cork leg?'\n\n\"I assured her that he had not, and tried to puzzle her still more about\nhim. She, however, persisted in her statement that he was very fat, and\nsaid that he had a great 'corporation,' and asked me whether I did not\nthink such a fat man must eat and drink a great deal to get such a\ncorporation as that. She also described him as sitting by the table with\npapers beside him, and a glass of brandy and water.\n\n\"'Is it not wine?' I asked.\n\n\"'No,' she said, 'It's brandy.'\n\n\"'Is it not whisky or rum?'\n\n\"'No, it is brandy,' was the answer; 'and now,' she continued,'the lady is\ngoing to get her supper, but the fat gentleman does not take any.'\n\n\"I requested her to tell me the color of his hair, but she only replied\nthat the lady's hair was dark. I then inquired if he had any brains in his\nhead, but she seemed altogether puzzled about him, and only said she could\nnot see any. I then asked her if she could see his name upon any of the\npapers lying about. She replied, 'Yes;' and upon my saying that the name\nbegan with E, she spelled each letter of the name, \"Eglinton.\"\n\n\"I was so convinced that I had at last detected her in a complete mistake\nthat I arose and declined proceeding further in the experiment, stating\nthat, although her description of the house and the name of the person was\ncorrect, in everything connected with the gentleman himself she had told\nthe exact opposite of the truth.\n\n\"On the following morning Mr. E., my patient, asked me the result of the\nexperiment. He had found himself unable to sit up so late, he said, but\nwishful fairly to test the powers of the clairvoyante, he had ordered his\nclothes to be stuffed into the form of a human figure, and, to make the\ncontrast more striking, he had an extra pillow pushed into the clothes, so\nas to form a 'corporation.' This figure had been placed by the table in a\nsitting position and a glass of brandy and water and the newspapers placed\nbeside it. The name, he said, was spelled correctly, though up to that\ntime I had been in the habit of writing it 'Eglington' instead of\n'Eglinton.'\"\n\nDr. Alfred Backman of Kolmar, Sweden, a corresponding member of the\nSociety for Psychical Research and a good practical hypnotist has had\nunusually good fortune in finding clairvoyants among his own patients in\nthat northern country. Two in particular, Anna Samuelson and Alma Redberg,\ngave most excellent examples of clairvoyant vision, describing rooms,\nsurroundings, persons, and also events which were at the moment\ntranspiring, though quite unknown and unsuspected by any one present at\nthe experiment. Several of these cases are included in Mrs. Sidgwick's\nreport. Instead of these cases, however, I prefer to adduce an instance or\ntwo reported by Dr. Dufay, a reputable physician of Blois and subsequently\na senator of France. The cases were first reported to the French _Societe\nde Psychologie Physiologique_, which was presided over by Charcot, and\npublished in the _Revue Philosophique_ for September, 1888.\n\nDr. Gerault, a friend of Dr. Dufay, had a maid-servant named Marie, who\nwas a natural _somnambule_, but who was also frequently hypnotized by Dr.\nGerault. Dr. Dufay witnessed the following experiments:--\n\nBeing hypnotized, Marie was describing to a young lady soon to be married,\nsome characteristics of her lover, much to the amusement of the lady, who\nwas clapping her hands and laughing merrily. Suddenly, almost with the\nrapidity of lightning, the scene changed from gay to grave. The\nsomnambulist panted for breath, tears flowed down her face, and\nperspiration bathed her brow. She seemed ready to fall, and called on Dr.\nGerault for assistance.\n\n\"What is the matter, Marie?\" said the doctor; \"from what are you\nsuffering?\"\n\n\"Ah, sir!\" said she; \"ah, sir! how terrible! he is dead!\"\n\n\"Who is dead? Is it one of my patients?\"\n\n\"Limoges, the ropemaker--you know, in the Crimea--he has just died. Poor\nfolks--poor folks!\"\n\n\"Come, come, my child,\" said the doctor, \"you are dreaming--it is only a\nbad dream.\"\n\n\"A dream,\" replied the somnambulist. \"But I am not asleep. I see him--he\nhas just drawn his last breath. Poor boy! Look at him.\"\n\nAnd she pointed with her hand, as if to direct attention to the scene\nwhich was so vivid before her. At the same time she would have run away,\nbut hardly had she risen to go when she fell back, unable to move. It was\na long time before she became calm, but, on coming to herself, she had no\nrecollection of anything which had occurred. Some time after, Limoges\nsenior received news of the death of his son. It occurred near\nConstantinople on the same day that Marie had witnessed it in her\nclairvoyant vision.\n\nOn another occasion there was a seance at which ten or twelve persons were\npresent. Marie was put to sleep and had told the contents of several\npockets and sealed packages prepared for the purpose. Dr. Dufay came in\nlate purposely, so as to be as much out of rapport with her as possible.\nHe had just received a letter from an officer in Algiers, stating that he\nhad been very ill with dysentery from sleeping under canvas during the\nrainy season. This letter he had placed in a thick envelope, without\naddress or postmark, and carefully stuck down the edges. This again was\nplaced in another dark envelope and closed in like manner. No one but\nhimself knew of the existence of this letter.\n\nUnobserved, he passed the letter to a lady present, indicating that it was\nto be given to Dr. Gerault, who received it without knowing from whom it\ncame, and placed it in Marie's hand.\n\n\"What have you in your hand?\" asked the doctor.\n\n\"A letter.\"\n\n\"To whom is it directed?\"\n\n\"To M. Dufay.\"\n\n\"By whom?\"\n\n\"A military gentleman whom I do not know.\"\n\n\"Of what does he write?\"\n\n\"He is ill--he writes of his illness.\"\n\n\"Can you name his illness?\"\n\n\"Oh, yes; very well. It is like the old woodcutter's of Mesland, who is\nnot yet well.\"\n\n\"I understand; it is dysentery. Now listen, Marie. It would give M. Dufay\nmuch pleasure if you would go and see his friend, the military gentleman,\nand find out how he is at present.\"\n\n\"Oh, it is too far; it would be a long journey.\"\n\n\"But we are waiting for you. Please go without losing time.\"\n\n(A long pause.) \"I cannot go on; there is water, a lot of water.\"\n\n\"And you do not see any bridge?\"\n\n\"Of course there is no bridge.\"\n\n\"Perhaps there is a boat to cross in, as there is to cross the Loire at\nChaumont.\"\n\n\"Boats--yes--but this Loire is a regular flood; it frightens me.\"\n\n\"Come, come; take courage--embark.\"\n\n(A long silence, agitation, pallor, nausea.) \"Have you arrived?\"\n\n\"Nearly; but I am much fatigued, and I do not see any people on shore.\"\n\n\"Land and go on; you will soon find some one.\"\n\n\"There, now I see some people--they are all women, dressed in white. But\nthat is queer--they all have beards.\"\n\n\"Go to them and ask where you will find the military gentleman.\"\n\n(After a pause.) \"They do not speak as we do--and I have been obliged to\nwait while they called a little boy with a red cap, who understands me. He\nleads me on, slowly, because we are walking in sand. Ah! there is the\nmilitary gentleman. He has red trousers and an officer's cap. But he is so\nvery thin and ill. What a pity he has not some of your medicine!\"\n\n\"What does he say caused his illness?\"\n\n\"He shows me his bed--three planks on pickets--over wet sand.\"\n\n\"Thanks. Advise him to go to the hospital, and now return to Blois.\"\n\nThe letter was then opened and read to the company and caused no little\nastonishment.\n\nRemarkable instances of clairvoyance have not been frequently reported in\nAmerica. Nevertheless, well-authenticated cases are by no means wanting.\nDr. S. B. Brittan, in his book entitled \"Man and His Relations,\" relates\nseveral such cases. The following came under his own observation:--\n\nIn the autumn of 1855 he saw Mr. Charles Baker of Michigan, who, while out\non a hunting excursion, had been accidentally shot by his companion. The\ncharge passed through his pocket, demolishing several articles and\ncarrying portions of the contents of the pocket deep into the fleshy part\nof his thigh. The accident was of a serious character, causing extreme\nsuffering, great debility, and emaciation, lasting several months, as well\nas much anxiety regarding his ultimate recovery.\n\nHe was in this low condition when seen by Dr. Brittan. The doctor soon\nafter returned East, and called on Mrs. Metler of Hartford, with whose\nclairvoyant power he was familiar, and requested her to examine into the\ncondition of a young man who had been shot. No information was given as to\nhis residence, condition, or the circumstances attending the accident.\n\nShe directly found the patient, described the wound, and declared that\nthere was a piece of copper still in the wound, and that he would not\nrecover until it was removed.\n\nYoung Baker, however, was sure he had no copper in his pocket at the time\nof the accident; the medical attendant found no indications of it, so it\nwas concluded that the clairvoyant had made a mistake.\n\nLater, however, a foreign substance made its appearance in the wound, and\nwas removed by the mother of the patient with a pair of embroidery\nscissors; it proved to be a copper cent. The removal of the foreign\nsubstance was followed by rapid recovery. The discovery of the copper coin\nwas made by the clairvoyant while at a distance of nearly one thousand\nmiles from the patient.\n\nMrs. H. Porter, while at her home in Bridgeport, Conn., in the presence of\nthe same writer, declared that a large steamer was on fire on the Hudson\nRiver; that among other objects in the vicinity she could clearly\ndistinguish the village of Yonkers, and that the name of the steamer was\nthe Henry Clay. The whole sad catastrophe was described by her with\nminuteness, as if occurring in her immediate presence.\n\nThe next morning the New York papers gave a full account of the burning of\nthe Henry Clay off the village of Yonkers--an occurrence which, doubtless,\nsome of my readers may still remember--corresponding in every important\nparticular with that given by the clairvoyant.\n\nMr. John Fitzgerald of Brunswick, Me., once a somewhat noted temperance\nlecturer, but at the time now referred to a bedridden invalid, saw,\nclairvoyantly, and fully described the great fire in Fall River, Mass., in\n1874, by which a large factory was destroyed. He described the\ncommencement and progress of the fire, the means employed to rescue the\noperatives, criticised the work of the firemen, shouted directions, as if\nhe were present, and at last as the roof fell in, he fell back upon the\npillow and said:\n\n\"It is all over--the roof has fallen, and those poor people are burned.\"\n\nIt was not until three days later that Mrs. Fitzgerald obtained a paper\ncontaining an account of the fire. This she read to her husband, who\nfrequently interrupted her to tell her what would come next as \"he had\nseen it all.\" The account corresponded almost exactly with the description\ngiven by Mr. Fitzgerald while the fire was in progress.\n\nI have, myself, recently found a very excellent subject whom I will call\nA. B., whom I first hypnotized on account of illness, but who afterward\nproved to have psychic perception and clairvoyant powers of a remarkable\ncharacter. Once, while in the hypnotic condition, I asked her if she could\ngo away and see what was transpiring in other places, as for instance, at\nher own home. She replied that she would try. I then told her to go to her\nhome, in a small town three hundred miles away and quite unknown to me,\nand see who was in the house and what they were doing. After a minute of\nperfect silence she said: \"I am there.\" \"Go in,\" I said, \"and tell me what\nyou find.\" She said: \"There is no one at home but my mother. She is\nsitting in the dining-room by a window; there is a screen in the window\nwhich was not there when I left home. My mother is sewing.\" \"What sort of\nsewing is it?\" I asked. \"It is a waist for D.\" (her little brother). I\nwrote down every detail of her description, and then awoke her. She had no\nrecollection of anything which had transpired, but said she had had a\nrestful sleep. I then desired her to write at once to her mother and ask\nwho was in the house at four o'clock this same afternoon, where she was,\nand what she was doing.\n\nThe answer came, describing everything exactly as set down in my notes.\n\nOn another occasion when I made my visit, it happened to be the day of the\nraces occurring at a well known track some ten miles away, and members of\nthe household where she was residing had gone to witness them. Neither she\nnor I had ever attended these races--we knew nothing of the appearance of\nthe place, of the events that were expected, nor even of the ordinary\nroutine of the sport. She was put into the deep hypnotic sleep, and\nthinking it a good opportunity to test her clairvoyance, I requested her\nto go to the grounds and I carefully directed her on her journey. Once\nwithin the inclosure she described the bright and cheerful appearance--the\npavilion, the judge's stand, and the position of persons whom she knew.\nShe said there was no race at the time; but that boys were going around\namong the spectators and getting money; that the people seemed excited;\nthat they stood up and held out money, and beckoned to the boys to\ncome--but she did not know what it meant. I suggested that perhaps they\nwere betting. She seemed to look carefully and then said: \"That is just\nwhat they are doing.\" She then described the race which followed, was much\nexcited, and told who of the persons she knew were winners. I then said:\n\"You will remember all this and be able to tell M. when she comes home.\"\n\nIt was found that everything had transpired as she had described. One of\nthe races had been a failure, the horses coming in neck and neck; all bets\nwere cancelled and new bets were made, which caused the excitement which\nshe had witnessed. She surprised those who were present by the accuracy of\nher description, both of the place and the events, especially of the\nexcitement caused by making the new bets.\n\nOn the same occasion, before awakening her, I said to her: \"Now, I have\nsomething very particular to say to you and I want you to pay close\nattention.\n\n\"This evening when your dinner is brought up to you--you, A. B.'s second\nself, will make A. B. see me come in and stand here at the foot of the\nbed. I shall say to you: 'Hello! you are at dinner. Well, I won't disturb\nyou,' and immediately I shall go. And you will write me about my visit.\" I\nthen awoke her in the usual manner. This was Tuesday, July 3, 1894. On\nThursday following I received this note, which I have in my possession.\n\n    \"DEAR DR. MASON:--\n\n    \"As I was eating my dinner on Tuesday I heard some one say\n    'Good-evening.' I turned around surprised, as I had heard no one enter\n    the room, and there at the foot of the bed I saw _you_.\n\n    \"I said 'Halloo! won't you sit down?' you said: 'Are you taking your\n    dinner? Then I won't detain you,' and before I could detain you, you\n    disappeared as mysteriously as you had come. Why did you leave so\n    suddenly? Were you angry? Mary, the nurse, says you were not here at\n    all at dinner-time. I say you were. Which of us is right?\n\n      \"Sincerely,\n        \"A. B.\"\n\n    (Full name signed.)\n\nThe clairvoyant faculty is sometimes exercised in sleep, and hence the\nimportance so often attached to dreams. I have a patient, Miss M. L.,\nthirty-five years of age, who has been under my observation for the past\nfifteen years, and for whose truthfulness and good sense I can fully\nvouch. From childhood she has been a constant and most troublesome\nsomnambulist, walking almost every night, until two years ago when I first\nhypnotized her and suggested that she should not again leave her bed while\nasleep, and she has not done so.\n\nThis person's dreams are marvellously vivid, but her most vivid ones she\ndoes not call dreams. She says, \"When I dream I dream, but when I see I\nsee.\"\n\nNine years ago, M. L., had a friend in New Mexico whom I will call G.,\nfrom whom she had not heard for months, and of whose surroundings she knew\nabsolutely nothing.\n\nOne night she dreamed, or, as she expresses it, _saw_ this friend in\nAlbuquerque. She was, as it seemed to her, present in the room where he\nwas, and saw everything in it with the same degree of distinctness as\nthough she were actually present. She noticed the matting on the floor,\nthe willowware furniture, bed, rocking-chair, footstool, and other\narticles. He was talking with a companion, a person of very striking\nappearance, whom she also minutely observed as regarded personal\nappearance, dress, and position in the room.\n\nHe was saying to this companion that he was about to start for New York\nfor the purpose of interesting capitalists in a system of irrigation which\nhe had proposed. His companion was laughing sarcastically and ridiculing\nthe whole scheme. He persisted, and the conversation was animated--almost\nbitter.\n\nThree weeks later, early one morning, she dreamed that this man was in New\nYork. She saw him coming up the street leading to her house, and saw her\nfather go forward to meet him. At breakfast she told her father her dream,\nand they also talked freely about her former dream or vision of three\nweeks before.\n\nAfter breakfast her father sat upon the front stoop reading the morning\npaper, and M. L. went about some work. Suddenly she heard her father call\nout in a startled sort of way: \"Mary, sure enough, here comes G.!\" She\nstepped to the window and there was G. coming up the street and her father\ngoing forward to meet him exactly as she had seen him in her dream. He had\njust arrived from the West, and had come for the very purpose indicated by\nhis conversation in M. L.'s vision. After some general conversation M. L.\nsaid to G.; \"By the way, who was that remarkable person you were talking\nwith about this journey, three weeks ago?\" mentioning the night of her\ndream. With evident surprise he said:\n\n\"What do you mean?\"\n\nShe then related the whole dream just as she had experienced it, even to\nthe minutest details. His astonishment was profound. He declared that the\ndetails which she gave could never have been so exactly described except\nby some one actually present; and with some annoyance he accused her of\nplaying the spy.\n\nThere are many other instances of remarkable clairvoyant vision on her\npart, and especially two which have occurred within the year--the visions\nhaving been fully described before the events were known.\n\nSuch are a few among hundreds of cases which might be adduced as examples\nof the clairvoyant power. They are from every period of history, from the\nearliest down to our own times. Looked at broadly, they at least show that\na belief in the clairvoyant power of some specially endowed persons has\nexisted throughout the historic period; they also exhibit a great\nsimilarity in their character and the circumstances under which they are\nobserved.\n\nApollonius stops short in his discourse, apparently in his natural state,\nsees the assassination of Domitian, and shouts, \"Strike the tyrant!\"\n\nFitzgerald at Brunswick suddenly beholds the burning factories at Fall\nRiver, and shouts his orders to the firemen. Others spontaneously go into\nthe somnambulic condition and only then become clairvoyant; while still\nothers need the assistance of a second person to produce somnambulism and\nindependent vision.\n\nWhat is the nature and what the method of this peculiar vision which has\nbeen named clairvoyance?\n\nIs it a quickening and extension of ordinary vision, or is it a visual\nperception obtained in some other manner, independent of the natural organ\nof sight?\n\nIt has been noted how vastly the action of the senses may be augmented by\ncultivation, but never has cultivation increased vision to such an extent\nas to discover a penny a thousand miles away and through opaque coverings.\nBesides, the clairvoyant vision is exercised quite independent of the\nbodily eye. The eyes may be closed, they may be turned upward or inward so\nthat no portion of the pupil is exposed to the action of light, or they\nmay be covered with thick pads of cotton or closed with plasters or\nbandages, yet the clairvoyant vision in proper subjects is obtained in\njust the same degree and with just the same certainty as when the eyes are\nfully exposed to the light.\n\nIt is true there has been much doubt and discussion on this vital point,\nthe objectors maintaining that sight was possible and practicable by\nexperts, notwithstanding the precautions used in blindfolding; in short,\nthat the whole thing might safely be set down as deception and fraud.\n\nIn the face of facts such as are here cited, and the thousand others that\nmight be adduced, it is hardly possible to treat this charge seriously.\n\nTo such objectors, cumulative evidence regarding facts out of their own\nmental horizon is useless. Their motto is: \"No amount of evidence can\nestablish a miracle;\" and their definition of a miracle is something done,\nor alleged to have been done, contrary to the laws of nature. But the\nobjector who refuses credence to well-attested facts on that ground alone,\nsimply assumes that he is acquainted with all the laws of nature.\n\nA miracle, really, is only something alleged to have been done, and we are\nnot able to explain how; nevertheless, it may be perfectly in accordance\nwith natural laws which we did not understand or even know existed. To the\nWest Indian, whom Columbus found in the New World, an eclipse of the sun\nwas a miracle of the most terrible character; to the astronomer it was a\nsimple fact in nature. To the ignorant boor, \"talking with Chicago\" or\ncabling between New York and London is a miracle; to the electrician it is\nan everyday, well-understood affair. For a long time scientific men did\nnot believe in the existence of globular, slowly-moving electricity; if\nsuch a thing had existed, it certainly should have put in an appearance\nbefore members of the \"Academy,\" or \"Royal Society\" some time in the\ncourse of all these years; but it never had done so; only a few cooks,\nblacksmiths, or back-woodsmen had ever seen it, and they certainly were\nnot the sort of people to report scientific matter; they did not know how\nto observe, and undoubtedly \"they did not see what they thought they saw.\"\nBut for all that, globular, slowly-moving electricity is now a well known\nfact in nature.\n\nNeither the West Indian, the ignorant boor, nor the man of science had, at\nthe time these several facts were presented to him, \"any place in the\nexisting fabric of his thought into which such facts could be fitted.\" The\nfabric of thought in each case must be changed, enlarged, modified, before\nthe alleged facts could be received or assimilated.\n\nThe objector to the fact of clairvoyance and other facts in the new\npsychology is often simply deficient in the knowledge which would enable\nhim properly to judge of these facts; he may be an excellent\nmathematician, physicist, editor, or even physician, but he has been\neducated to deal with a certain class of facts, and only by certain\nmethods, and he is wholly unfitted to deal with another class of facts,\nperhaps requiring quite different treatment.\n\nAn excellent chemist might not be just the man to analyze questions of\nfinance or to testify as an expert on the tariff, or a suspension bridge;\nthe \"texture of his thought\" would need some modifying to fit him for\nthese duties; indeed, he is fortunate if he can even be quite sure of\nmorphia when he sees it; it might be a ptomaine.\n\nIf, then, the objector to well authenticated facts in any department of\nresearch expects his objections to be seriously considered, he must, at\nleast, exhibit some intelligence in that department of research to which\nhis objection relates.\n\nI shall then simply reiterate the statement that there is abundant\nevidence of visual perception by some specially constituted persons,\nindependent of any use of the physical organ of sight.\n\nWhat the exact nature or method of this supranormal vision is, may not yet\nbe absolutely settled, any more than the exact nature of light or of life\nor even of electricity is settled, and each of their various methods of\naction known, though of the fact itself in any of these cases there is no\ndoubt.\n\nFrom a careful consideration of the best authenticated facts and examples,\nwe are led to believe that the faculty of clairvoyance is no supernatural\ngift, but may be possessed, to some degree, by many, perhaps by all,\npeople; that it is a natural condition, developed and brought into\nexercise by a few, but undeveloped and dormant in most; that the faculty\nmay include not only the power of obtaining visual perceptions at a\ndistance and under circumstances which render ordinary vision impossible,\nbut also the perception of general truth and the relation of things in\nnature to such a degree as to render the person who possesses it a teacher\nand prophet of seemingly supernatural endowments. Carefully excluding\ncases of unusual extension, or skill in using normal perceptive faculties,\nand also thought-transference, which, although bearing a certain relation\nto clairvoyance, should not be confounded with it, the phenomena of\nindependent clairvoyance appear in certain persons under the following\nconditions:--\n\nIn certain states, brought about by disease, and at the near approach of\ndeath, in the hypnotic condition, whether self-induced or produced by the\ninfluence of a second person, and especially in the condition known as\ntrance; it may also appear in sleep of the ordinary kind--in dreams, and\nespecially in the condition of reverie or the state between sleeping and\nwaking; a few persons also possess the clairvoyant faculty while in their\nnatural condition, without losing their normal consciousness. In general\nit may be said that the faculty is most likely to appear when there exists\na condition of abstraction, and the mind is acting without the restraint\nand guidance of the usual consciousness--and it reaches its most perfect\nexercise when this usual guidance ceases entirely--the body becoming\ninactive and anaesthetic and the mind acting independent of its usual\nmanifesting organs. Such is the condition in trance.\n\nThis view is, of course, in direct opposition to the materialistic\nphilosophy which makes the mind simply a \"group of phenomena,\" the result\nof organization, and absolutely dependent upon that organization for its\naction, and even for its existence. To discuss this question here would\noccupy too much space; besides, one of the objects of these papers is to\nshow this mind, spirit, psychos, mentality, \"group of phenomena,\"\nwhatever it may be, and whatever name may be applied to it, acting under\ncircumstances which will enable us to consider with greater intelligence\nthis very question, viz.: Whether the mind, under some circumstances, is\nnot capable of intelligent action independent of the brain and the whole\nmaterial organization through which it ordinarily manifests itself.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nDOUBLE OR MULTIPLEX PERSONALITY.\n\n\nIf there be any one thing in the empirical psychology of the past which\nhas been considered settled past all controversy, it is the unity and\ncontinuity of human personality. Whatever might be believed or doubted\nconcerning the after life, for this life at least believers and skeptics\nalike are united in the full assurance of a true, permanent, and\nunmistakable self. The philosopher Reid, a hundred years ago, in\ndiscussing this subject, wrote as follows:--\n\n\"My thoughts and actions and feelings change every moment. They have no\ncontinued but a successive existence, but that self or I to which they\nbelong is permanent, and has the same relation to all succeeding thoughts,\nactions, and feelings which I call mine. The identity of a person is\nperfect--it admits of no degrees--and is not divisible into parts.\"\n\nNow, while this dogma, which still expresses the general consensus of\nmankind, may in a sense be well founded, still certain facts have been\nascertained by the observant scouts in the outlying fields of psychology\nwhich, unless they can be interpreted to mean something different from\ntheir seeming and obvious import, make strongly against that stability and\nunquestioned oneness of human personality about which every individual in\nhis own consciousness may feel so absolutely certain. What are these facts\nwhich have come to the notice of students of psychology?\n\nThe case of Felida X., reported by Dr. Azam of Bordeaux, is one of the\nearliest to attract the serious attention of medical men and students of\npsychology, and has become classic in relation to the subject.\n\nShe was a nervous child, given to moody spells and hysterical attacks,\nand, in 1856, when she was about fourteen years of age, she also began to\nhave more serious attacks of an epileptiform character, from which she\nwould emerge into a new and unusual condition, which was at first taken to\nbe somnambulism. In this condition her general appearance was quite\nchanged, and she talked and acted in a manner altogether different from\nher usual self. These attacks were at first very brief, lasting only a few\nminutes, but gradually they increased in duration until they occupied\nhours, and even days.\n\nIn her usual state she had no recollection and no knowledge whatever of\nher second condition, and the whole time spent in that condition was to\nher a blank; on the other hand, all the different occasions when she had\nbeen in this second condition were linked together, constituting a\ndistinct chain of memories and a personality just as consciously distinct\nand conspicuous as her original self. In her second state she not only had\nthe distinct memories connected with her own secondary personality, but\nshe also knew facts concerning the first or original self, but only as she\nmight have knowledge of any other person.\n\nThe two personalities were entirely different in character and\ndisposition; the original one was sickly, indolent, and melancholy, while\nthe new one was in good health, and in disposition bright, cheerful, and\nindustrious. She married early in life, and was intelligent and efficient\nin the care of her family, rearing children and attending to the little\nbusiness of a shop. At length this secondary self came to occupy nearly\nthe whole time, and considered herself the normal personality, as, indeed,\nshe was, being superior in every way to the original one. She knew very\nwell how unhappy and miserable was the condition of the primary self,\nand, while she pitied her and did what she could to assist her, she\ndisliked to have her return. She called the condition of the primary self,\n\"that stupid state.\"\n\nThe lapses of the original or No. 1 personality became at length so\nfrequent, or rather, so continuous, that she lost the proper knowledge and\nrelation of things about her. She was a stranger in her own home, and on\nthat account became still more morose and melancholy. To relieve as much\nas possible this distressing state of affairs the second self, or No. 2,\nwhen she knew that No. 1 was about to appear, would write her a letter,\ninforming her of the general condition of the household, whom she might\nexpect to meet, and where she would find certain needful articles; she\nwould also offer advice regarding the conduct of affairs, which was always\nappropriate and useful and far superior to the judgment of the original\nself in the matters to which it referred.\n\nAs a second well marked and abundantly authenticated example of this\ndivided or secondary personality, I will refer to a case in our own\ncountry and in our own vicinity.\n\nJan. 17th, 1887, Ansel Bourne, an evangelist, left his home in Rhode\nIsland, and, after transacting some business in Providence, one item of\nwhich was to draw some money to pay for a farm for which he had bargained,\nhe went to Boston, then to New York, then to Philadelphia, and, finally,\nto Norristown, Penn., fifteen or twenty miles from Philadelphia, where he\nopened a small store for the sale of stationery, confectionery, and\nfive-cent articles. In this business he was known as A. J. Brown. He lived\nin a room partitioned off from the back of the store, eating, sleeping,\nand doing his own cooking there. He rented the store from a Mr. Earl, who\nalso, with his family, lived in the building. Mr. Brown went back and\nforth to Philadelphia for goods to keep up his stock, and seems to have\nconducted his business as if accustomed to it.\n\nSunday, March 13th, he went to church, and at night went to bed as usual.\nOn Monday, March 14th, about 5 o'clock in the morning, he awoke and found\nhimself in what appeared to him an altogether new and strange place; he\nthought he must have broken into the place, and was much troubled, fearing\narrest. Finally, after waiting two hours in great uneasiness of mind, he\ngot up and found the door locked on the inside. He went out into the hall,\nand, hearing some one moving about, he rapped at the door. Mr. Earl, his\nlandlord, opened it, and said: \"Good-morning, Mr. Brown.\"\n\n\"Where am I?\" said Mr. Brown.\n\n\"You are all right,\" replied Mr. Earl.\n\n\"I'm all wrong, and my name is not Brown. Where am I?\"\n\n\"You are in Norristown.\"\n\n\"Where is Norristown?\"\n\n\"In Pennsylvania, about seventeen miles west of Philadelphia.\"\n\n\"What day of the month is it?\" inquired Mr. Brown.\n\n\"The 14th,\" replied Mr. Earl.\n\n\"Does time run backward here? When I left home it was the 17th.\"\n\n\"Seventeenth of what?\" said Mr. Earl.\n\n\"Seventeenth of January.\"\n\n\"Now it is the 14th of March,\" said Mr. Earl.\n\nMr. Earl thought Mr. Brown was out of his mind, and sent for a physician.\nTo the doctor he said his name was Ansel Bourne; that he remembered seeing\nthe Adams Express wagons on Dorrance Street in Providence on Jan. 17th,\nand remembered nothing since, until he awoke here this morning, March\n14th.\n\n\"These people,\" said he, \"tell me that I have been here six weeks, and\nhave been living with them all this time; I have no recollection of ever\nhaving seen one of them, until this morning.\"\n\nHis nephew, Mr. H., was telegraphed to in Providence.\n\n\"Do you know Ansel Bourne?\"\n\nReply: \"He is my uncle; wire me where he is, and if well.\"\n\nMr. H., went on to Norristown, took charge of his uncle and his affairs,\nsold out his store property, and Mr. A. J. Brown went back and resumed his\nlife in Rhode Island as Ansel Bourne, but the time from Jan. 17th to March\n14th was to him a blank.\n\nProf. James of Harvard and Dr. Hodgson, Secretary of the American Branch\nof the Society for Psychical Research, who reported this case to the\nsociety, now became interested in the matter. They went to see Ansel\nBourne and learned the above history; but of the journey from Providence\nto Norristown in January no account of any kind could be obtained.\nFinally, he was put into the hypnotic condition, when he was again A. J.\nBrown, and gave a connected account of his journey to Boston, New York,\nPhiladelphia, and of his stay in each of these cities; of his arrival at\nNorristown, and of his experience there up to the morning of March 14th,\nwhen everything was again confused. As A. J. Brown he knew of Ansel\nBourne and of his remarkable history, but could not state positively that\nhe had ever met him.\n\nThis transition was repeatedly made. Immediately on being put in the\nhypnotic trance and aroused to somnambulism he was A. J. Brown, a distinct\npersonality, perfectly sane, and with a full appreciation of the relation\nof things as relating to that personality, and with a distinct chain of\nmemories, beliefs, and affections; but, when introduced to the wife of\nAnsel Bourne, he entirely repudiated the idea of her ever having been his\nwife, though he might some time have seen her.\n\nImmediately on being awakened from this hypnotic condition he was Ansel\nBourne, with his usual consciousness, beliefs, affections, and chain of\nmemories; but the primary Ansel Bourne personality had no knowledge\nwhatever of the secondary, or A. J. Brown, personality, and for any act,\neither criminal or righteous, committed by the person A. J. Brown, the\nperson Ansel Bourne had no more knowledge and consequently no more\nresponsibility than for any good or bad action committed by a person in\nAustralia and of whose existence he was ignorant.\n\nA few other cases quite similar and in every respect of equal interest\nhave been observed, notably that known as Louis V., which was reported by\nDr. Voisin of Paris and by several other well-known French physicians,\nunder whose care from time to time he has been, and whose several reports\nhave been summed up by Mr. Frederick W. H. Myers, the efficient London\nSecretary of the Society for Psychical Research.\n\nHere the stability of personality was unsettled at the age of fourteen by\na terrible fright from a viper. Four or five distinct personalities were\nrepresented.\n\n(1) In his childhood, previous to his fright by the viper, he had good\nhealth and was an ordinary, quiet, obedient, well-behaved boy.\n\n(2) A new personality, of which the primary self had no knowledge, was\ninduced by the fright. This No. 2 personality had frequent epileptic\nattacks, but was able to work, learning the trade of a tailor.\n\n(3) After one of these attacks of great violence, lasting fifty hours,\nanother personality came to the surface--a greedy, violent, quarrelsome,\ndrunken, thievish vagabond, paralyzed on one side, and with an impediment\nin his speech. He was an anarchist, an atheist, and a blackguard, always\nranting and thrusting his opinions upon those about him, perpetrating bad\njokes, and practicing disgusting familiarities with his physicians and\nattendants. In this state, he knows nothing of the tailor's business, but\nhe is a private of marines.\n\n(4) He is a quiet, sensible man, retiring in behavior and modest in\nspeech. If he is asked his opinions upon politics or religion, he\nbashfully replies that he would rather leave such things to wiser heads\nthan his. In this condition he is without paralysis and speaks distinctly.\n\n(5) As a man forty years of age he returns to the condition of childhood\nprevious to his fright--a child in intellect and knowledge, having no\noccupation; he is simply an ordinary, quiet, well-behaved, obedient boy.\n\nEach of these personalities was distinct from all the others; the earlier\nones had no knowledge of those which came after them; the later ones had a\nknowledge of the earlier ones, but only as they might have knowledge of\nany other person.\n\nA fourth typical case is that of Alma Z., recently reported by me for _The\nJournal of Nervous and Mental Diseases_. In this case, an unusually\nhealthy, strongly intellectual girl, an expert in athletic sport and a\nleader wherever she might be, on account of overwork, and finally, of\nbroken-down health, developed a second, and, later, a third personality.\nEach was widely different from the others, all were normal so far as a\nperfect knowledge of and adaptation to their surroundings were concerned,\nand all were of unusual intellectual force and brightness, as well as\nmoral worth; but each was distinct, peculiar, and even in marked contrast\nto the others in many important characteristics. No. 1 had no knowledge of\nNo. 2 nor of No. 3, except from circumstances and the report of others,\nand also from letters which passed between them giving information to No.\n1 regarding changes which had occurred in her absence, as, for instance,\nof expected company or other engagement which it would be important for\nher to know.\n\nBoth of the later personalities were peculiarly fond of No. 1, and devoted\nto her welfare on account of her superior knowledge and admirable\ncharacter. The case has been under my observation, both professionally and\nsocially, for many years, and, in addition to its typical character, it\npresented an example of the singular fact of the persistence of the later\npersonality, with the ability to observe, retain its chain of memories,\nand afterward report them, while the primary self was at the same time the\ndominant and active personality.\n\nAn instance of this occurred at one of the concerts of a distinguished\npianist a few years since. No. 3 was the reigning personality, and she was\nherself a lover of music and an excellent critic. Beethoven's concerto in\nC major was on the programme, and was being performed in a most charming\nmanner by soloist and orchestra. I was sitting near her in the box, when\nall at once I noticed a change in the expression of her face, which\ndenoted the presence of No. 1. She listened with intense interest and\npleasure to the performance, and at its close I spoke a few words to her,\nand she replied in her usual charming manner. It was No. 1 without doubt.\nSoon after, she leaned back in her chair, took two or three quick, short\ninspirations, and No. 3 was present again. She turned to me smiling and\nsaid:\n\n\"So No. 1 came for her favorite concerto; wasn't it splendid that she\ncould hear it?\"\n\nI said: \"Yes; but how did you know she was here?\"\n\n\"Oh, I sat on the front of the box,\" she said. \"I heard the music, too,\nand I saw you speaking to her.\"\n\nThe four cases here briefly outlined represent both sexes, two distinct\nnationalities, and widely-varying conditions in life. In each case one or\nmore personalities crop out, so to speak, come to the surface, and become\nthe conscious, active, ruling personality, distinct from the original\nself, having entirely different mental, moral, and even physical,\ncharacteristics; different tastes, and different sentiments and opinions;\npersonalities entirely unknown to the original self, which no one\nacquainted with that original self had any reason to suppose existed in\nconnection with that organization.\n\nThe cases present so many points of similarity in their history as to\nrender it probable, if not certain, that some common principle, law, or\nmental state underlies them all--some law which, if clearly defined, would\nbe valuable in reducing to order the seemingly lawless mass of phenomena\nwhich constantly meets us in this new and but little explored field of\nresearch.\n\nIt may be, also, that other mental states more frequently met with and\nmore easily observed present points in common with these more striking and\nunusual ones; and that they also may assist us in finding the clue.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nNATURAL SOMNAMBULISM--HYPNOTIC SOMNAMBULISM--DREAMS.\n\n\nThe first of these more accessible conditions to claim attention is\nnatural somnambulism, or sleep-walking. The phenomena of this peculiar\nstate have been observed from time immemorial, and have always been looked\nupon as one of the most wonderful and interesting subjects in the domain\nof the old psychology.\n\nIn this state the subject, while apparently in ordinary sleep, arises from\nhis bed and proceeds, sometimes to perform the most ordinary, everyday\nactions--cooking a dinner, washing clothes, sawing wood, or going out to a\nneighboring market town to transact business; sometimes, on the other\nhand, he does the most unusual things; he performs perilous journeys in\ndangerous and unfamiliar places in perfect safety and with unusual ease;\nsometimes intellectual work of a difficult nature, such as had baffled the\nstudent in his waking hours, is easily accomplished, and he finds the\nsolution of his mathematical problem or the needed point in his argument\nall plainly wrought out and prepared for him when he goes to his desk the\nfollowing morning; moreover, if the work from any cause should be\ninterrupted, and the same conditions recur upon the following or some\nsubsequent night, it may be resumed at the point where it was interrupted;\nor if the somnambulist talks, as well as acts, in his sleep the\nconversation shows that each succeeding occasion is connected with\nprevious ones, all together constituting a chain of memories similar to\nthat of the different personalities which have been presented in the four\ncases already described.\n\nSometimes all these different actions are accomplished without light or\nwith the eyes fast closed, or else open and staring, but without vision.\nSometimes, however, the new personality developed in the sleep of the\nsomnambulist fails to come into proper relations with his surroundings,\nwhen he may also fail to accomplish the dangerous journey, and may walk\nfrom an open window or an unguarded balcony with disastrous results.\n\nThe second condition which presents analogies to the duplex or multiplex\npersonalities, which are under consideration, is that of the somnambulism\nwhich occurs in the hypnotic sleep. While usually the hypnotic subject is\npassive and unconsciously receives the suggestions which are impressed\nupon him, not unfrequently a personality comes to the front which acts\nindependently, and presents all the characteristics which we have found\npertaining to a distinct personality.\n\nA rare example of this alternating personality brought about by hypnotism\nis afforded by the French subject, Mme. B., whose acquaintance we have\nalready made as a subject upon whom hypnotism at a distance was\nsuccessfully carried out by Prof. Janet and Dr. Gibert of Havre. As we\nhave already seen, in her ordinary condition Mme. B. is a stolid,\nsubstantial, honest French peasant, about forty years of age, of very\nmoderate intelligence, and without any education or any ambition for\nnotoriety. In this state Prof. Janet calls her Leonie.\n\nHypnotized, she is at once changed into a bright, vivacious,\nmischief-loving, rather noisy personality, who considers herself on\nexcellent terms with the doctor, and whom the professor names Leontine.\nLater, by further hypnotization and a deeper trance, there appears a\nsedate, sensible personality, intellectually much superior to Leonie, the\nprimary self, and much more dignified than the vivacious Leontine, and\nthis third personality Prof. Janet calls Leonore.\n\nLeontine, the hypnotic or second self, knows Leonie, the original Mme. B.,\nvery well, and is very anxious not to be confounded with her. She always\ncalls her \"the other one,\" and laughs at her stupidity. She says, \"That\ngood woman is not I, she is too stupid.\" One day Prof. Janet hypnotized\nLeonie, and as usual at once Leontine was present. Prof. Janet then\nsuggested to Leontine that when she awoke and Leonie had resumed the\ncommand, she (Leontine) should take off the apron of Leonie, their common\napron, on their one physical personality, and then tie it on again. She\nwas then aroused from her hypnotic condition, and at once Leonie was\npresent without the slightest knowledge of Leontine, for she never knew of\nthis second personality, nor of hypnotic suggestion in any form. Leonie,\nsupposing the professor's experiment was over, was conducting him to the\ndoor, talking indifferently in her slow, dull way, and at the same time\nunconsciously her fingers were working at her apron-strings. The loosened\napron was falling off when the professor called her attention to it. She\nexclaimed, \"Why, my apron is falling off!\" and then, fully conscious of\nwhat she was doing, she replaced and tied it on again. She then continued\nher talk. She only supposed that somehow accidentally the apron had come\nuntied and she had retied it, and that was all.\n\nTo the now submerged Leontine, however, this was not enough; her mission\nhad not been completed, and at her silent prompting Leonie again fumbled\nat the apron-strings; unconsciously she untied and took off the apron, and\nthen put it on again without her attention having been drawn to what she\nhad now the second time done. The next day Prof. Janet again hypnotized\nLeonie and Leontine made her appearance.\n\n\"Well,\" said she, \"I did what you told me yesterday. How stupid 'the other\none' looked while I took her apron off? Why did you tell her that her\napron was falling off? Just for that, I had to do the job all over again.\"\n\nHere the hypnotic or secondary self, as in my own reported case, appears\nas a persistent entity, remembering and reasoning, while the primary self\nwas at the same time in command of their common body. Leontine not only\ncaused Leonie to untie and retie her apron, but she enjoyed the fun,\nremembered it, and told it the next day.\n\nAgain Leonore was as much ashamed of Leontine's flippancy as Leontine was\nof Leonie's stupidity.\n\n\"You see well enough,\" she said, \"that I am not that prattler, that\nmadcap. We do not resemble each other in the least.\"\n\nIn fact, she sometimes gave Leontine good counsel in regard to her\nbehavior, and in a peculiar manner--by producing the hallucination of\nhearing a voice, thus again showing the conscious activity of the\nsubmerged self while a primary self was at the same time dominant and\nactive. As Dr. Janet relates the incident, Leontine was one day in an\nexcited, hysterical condition, noisy and troublesome with her chatter,\nwhen suddenly she stopped her senseless talk and cried out with terror:\n\n\"Oh! Who is it there talking to me like that?\"\n\n\"No one was speaking to you.\"\n\n\"Yes, there on the left.\" And she opened a closet door in the direction\nindicated, to see that no one was hidden there.\n\n\"What is it that you hear?\" asked the professor.\n\n\"I hear a voice on the left there which keeps saying to me: 'Enough,\nenough; be quiet. You are a nuisance!'\" which, the professor remarks, was\nexactly the truth.\n\nLeonore, in her turn, was then brought to the surface.\n\n\"What was it that happened,\" asked Prof. Janet, \"when Leontine was so\nfrightened?\"\n\n\"Oh, nothing,\" she replied. \"I told her she was a nuisance and to keep\nquiet. I saw she was annoying you. I don't know why she was so\nfrightened.\"\n\nI may be pardoned for mentioning one other fact regarding the relationship\nof these singular personalities, because it illustrates more pointedly if\npossible than anything else their entire duplex and separate character.\nLeonie or Madame B. is married, but Leontine is not. Madame B. however,\nwas hypnotized at her accouchements, and became Leontine. So Leontine was\nthe presiding personality when the children were born. Leontine therefore\nconsiders herself the mother of two children, and would be greatly grieved\nwere any doubts expressed regarding her right of motherhood in them.\n\nThe analogies between the mental conditions presented respectively in\nordinary somnambulism and the somnambulism of the hypnotic trance, and the\nmental conditions presented in the four cases previously recited are\nnumerous and obvious; in fact, they seem as indeed they are, like the\nsame conditions differently produced and varying in the length of time\nthey occupy, and it is evident that in them there is brought to view a\nmental state of sufficient uniformity, as well as of sufficient interest\nand importance, to be worthy of serious consideration.\n\nThe facts thus far brought into view are these: That in a considerable\nnumber of persons there may be developed, either spontaneously or\nartificially, a second personality different in character and distinct in\nits consciousness and memories from the primary or original self; that\nthis second personality is not a mere change of consciousness, but in some\nsense it is a different entity, having a power of observation, attention\nand memory not only when the primary self is submerged and without\nconsciousness or volition, but also at the same time that the primary self\nis in action, performing its usual offices, and in its turn it is equally\ncapable of managing the affairs and performing the offices properly\npertaining to the common body whenever needed for that purpose.\n\nReckoning these different personalities as No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc., No.\n1 has no knowledge of No. 2, nor of any succeeding personality, nor of\ntheir acts, but the time occupied by them is to No. 1 a blank, during\nwhich it is without volition, memory, or consciousness. No. 2 has a\ndistinct consciousness and chain of memories of its own, but it also knows\nmore or less perfectly the history and acts of No. 1--it knows this\nhistory, however, only as pertaining to a third person; it knows nothing\nof No. 3, nor of any personality subsequently coming into activity. No. 3\nhas also its distinct personality, and knows both No. 1 and No. 2, but\nknows them only as separate and distinct personalities; it does not know\nany personality coming into activity after itself.\n\nSo distinct are these personalities that No. 2 not only may not possess\nthe acquirements, as, for instance, the book knowledge, trade, or\noccupation of No. 1, but may possess other capabilities and acquirements\nentirely foreign to No. 1, and of which it possessed no knowledge.\n\nAnsel Bourne was a farmer and preacher, and knew nothing of storekeeping.\nA. J. Brown, the second personality, was a business man, neither farmer\nnor preacher. Louis V., as No. 2, was a tailor, and a very good boy; as\nNo. 3, he was a private of marines, and knew nothing of tailoring, and he\nwas a moral monster; while, in what might be called his No. 5 condition,\nhe was again an undeveloped child, as he was before his fright.\n\nStill another fact which comes prominently into view in examining these\ncases is that the No. 2 personality may not, by any means, be inferior to\nthe No. 1, or original self. In none of the cases cited has the\nintellectual capacity of the later developed personality been inferior to\nthat of the original self, and generally it was notably superior; only in\nthe No. 3 personality of Louis V. was the moral state worse than in No. 1,\nand, in general, the moral standing of No. 2 or No. 3 was fully equal to\nthe primary self.\n\nThe emergence and dominance of a secondary personality, therefore, does\nnot by any means imply that the general standing of the individual\ndominated by this second personality, as judged by disinterested\nobservers, is in any way inferior to the same individual dominated by the\nprimary self, but, on the contrary, a superior personality is rather to be\nexpected, and especially is this true when the secondary personality is\nintelligently sought and brought to view by means of hypnotism.\n\nIt is, however, quite impossible by any _a priori_ reasoning, or from the\ncharacter of the primary self, to form any definite estimate concerning\nthe character or general characteristics of any new personality which may\nmake its appearance, either spontaneously or through the aid of\nhypnotism.\n\nHaving become to a certain degree familiarized with the idea that in some\npersons, at least, and under some peculiar circumstances, a second\npersonality may come to the surface and take the place for a longer or\nshorter time of the primary self, it may be asked whether, after all,\nthese comparatively few persons in which this unusual phenomena has been\nobserved are essentially different in their mental constitution from other\npeople.\n\nWhen those best acquainted with the slender and melancholy Felida N., or\nthe ordinary, quiet, well-behaved Louis V.; the industrious and respected\nevangelist Ansel Bourne, or the large-brained, intellectual leader of\nwomen, Alma Z., saw them in their ordinary state, before any subliminal\npersonality had emerged and made itself known, no one of those most\nintimate acquaintances, no expert in character-reading, no student of\nmental science could have given any reasonable intimation that any one of\nthem would develop a second personality, much less give any trustworthy\nopinion as to the character which the new personality would possess.\n\nA few months ago I was called in haste to see a patient, a large, strong\nman of one hundred and eighty pounds weight, who had been thrown down and\ntrampled upon by his nineteen-year-old son during an attack of\nsomnambulism, and had received such serious injuries as to require\nimmediate surgical aid. The next day this son came to consult me regarding\nhis unfortunate habit of sleep-walking, which has often got him into\ntrouble before, and has now resulted in serious injury to his father. He\nis a slight youth of one hundred and twenty pounds weight, light hair,\ngray eyes, and a bright, frank face, expressive of good health and good\nnature--\"a perfect gentleman,\" as his father expressed it, \"when himself,\nbut ten men cannot manage him when he gets up in his sleep; he will do\nwhat he sets out to do.\"\n\nWho would ever imagine that this slender, good-natured, gentlemanly lad,\nsooner than any other lad, would in his sleep develop somnambulism and a\nsecond personality, or that when it came that second personality should\nprove a stubborn Samson?\n\nLittle could Prof. Janet imagine that beneath the surface consciousness of\nthat serene and stupid Leonie dwelt the frisky, vivacious, fun-loving\nLeontine, waiting only the magic key of hypnotism to unlock and bring her\nto the surface to reign instead of the heavy Leonie.\n\nThe people who, in various ways, develop second personalities may not\ndiffer, it seems, in any perceptible manner from other people; is it not\nquite possible, then, that other normal, ordinary people, possess a second\npersonality, deep-down beneath their ordinary, everyday self, and that\nunder conditions which favor a readjustment, this hidden subliminal self\nmay emerge and become for a longer or a shorter time the conscious, acting\none; and not only so, but may prove to be the brighter and better\norganized of the two?\n\nHaving now, as it were, a chart, imperfect though it be, of this outlying\nregion, having some idea what to look for, and in what direction to look\nfor it, it is possible that glimpses of this subliminal personality which\neach one unconsciously carries with him may be obtained under ordinary\nconditions and in everyday life, more frequently and more easily than we\nhad imagined; for, as Ribot expresses it, the ordinary conscious\npersonality is only a feeble portion of the whole psychical personality.\n\nOne example of this more usual form of double personality is afforded in\nordinary dreaming. The dream country, like most of this outlying\nterritory, has for the most part been studied without chart or compass.\nThere is scarcely a point connected with the discussion of the subject\nupon which the most eminent authorities are not divided; it is Locke\nagainst Descartes, Hamilton against Locke, and Hobbes against the field.\n\nIf there be any one point, however, on which there is tolerable unanimity\namong all writers, ancient and modern, great and small, it is the absence\nin dreams of the normal acts and processes of volition, and, especially,\nof the faculty of attention. Now, this is exactly the condition which is\nconducive to the more or less perfect emergence and activity of the\nsubliminal self, under whatever circumstances it occurs.\n\nThere is first, loss of consciousness from catalepsy, fright, depressing\nillness, hypnotism, or natural sleep, that is to say, the power of\nattention or volition in the primary self is abolished; then comes a\nreadjustment of personalities, varying in completeness according to the\nease with which, in different persons, this readjustment may be effected,\nand according to the completeness of the abolition of the power of\nattention and volition.\n\nIn sleep the conditions are favorable for this readjustment, and the\nsubliminal self comes more or less perfectly to the surface; then appears\nthat most peculiar and interesting series of pictures and visions which we\ncall dreams; sometimes the rearranged, or rather unarranged, impressions\nand perceptions of the waking hours brought together, possibly just before\nthe power of attention is entirely lost; sometimes the Puck-like work of\nthe subliminal personality, the Leontines of the dream-country influencing\nthe unconscious or semi-conscious primary self; sometimes the veridical or\ntruth-telling dreams, which have been the wonder of all ages, and\nsometimes giving complete and active supremacy to the subliminal self as\nin natural somnambulism. Another portion of the field in which it might be\nprofitable to look for evidence of the existence of a subliminal\npersonality is in the eccentric work of genius; and still another, in the\nunexpected and often heroic actions of seemingly ordinary persons under\nthe stress and stimulus of a great emotion, as of joy, sorrow, or anger,\nor of intense excitement, as for instance, the soldier in battle, the\nfireman at the post of danger, or the philosopher or astronomer on the eve\nof a new discovery; in all these cases the ordinary personality with its\nintense self-consciousness and self-considering carefulness is\nsubmerged--it disappears--the power of voluntary attention to mental\nstates or physical action is lost; a new and superior personality comes to\nthe surface and takes control. The supreme moment passes, and the primary\nself resumes sway, scarcely conscious of what has been done or how it was\naccomplished; even sensation has been abolished, and it is only now that\nhe discovers the bleeding bullet-wound, the charred member, or the broken\nbone.\n\nIn physical science, whenever some new fact or law or principle has been\ndiscovered, it is at once seen that many things which before were obscure,\nor perhaps could only be accounted for by a theory of chance, or of direct\ninterference by an omnipotent Deity, are now illuminated by a new light,\nand order reigns where before only confusion and darkness were visible.\nSomething of the same sort is beginning to be recognized in the world of\nmental and psychical phenomena. If the mathematical exactness which\nmeasured the force of gravity, or placed the sun in one of the foci of an\nellipse instead of the centre of a circle cannot be applied here, it is\nonly on account of the vast complexity of the problem presented, and of\nwhich we know so few of the elements.\n\nWhen matter alone is concerned we know exactly how it will act under given\nconditions. When life is added, the problem becomes more complex. The\ngeneral law of evolution and the special law of natural selection in the\ndevelopment of species are accepted facts, although we cannot with success\napply to them mathematical formulae. When mind is added to life, the\nproblem becomes still more complicated and mathematical exactness still\nless likely to be attained. Many facts, however, are being ascertained in\npsychical science, and some principles are being established which help to\nbring order out of confusion and shed light on some dark places.\n\nThe recognition of a subliminal self as forming a part of the psychical\norganization of man will throw light upon many obscure mental phenomena\nand bring order out of seemingly hopeless confusion. Placed before us as a\nworking hypothesis, many other facts, before errant and unclassified,\ngroup themselves about it in wonderful clearness and harmony.\n\nGranting, then, provisionally at least, the reality of the secondary self,\nwhat are its relations to the primary self and their common physical\norganization, and how came it to occupy these relations? Mr. Frederick W.\nH. Myers, to whom I have already referred, whose acute intellect and\nscholarly attainments have been of the highest value to the society in\nevery department of its investigations, has also taken up this subject\nwith his usual skill and judgment. He looks upon it from the standpoint\nof evolution, commencing with the earliest period of animal life. He\ncompares the whole psychical organization, together with its manifesting\nphysical organization, to the thousand looms of a vast manufactory.\n\nThe looms are complex and of varying patterns, for turning out different\nsorts of work. They are also used in various combinations, and there are\nvarious driving bands and connecting machinery by which they may severally\nbe connected or disconnected, but the motive power which drives the whole\nis constant for all, and all works automatically to turn out the styles of\ngoods that are needed.\n\n\"Now, how did I come to have my looms and driving-gear arranged in this\nparticular way? Not, certainly, through any deliberate choice of my own.\nMy ancestor, the ascidian, in fact, inherited the business when it\nconsisted of little more than a single spindle; since his day my nearer\nancestors have added loom after loom.\"\n\nChanges have been going on continually; some of the looms are now quite\nout of date, have long been unused, and are quite out of repair or fallen\nto pieces. Others are kept in order because the style of goods which they\nturn out is still useful and necessary. But the class of goods called for\nhas greatly changed of late. For instance, the machinery at present in\noperation is best adapted to turning out goods of a decidedly egoistic\nstyle, for self-preservation, persistence in the struggle for life, and\nfor self-gratification; but a style is beginning to be called for of the\naltruistic pattern. For this kind of goods the machinery is not well\nadapted. It is old-fashioned, and changes are necessary. If there are any\nlooms in the establishment unknown and unused which can be turned to\naccount, or any way of modifying such as we have to meet the demand, it is\nfor our interest to know it.\n\nBut the methods of adjustment, and arrangements for bringing new looms\ninto operation are hidden and difficult of access, so we observe factories\nwhere spontaneous readjustments are going on and new looms, not known to\nhave been in the establishment, are being brought automatically into\naction and are found to work fairly well. Such instances are found in the\nestablishment of Felida X. or Louis V., from which valuable hints are\nobtained regarding changes and readjustments.\n\nFurthermore, in hypnotism, we find a safe and, at the same time, powerful\nlever, for readjustment, by means of which in some establishments new\nlooms can be brought into play and shut off again almost at will; and\noften while the new looms are at work doing good service we are able to\nget at the old ones, repair and modernize them so as to make them useful,\nand the immense value of hypnotism in this educational and reformatory\nwork has hardly begun to be known or appreciated. A single instance out of\nmany must suffice for illustration.\n\nIn the summer of 1884 there was at the Salpetriere a young woman of a\ndeplorable type, Jeanne S., who was a criminal lunatic, filthy, violent,\nand with a life history of impurity and crime. M. Auguste Voisin, one of\nthe physicians of the staff, undertook to hypnotize her May 31st. At that\ntime she was so violent that she could only be kept quiet by a\nstrait-jacket and the constant cold douche to her head. She would not look\nat M. Voisin, but raved and spat at him. He persisted, kept his face near\nand opposite to hers, and his eyes following hers constantly. In ten\nminutes she was in a sound sleep, and soon passed into the somnambulistic\ncondition. The process was repeated many days, and gradually she became\nsane while in the hypnotic condition, but still raved when she awoke.\n\nGradually, then, she began to accept hypnotic suggestion, and would obey\ntrivial orders given her while asleep, such as to sweep her room, etc.;\nthen suggestions regarding her general behavior; then, in her hypnotic\ncondition, she began to express regret for her past life and form\nresolutions of amendment, which she fully adhered to when she awoke. Two\nyears later she was a nurse in one of the Paris hospitals, and her conduct\nwas irreproachable. M. Voisin has followed up this case by others equally\nstriking.\n\nSuch is an imperfect sketch of the discoveries, experiments, and studies\nwhich have been made in the domain of human personality. It is merely a\nsketch, and certainly it is in no spirit of dogmatism that it is\npresented; but as a collection of facts relating to human nature and the\nconstitution and action of the human mind, it is at least curious.\n\nIt need not destroy our convictions regarding the essential unity of\npersonality, but it must necessarily enlarge our conceptions of what\n_constitutes an individual_, and how under various circumstances that\nindividual may act.\n\nFrom many points of view, and in relation to many departments of study and\nof human development--legal, moral, social, and educational--the subject\npresents important bearings; and, furthermore, in the solution of other\npsychological problems it will be found to possess the greatest possible\ninterest and value.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nAUTOMATISM--PLANCHETTE.\n\n\nOur ordinary actions, both physical and mental, are, for the most part,\nsubject to our own voluntary guidance and choice. Of this, at least, we\nfeel sure. We work, walk, talk, play upon an instrument, read a book, or\nwrite a letter, because we choose to do these things; and ordinarily they\nare done under the full guidance of our will and intelligence. Sometimes,\nhowever, actions are performed by us without our choice or guidance, and\neven without our consciousness, and such actions are called automatic. The\nthrifty housewife, perhaps also being of a literary turn of mind, may\nbecome deeply absorbed in an exciting novel, while at the same time her\nbusy fingers, without thought or effort on her part, skilfully ply the\nknitting needles, or her well accustomed foot, with gentle motion, rocks\nthe cradle.\n\nDuring an exciting conversation, or the absorbing consideration of some\nimportant subject or problem, the act of walking is performed without will\nor consciousness; the pianoforte player runs his scales and roulades with\nmarvellous rapidity and precision while reading a book or carrying on an\nanimated conversation. Such actions are performed automatically.\n\nWhen we come to examine a large number of actions performed in this\nautomatic manner, we observe that they exhibit great diversity in the kind\nand degree of automatism displayed in their performance. In the cases\nabove mentioned the mind is simply altogether engaged in doing one thing,\nand at the same time the muscles go on without any conscious direction or\nsupervision, doing altogether another thing, but generally something which\nthey had before been accustomed to do. This is often called\nabsent-mindedness; it is also one of the most common and simple forms of\nautomatism. We set the machine to work, and it goes itself.\n\nAnother kind of automatism is that which often appears in connection with\npeculiar gifts or talents, and is especially associated with genius. It is\nseen, for example, in the poet and the orator, and in those capable of\nimprovisation, especially in music or in verse. The pianist or organist\nseats himself at the instrument without the remotest idea of what he is to\nperform--he simply commences. The theme he is to present, the various\nmelodies, harmonies, changes, and modulations which come at his touch are\noften as much a surprise and delight to himself as to the most interested\nlistener. Something within him furnishes and formulates the ideas, and\ncauses him to express them artistically upon the instrument of his choice\nwithout any effort, or even supervision of his own--he is simply conscious\nof what is produced--but if he should undertake consciously to guide or in\nany way interfere with the production, the extraordinary beauty and\nexcellence of the performance would at once cease.\n\nStill another kind of automatism is illustrated in somnambulism. The\nsomnambulist arises from his bed in his sleep, and proceeds to prepare a\nmeal or work out a mathematical problem or write a thesis or a letter, or\nsometimes to describe distant scenes and events transpiring far away. Here\nthe actions, both physical and mental, are performed, not only without the\nexercise of the actor's own choice or control, but he has no knowledge of\nthem whatever. They are altogether outside the domain of his\nconsciousness, and have their origin in some centre of intelligence quite\napart from his own ordinary consciousness, and they only appear or find\nexpression through his physical organization. Let us examine a little more\nclosely into these different forms of automatism.\n\nTwenty-five years ago a curious little piece of mechanism--apparently half\ntoy and half an instrument for amateur conjuring--made its appearance in\nthe windows of the toyshops and bookstores of the United States. It was a\nlittle heart-shaped piece of mahogany, or other hard wood, about seven\ninches by five in dimensions, with two casters serving for feet at the\nbase of the heart, while a closely-fitting pencil passed through a hole at\nthe point or apex.\n\nThus a tripod was formed, moving with perfect ease and freedom in any\ndirection, while the pencil, which formed the third foot, left its plain\nand continuous tracing wherever the instrument was moved.\n\nThis little toy was called Planchette, and wonderful tales were told of\nits strange performances when rightly used. Evenly adjusted upon a plain\nwood table, if a properly-constituted person placed his or her finger-tips\nlightly upon its surface, it soon began to move about, without any\nmuscular effort or any wish or will on the part of the operator; a broad,\nsmooth sheet of paper being placed beneath it upon the table, figures,\nwords, and sentences were plainly traced by the pencil, all in the style\nof a veritable oracle, and greatly to the delight of the curious, the\nwonder of the superstitious, and the mystification of people generally.\n\nNot every one, however, could command the services of the modern oracle;\nonly to the touch of a certain few was it responsive; to the many it was\nstill and silent as a sphinx. One in ten, perhaps, could obtain a scrawl;\none in twenty, intelligible sentences, and one in a hundred could produce\nremarkable results. Few persons witnessing its performances under\nfavorable circumstances failed to be interested, but different people\nlooked at it from quite different standpoints. The habitual doubter saw in\nit only a well-managed trick, which, however, he failed to detect; the\nspiritualist saw undoubted evidence of spiritual manifestations, while the\ngreat majority of common-sense people saw writing done, evidently without\nwill or effort on the part of the writer, producing messages of every\ngrade, from the most commonplace twaddle, foolishness, and even falsehood,\nto the exhibition of intelligence of a high order, a sparkling wit, and a\nperception of events, past, present, and sometimes even of those still in\nthe future, most acute and unusual. What was the cause of these\ninvoluntary movements, or whence came the messages written, they did not\nknow, and few even cared to speculate.\n\nThat was twenty-five years ago, and the two theories already alluded to\nwere about the only ones adduced to account for the phenomena. Dr.\nCarpenter's theory of \"unconscious cerebration\" and \"unconscious muscular\naction\" did not cover the ground; there was altogether too much\ncerebration not to have a consciousness connected with it in some way. The\ntheory did not cover the facts. Twenty-five years have failed to detect\nthe long-talked-of trick of the skeptic; they have also failed to\nsubstantiate the claim of spiritualists, and Planchette-writing is almost\nas much a mystery as ever.\n\nFairly studied, then, what does Planchette really do? From a physical\nstandpoint its performances are simply automatic writing or drawing. To\ndeny the automatic character of the movements of Planchette at this day is\nsimply absurd. That writing can be produced with it voluntarily, no one\ndoubts, but that it generally is produced automatically, that is, without\nthe choice or control of the writers, and without their knowledge of what\nis being written, it would be waste of time here to attempt to prove; the\ntheory of fraud is untenable, and the real question at issue is the\npsychical one, namely, whence come the messages which it brings?\n\nThese messages may be divided into three general classes: (1) Those which\nare trivial or irrelevant. (2) Those which show intelligence and have some\nunmistakable relation to the subject of which they purport to give\ninformation, but all of which is known either to the writers or some\nperson present. (3) Those which bring, or profess to bring, information\nunknown in any way, either to the writer or any person present.\n\nThe first of these divisions need not detain us, though it contains a very\nlarge share of all the messages received, as it simply illustrates the\nfact of automatism, which is equally well illustrated in the other classes\nof messages, which are of a more interesting character. The second class,\nnamely, messages which show intelligence and have an unmistakable relation\nto the subject concerning which information is asked, and yet contain\nnothing beyond the knowledge of the writers or of persons present, is also\nvery large.\n\nThe following is a sketch of my own first experience with Planchette. I\nmay remark that subsequent trials brought out the fact that for myself\nalone Planchette will do nothing; it will not even move a hair's-breadth;\nbut when, as is often the case, two persons are needed for success, I am\noften selected by Planchette to assist when it is consulted in the matter.\nOn one occasion, I was calling at a friend's house, in the spring of 1868.\nPlanchette was then much in vogue, and one stood on a side-table in the\nroom. A young daughter of my friend--a school-girl fifteen or sixteen\nyears of age--remarked that Planchette would move and sometimes even write\nfor her, and she asked me to join her in a trial. I consented, and, to our\nsurprise, the moment our fingers were placed lightly upon the instrument\nit moved off with great energy. Questions were then asked, and the answers\nwere written with promptness and intelligence, greatly to the amusement of\nthe company. Desiring to know who our mysterious correspondent might be,\nwe politely said, \"Planchette, will you kindly inform us who it is that\nwrites these answers?\" to which it replied, \"Peter Stuyvesant.\"\n\n\"Old Governor Stuyvesant?\" we asked.\n\n\"Yes,\" was the reply.\n\nNow it so happened that a short time previous to our seance the old pear\ntree, known as the Stuyvesant pear tree, which had stood for more than two\nhundred years at the corner of Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue, having\nbecome decayed and tottering, was thrown down by a blow from a passing\ntruck and had been ruthlessly chopped to pieces by workmen; and the event\nhad been generally noticed and commented upon. Accordingly we replied,\n\n\"We are very glad to hear from you, Governor. How about the old pear\ntree?\"\n\nTo this a reply was promptly written, but neither of us had the slightest\nidea what it might be. The young lady took up the paper and commenced to\nread, but was shocked and greatly confused to find, clearly written, in a\nhand quite foreign to us both, \"It's a ---- ---- shame!\" the blanks here\nbeing filled by the most emphatic expletives, and without the slightest\nabbreviation.\n\nAnother excellent Planchette-writer was Miss V., a friend of the family,\nwho was spending a few days at my house in March, 1889. She was a young\nGerman lady of unusual intelligence, vivacity, and good sound sense. She\nknew of spiritualism only by passing remarks which she might have heard,\nand had never either seen or heard of Planchette. She was herself a\nsomnambulist, or, rather, a somniloquist, for she never walked in her\nsleep, but talked with the greatest ease, carrying on long conversations\nwithout the slightest memory afterwards of what had been said. She was\nalso an excellent hypnotic subject, and the suggested effects of medicines\nwere much more prompt and certain than the effect of the medicines\nthemselves, when used in the ordinary way.\n\nFor experiment one evening I proposed that we should try Planchette. As\nsoon as our fingers were placed upon the instrument, it moved off across\nthe table with the greatest promptness, and at once it replied to\nquestions with unusual appropriateness and intelligence. The astonishment\nof Miss V. was altogether too profound and too apparent to admit of any\nsuspicion of collusion on her part, and she had seen that the board would\nnot move for me alone, yet she could not be persuaded that when we wrote\ntogether there was not some trick, and that I did not move the board\nvoluntarily to produce the writing.\n\nAt length a message came concerning one of her own relatives, of whom she\nwas sure that I could have no knowledge whatever, and she was convinced\nthat at all events that message could not have originated with me.\nAccordingly she became a most valuable and interested partner in the\nexperiments, and the chief medium through whom Planchette gave its\ncommunications.\n\nOur sittings continued four or five consecutive evenings, and hundreds of\ncommunications and answers to questions were given by different\nintelligences or personalities, with entirely different modes of\nexpression and different kinds of writing; some were religious, some\nphilosophical, some were anxious to give advice, and some were profane;\nthis last-mentioned phase appearing especially if we were persistent in\ninquiring too closely into the identity and former condition of the\ncommunicating personality.\n\nOn one occasion a message was written which was so strange in its\nappearance that none of us could at first make it out. At length we\ndiscovered some familiar negro phrase, and applying this key, we found we\nhad a message of regular plantation negro talk, bearing a very strong\nresemblance to Uncle Remus's talk to the little boy, which some of us had\njust been reading. On asking who the \"intelligence\" was, it wrote, \"Oh,\nI'se a good ole coon.\"\n\nNeither Miss V. nor myself had ever heard such a dialect spoken, nor knew\nthat any sort of person of the negro race was ever called a \"coon.\"\n\nOn another occasion, Miss V. was anxious to know and asked Planchette if a\nrelative of hers, whom she named, was staying in town that night. The\nanswer came, \"Yes.\" \"Where is he stopping?\" Answer: \"At the H. House.\"\n\"What is he doing now?\" Answer: \"He has just finished his dinner, settled\nhis bill at the cashier's desk, and is now walking up Broadway with his\ncousin.\" She afterward learned that this information was correct in every\nparticular.\n\nOn the last evening of our experiments the force displayed in the writing\nwas something surprising. Miss V. always experienced a certain amount of\npain in her arms while writing, as if she were holding the electrodes of a\nbattery through which a mild current was passing. On this occasion the\npain was almost unbearable, so that she frequently cried out, and was\nobliged to remove her hands from the board for relief.\n\nThe writing was so violent that it could be heard in the next room, and at\ntimes it seemed as though the board would surely be broken. Seeing so much\nforce exhibited, I allowed my fingers merely to touch the surface of the\nboard, but so lightly that my hands did not move with it at all, but\nsimply retained contact, the board sliding along beneath them. The\nwriting continued with just the same violence. I then called the attention\nof Miss V. to what I was doing, and requested her to adjust her hands in a\nsimilar manner. She did so, and the instrument continued to write several\nwords, with gradually diminishing force, moving under our hands, while our\nhands did not follow at all the movements of the instrument, until at\nlength it gradually stopped, like a machine when the power is turned off.\n\nMiss V. does not reside in the city, but while I was writing this chapter\nshe was in town, and spent a few hours at my house. We were both anxious\nto try Planchette again. When we placed our fingers upon the board, the\nwriting commenced at once, and intelligent answers were given to about\ntwenty questions, some of the answers, especially those relating to\ndistant friends, being quite contrary to our impressions and our hopes,\nbut they were afterward found to be true.\n\nWe remembered the experiment just related, which was made more than four\nyears ago. The force on this occasion was not at all to be compared with\nwhat it was then, but we said, \"Now, Planchette, we want to ask a favor of\nyou; will you repeat the experiment of four years ago, and move under our\nhands, while our hands remain stationary?\" It replied, \"Since you are so\npolite, I will try; perhaps I can move it a little.\"\n\nWe then planted our elbows firmly upon the table, curved our wrists, so as\nto allow the tips of our fingers to rest in the lightest possible manner\nupon the surface of the board. Four of us were watching with great\ninterest for the result. After a moment's hesitation, slowly the board\nmoved nearly an inch and stopped, but the movement was so obvious and\ndecided, and without any movement of our hands, that a simultaneous shout\nwent up from us all, and \"Well done, Planchette!\" The experiment was\nsuccessfully repeated several times, the tracing of the pencil in each\ncase showing a movement of from one to two inches.\n\nA most valuable series of experiments in Planchette-writing was recently\ncarried on by the late Rev. Mr. Newnham, vicar of Maker, Davenport,\nEngland, a member of the Society for Psychical Research, together with his\nwife. They were fully reported to Mr. F. W. H. Myers, secretary of the\nsociety.\n\nThe experiments extended over a period of eight months, and more than\nthree hundred questions and answers were recorded. Mrs. Newnham alone was\nthe operator, and the important peculiarity in these experiments was,\nthat although quite in her normal condition, yet in no instance here\nrelated did she see the question written to which she wrote the answer,\nnor did she hear it asked, nor did she have any conscious knowledge,\neither of question or answer, until the answer was written and read. She\nsat upon a low chair at a low table some eight or ten feet from her\nhusband, while he sat at a rather high table, with his back to her. In\nthis position he silently wrote out the questions, it being impossible for\nher to see either the paper, the motion of his hand, or the expression of\nhis face, and their good faith, as well as that of many intelligent\nwitnesses, is pledged to the truth of this statement.\n\nMr. Newnham remarks that Planchette commenced to move immediately upon the\nfirst trial, and often the answer to questions prepared as just described\nwas commenced before the question was fully written out.\n\nAt their first sitting, finding that the instrument would write, he\nproposed, silently, in writing, six questions, three the answers to which\nmight be known to Mrs. Newnham, and three relating to his own private\naffairs, and of which the answers could not have been known to her. All\nsix were immediately answered in a manner denoting complete intelligence,\nboth of the question and the proper answer. He then wrote: \"Write down the\nlowest temperature here this winter.\" Answer: \"8.\" The actual lowest\ntemperature had been 7.6 degrees, so 8 was the nearest whole degree, but\nMrs. Newnham remarked at once that had she been asked the question she\nshould have written 7, and not 8, because she did not remember the\nfraction, but did remember that the figure was 7 something.\n\nAgain it was asked, \"Is it the operator's brain, or an immaterial spirit\nthat moves Planchette? Answer 'brain' or 'force.'\"\n\n\"Will.\"\n\n\"Is it the will of a living person or of an immaterial spirit? Answer\n'force' or 'spirit.'\"\n\n\"Wife.\"\n\n\"Give, first, the wife's Christian name, and then my favorite name for\nher.\" This was accurately done.\n\n\"What is your own name?\"\n\n\"Only wife.\"\n\n\"We are not quite sure of the meaning of your answer. Explain.\"\n\n\"Wife.\"\n\n\"Who are you that writes?\"\n\n\"Wife.\"\n\n\"Does no one tell wife what to write? If so, who?\"\n\n\"Spirit.\"\n\n\"Whose spirit?\"\n\n\"Wife's brain.\"\n\n\"But how does wife's brain know certain secrets?\"\n\n\"Wife's spirit unconsciously guides.\"\n\n\"Can you foresee the future?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\nOn another occasion it was asked: \"Write out the prayer used at the\nadvancement of a Mark Master Mason.\"\n\n\"Answer: Almighty Ruler of the Universe and Architect of all Worlds, we\nbeseech Thee to accept this, our brother, whom we have this day received\ninto our most honorable company of Mark Master Masons. Grant him to be a\nworthy member of our brotherhood, and may he be in his own person a\nperfect mirror of all Masonic virtues. Grant that all our doings may be to\nThy honor and glory and to the welfare of all mankind.\"\n\nMr. Newnham adds: \"This prayer was written off instantaneously and very\nrapidly. I must say that no prayer in the slightest degree resembling it\nis made use of in the ritual of any Masonic degree, and yet it contains\nmore than one strictly accurate technicality connected with the degree of\nMark Master Mason. My wife has never seen any Masonic prayers, whether in\n'Carlile,' or any other real or spurious ritual of the Masonic Order.\"\n\nThe whole report shows the same instantaneous appreciation of the written\nquestions, by the intelligence and appropriateness with which the answer\nwas framed, though Mrs. Newnham never had any idea what the question was\nuntil after the answer was written and read, and the answers very often\nwere entirely contrary to the prejudices and expectations of both the\npersons engaged in the experiments.\n\nThe following case may fairly be placed in the third class of messages,\nnamely, those conveying intelligence which seems to be beyond the possible\nknowledge of the writer or of any person present. It is a well\nauthenticated and interesting example of Planchette-writing, reported to\nMr. Myers, the reporter being Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood, a cousin and\nbrother-in-law of Charles Darwin, and himself a savant of no small\nreputation. Two ladies, sisters, whom he designates as Mrs. R. and Mrs.\nV., were for many years intimate and valued friends of Mr. Wedgwood, and\nit was in co-operation with one or the other of these ladies that the\nresults to be noted, along with much other interesting matter, were\nobtained.\n\nSitting alone, neither of the ladies nor Mr. Wedgwood was able to obtain\nany results at all with Planchette; the board remained absolutely\nmotionless. The two ladies together could obtain no writing, but only wavy\nlines, made rapidly, like a person writing at full speed, but with Mr.\nWedgwood co-operating with either of the ladies the writing was\nintelligible, but was much stronger and more vivacious with Mrs. V. than\nwith Mrs. R. The following extracts are from Mrs. R.'s journal of a\nsitting, June 26, 1889:\n\n\"With Mr. W. and Mrs. R. at the board, Planchette writes: 'A spirit is\nhere who thinks he will be able to write, through the medium. Hold very\nsteady, and he will try first to draw.' We turned the page, and a sketch\nwas made, rudely enough, of course, but with much apparent care.\nPlanchette then wrote:\n\n\"'Very sorry can't do better; was meant for test; must write for you\ninstead. (Signed) J. G.'\n\n\"We did not fully understand this drawing; and Mr. W. asked, 'Will J. G.\ntry again?' which it did. Below the drawing it wrote: 'Now look.' We did,\nand this time clearly comprehended the arm and sword. Mr. W. asked, 'What\ndoes the drawing represent?'\n\n\"'Something given to me.'\n\n\"Mrs. R. asked, 'Are you a man or a woman?'\n\n\"'A man--John G.'\n\n\"Mr. W. asked, 'How was it given to you?'\n\n\"'On paper and other things.'\n\n\"Mr. W. 'We don't know J. G. Have you anything to do with us?'\n\n\"'No connection.'\n\n\"Mr. W. said he knew of a J. Gifford, and wondered if that was the name.\n\n\"'Not Gifford; Gurwood.'\n\n\"Mr. W. suggested that he had been killed in storming some fort.\n\n\"'I wish I had died fighting.'\n\n\"'Were you a soldier?'\n\n\"'I was in the army.'\n\n\"'Can you say what rank?'\n\n\"'No; it was the pen did for me, not the sword.'\n\n\"We suggested that he was an author who had failed or been maligned.\n\n\"'I did not fail. I was not slandered. Too much for me after--the pen was\ntoo much for me after my wound.'\n\n\"Asked to repeat, it wrote: 'I was wounded in the Peninsula. It will be\nforty-four years next Christmas Day since I killed myself--I killed\nmyself. John Gurwood.'\"\n\n[Illustration]\n\nLeaving Mrs. R.'s diary, the following is the account Mr. Wedgwood wrote\nof the seance at the time:--\n\n\"JUNE 26, 1889.--Had a sitting at Planchette with Mrs. R. this morning.\nPlanchette said there was a spirit there who thought it could draw if we\nwished it. We said we should be glad if he would try. Accordingly\nPlanchette made a rude attempt at a hand and arm proceeding from an\nembattled wall and holding a sword. A second attempt made the subject\nclearer. Planchette said it was meant for a test. The spirit signed it 'J.\nG.' No connection of ours, he said. We gradually elicited that his name\nwas John Gurwood, who was wounded in the Peninsula in 1810, and killed\nhimself on Christmas Day, 1845. It was not the wound but the pen that did\nit.\n\n\"JULY 5, 1889.--I made the foregoing memorandum the same day, having very\nlittle expectation that there would be any verification.\n\n  \"H. WEDGWOOD.\"\n\nQuoting again from Mrs. R.'s journal: \"Friday, Sept. 27.--Mr. Wedgwood\ncame, and we had two sittings--in the afternoon and evening. I think the\nsame spirit wrote throughout, beginning without signature, but when asked\nthe name, writing John Gurwood. The effort, at first incoherent, developed\nafterward into the following sentences: 'Sword--when I broke in, on the\ntable with plan of fortress--belonged to my prisoner--I will tell you his\nname to-night. It was on the table when I broke in. He did not expect me.\nI took him unawares. He was in his room, looking at a plan, and the sword\nwas on the table. Will try and let you know how I took the sword\nto-night.'\n\n\"In the evening, after dinner: 'I fought my way in. His name was\nBanier--Banier--Banier. The sword was lying on a table by a written scheme\nof defence. Oh, my head! Banier had a plan written out for defence of the\nfortress. It was lying on the table, and his sword was by it.... Look! I\nhave tried to tell you what you can verify.'\"\n\nMr. Wedgwood reports his verification as follows:--\n\n\"When I came to verify the messages of Planchette, I speedily found that\nCol. Gurwood, the editor of the duke's dispatches, led the forlorn hope at\nthe storming of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1812 (note Planchette's error in date),\nand received a wound in his skull from a musket-ball, 'which affected him\nfor the remainder of his life,' (_Annual Register_, 1845). In recognition\nof the bravery shown on that occasion, he received a grant of arms in\n1812, registered in the College of Arms as having been passed 'upon the\nnarrative that he (Capt. G.) had led the forlorn hope at Ciudad Rodrigo,\nand that after the storming of the fortress the Duke of Wellington\npresented him with the sword of the governor who had been taken prisoner\nby Capt. Gurwood.'\"\n\nThe services thus specified were symbolized in the crest, described in the\n\"Book of Family Crests\": \"Out of a mural coronet, a castle ruined in the\ncentre, and therefrom an arm in armor embowed, holding a cimeter.\"\n\nIt was evidently this crest that Planchette was trying to sketch. The\n_Annual Register_ of 1845 also confirms Planchette's assertion that Col.\nGurwood killed himself on Christmas Day of that year, and adds: \"It is\nthought that this laborious undertaking (editing the dispatches) produced\na relaxation of the nervous system and consequent depression of spirits.\nIn a fit of despondency the unfortunate gentleman terminated his life.\"\nCompare Planchette: \"Pen was too much for me after the wound.\"\n\nHere are described four instances of automatic writing by means of\nPlanchette. Two of these cases were reported to Mr. Myers, who has\nthoroughly canvassed them as regards their authenticity, as well as the\nability and good faith of the persons concerned, both in the writing and\nreporting; and he has made use of them in his own able argument upon the\nsame subject.\n\nIn the other cases the messages were written under my own observation, my\nown hands also being upon the board. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Newnham\nthe intelligence which furnished the messages disclaimed altogether the\naid of any spirit except \"wife's spirit,\" which did \"unconsciously guide.\"\nIn the case reported by Mr. Wedgwood and Mrs. R., the intelligence\ndistinctly claimed to be from Col. John Gurwood, who had died nearly fifty\nyears before. In my own cases, in that written with the co-operation of\nmy friend's school-girl daughter, the intelligence claimed to be that of\nPeter Stuyvesant, while in those written with Miss V., various names were\ngiven, none of which was recognized as belonging to a person of whom we\nhad ever had any knowledge, and all bore abundant evidence of being\nfictitious. One, indeed, professed to be \"Beecher,\" and declined to give\nan opinion on the prospective trotting qualities of a colt, on the ground\nthat he was \"no horseman\"; and in our later experiments, when closely\nquestioned, it distinctly stated that the intelligence came from the mind\nof Miss V. herself.\n\nLet us analyze these messages a little further. Those written by Mr. and\nMrs. Newnham were remarkable, not only because Mrs. Newnham was writing\nwithout any conscious knowledge of what was being written, but neither had\nshe any conscious knowledge of the questions to which she was writing the\nanswers. Evidently, then, her own ordinary consciousness was not acting at\nall in the matter regarding either the questions or answers, for she was\nfully awake, in her normal condition, and perfectly competent to judge of\nher own mental state and actions. Nevertheless, there was some\nintelligence acting reasonably and consciously, and making use of her\nhand to register its thoughts.\n\nIn a former chapter I have described and illustrated a somewhat unusual\nmental phenomenon, to which the name thought-transference, or telepathy,\nhas been given; and in another I have endeavored to demonstrate the\nexistence of a secondary or subliminal self or personality.\n\nIf I mistake not, it is here, in these two comparatively little known and,\nuntil recently, little studied, psychical conditions, that we shall find\nthe key to message-bearing automatism, as well as other manifestations of\nintelligence which have heretofore been considered mysterious and occult.\nApplying this key to the Newnham Planchette-writing, the secondary\npersonality or subliminal self of Mrs. Newnham took immediate cognizance\nof the questions silently and secretly written out by her husband,\nalthough they were utterly unknown to her ordinary or primary self, and\nmade use of her hands to communicate the answer.\n\nThe answer, also, was of course unknown to her primary self, but her\nsubliminal self, in addition to its own private and constant stock of\nknowledge and opinions, had the advantage of more subtle means of securing\nother knowledge necessary for a proper answer, and so sought it in her\nhusband's mind, or wherever it could be obtained. The sources of\ninformation accessible to the subliminal self, through means analogous to\nthose which have been named--thought-transference and telepathy--are\ncertainly various, and their limit is not yet known. We may mention,\nhowever, in this connection, besides the mind of the automatic writer--the\nmind of the questioner, and also the minds of other persons present, in\nany or all of which may be stored up knowledge or impressions of which the\nordinary consciousness or memory retains no trace; it may be a scene\nwitnessed in childhood; a newspaper paragraph read many years ago; a\ncasual remark overheard, but not even noticed--all these and many more are\nsources of information upon which the subliminal self may draw for\nanswers, which, when written out by the automatist, seem absolutely\nmarvellous, not to say miraculous or supernatural.\n\nThus, the prayer at the ceremony of the advancement of a Mark Master\nMason, although language entirely unfamiliar to Mrs. Newnham, was\nperfectly familiar to her husband, who was himself a Mason, and, I\nbelieve, a chaplain in the order; and while the form was not one actually\nused, it contained strictly accurate technicalities, and would have been\nperfectly appropriate to such an occasion.\n\nThe messages written by Mr. Wedgwood and Mrs. R. profess to come directly\nfrom the spirit of Colonel Gurwood; but without absolutely discarding that\ntheory, having the key to which I have referred, let us see if such a\nsupposition is necessary to explain the facts.\n\nIt may be conceded at once that neither Mr. Wedgwood nor either of the\nladies with whom he wrote had any conscious knowledge of Col. Gurwood--his\nmilitary career, or his sad taking off; but they were all intelligent\npeople. John Gurwood, as it turned out, was a noted man; he was an officer\nin the Peninsular War, under the Duke of Wellington, performed an act of\nspecial bravery and daring, in the performance of which he was severely\nwounded, and for which he was afterward granted a coat of arms. He was\nalso afterward chosen to edit the duke's dispatches. All this was recorded\nin the _Annual Register_ for 1845, soon after Gurwood's death, together\nwith a description in the language of heraldry of the crest or coat of\narms which had been granted him many years before.\n\nIt is scarcely possible that such an event would not have been noticed in\nthe newspapers at the time of Gurwood's death, and nothing is more\nprobable than that some of these intelligent persons had read these\naccounts, or as children heard them read or referred to, though they may\nnow have been entirely absent from their ordinary consciousness and\nmemory. At all events, the subliminal self or secondary consciousness of\nMrs. R., whom Planchette designates as \"the medium,\" or of Mr. Wedgwood,\nmay have come into relationship with the sources of information necessary\nto furnish the messages which it communicated, and these sources may have\nbeen the knowledge or impressions unconsciously received many years before\nby some of those present, the generally diffused knowledge of these facts\nwhich doubtless prevailed in the community at the time of Gurwood's death,\nand the full printed accounts of these events, many copies of which were\nextant.\n\nFrom the description of Gurwood's coat of arms the idea could easily have\nbeen obtained which Planchette rudely represented in drawing, constituting\nwhat is called a test, and also the other knowledge concerning his\nmilitary career and death which appeared in the various messages.\n\nRegarding cases coming under my own observation, the incident relating to\nPeter Stuyvesant's pear tree was well known to us both, and had only\nrecently been a matter of general conversation, and all of those present\nhad a more or less distinct idea of Peter Stuyvesant himself, derived from\nIrving's \"Knickerbocker's History of New York.\"\n\nOf the cases observed with Miss V., as before stated, nearly all the names\ngiven of \"authorities,\" as we called them, were evidently fictitious,\nscarcely one being recognized, and none were of persons with whom we had\nany connection, and some did not claim any other origin than our\nsubliminal consciousness, as was also the case with messages written by\nMrs. Newnham.\n\nIf, then, some of the messages are surely the work of the subliminal self\nof the writer, aided by its more acute and more far-reaching perceptions,\nand if nearly all may be accounted for in the same way, the probability\nthat all such messages have the same origin is greatly increased, and in\nthe same degree the necessity for the spiritualistic theory is diminished,\nsince it is evident that of two theories for explaining a new fact we\nshould accept that one which better harmonizes with facts already\nestablished.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nAUTOMATIC WRITING, DRAWING AND PAINTING.\n\n\nThe subject of Automatism has thus far been illustrated by reference to\nPlanchette-writing alone. It was selected because it is the kind most\nfrequently seen and most easily proved by experiment. The little\ninstrument Planchette, however, is not essential; it is used because,\nbeing placed on casters, it is more easily moved.\n\nThe Chinese, long ago, used for the same purpose a little basket, with\nstyle attached, placed upon two even chopsticks.\n\nThe same results also occur with some persons when the pencil is simply\nheld in the usual manner for writing. The hand then being allowed to\nremain perfectly passive, automatic movements first take place--the hand\nmoving round and round or across the paper, and then follows writing or\ndrawing, as the case may be. Some persons produce written messages in\n_mirror writing_--that is, reversed--or so written that it can only be\neasily read by causing it to be reflected in a mirror. This kind of\nwriting is sometimes produced on the first attempt of the experimenter,\nand even by young children without any experience or knowledge of the\nsubject.\n\nAs previously shown, different strata of consciousness may, and in some\nwell observed cases, most certainly do, exist in the same individual. In\nthese well observed cases, each separate consciousness had its own\ndistinct chain of memories and its own characteristics and peculiarities;\nand these distinct chains of memories and well defined characteristics\nconstitute, so far as we can judge, distinct personalities. At all events,\nthey are centres of intelligence and mental activity which are altogether\nindependent of the ordinary, everyday consciousness or personality, and\noften altogether superior to it. Accordingly this other centre of\nintelligence and mental activity has been named the _second personality or\nsubliminal self_; that is, a consciousness or self or personality beneath\nthe threshold, so to speak, of the ordinary or primary self.\n\nAnsel Bourne and A. J. Brown were separate and distinct personalities,\nhaving entirely distinct, and apparently unrelated, chains of memory,\ndistinct characteristics, opinions, and peculiarities, acting at\ndifferent times through the same body.\n\nAnsel Bourne was the usual or primary personality; A. J. Brown was a\nsecond personality, a separate focus of intelligence and mental activity,\na subliminal self. What the exact relationship existing between these two\npersonalities may be we do not attempt at present to explain; but that\nthey exist and act independent of each other we know. In other instances,\nas, for example, that of Madame B., the hypnotic subject of Prof. Janet of\nHavre, and also that of Alma Z., we have been able to observe these\nseparate centres of intelligence, these distinct personalities, both in\naction at the same time, upon altogether separate and unrelated subjects.\nSometimes the subliminal self takes full control, making itself the active\nruling personality to the entire exclusion of the primary self; and\nsometimes it only sends messages to the primary or ordinary self, by\nsuggestion, mental pictures, or vivid impressions made upon the organs of\nsense and producing the sensation of seeing, hearing, or touch.\n\nTo illustrate these different methods of communication between the\nordinary and subliminal self, suppose an individual, whom we will\ndesignate as X., manifests this peculiar condition of double\nconsciousness. As we have seen, the subliminal self often takes cognizance\nof things concerning which the ordinary self is entirely ignorant, but it\nmay not always have the power to impress the primary self with this\nknowledge, nor to take full possession, so as to be able to impart it to\nothers by speaking or writing. This is the usual condition of most\npersons; with some peculiarly constituted persons, however, the\npossibility of being so impressed surely exists, and with them these\nimpressions are direct and vivid.\n\nOur individual, X., is one in whom this ability to receive impressions in\nthis manner exists.\n\nTo illustrate: Suppose first that X. is asleep, is taking his after-dinner\nnap, and that children playing in his grounds have set fire to some straw\nin close proximity to buildings near by. No one notices the danger. X. is\nasleep, but his subliminal self is on the alert--like the second self of\nthe somnambulist or subject in the hypnotic trance--it sees that unless\nchecked there will be a destructive conflagration. It impresses upon X. a\ndream of fire so vivid that he wakes in alarm, discovers the mischief and\naverts the danger. Or suppose X. to be awake and sitting in his office in\na distant part of the house, quite unconscious of anything unusual. All at\nonce he becomes restless, unable to pursue his work; he is impelled to\nleave his desk, to go out, to walk in the direction of the fire, and thus\nbecome aware of the danger. Or again, that X. is an automatic writer--that\npaper and pencil are at hand and he receives a sudden impulse to write. He\nhas no knowledge of what he is writing, but upon examination he finds it a\nwarning to look after the threatening fire; or still again, that he hears\na voice distinctly saying, \"Look out for fire;\" or sees a distinct picture\nof the place and circumstances of the fire; all these are possible methods\nby which the subliminal self might communicate to X., the ordinary\npersonality, the danger which was threatening.\n\nAutomatism, therefore, does not necessarily take the form of written\nmessages, but may take any form by which the subliminal self can best\ntransmit its message to the primary self--or in the same way from one\nperson to another, whether by words written or spoken automatically--by\nvoices heard, by action influenced, as when X. is influenced to leave his\noffice and walk, or the mischievous Leontine unties the apron of Leonie,\nor by vision or vivid mental picture, as when Peter sees a \"sheet let\ndown by the four corners,\" from which he learns an important lesson.\n\nThe messages received automatically may not all be true; they may be\ntrivial and even false; on the other hand, they may not only be true and\nimportant but they may convey information quite out of the power of the\nprimary self to acquire by any ordinary use of the senses. Nor need we be\ngreatly surprised at this; it is a normal function of the subliminal self;\nwith some persons that function is active, with others it is dormant, but\nin all, at some moment in life, circumstances may arise which shall awaken\nthat function into activity.\n\nA remarkable example of messages received by automatic writing is that\nfurnished by Mr. W. T. Stead, occurring in his own experience. Mr. Stead\nis a well-known author, journalist, and the editor of the London edition\nof the _Review of Reviews_, in which magazine his experiences have, on\nvarious occasions, been published.\n\nAs he regards the matter, there is an _invisible intelligence_ which\ncontrols his hand, but the persons with whom he is in communication are\nalive and visible--for instance his own son on various occasions, also\npersons in his employ, writers upon his magazine, casual acquaintances,\nand even strangers.\n\nNone of these persons participate in any active or conscious way in the\ncommunications. Mr. F. W. H. Myers has often conversed with Mr. Stead and\nwith several of his involuntary correspondents in relation to the\nphenomena, and the facts are so simple and open, and the persons connected\nwith them so intelligent and evidently sincere and truthful, that no doubt\ncan be entertained as to the reality of the incidents, however they may be\ninterpreted.\n\nOne of the most remarkable of these involuntary correspondents is known as\nMiss A., a lady employed by him in literary work of an important\ncharacter. She testifies in regard to the matter: \"I, the subject of Mr.\nStead's automatic writing, known as 'A.,' testify to the correctness of\nthe statements made in this report. I would like to add what I think more\nwonderful than many things Mr. Stead has cited, namely, the correctness\nwith which, on several occasions, he has given the names of persons whom\nhe has never seen nor heard of before. I remember on one occasion a person\ncalling upon me with a very uncommon name. The next day I saw Mr. Stead\nand he read to me what his hand had written of the visit of that person,\ngiving the name absolutely correctly. Mr. Stead has never seen that\nperson, and until then had no knowledge of his existence.\"\n\nThe following is a description of a journey made by Miss A., automatically\nwritten by Mr. Stead, he at the time not having the slightest knowledge\nwhere she was, what she was doing, or that she intended making any such\njourney. The slight inaccuracies are noted:--\n\n\"I went to the Waterloo station by the twelve o'clock train, and got to\nHampton Court about one. When we got out we went to a hotel and had\ndinner. It cost nearly three shillings. After dinner I went to the\npicture-galleries. I was very much pleased with the paintings of many of\nthe ceilings. I was interested in most of the portraits of Lely. After\nseeing the galleries I went into the grounds. How beautiful they are! I\nsaw a great vine, that lovely English garden, the avenue of elms, the\ncanal, the great water sheet, the three views, the fountain, the gold\nfishes, and then lost myself in the maze. I got home about nine o'clock.\nIt cost me altogether about six shillings.\" On communicating this to Miss\nA. she found that everything was correct with two exceptions. She went\ndown by the two o'clock train instead of the twelve, and got to Hampton\nCourt about three. The dinner cost her two and elevenpence, which was\nnearly three shillings, and the total was six and threepence. The places\nwere visited in the order mentioned.\n\nA second instance was where the needs of a comparative stranger were\nwritten out by Mr. Stead's hand. Mr. Stead goes on to say: \"Last February\nI met a correspondent in a railway carriage with whom I had a very casual\nacquaintance. Knowing that he was in considerable distress, our\nconversation fell into a more or less confidential train in which I\ndivined that his difficulty was chiefly financial. I said I did not know\nwhether I could be of any help to him, but asked him to let me know\nexactly how things stood--what were his debts, his expectations, and so\nforth. He said he really could not tell me, and I refrained from pressing\nhim.\n\n\"That night I received a letter from him apologizing for not having given\nthe information, but saying he really could not. I received that letter\nabout ten o'clock, and about two o'clock next morning, before going to\nsleep, I sat down in my bedroom and said: 'You did not like to tell me\nyour exact financial condition face to face, but now you can do so through\nmy hand. Just write and tell me exactly how things stand. How much money\ndo you owe?' My hand wrote, 'My debts are L90.' In answer to a further\ninquiry whether the figures were accurately stated, 'ninety pounds' was\nthen written in full. 'Is that all?' I asked. My hand wrote 'Yes, and how\nI am to pay I do not know.' 'Well,' I said; 'how much do you want for that\npiece of property you wish to sell?' My hand wrote, 'What I hope is, say,\nL100 for that. It seems a great deal, but I must get money somehow. Oh, if\nI could get anything to do--I would gladly do anything!' 'What does it\ncost you to live?' I asked. My hand wrote, 'I do not think I could\npossibly live under L200 a year. If I were alone I could live on L50 per\nannum.'\n\n\"The next day I made a point of seeking my friend. He said: 'I hope you\nwere not offended at my refusing to tell you my circumstances, but really\nI do not think it would be right to trouble you with them.' I said: 'I am\nnot offended in the least, and I hope you will not be offended when I tell\nyou what I have done.' I then explained this automatic, telepathic method\nof communication. I said: 'I do not know whether there is a word of truth\nin what my hand has written. I hesitate at telling you, for I confess I\nthink the sum which was written as the amount of your debts cannot be\ncorrectly stated; it seems to me much too small, considering the distress\nin which you seemed to be; therefore I will read you that first, and if\nthat is right I will read you the rest; but if it is wrong I will consider\nit is rubbish and that your mind in no way influenced my hand.' He was\ninterested but incredulous. But, I said, 'Before I read you anything will\nyou form a definite idea in your mind as to how much your debts amount to;\nsecondly, as to the amount of money you hope to get for that property;\nthirdly, what it costs you to keep up your establishment with your\nrelatives; and fourthly, what you could live upon if you were by\nyourself?' 'Yes,' he said, 'I have thought of all those things.' I then\nread out. 'The amount of your debts is about L90.' He started. 'Yes,' he\nsaid, 'that is right.' Then I said: 'As that is right I will read the\nrest. You hope to get L100 for your property.' 'Yes,' he said, 'that was\nthe figure that was in my mind, though I hesitated to mention it for it\nseems too much.' 'You say you cannot live upon less than L200 a year with\nyour present establishment.' 'Yes,' he said, 'that is exactly right.' 'But\nif you were by yourself you could live on L50 a year.' 'Well,' said he, 'a\npound a week was what I had fixed in my mind.' Therefore there had been a\nperfectly accurate transcription of the thoughts in the mind of a\ncomparative stranger written out with my own hand at a time when we were\nat a distance of some miles apart, within a few hours of the time when he\nhad written apologizing for not having given me the information for which\nI had asked.\"\n\nIn the following case the correspondent is a foreign lady, doing some work\nfor the _Review_, but whom Mr. Stead had only met once in his life. On the\noccasion now referred to be was to meet her at Redcar Station at about\nthree o'clock in the afternoon. He was stopping at a house ten minutes'\nwalk from the station, and it occurred to him that \"about three o'clock,\"\nas mentioned in her letter, might mean _before_ three; and it was now only\ntwenty minutes of three. No timetable was at hand: he simply asked her to\nuse his hand to tell him what time the train was due. This was done\nwithout ever having had any communication with her upon the subject of\nautomatic writing. She (by Mr. Stead's hand) immediately wrote her name,\nand said the train was due at Redcar Station at ten minutes of three.\nAccordingly he had to leave at once--but before starting he said, \"Where\nare you at this moment?\" The answer came, \"I am in the train at\nMiddlesborough railway station, on my way from Hartpool to Redcar.\"\n\nOn arriving at the station he consulted the timetable and found the train\nwas due at 2:52. The train, however, was late. At three o'clock it had not\narrived; at five minutes past three, getting uneasy at the delay, he took\npaper and pencil in his hand and asked where she was.\n\nHer name was at once written and there was added: \"I am in the train\nrounding the curve before you come to Redcar Station--I will be with you\nin a minute.\"\n\n\"Why the mischief have you been so late?\" he mentally asked. His hand\nwrote, \"We were detained at Middlesborough so long--I don't know why.\"\n\nHe put the paper in his pocket and walked to the end of the platform just\nas the train came in.\n\nHe immediately went to his friend and exclaimed:--\"How late you are! What\non earth has been the matter?\" To which she replied: \"I do not know; the\ntrain stopped so long at Middlesborough--it seemed as if it never would\nstart.\"\n\nThis narrative was fully corroborated by the lady who was the passenger\nreferred to.\n\nIn all these cases it should be noticed the so-called correspondent took\nno active part in the experiment, was not conscious of communicating\nanything, nor of trying to do so; nor is there any evidence of a third\nparty or any intervening intelligence or personality; but the subliminal\nself of the writer went forth and acquired the needed information and\ntransferred it automatically to the primary self, as was the case in the\nPlanchette-writing of Mrs. Newnham and the Wedgwood cases.\n\nDuring the years 1874 and 1875 I had under my care Mrs. Juliette T.\nBurton, the wife of a physician who came to New York from the South at the\nclose of the war. She was a woman of refinement, education, and excellent\nliterary ability. She wrote with unusual facility, and her articles were\naccepted by newspapers and magazines, and brought her a considerable\nincome. I knew her well, and her honesty, good faith, and strong\ncommon-sense were conspicuous. She died of phthisis in 1875. It is to her\nvaried automatic powers as illustrating our subject that I would call\nattention.\n\nMany of her best articles were prepared without conscious effort of her\nown, either physical or mental; she simply prepared pencils and paper,\nbecame passive, and her hand wrote. Sometimes she had a plan to write up a\ncertain subject, and sometimes the subject as well as the matter came\nautomatically.\n\nShe knew that she was writing, but of what was written she had no\nknowledge until she read her own manuscript.\n\nShe had no talent for drawing nor for painting; she could not, in her\nordinary condition, draw a face, nor even a leaf, which could be\nrecognized. Soon after coming to New York she began to see faces and other\npictures before her on the blank paper and to sketch them with marvellous\nrapidity and exactness, all in the same automatic manner as that in which\nshe did her writing. These drawings were not crude, but were strongly\ncharacteristic and were delicately done with ordinary lead pencils,\nseveral of which were prepared beforehand with sharp delicate points. I\nremember one drawing in particular--a man's head about half life-size,\nwith full flowing beard. At first glance there was nothing peculiar about\nthe picture, except that one would say that it was a strong and\ncharacteristic face; but on close examination in a strong light, and\nespecially through a reading-glass, the beard was seen to be made up\nentirely of exceedingly minute faces of sheep; every face was perfectly\nformed and characteristic, and there were thousands of them. It was done\nwith the same wonderful rapidity which characterized all her automatic\nwork.\n\nLater she was impelled to procure colors, brushes, and all the materials\nfor painting in oil; and although she had never even seen that kind of\nwork done, and had not the slightest idea how to mix the colors to produce\ndesired tints, nor how to apply them to produce desired effects, yet at a\nsingle sitting in a darkened room she produced a head of singular strength\nand character and possessing at least some artistic merit. Certainly no\none could imagine it to be the first attempt of a person entirely without\nnatural talent for either drawing or painting. It was done on common brown\ncardboard, and it has been in my possession for the past twenty-two years.\nThe reproduction which appears as frontispiece to the present volume gives\nsome idea of its character.\n\nThe impression received by the painter was that it was the portrait of an\nEnglishman named Nathan Early.[1] No date was assigned.\n\n    [1] See Frontispiece.\n\nAs a further illustration of her automatic power, it may be mentioned that\nanother uncultivated faculty developed itself, namely, the power of\nreferring to past events in the lives of those who were in her presence.\nThe knowledge of past events so conveyed was frequently most remarkable\nand was circumstantially correct, even rivalling in this respect the\nreports which we have of Jung-Stilling and Zschokke.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCRYSTAL-GAZING.\n\n\nAutomatic messages fall naturally into two general classes: (1) _Motor_\nmessages, or those received by means of writing, speaking, drawing, or\nsome _activity_ of the body, and (2) _sensory_ messages, or those received\n_passively_ by means of an impression made upon some of the senses, as,\nfor example, seeing, hearing, or feeling.\n\nThe motor messages spelt out by raps and table-tipping, and the\nperformances of trance-speakers and spiritualistic mediums need not detain\nus at present; so far as the messages themselves are concerned they offer\nno new elements for consideration. The utterances of trance-speakers as a\nrule are not rich in verifiable facts, though some of their performances\nare truly remarkable as presenting a phase of improvisation automatically\ngiven; and the same may be said of mediumistic utterances generally; they\nhave the same value as automatic writing, whether produced by Planchette,\nor passively holding the pencil in the hand; and so far as they are honest\nthey probably have the same origin, namely, the secondary consciousness or\nsubliminal self of the medium. As regards the force which makes the raps\nor tips the table, it is altogether a different subject and its\nconsideration here would be unnecessary and out of place.\n\nI hasten to present cases of automatism where the messages brought are\ngiven by other means than writing, speaking, or any movement or activity\nof the body, but which belong to the _sensory_ class, and are received by\nimpressions made upon the senses. Of these the most common are those made\nupon the sense of sight.\n\nTo this class belong visions, dreams, distinct mental pictures presented\nunder widely varying circumstances and conditions, in trance, in the\nhypnotic condition, in sleep, or directly conveyed to the primary\nconscious self. To simply _think_ how a person, a building, or a landscape\nlooks is one thing, but to have a full mental picture, possessing\ndimensions, and a stability which admits of being closely examined in\ndetail, is quite another thing.\n\nA little girl of my acquaintance, on returning from the country after\nseveral weeks of absence from her father, said to him,--\"Why, papa, I\ncould have you with me whenever I liked, this summer, though it was only\nyour head and shoulders that I could see; but I could place you where I\nliked and could look at you a long time before you went away.\" Without\nknowing it the child exactly described a true vision--her thought of her\nfather was visualized, _externalized_, given a form which had\ndefiniteness, which could be placed and examined in detail, and was more\nor less permanent.\n\nVarious artificial expedients have been resorted to in order to assist in\nthis process of distinct visualization; and of these artificial means one\nof the most important and effective is known as crystal-gazing.\n\nIt is a fact not often commented upon--indeed not often alluded to in\ngeneral literature--that the crystal has from the earliest times been made\nuse of for the purpose of producing visions, and for divination and\nprophecy. Not only has the crystal been used for this purpose, but also\nthe mirror, a cup or glass of water or wine, or even some dark and\nglistening substance like treacle or ink poured into the palm of the hand,\nhave all been used in a similar manner. The same practice is still\nobserved amongst the people of India as well as the Arabs in northern\nAfrica and other localities. An instance or two at the outset will\nillustrate the method and uses of the procedure.\n\nMr. E. W. Lane, in his \"Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians,\"\npublished in 1836, gives this example:--\n\nMr. Salt, the English consul-general to that country, had greatly\ninterested Mr. Lane by some experiences which he related, and had thus\nexcited his curiosity to witness some of these experiments himself. Mr.\nSalt had suspected some of his servants of theft, but could not decide\nwhich one was guilty; so it was arranged to test the powers of some of the\nnative seers. Accordingly a magician was sent for; a boy was also\nnecessary to act as seer, or as we would say crystal-gazer, and for this\npurpose Mr. Salt selected one himself.\n\nThe magician wrote several charms, consisting of Arabic words, on pieces\nof paper, which were burnt in a brazier with a charcoal fire along with\nincense and perfumes. He then drew a diagram in the palm of the boy's\nright hand, and into the middle of this diagram he poured some ink. He\nthen asked the boy to look intently at the ink in the palm of his hand.\nThe boy soon began to see figures of persons in the ink, and presently\ndescribed the thief so minutely that he was at once recognized by Mr.\nSalt, and on being arrested and accused of the crime he immediately\nconfessed his guilt.\n\nFurther investigation by Mr. Lane and Mr. Salt furnished other interesting\nresults. A boy eight or nine years of age was usually chosen at random\nfrom those who happened to be passing by. Invocations were written upon\npaper by the magician, calling upon his familiar spirit, and also a verse\nfrom the Koran \"to open the boy's eyes in a supernatural manner so as to\nmake his sight pierce into what is to us the invisible world.\" These were\nthrown into a brazier with live charcoal and burned with aromatic seeds\nand drugs. The magic square, that is a square within a square, was drawn\nin the boy's palm, and certain Arabic characters were written in the\nspaces between the squares; ink was then poured into the centre, and upon\nthat the boy was to gaze intently. In this way visions were produced and\nvarious persons and scenes were described. Finally, Mr. Lane desired that\nLord Nelson should be called for. The boy described a man in European\nclothes of dark blue, who had lost his left arm; but looking closer he\nadded--\"No, it is placed to his breast.\"\n\nLord Nelson had lost his right arm and it was his custom to carry the\nempty sleeve attached to his breast. Mr. Lane adds, \"Without saying that\nI suspected the boy had made a mistake I asked the magician whether\nobjects appeared in the ink as if actually before the boy's eyes, or as if\nin a glass, which made the right side appear the left? He replied, 'They\nappear as in a mirror,' This rendered the boy's description faultless.\"\n\nIt is remarkable to notice how prevalent this mode of divination or\nsecond-sight has been in all ages. Traces of the same procedure have been\nfound in Egypt, Persia, China, India, Greece, and Rome, and notably in\nEurope generally, from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries. A lady who\nwithholds her name from the public, but who is perfectly well known to Mr.\nMyers, of the Society for Psychical Research, and who chooses to be known\nas Miss X., has been at great pains to collect curious information upon\nthis subject and has added her own very interesting experience in\ncrystal-gazing. She writes, \"It is interesting to observe the close\nresemblance in the various methods of employing the mirror, and in the\nmystic symbolism which surrounds it, not only in different ages, but in\ndifferent countries. From the time of the Assyrian monarch represented on\nthe walls of the northwest palace of Nimrod down to the seventeenth\ncentury, when Dr. Dee placed his 'Shew Stone' on a cushioned table in the\ngoodly little chapel next his chamber in the college of which he was\nwarden at Manchester, the seer has surrounded himself with the ceremonials\nof worship, whether to propitiate Pan or Osiris, or to disconcert Ahriman\nor the Prince of Darkness.\"\n\nThe early Jewish Scriptures abound in indications of the same practice.\nWhen the patriarch Joseph put his silver cup in the mouth of his young\nbrother Benjamin's sack, in order that he might have a pretext for\nrecalling his brethren after he had sent them away, his steward, in\naccusing them of theft, uses this language: \"Is not this the cup in which\nmy lord drinketh, and _whereby indeed he divineth_?\" Showing the same use\nof the cup for purposes of divination as that indicated on the walls of\nthe Assyrian Palace.\n\nThe Urim and Thummim, as their names indicate, were doubtless stones of\nunusual splendor set in the high-priest's \"breast-plate of judgment,\" and\nthey were made use of to \"inquire of the Lord.\"\n\nWhen Joshua was to be set apart as a leader of the people, he was brought\nto Eleazar the priest, who should lay his hands on him and \"ask counsel\nfor him _after the judgment_ of _Urim_ before the Lord.\" In the last days\nof Saul's career as King of Israel he desired to \"inquire of the Lord\"\nregarding his future fortunes, but \"the Lord answered him not, neither by\ndreams, nor by _Urim_, nor by prophets;\" and it is not uninteresting to\nnote that Saul in his strait directly sought the Witch of Endor, from whom\nhe obtained what proved to be true information regarding the disasters\nwhich were to overwhelm him.\n\nIn a Persian romance it is noted that \"if a mirror be covered with ink and\nplaced in front of any one it will indicate whatever he wishes to know.\"\n\nThe Greeks had a variety of methods of divination by crystal-gazing.\nSometimes it was by the mirror placed so as to reflect light upon the\nsurface of a fountain of clear water, sometimes by mirrors alone;\nsometimes they made use of glass vessels filled with water and surrounded\nwith torches, sometimes of natural crystals, and sometimes even of a\nchild's \"nails covered with oil and soot,\" so as to reflect the rays of\nthe sun.\n\nThe Romans made special use of crystals and mirrors, and children were\nparticularly employed for mirror-reading when consulting regarding\nimportant events; thus in a manner taking the place of the early oracles.\nFrom Jewish and Pagan practices as a means of divination, clairvoyance and\nprophecy, the art of the crystal seer seems to have passed to early\nChristian times without material change except in ceremonials. These seers\nare mentioned in the counsels of the Church as specularii, children often\nacting as the seers, and although in some quarters they were looked upon\nwith suspicion as heretics, and were under the ban of the Church, yet they\nhad an extensive following.\n\nThomas Aquinas, speaking of the peculiar power of seeing visions possessed\nby children, says it is not to be ascribed to any virtue or innocence of\ntheirs, nor any power of nature, but that it is the work of the devil.\n\nIn Wagner's beautiful opera of Parsifal, based upon the legend of the Holy\nGrail, reference to the same custom is more than once evident. The second\nact opens with a scene representing the enchanted castle of Klingsor; the\nmagician himself is seen gazing into a bright metallic mirror, in which he\nsees Parsifal approaching and recognizes and fears him as the promised\nguiltless one--the true king and guardian of the Grail--an office to which\nhe himself had once aspired. In fact the Grail itself, in its earliest\nmythical and traditional form, as well as in its later development as a\ndistinctly Christian symbol, was an instrument of divination and prophecy.\nThe Druids had their basin, sometimes filled with aromatic herbs,\nsometimes with the blood of the sacrificed victim; but in either case it\nwas potent for securing the proper psychic condition in the officiating\npriest or soothsayer; and while Arabic and Indian myths present the same\nidea, sometimes as a cup of divination, and sometimes as a brilliant\nstone, the British Islands were the main source of the traditions which\neventually culminated in the legends of the Holy Grail, with its full\nstore of beautiful and touching incidents, prophecies, and forms of\nworship. In each the special guardians and knights of the Grail appear,\nwith Parsifal, the simple-minded, pure and pitiful knight as its restorer\nand king when lost or in unworthy hands.\n\nIn the German version of the twelfth century as given by Wolfram, in his\nParzival, the Grail is a beautiful, sacred stone, enshrined in the\nmagnificent temple at Montsalvat, guarded by the consecrated knights and\nthe sick and erring, but repentant, King Amfortas. While the unhappy king\nwas worshipping with gaze intent upon the Sacred Emblem, suddenly letters\nof fire surrounded it and he read the cheering prophecy:\n\n  \"In the loving soul of a guiltless one\n  Put thy faith--Him have I chosen.\"\n\nKufferath remarks, \"The religious emblem soon became a symbolic object--it\nrevealed to its worshippers the knowledge of the future, the mystery of\nthe world, the treasures of human knowledge, and imparted a poetic\ninspiration.\" So it comes to pass that in the legend in its latest\nform--the splendid work of the Master of Bayreuth, the Holy Grail, as a\nchalice and Christian emblem, is still endowed with the same miraculous\npower, and is rescued from the unfortunate guardianship of Amfortas by the\n\"loving soul of a guiltless one\"--the simple, tried, and much-enduring\nParsifal, miraculously promised long before by the Grail itself.\n\nIt will be seen, then, that crystal-gazing in its various forms has, from\nthe earliest times, been practised with great ceremony for the purpose of\nacquiring knowledge concerning affairs and events unknown and often not\ndiscoverable by ordinary methods.\n\nStripped of its fictitious accessories--its charms, incantations, incense\nand prayers--one single important fact remains common in the most ancient\nand the most modern usages, and that fact is the steady and continuous\ngazing at a bright object. It is identical with Braid's method of inducing\nthe hypnotic trance, with Luys' method, causing his patients to gaze at\nrevolving mirrors, and with the method of hypnotizers generally who desire\ntheir patients to direct their gaze toward some specified, and preferably\nsome bright or reflecting object.\n\nIn crystal gazing, as ordinarily practised, the full hypnotic condition is\nnot usually induced; but in many cases a condition of reverie occurs, in\nwhich pictures or visions fill the mind or appear externalized in the\ncrystal or mirror. With some persons this condition so favorable to\nvisualizing, is produced by simply becoming passive; with others the\ngazing at a bright or reflecting object assists in securing that end,\nwhile with many none of these means, nor yet the assistance of the most\nskilful hypnotizer, avails to secure the message-bearing action of the\nsubliminal self.\n\nThe experiences of Miss X., in crystal-gazing are devoid of the interest\nimparted by exciting incident, and on that very account are the more\nvaluable as illustrating our subject. She has friends of whose experiments\nshe has carefully observed the results, and she has some seventy cases or\nexperiments of her own of which she has kept carefully prepared notes,\nalways made directly or within an hour after each experiment. For a\ncrystal she recommends \"a good-sized magnifying glass placed on a dark\nbackground.\"\n\nShe classifies her results as follows:--\n\n(1) After-images or recrudescent memories coming up from the subconscious\nstrata to which they had fallen.\n\n(2) Objectivations, or the visualizing of ideas or images which already\nexist consciously or unconsciously in the mind.\n\n(3) Visions possibly telepathic, or clairvoyant, implying acquirement of\nknowledge by supranormal means.\n\nThe following are some of Miss X.'s experiments:--\n\nShe had been occupying herself with accounts and opened a drawer to take\nout her banking book; accidentally her hand came in contact with the\ncrystal she was in the habit of using, and she welcomed the suggestion of\na change of occupation. Figures, however, were still uppermost, and the\ncrystal showed her nothing but the combination 7694. Dismissing this as\nprobably the number of the cab she had driven in that morning, or a\nchance combination of figures with which she had been occupied, she laid\naside the crystal and took up her banking book, which certainly she had\nnot seen for several months. Greatly to her surprise she found that 7694\nwas the number of her book, plainly indicated on the cover.\n\nShe declares that she would have utterly failed to recall the figures, and\ncould not even have guessed the number of digits nor the value of the\nfirst figure.\n\nAgain:--Having carelessly destroyed a letter without preserving the\naddress of her correspondent she tried in vain to recall it. She knew the\ncounty, and, searching on a map, she recognized the name of the town, one\nquite unfamiliar to her, but she had no clue to the house or street, till\nat length it occurred to her to test the value of the crystal as a means\nof recalling forgotten knowledge. A short inspection showed her the words,\n\"H. House,\" in gray letters on a white ground. Having nothing better to\nrely upon she risked posting the letter to the address so curiously\nsupplied. A day or two brought an answer--on paper headed \"H. House\" in\ngray letters on a white ground.\n\nOne more illustration from Miss X., one of her earliest experiments,\nnumbered 11, in her notebook. There came into the crystal a vision\nperplexing and wholly unexpected: a quaint old chair, an aged hand, a worn\nblack coat-sleeve resting on the arm of the chair. It was slowly\nrecognized as a recollection of a room in a country vicarage which she had\nnot been in and had seldom thought of since she was a child of ten. But\nwhence came the vision, and why to-day? The clue was found. That same day\nshe had been reading Dante, a book which she had first learned to read and\nenjoy by the help of the aged vicar with the \"worn black coat-sleeve\"\nresting on the same quaint, oak chair-arm in that same corner of the study\nin the country vicarage.\n\nHere are two cases from the same writer belonging to the third division of\nher classification, namely, where an explanation of the vision requires\nthe introduction of a telepathic influence. On Monday, February 11th, she\ntook up the crystal with the deliberate wish and intention of seeing a\ncertain figure which occupied her thoughts at the time; but instead of the\ndesired figure the field was preoccupied by a plain little nosegay of\ndaffodils, such as might be formed by two or three fine flowers bunched\ntogether. This presented itself in several different positions\nnotwithstanding her wish to be rid of it, so as to have the field clear\nfor her desired picture. She concluded that the vision came in consequence\nof her having the day before seen the first daffodils of the season on a\nfriend's dinner-table. But the resemblance to these was not at all\ncomplete, as they were loosely arranged with ferns and ivy, whereas the\ncrystal vision was a compact little bunch without foliage of any kind. On\nThursday, February 14th, she very unexpectedly received as a \"Valentine\" a\npainting on a blue satin ground, of a bunch of daffodils corresponding\nexactly with her crystal vision. She also ascertained that on Monday the\n11th, the artist had spent several hours in making studies of these\nflowers, arranged in different positions.\n\nAgain:--On Saturday, March 9th, she had written a rather impatient note to\na friend, accusing her of having, on her return from the Continent, spent\nseveral days in London without visiting her. On Sunday evening following,\nshe found her friend before her in the crystal, but could not understand\nwhy she held up in a deprecating manner what seemed to be a music\nportfolio. However, she made a note of the vision and sketched the\nportfolio. On Monday she received an answer to her impatient letter,\npleading guilty to the charge of neglect, but urging as an excuse that she\nwas attending the Royal Academy of Music and was engaged there the greater\npart of every day. Such an excuse was to the last degree unexpected, as\nher friend was a married woman and had never given serious attention to\nmusic. It was true, however--and she afterwards learned that she carried a\nportfolio which was the counterpart of the one she had sketched from her\ncrystal vision.\n\nThe following incident in which an East India army officer, Col. Wickham,\nhis wife, Princess di Cristoforo, and Ruth, their educated native servant,\nwere the chief actors, illustrates another phase of crystal-gazing. All\nthree of the actors participating in the incident were well known\npersonally to Mr. Myers, who reports the case. Briefly stated: In 1885,\nColonel, then Major, Wickham, was stationed with the Royal Artillery at\nColabra, about two miles from Bombay. Mrs. Wickham was accustomed to\nexperiment with some of the Indian servants and especially Ruth, by having\nher look in a glass of magnetized water. One morning Lord Reay was\nexpected to arrive at Bombay, and there was to be a grand full-dress\nparade of the English troops. While sitting at the breakfast table the\nmajor directed his orderly to see that his uniform was in readiness. The\nman obeyed, but soon returned with a dejected air, and stammered\nout--\"Sahib, me no can find the dress pouch-belt.\" A general hunt for the\nlost article was instituted, but to no purpose; the pouch-belt was\nabsolutely missing. The enraged major stormed and accused the servants of\nstealing it, which only produced a tumult and a storm of denials from them\nall. \"Now,\" cried the major, \"is an excellent opportunity to test the\nseeing powers of Ruth. Bring her in at once and let her try if she can\nfind my pouch-belt.\" Accordingly a tumbler was filled with water, and Mrs.\nW. placing it on her left hand made passes over it with her right. Water\nso treated could always be detected with absolute certainty by Ruth,\nsimply by tasting it--a fact not uncommonly observed, and which was an\nadditional proof that she possessed unusual perceptive power. Into this\nglass of water Ruth gazed intently, but she could discern nothing. She was\ncommanded to find the thief, but no thief could be seen. Changing her\ntactics, Mrs. W. then commanded Ruth to see where the major was the last\ntime he wore the belt. At once she described the scene of a grand parade\nwhich took place months before, and which they all recognized. \"Do not\ntake your eyes off from the major for a moment,\" said Mrs. W., and Ruth\ncontinued to gaze intently at the pageant in the glass. At length the\nparade ended and Ruth said, \"Sahib has gone into a big house by the water;\nall his regimentals are put in the tin case, but the pouch-belt is left\nout; it is hanging on a peg in the dressing-room of the big house by the\nwater.\" \"The yacht club!\" cried the major. \"Patilla, send some one at once\nto see if the belt has been left there.\" The search was rewarded by\nfinding the belt as described, and the servants returned bringing it with\na grand tumult of triumph. On many other occasions was Ruth's aid\nsuccessfully invoked to find lost articles.\n\nInstead of a glass of water, some springs and wells when gazed into have\nthe same effect of producing visions, especially when a mirror is so held\nat the same time as to reflect light upon the surface of the water.\nSprings of this sort have been reported at various periods in the past,\nsome being frequented for health and some for purposes of divination. The\nlatest instance of a well possessing the quality or power of producing\nvisions is that upon the farm of Col. J. J. Deyer at Handsoms, Va. It was\nin May, 1892, that the curious influence pertaining to this well was\nfirst observed and soon it was thronged with visitors. Faces, both\nfamiliar and strange, of people living and of those long dead, and\nhundreds of other objects, animate and inanimate, were distinctly seen\nupon the surface of the water. The water of the well is _unusually clear_\nand the bottom of _white sand_ is clearly visible. A mirror is held over\nthe top of the well with face toward the water so as to throw reflected\nlight upon the surface. At first Miss Deyer, the colonel's daughter,\nalways held the mirror, but afterwards it was found that any one who could\nhold the mirror _steadily_ performed the duty equally well. If the mirror\nwas held unsteadily the pictures were indistinct or failed to appear at\nall; and the brighter the day the better the pictures. Many level headed\nmen and some well qualified to observe curious psychical phenomena visited\nthe well, and nearly all were convinced that, under favorable\ncircumstances, remarkable pictures appeared; naturally, however, different\ncauses were assigned for these appearances. Prof. Dolbear and Mr. T. E.\nAllen, from the American Psychical Society, saw nothing remarkable during\ntheir visit to the well, and referred the pictures seen by so many people\nto the reflection of objects about the well, aided by the mental\nexcitement and expectation of so many spectators. This explanation,\nhowever, seems hardly sufficient to account for the hallucinations of so\nlarge a number of persons kept up for so long a time. At all events, an\ninteresting psychic element of some sort was active.\n\nCol. Deyer is an intelligent man, commanding the respect of his neighbors,\nand has held an appointment of considerable importance under the\ngovernment at Washington. In a letter dated December 2d, 1893, he\nsays:--\"Thousands of people from various sections of the Union have\nvisited the place--of course some laugh at it. I do myself sometimes, as I\nam not superstitious and take little stock in spooks or anything connected\ntherewith; but the well is here, and still shows up many wondrous things,\nbut not so plentiful nor so plainly as it did a year ago.\"\n\nWe have presented in this well the most favorable conditions possible for\ncrystal-gazing--a body of unusually clear sparkling water, lying upon a\nwhite sand bottom, and the rays of the sun reflected into it by means of a\nmirror;--no better \"cup of divination\" could be desired, nor any better\ncircumstances for securing the psychical conditions favorable for the\naction of the subliminal self.\n\nThe various methods of practising crystal-gazing here noticed may be\nlooked upon simply as so many different forms of _sensory automatism_,\nreferable in these instances to the sense of sight; and whether produced\nby using the \"cup of divination,\" the ink or treacle in the palm of the\nhand, the jewels of the Jewish high-priest, the ordinary crystal or stone\nof the early Christian centuries, and even down to the experiments of Miss\nX., and the Society for Psychical Research, or last of all, the wells or\nsprings of clear water, either the early ones of Greece and Rome, or the\nlatest one on the farm of Col. Deyer, they are all simply methods of\nsecuring such a condition by gazing fixedly at a bright object, as best to\nfacilitate communication between the ordinary or primary self, and the\nsecondary or subliminal self. It is the first, and perhaps the most\nimportant, in a series of sensory automatisms, or those having reference\nto the senses, in distinction from motor automatisms, or those produced by\nvarious automatic actions of the body.\n\nThese sensory automatisms are usually looked upon as hallucinations--but\nso far as the term hallucination conveys the idea of deception or falsity\nit is inappropriate, since the messages brought in this manner are just as\nreal--just as veridical or truth-telling as automatic writing or\nspeaking.\n\nHearing is another form of sensory automatism, which, while less common\nthan that of seeing, has also been noticed in all ages.\n\nThe child Samuel, ministering to the High Priest Eli, three times in one\nnight, heard himself called by name, and three times came to Eli saying,\n\"Here am I;\" adding at last, \"for surely thou didst call me.\" The wise\nhigh-priest recognized the rare psychic qualities of the child and brought\nhim up for the priesthood in place of his own wayward sons; and he became\nthe great seer of Israel.\n\nSocrates was accustomed to hear a voice which always admonished him when\nthe course he was pursuing or contemplating was wrong or harmful; but it\nwas silent when the contemplated course was right. This was the famous\n\"Daemon of Socrates,\" and was described and discussed by Xenophon and Plato\nas well as other Greek writers and many modern ones. Socrates himself\ncalled it the \"Divine Sign.\" And on that account he was accused of\nintroducing new gods, and thus offering indignity to the accredited gods\nof Greece. On this, as one of the leading charges, Socrates was tried and\ncondemned to death; but in all the proceedings connected with his trial\nand condemnation he persisted in his course which he knew would end in his\ndeath, rather than be false to his convictions of duty and right; and this\nhe did because the voice--the \"Divine Sign\"--which always before had\nrestrained him in any wrong course, was not heard restraining him in his\npresent course.\n\nOnly once was it heard, and that was to restrain him from preparing any\nset argument in his defence before his judges. So he accepted his sentence\nand drank the hemlock, surrounded by his friends, to whom he calmly\nexplained that death could not be an evil thing, not only from the\narguments which he had adduced, but also because the Divine Sign, which\nnever failed to admonish him when pursuing any harmful course, had not\nadmonished nor restrained him in this course which had led directly to his\ndeath.\n\nJoan of Arc heard voices, which in childhood only guided her in her\nordinary duties, but which in her early womanhood made her one of the most\nconspicuous figures in the history of her time. They placed her, a young\nand unknown peasant girl, as a commander at the head of the defeated,\ndisorganized, and discouraged armies of France, aroused them to\nenthusiasm, made them victorious, freed her country from the power of\nEngland, and placed the rightful prince upon the throne. She also heard\nand obeyed her guiding voices, even unto martyrdom.\n\nNumerous instances might be cited occurring in ancient and also in modern\ntimes where the subliminal self has sent its message of instruction,\nguidance, warning, or restraint to the primary self by means of\nimpressions made upon the organ of hearing. Socrates, Joan of Arc,\nSwedenborg, and many others considered these instructions infallible,\nsupernatural, or divine; but in other cases the messages so given have\nbeen trivial, perhaps even false, thus removing the element of\ninfallibility and absolute truthfulness from messages of this sort, and at\nthe same time casting a doubt upon their supernatural character in any\ncase. It seems wisest, therefore, at least to examine these and all cases\nof automatically received messages, whether by writing, trance-speaking,\ndreams, visions, or the hearing of voices, with a definite conception of a\nreal and natural cause and origin for these messages in a subliminal self,\nforming a definite part of each individual: bearing in mind also that this\nsubliminal self possesses powers and characteristics varying in each\nindividual case, in many cases greatly transcending the powers and\ncapabilities of the normal or primary self. But infallibility, though\nsometimes claimed, is by no means to be expected from this source, and the\nmessages coming from each subliminal self must be judged and valued\naccording to their own intrinsic character and merit, just as a message\ncoming to us from any primary self, whether known or unknown to us, must\nbe judged and valued according to its source, character, and merit.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nPHANTASMS.\n\n\nPerhaps no department of Psychical Research is looked upon from such\ndivers and even quite opposite standpoints as that which relates to\nApparitions or Phantasms. Many intelligent people, in a general way,\naccept them as realities but assign for them a supernatural origin; while\nothers discredit them altogether because they have apparently no basis\nexcept an assumed supernatural one.\n\nIt has been said that primitive, undeveloped, and ignorant people almost\nuniversally believe in ghosts; while with the advance of civilization,\nculture, and general intelligence, the frequency of alleged apparitions\nand the belief in ghosts diminishes or altogether disappears. If this\nstatement were to stand unqualified, by so much would the reality and\nrespectability of phantasms be discredited. Possibly, however, it may be\nfound that the last word has not yet been said, and that there may exist\na scientific aspect for even so unstable and diaphanous a subject as\nghosts.\n\nInstead of going over the literature of the subject from the earliest\ntimes--a literature, by the way, which in the hands of Tylor, Maury,\nScott, Ralston, Mrs. Crowe and others certainly does not lack interest--it\nwill better suit our present purpose to examine some facts relative to\nperception in general and vision in particular, and give some examples\nillustrating different phases of the subject.\n\nPerception may be defined as the cognizance which the mind takes of\nimpressions presented to it through the organs of sense, and possibly also\nby other means.\n\nOne class of perceptions is universally recognized and is in a measure\nunderstood, namely, perceptions arising from impressions made by\nrecognized external objects or forces upon the organs of sense, sight,\nhearing, smell, taste, and also the general sense of touch. These\nperceptions in particular are designated as _real_ or _true_, because they\ncorrespond to recognized external realities.\n\nBut impressions are also made upon the organs of special sense by\ninfluences which are not recognized as having any objective reality, but\nwhich nevertheless affect the senses in a manner often identical with that\nin which they are affected by recognized external objects, and they cause\nthe same perceptions to arise in the mind. Hence another broad class of\nperceptions includes those which are taken cognizance of by the mind from\nimpressions made upon the organs of sense in other ways and by other means\nthan by external objects, and often where there is no evidence that any\nexternal object exists corresponding to the impression so made.\nPerceptions arising in these various ways are called _hallucinations_.\n\nOn close examination, however, it is found that the sharp line of\nseparation between what has and what has not an objective reality is not\neasily drawn, any more than in biology the sharp line between animal and\nvegetable life can be easily drawn, or at the lower end of the scale\nbetween the living and the not living.\n\nSo the origin of those perceptions which are classed as hallucinations has\nalways been a subject of controversy, even among philosophers of the\ngreatest merit and eminence.\n\nWithout following out the discussions which have arisen on this\npoint--discussions which are often confusing and generally inconclusive,\na fairly distinct view of the subject may be obtained by considering the\norigin of these perceptions under three heads--namely:--\n\n(1) Perceptions which are reckoned as hallucinations may be originated\n_centrally_; that is, they may arise wholly within the mind itself without\nany direct external stimulus. For instance the characters drawn by the\nnovelist may become so real to him, and even to some of his readers, that\nthey become _externalized_--actual objects of visual perception and are\nseen to act and even heard to speak. The instance is repeatedly quoted of\nthe painter who, after carefully studying a sitter's appearance, could\nvoluntarily project it visibly into space and paint the portrait, not from\nthe original, but from the phantasm so produced; and of another who could\nexternalize and project other mental pictures in the same manner, pictures\nwhich so interested him and were so subject to the ordinary laws of vision\nthat he would request any one who took a position in front of them, to\nmove away so as not to obstruct his view.\n\nIt will be noticed in these cases that although the perception has its\norigin centrally, in the mind itself, and is even voluntarily produced,\nstill, it is seen as an impression made upon the visual organ in exactly\nthe same manner as a picture thrown upon the retina by a real external\nobject; it disappears when the eyes are closed or an opaque object\nintervenes, and follows the laws of optics in general; hence, strictly\nspeaking, these perceptions are also real.\n\n(2) Perceptions may have their origin _peripherally_--that is, the point\nof excitation which causes the act of perception in the mind may exist in\nthe external sense organs themselves, even when no external object\ncorresponding to the perception exists at the time, or it is not in a\nposition on account of distance or intervening objects to affect the\nsenses.\n\nIn examining the cases which may be placed under this head they resolve\nthemselves into two classes: those which occur in connection with some\ndisease or defect in the sense organ concerned, and those which are\nrecrudescences or after-visions, arising from over-excitation of those\norgans; for instance, after looking through a window in a very bright\nlight--even a considerable length of time afterwards--on shutting the eyes\nor looking into a dark room, an image of the window is seen with all its\ndivisions and peculiarities of construction distinctly presented. To the\ncountry lad returning home at night from his first visit to the circus\nthe whole scene is again presented; and ring, horses, equestrians,\nacrobats and clowns are all seen and externalized with the utmost\ndistinctness; even the crack of the ring-master's whip is heard and the\njokes and antics of the clowns repeated.\n\n(3) Perceptions may have their origin telepathically--that is, scenes and\nincidents transpiring at a distance far too great to affect the bodily\norgans of sense in any direct or ordinary way do, nevertheless, in some\nway, cause perceptions to arise in the mind corresponding to those same\nscenes and incidents.\n\nThis is comparatively a new proposition in psychology and has for its\nbasis studies and experiments which have only been systematically made\nwithin the past fourteen years. These studies and experiments relate to\ntelepathy, automatism, and the action of the subliminal self. They have\nbeen undertaken and carried on by various societies interested in\nexperimental psychology, but chiefly by the English Society for Psychical\nResearch, some of the results of whose labors have been briefly sketched\nin the preceding chapters.\n\nIn addition to the reports of these societies an important contribution to\nthe subject of apparitions was published by the then secretaries of the\nSociety for Psychical Research, the late Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mr. Frederick\nW. H. Myers, and Mr. Frank Podmore.\n\nIt appeared under the title, _Phantasms of the Living_, and contained more\nthan seven hundred instances relating to various forms of hallucinations\nand phantasms--carefully studied and authenticated cases which were\nselected from several thousand presented for examination. It is to these\nsources chiefly that I shall refer for cases illustrating the subject\nunder consideration.\n\nIt seems hardly necessary to recapitulate here the experiments on which\nthe doctrine of telepathy or thought-transference is\nestablished--experiments which have been carefully made by so many well\nqualified persons, and which have proved convincing to nearly every one,\nwhether scientific or unscientific, who has patiently followed them,\nthough of course not convincing to those who choose to remain ignorant of\nthe facts.\n\nThe same is true regarding the subject of automatism and the existence and\naction of the subliminal self. It remains to show the interesting\nrelations which these subjects bear to hallucinations in general, and\nespecially to phantasms and apparitions.\n\nIt is well known that hallucinations can be voluntarily or purposely\nproduced by one person in the mind of another, and in various ways, though\nfew perhaps consider to what an extent this is possible. In many of the\nmost astonishing feats of the conjurer, and especially of the Indian\nfakir, suggestion and the imagination are brought into service to aid in\nproducing the illusions.\n\nRegarding the hallucinations which may be produced in the mind of the\nhypnotized subject by the hypnotizer there can be no doubt.\n\nThe following case is in point and illustrates telepathic influence\nexcited at a distance as well. It is from _Phantasms of the Living_, and\nthe agent, Mr. E. M. Glissold, of 3 Oxford Square, W., writes\nsubstantially as follows:--\n\n\"In the year 1878 there was a carpenter named Gannaway employed by me to\nmend a gate in my garden; when a friend of mine (Moens) called upon me and\nthe conversation turned upon mesmerism. He asked me if I knew anything\nabout it myself. On my replying in the affirmative he said, 'Can you\nmesmerize any one at a distance?' I said that I had never tried to do so,\nbut that there was a man in the garden whom I could easily mesmerize, and\nthat I would try the experiment with this man if he (Moens) would tell me\nwhat to do. He then said, 'Form an impression of the man whom you wish to\nmesmerize, in your own mind, and then wish him strongly to come to you.'\n\n\"I very much doubted the success of the experiment, but I followed the\ndirections of my friend, and I was extremely astonished to hear the steps\nof the man whom I wished to appear, running after me; he came up to me\ndirectly and asked me what I wanted with him. I will add that my friend\nand I had been walking in the garden and had seen and spoken with the\ncarpenter, but when I wished him to come to me I was quite out of his\nsight behind the garden wall, one hundred yards distant, and had neither\nby conversation nor otherwise led him to believe that I intended to\nmesmerize him.\n\n\"On another occasion, when the Hon. Auberon Herbert was present, the\nfollowing scene occurred. Gannaway was mesmerized and stood in one corner\nof the dining-room. Herbert sat at the table and wrote the following\nprogramme, each scene of which Mr. Glissold, the magnetizer, was to\n_silently call up in his own mind_.\n\n\"(1) I see a house in flames.\n\n\"(2) I see a woman looking out of a window.\n\n\"(3) She has a child in her arms.\n\n\"(4) She throws it out of the window.\n\n\"(5) Is it hurt--?\n\n\"Gannaway became much excited, describing each scene as it passed through\nthe mind of his hypnotizer. Several well known persons add their testimony\nto the above statement.\"\n\nA single case of mental action so strange and unusual, no matter how well\nauthenticated, might not impress a cautious truth-seeker, but when\nfortified by well studied cases in the experience of such men as Esdaile,\nas shown in his remarkable experiments upon the natives of India, and\nespecially his well known one of hypnotizing the blind man at a distance,\nalso those of Prof. Janet, Prof. Richet, Dr. Gibert, and Dr. Hericourt, in\nFrance under the observation of Mr. Myers and other members of the Society\nfor Psychical Research, and hundreds of other cases of hypnotizing at a\ndistance, or silently influencing the subject without hypnotization, the\nmatter then challenges attention and belief;--and it is from abundant\nobservation of such cases, from the simplest examples of\nthought-transference to the most wonderful exhibition of perceptive power\nat great distances, that the doctrine of Telepathy is founded.\n\nIn the following case the agent was able to project his own semblance or\nphantasm a distance of several miles; and it was then distinctly perceived\nby a young lady, a friend of the agent. The circumstances were these:--Two\nyoung men, Mr. A. H. W. Cleave and Mr. H. P. Sparks, aged respectively\neighteen and nineteen years, were fellow-students of engineering at the\nNavy Yard, Portsmouth, England. While there, they engaged in some mesmeric\nexperiments, and after a time Sparks was able to put Cleave thoroughly\ninto the hypnotic condition. The following is Mr. Sparks' account of what\noccurred.\n\n\"For the last year or fifteen months I have been in the habit of\nmesmerizing a fellow-student of mine. The way I did it was by simply\nlooking into his eyes as he lay in an easy position on a bed. This\nproduced sleep. After a few times I found that this sleep was deepened by\nmaking long passes after the patient was off. Then comes the remarkable\npart of this sort of mesmerism.\" (Mr. Sparks then describes his subject's\nability to see in his trance places in which he was interested if he\nresolved to see them before he was hypnotized.) \"However, it has been\nduring the last week or so I have been surprised and startled by an\nextraordinary affair. Last Friday evening (Jan. 15th, 1886), he (Cleave)\nexpressed his wish to see a young lady living in Wandsworth, and he also\nsaid he would try to make himself seen by her. I accordingly mesmerized\nhim and continued the long passes for about twenty minutes, concentrating\nmy will on his idea. When he came round (after one hour and twenty\nminutes' trance) he said he had seen her in the dining-room; and that\nafter a time she grew restless; then suddenly she looked straight at him,\nand then covered her eyes with her hands; just then he came round. Last\nMonday evening (Jan. 18th) we did the same thing, and this time he said he\nthought he had frightened her, as after she had looked at him a few\nminutes she fell back in her chair in a sort of faint. Her little brother\nwas in the room at the time. Of course after this he expected a letter if\nthe vision was real; and on Wednesday morning he received a letter from\nthe young lady, asking whether anything had happened to him, as on Friday\nevening she was startled by seeing him standing at the door of the room.\nAfter a minute he disappeared and she thought it might have been fancy;\nbut on Monday evening she was still more startled by seeing him again, and\nthis time much clearer, and it so frightened her that she nearly fainted.\"\n\nMr. Cleave also writes a very interesting account of his experience in\nthe matter, and two fellow-students who were in the room during the\nexperiments also write corroborating the statements made.\n\nThe following is a copy of the letter in which the young lady, Miss A.,\ndescribes her side of the affair. It is addressed, \"Mr. A. H. W. Cleave,\nH. M. S. _Marlborough_, Portsmouth,\" and is postmarked Wandsworth, Jan.\n19th, 1886.\n\n    \"WANDSWORTH,\n    \"Tuesday morning.\n\n    \"DEAR ARTHUR,--Has anything happened to you? Please write and let me\n    know at once, for I have been so frightened.\n\n    \"Last Tuesday evening I was sitting in the dining-room reading, when I\n    happened to look up, and could have declared I saw you standing at the\n    door looking at me. I put my handkerchief to my eyes, and when I\n    looked again you were gone.\n\n    \"I thought it must have been only my fancy, but last night (Monday)\n    while I was at supper I saw you again just as before, and was so\n    frightened that I nearly fainted. Luckily only my brother was there or\n    it would have attracted attention. Now do write at once and tell me\n    how you are. I really cannot write any more now.\"\n\nProbably the young lady is in error regarding the date of the first\nexperiment, which may be accounted for by her excited condition--the shock\nof the last experiment having proved decidedly serious, as was afterwards\ndiscovered, and she begged that the experiment might never be repeated.\n\nBoth young men mention Friday as the day of their first decided success,\nbut they were experimenting on previous days, including Tuesday, when the\nyoung lady writes she first saw Cleave's phantasm. Concerning the date of\nthe last experiment there is no question.\n\nEffects similar to those just related may also occur where the agent is in\nordinary sleep, or at least when no hypnotizing process is made use of.\nThe agent in this case first formulates the wish or strong resolution to\nbe present and be seen at a certain place or by a certain person, and then\ngoes to sleep, and generally remains unconscious of the result until\nlearned from the percipient.\n\nIn the following case the name of the agent is withheld from publication,\nthough known to Mr. Myers who reports the case; the percipient is the Rev.\nW. Stainton-Moses. The agent goes on to state:--\n\n\"One evening early last year (1878), I resolved to try to appear to Z.\n(Mr. Moses) at some miles distant. I did not inform him beforehand of my\nintended experiment, but retired to rest shortly before midnight with\nthoughts intently fixed on Z., with whose room and surroundings, however,\nI was quite unacquainted. I soon fell asleep and woke up the next morning\nunconscious of anything having taken place. On seeing Z. a few days\nafterwards I inquired, 'Did anything happen at your rooms on Saturday\nnight?' 'Yes,' he replied, 'a great deal happened. I had been sitting over\nthe fire with M., smoking and chatting. About 12:30 he rose to leave, and\nI let him out myself. I returned to the fire to finish my pipe when I saw\nyou sitting in the chair just vacated by him. I looked intently at you,\nand then took up a newspaper to assure myself I was not dreaming, but on\nlaying it down I saw you still there. While I gazed without speaking, you\nfaded away. Though I imagined you must be fast asleep in bed at that hour,\nyet you appeared dressed in your ordinary garments, such as you usually\nwear every day.' 'Then my experiment seems to have succeeded,' I said.\n'The next time I come ask me what I want, as I had fixed on my mind\ncertain questions to ask you, but I was probably waiting for an\ninvitation to speak.'\n\n\"A few weeks later the experiment was repeated with equal success, I, as\nbefore, not informing Z. when it was made. On this occasion he not only\nquestioned me upon the subject which was at that time under very warm\ndiscussion between us, but detained me by the exercise of his will, some\ntime after I had intimated a desire to leave. As on the former occasion no\nrecollection remained of the event, or seeming event, of the preceding\nnight.\"\n\nMr. Moses writes, September 27th, 1885, confirming this account. Mr. Moses\nalso says that he has never on any other occasion seen the figure of a\nliving person in a place where the person was not.\n\nThe next case, while presenting features similar to the last, differs from\nit in this respect: that there are two percipients. It is copied from the\nmanuscript book of the agent, Mr. S. H. B.\n\nMr. B. writes:--\"On a certain Sunday evening in November, 1881, having\nbeen reading of the great power which the human will is capable of\nexercising, I determined with the whole force of my being that I would be\npresent in spirit in the front bedroom, on the second floor of a house\nsituated at 22 Hogarth Road, Kensington, in which room slept two ladies of\nmy acquaintance, Miss L. S. V. and Miss E. C. V., aged respectively\ntwenty-five and eleven years. I lived at this time at 23 Kildare Gardens,\na distance of about three miles from Hogarth Road, and I had not mentioned\nin any way my intention of trying this experiment to either of the above\nnamed ladies, for the simple reason that it was only on retiring to rest\nupon Sunday night that I made up my mind to do so. The time at which I\ndetermined I would be there was one o'clock in the morning, and I also had\na strong intention of making my presence perceptible.\n\n\"On the following Thursday I went to see the ladies in question, and in\nthe course of conversation (without any allusion to the subject on my\npart), the elder one told me that on the previous Sunday night she had\nbeen much terrified by perceiving me standing by her bedside, and that she\nscreamed when the apparition advanced towards her, and awoke her little\nsister who also saw me. I asked her if she was awake at the time, and she\nreplied most decidedly in the affirmative; and upon my inquiring the time\nof the occurrence, she replied about one o'clock in the morning.\"\n\nMiss Verity's account is as follows:--\n\n    \"On a certain Sunday evening, about twelve months since, at our house\n    in Hogarth Road, Kensington, I distinctly saw Mr. B. in my room about\n    one o'clock. I was perfectly awake and was much terrified. I awoke my\n    sister by screaming, and she saw the apparition herself. Three days\n    after, when I saw Mr. B., I told him what had happened; but it was\n    some time before I could recover from the shock I had received, and\n    the remembrance is too vivid to be ever erased from my memory.\n\n    \"L. S. VERITY.\"\n\nMiss E. C. Verity writes:--\n\n    \"I remember the occurrence of the event described by my sister in the\n    annexed paragraph, and her description is quite correct. I saw the\n    apparition at the same time and under the same circumstances.\"\n\nMiss A. S. Verity writes:--\n\n    \"I remember quite clearly the evening my eldest sister awoke me by\n    calling to me from an adjoining room, and upon my going to her\n    bedside, where she slept with my youngest sister, they both told me\n    they had seen S. H. B. standing in the room. The time was about one\n    o'clock. S. H. B. was in evening dress, they told me.\"\n\nThe following case, while of the same general character, presents this\nremarkable difference: that the agent's mind was not at all directed to\nthe real percipient, but only to the _place_ where the percipient happened\nto be. It is from the notebook of Mr. S. H. B. who was also the agent.\n\n\"On Friday, December 1st, 1882, at 9:30 P. M. I went into a room alone and\nsat by the fireside, and endeavored so strongly to fix my mind upon the\ninterior of a house at Kew (viz., Clarence Road), in which resided Miss V.\nand her two sisters, that I seemed to be actually in the house.\n\n\"During this experiment I must have fallen into a mesmeric sleep, for,\nalthough I was conscious, I could not move my limbs. I did not seem to\nhave lost the power of moving them, but I could not make the effort to do\nso.... At 10 P. M. I regained my normal state by an effort of the will and\nwrote down on a sheet of note-paper the foregoing statements.\n\n\"When I went to bed on this same night, I determined that I would be in\nthe front bedroom of the above-mentioned house at 12 P. M., and remain\nthere until I had made my presence perceptible to the inmates of that\nroom. On the next day, Saturday, I went to Kew to spend the evening, and\nmet there a married sister of Miss V. (viz., Mrs. L.). This lady I had\nonly met once before and that was at a ball, two years previous to the\nabove date. We were both in fancy dress at the time, and as we did not\nexchange more than half a dozen words, this lady would naturally have lost\nany vivid recollection of my appearance even if she had noticed it.\n\n\"In the course of conversation (although I did not for a moment think of\nasking her any questions on such a subject), she told me that on the\nprevious night she had seen me distinctly on two occasions. She had spent\nthe night at Clarence Road, and had slept in the front bedroom. At about\nhalf-past nine, she had seen me in the passage going from one room to\nanother, and at 12 P. M., when she was wide-awake, she had seen me enter\nthe bedroom and walk round to where she was lying and take her hair (which\nis very long), into my hand. She told me that the apparition took hold of\nher hand and gazed intently into it, whereupon she spoke, saying, 'You\nneed not look at the lines for I have never had any trouble.'\n\n\"She then awoke her sister, Miss V., who was sleeping with her, and told\nher about it. After hearing this account I took the statement which I had\nwritten down the previous evening from my pocket and showed it to some of\nthe persons present, who were much astonished, although incredulous.\n\n\"I asked Mrs. L. if she was not dreaming at the time of the latter\nexperience, but she stoutly denied, and stated that she had forgotten what\nI was like, but seeing me so distinctly she recognized me at once. At my\nrequest she wrote a brief account of her impressions and signed it.\"\n\nThe following is the lady's statement:--\n\n    \"On Friday, December 1st, 1882, I was on a visit to my sister, at 21\n    Clarence Road, Kew, and about 9:30 P. M. I was going from my bedroom\n    to get some water from the bath-room, when I distinctly saw Mr. S. B.\n    whom I had only seen once before, two years ago, walk before me past\n    the bath-room, toward the bedroom at the end of the landing.\n\n    \"About 11 o'clock we retired for the night; about 12 o'clock I was\n    still awake, and the door opened and Mr. S. B. came into the room and\n    walked around to the bedside, and there stood with one foot on the\n    ground, and the other knee resting on a chair. He then took my hair\n    into his hand, after which he took my hand in his and looked very\n    intently into the palm. 'Ah,' I said (speaking to him), 'you need not\n    look at the lines for I never had any trouble.' I then awoke my\n    sister; I was not nervous, but excited, and began to fear some serious\n    illness would befall her, she being delicate at the time, but she is\n    progressing more favorably now.\n\n    \"H. L.\"\n\n    (Full name signed.)\n\nMiss Verity also corroborates this statement.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following is still another case of one mind acting upon another mind\nat a distance and at least in a most unusual way. Call it mind-projection,\nmaking one's self visible at a distance, sending out the subliminal\nself--call it what we may--it is a glimpse of a phenomenon, rare in its\noccurrence, but which nevertheless has been observed a sufficient number\nof times to claim serious attention, and calm and candid consideration.\nThe case is from _Phantasms of the Living_, and is furnished by \"Mrs.\nRussell of Belgaum, India, wife of Mr. H. R. Russell, Educational\nInspector in the Bombay Presidency.\" It differs from those already cited\nin the fact that it is unconnected with either sleep or hypnotism, but\nboth agent and percipient were awake and in a perfectly normal condition.\n\nMrs. Russell writes:--\n\n    \"June 8th, 1886.\n\n    \"As desired I write down the following facts as well as I can recall\n    them. I was living in Scotland, my mother and sisters in Germany. I\n    lived with a very dear friend of mine, and went to Germany every year\n    to see my people. It had so happened that I could not go home as usual\n    for two years, when on a sudden I made up my mind to go and see my\n    family. They knew nothing of my intention; I had never gone in early\n    spring before; and I had no time to let them know by letter that I was\n    going to set off. I did not like to send a telegram for fear of\n    frightening my mother. The thought came to me to will with all my\n    might to appear to one of my sisters, never mind which of them, in\n    order to give them warning of my coming. I only thought most intensely\n    for a few minutes of them, wishing with all my might to be seen by one\n    of them--half present myself, in vision, at home. I did not take more\n    than ten minutes, I think. I started by the Leith steamer on Saturday\n    night, end of April, 1859. I wished to appear at home about 6 o'clock\n    P. M. that same Saturday.\n\n    \"I arrived at home at 6 o'clock on Tuesday morning following. I\n    entered the house without any one seeing me, the hall being cleaned\n    and the front door open. I walked into the room. One of my sisters\n    stood with her back to the door; she turned round when she heard the\n    door opening, and on seeing me, stared at me, turning deadly pale, and\n    letting what she had in her hand fall. I had been silent. Then I spoke\n    and said, 'It is I. Why do you look so frightened?' When she answered,\n    'I thought I saw you again as Stinchen (another sister) saw you on\n    Saturday.'\n\n    \"When I inquired, she told me that on Saturday evening about 6\n    o'clock, my sister saw me quite clearly, entering the room in which\n    she was, by one door, passing through it, opening the door of another\n    room in which my mother was, and shutting the door behind me. She\n    rushed after what she thought was I, calling out my name, and was\n    quite stupefied when she did not find me with my mother. My mother\n    could not understand my sister's excitement. They looked everywhere\n    for me, but of course did not find me. My mother was very miserable;\n    she thought I might be dying.\n\n    \"My sister who had seen me (i. e. my apparition) was out that morning\n    when I arrived. I sat down on the stairs to watch, when she came in,\n    the effect of my real appearance on her. When she looked up and saw\n    me, sitting motionless, she called out my name and nearly fainted.\n\n    \"My sister had never seen anything unearthly either before that or\n    afterwards; and I have never made any such experiments since--nor will\n    I, as the sister that saw me first when I really came home, had a very\n    severe illness afterwards, caused by the shock to her nerves.\n\n    \"J. M. RUSSELL.\"\n\nMrs. Russell's sister, in answer to her inquiry whether she remembered the\nincident, replied: \"Of course I remember the matter as well as though it\nhad happened to-day. Pray don't come appearing to me again!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe started out with this proposition. Perceptions--those of the class\ndenominated hallucinations--may have their origin telepathically. In proof\nand illustration of that proposition we have so far presented a single\nclass of cases, namely, Those where the hallucination was produced with\nwill and purpose on the part of the agent. The cases present the following\nconditions:--\n\n(1) The agent being in a normal condition--the percipient hypnotized, the\nhypnotic condition having been produced at a distance of a hundred\nyards--and from a point from which the percipient could not be seen.\n\n(2) The agent in the hypnotic condition; a definite hallucination strongly\ndesired and decided upon beforehand was produced, the percipient being in\na normal state.\n\n(3) The agent was in normal sleep. Hallucination decided upon before going\nto sleep was produced--the percipient awake and in normal condition.\n\n(4) Both agent and percipient awake and normal--hallucination produced at\na distance of four hundred miles. In one case the phantasm is seen by two\npercipients, and in another case the _place_ only where the phantasm\nshould appear was strongly in the agent's mind; and while the sisters who\n_usually_ occupied that room might naturally be expected to be the\npercipients, as a matter of fact another person, a married sister who\nhappened to be visiting them--a comparative stranger to the agent--was\noccupying the room and became the percipient.\n\nIn each of these cases a definite purpose was formed by the agent to\nproduce a certain hallucination or present a certain picture--generally a\nrepresentation or phantasm of himself to the percipient. A picture or\nphantasm is seen by the intended percipient, and, on comparison, in each\ncase it is found that it is _the same phantasm_ that the agent had\n_endeavored_ to project and make visible, and that it was perceived in the\nsame place and at the same time that the agent had intended that it should\nbe seen.\n\nCan these statements be received as true and reliable? In reply we say,\nthe evidence having been carefully examined is of such a character as to\nentitle it to belief, and the errors of observation and reporting are\ntrifling, and not such as would injure the credibility of statements made\nregarding any event which was a matter of ordinary observation; moreover,\nthese cases now have become so numerous and have been so carefully\nobserved that they should be judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; and\nby that rule they should be received.\n\nHaving been received, how can they be explained?\n\nIt may be answered:--\n\n(1) That these apparent sequences presenting the relation of cause and\neffect are merely chance coincidences. But on carefully applying the\ndoctrine of chances, it is found that the probability that these\ncoincidences of time and place, and the identity of the pictures presented\nand perceived, occurred by chance, would be only one in a number so large\nas to make it difficult to represent it in figures, and quite impossible\nfor any mind to comprehend. And that such a coincidence should occur\nrepeatedly in one person's experience is absolutely incredible.\n\n(2) The circumstances of distance and situation render it certain that the\nphantasms could not have been communicated or presented to the percipient\nthrough any of the usual channels of communication--by means of the\nphysical organs of sense--even granting that they could be so transferred\nunder favorable conditions.\n\nIf, then, these cases must be received as authentic and true, and if they\ncannot be disposed of as chance coincidences, nor explained by any\nordinary method or law of production or transmission, then there must be\n_some other_ method of mental interaction, and mental intercommunication\n_not usually recognized_, by means of which these pictures or phantasms\nare produced or transferred, and this unusual method of mental\ninteraction and intercommunication we designate _telepathy_. What the\nexact method is by which this unusual interaction is accomplished is not\nfully demonstrated, any more than are the methods of the various\ninteracting forces between the sun and the planets or amongst the planets\nthemselves. The hypothesis of a universal or inter-stellar ether has never\nbeen demonstrated; it is only a hypothesis framed because it is necessary\nin order to explain and support another undemonstrated theory, namely, the\nvibratory or wave theory of light. We do not know what the substance or\nforce which we call _attraction_ really is. Light has one method of\nmovement and action, sound another, heat another, and electricity another,\nbut most of the propositions concerning these methods of action are only\ntheories or hypotheses having a greater or less degree of probability as\nthe case may be. They were invented to account for certain actual and\nundeniable phenomena, and they are respected by all men of science or\nother persons having sufficient knowledge of these different subjects to\nentitle them to an opinion. The same thing is true of telepathy; its facts\nmust be known and its theories well considered by those who assume to sit\nin judgment upon them; and when known they are respected. The Copernican\ntheory of the planetary movements was formulated three hundred and fifty\nyears ago; it was one hundred and fifty years later when Newton proposed\nthe first rational theory regarding a force which might explain these\nmotions. For this he was ridiculed and even ostracized by the\nself-constituted judges of his day. Telepathy has been the subject of\ncareful study and experiment comparatively only a few years, and it can\nhardly, at this early date, expect better treatment at the hands of its\ncritics. Its facts, however, remain, and its explanatory theories are\nbeing duly considered.\n\nWhat, then, are the theories or hypotheses which may aid us in forming an\nidea of the manner in which a thought, a conception, or a mental picture\nmay pass between two persons so situated that no communication could pass\nbetween them through the ordinary channels of communication--sight,\nhearing, or touch? Let us suppose two persons A and B to be so situated. A\nis the agent or person having unusual ability to impress his own thought,\nor any conception or mental picture which he may form in his own mind,\nupon some other mind; and B is the percipient or a person having unusual\nability to receive or perceive such thoughts or mental pictures. Suppose\nthese two people to be in the country and engaged in farming. Upon a\ncertain morning A takes his axe and goes to the woods, half a mile\ndistant, and is engaged in cutting brush and trees for the purpose of\nclearing the land, and B goes into the garden to care for the growing\nvegetables. After an hour spent in these respective occupations, B becomes\ndisquieted, even alarmed, oppressed with the feeling that some misfortune\nhas happened and that A is needing his assistance. He is unable to\ncontinue his work and at once starts for the woods to seek for A. He finds\nthat A has received a glancing blow from his axe which has deeply wounded\nhis foot, disabled him, and put his life in immediate danger from\nhemorrhage. Here the thought of A in his extreme peril goes out intensely\nto B, desiring his presence; and B, by some unusual perceptive power,\ntakes cognizance of this intense thought and wish. This is telepathy.\nAgain, suppose B hears a voice which he recognizes as A's calling his name\nand with a peculiar effect which B recognizes as distress or entreaty. Or,\nagain, that B sees a picture or representation of A lying wounded and\nbleeding, still it is a telepathic impulse from A and taken cognizance of\nby B which constitutes the communication between them, whatever the exact\nnature or method of the communication may be.\n\nThe theories or hypotheses which have been put forward regarding the\nmethod by which this telepathic influence or impact is conveyed may be\nnoted as follows:--\n\n(1) That of a vibratory medium, always present and analogous to the\natmosphere for propagating sound or the universal ether for propagating\nlight.\n\n(2) An effluence of some sort emanating from the persons concerned and\nacting as a medium for the time being.\n\n(3) A sixth sense.\n\n(4) A duplex personality or subliminal self.\n\nFirst, then, as regards the vibratory hypothesis; it would demand a\nvariety of media to convey separately something corresponding to the sense\nof sight, the sense of hearing, and to each of the other senses--touch,\ntaste, and smell--as all these sensations have been telepathically\ntransmitted, or else there must exist one single medium capable of\ntransmitting these many widely different methods of sensation\nseparately,--either of which suppositions are, to say the least,\nbewildering. Such a medium must also possess a power of penetrating or\nacting through intervening obstacles, such as no medium with which we are\nacquainted possesses; and, lastly, in addition to numerous apparently\ninsurmountable difficulties and insufficiencies, there is no proof\nwhatever that any such vibratory medium exists.\n\nSecond. Regarding a vital effluence or some physical emanation or aura\nbelonging to each individual, and by means of which communication is\npossible between persons separated by too great a distance to permit\ncommunication through the ordinary channels; it is at least conceivable\nthat such an aura or personal atmosphere exists, and by some it is claimed\nto be demonstrated; but admitting its existence, that it would be capable\nof fulfilling the numerous functions demanded of it in the premises is\ndoubtful.\n\nThird. That the telepathic intercommunication is accomplished by means of\na sixth sense--a sort of compend of all the other senses, with added\npowers as regards distance and intervening obstacles--is a hypothesis\nwhich has been urged by some, and is at least intelligible; but, while it\npresents an intelligible explanation of such facts as clairvoyance and the\nhearing of voices, there is a large class of facts, as we shall see, which\nutterly refuse to fall into line or be explained by this hypothesis.\n\nFourth. The hypothesis of different strata of personality--or of a second\nor subliminal self--is the one which best fulfils the necessary conditions\nand also harmonizes the greatest number of facts when arranged with\nreference to this idea. There is also real, substantial evidence that such\na second personality actually exists, some of the facts bearing upon this\nsubject having been presented in former chapters.\n\nThose of my readers who have carefully followed the cases of unusual\nmental action there presented--cases of thought-transference, of\nclairvoyance, of remarkable mind-action in the hypnotic trance and in\nnatural somnambulism--in well marked examples of double consciousness as\nshown in the cases of Felida X., of Alma Z., of Ansel Bourne, and the\nhypnotic subject, Madame B., in her various personalities of Leonie,\nLeontine, and Leonore, in automatic action as displayed in\nPlanchette-writing, in trance-speaking and in crystal-gazing, cannot have\nfailed to observe, throughout the whole series, mind acting rationally and\nintelligently, quite independently of the ordinary consciousness, and even\nat times independently of the whole physical organization. We have\nconsidered the evidence which points to the fact, or at least to the\ntheory of a subliminal self, or another personality, in some manner bound\nup in that complicated physical and mental mechanism which constitutes\nwhat we term an individual. We have seen that there are weighty proofs\nthat such a secondary or subliminal, or, if you choose so to designate it,\n_supranormal_ self, actually exists, and that it exhibits functions and\npowers far exceeding the functions and powers of the ordinary self. We\nhave seen it expressing its own personal opinions, its own likes and\ndislikes, quite different and opposite to the opinions, likes, and\ndislikes of the ordinary self; having its own separate series of\nremembered actions or chain of memories, its own antecedent history, and\nits separate present interests; and especially performing actions\naltogether beyond the powers of the ordinary self. We have seen it going\nout to great distances, seeing and describing scenes and events there\ntaking place--for example, Swedenborg at Gottenburg witnessing the\nconflagration at Stockholm; Dr. Gerault's clairvoyant maid-servant, Marie,\nin France, seeing the sad death of her neighbor's son, Limoges, the\nropemaker, while serving in the Crimea; and also the serious illness of\nDr. Gerault's military friend in Algiers. Fitzgerald, at Brunswick, Me.,\nseeing and describing the Fall River fire three hundred miles away, and\nMrs. Porter, at Bridgeport, Conn., describing the burning of the steamer\n_Henry Clay_ while it was occurring on the Hudson River near the village\nof Yonkers. We have seen this same subliminal self in the case of Mr.\nStead, going out and acquiring desired knowledge relating to the location,\noccupation, and needs of persons from whom he desired such information,\nand bringing it back and reporting it by means of automatic writing.\nAgain, we have seen this subliminal self in the case of Mrs. Newnham,\nperceiving the silently written and sometimes even the unwritten questions\nof her husband, and automatically writing the answers by means of\nPlanchette; and we have seen it producing hallucinations of hearing as in\nthe case of Leonore causing Leontine to hear a voice reproving her for her\nflippancy.\n\nA remarkable series of facts are here pointed out, facts some of which are\nakin to those which have for ages been lying about in the lumber rooms of\nhistory or in out-of-the-way corners of men's memories, neglected and\ndiscredited, because unexplained, unaccounted for, forming no part of any\nrecognized system of mental action, and some only recently observed and\neven now looked at askance for the same reason. They have remained a mass\nof undigested and unarranged facts, without system, without any\nascertained relation to each other, pointing to no definite principle,\ndefined by no definite law. It is only within the past decade that these\nfacts have been studied with reference to the action of a subliminal self.\n\nBut this new and startling idea being once admitted and brought to the\nfront, it is found that not only in the whole series of observed automatic\nactions in the somnambulism of the hypnotic state, and that of ordinary\nsleep, are the organs of the unconscious body made use of by this\nsubconscious or subliminal self, but also in dreams, in reverie, in\nmoments of abstraction, of strong emotion or mental excitement, and even\nin the case of some peculiarly susceptible persons in the ordinary waking\ncondition, this subliminal self can greatly influence and sometimes take\nentire control of the action of the body.\n\nIt will be seen then, how wide and important is the range of phenomena in\nwhich the subliminal self appears as an active agent, impressing its own\nspecial knowledge, however acquired, its ideas, pictures, and images upon\nthe primary self, and causing them to be perceived, remembered, and\nexpressed by it; and with this unusual power in view, evidently it is in\nthis direction also that we must look for the key to that still more\nremarkable series of phenomena which are known as phantasms or\napparitions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPHANTASMS CONTINUED.\n\n\nSo far a single class of cases has been brought forward in proof and\nillustration of our proposition, that _sensation may be produced\ntelepathically_, namely, the voluntary class; as for instance, when it has\nbeen resolved beforehand and strongly desired and willed that a\nrepresentation or apparition of one's self should be seen and recognized\nby another person at a specified time and place, and it has been so\nrecognized. This class contains fewer recorded cases, but, on the other\nhand, they are specially valuable, because the element of error arising\nfrom chance coincidence is almost entirely excluded. In addition to these\nvoluntary or prearranged cases there is, however, another and much larger\nclass of cases which occur spontaneously, unthought of, and unexpected by\nthe percipient as well as by the agent.\n\nPassing over cases of an indefinite or undefined sense of danger or\nperil--or of a \"presence\"--we will proceed to notice some well\nauthenticated cases of spontaneous impressions of a definite character\nmade upon the senses, and especially upon the sense of sight. This\ndefinite impression may be made upon the senses of the percipient in\ndreams--especially those of a veridical character, where there is a\ndefinite reality corresponding in time and circumstances.\n\nIt may also be made when the percipient is in a condition of reverie,\nbetween sleeping and waking, and even when wide awake and in a perfectly\nnormal condition.\n\nThis definite impression of seeing or hearing may be made upon a single\npercipient, or it may be perceived by several persons at once.\n\nThe following may serve as examples of _veridical dreams_. They were\ncarefully examined by the editors of _Phantasms of the Living_, and\nespecially by Mr. Gurney. Only initials in the first case were given for\npublication.\n\n\"In the year 1857, I had a brother in the very centre of the Indian\nMutiny. I had been ill in the spring and taken from my lessons in the\nschool-room, consequently, I heard more of what was going on from the\nnewspapers than a girl of thirteen ordinarily would in those days. We\nwere in the habit of hearing regularly from my brother, but in June and\nJuly of that year no letters came, and what arrived in August proved to\nhave been written quite early in the spring, and were full of disturbances\naround his station.\n\n\"He was in the service of the East India Company--an officer in the 8th\nNative Infantry. I was always devoted to him, and I grieved and fretted\nfar more than any of my elders knew at his danger. I cannot say that I\ndreamt constantly of him, but when I did the impressions were very vivid\nand abiding.\n\n\"On one occasion his personal appearance was being discussed and I\nremarked, 'He is not like that now, he has no beard nor whiskers;' and\nwhen asked why I said such a thing, I replied, 'I know it, for I have seen\nhim in my dreams;' and this brought a severe reprimand from my governess,\nwho never allowed 'such nonsense' to be talked of.\n\n\"On the morning of the 25th of September, quite early, I awoke from a\ndream, to find my sister holding me and much alarmed. I had screamed and\nstruggled, crying out, 'Is he really dead?' When I fully awoke, I felt a\nburning sensation in my head. I could not speak for a moment or two; I\nknew my sister was there, but I neither saw nor felt her.\n\n\"In about a minute, during which she said my eyes were staring beyond her,\nI ceased struggling cried out, 'Harry's dead, they have shot him,' and\nfainted. When I recovered I found my sister had been sent away, and an\naunt who had always looked after me, was sitting by my bed.\n\n\"In order to soothe my excitement, she allowed me to tell my dream, trying\nall the time to persuade me to regard it as a natural consequence of my\nanxiety.\n\n\"When, in my narration, I said he was riding with another officer and\nmounted soldiers behind them, she exclaimed 'My dear, that shows you it is\nonly a dream, for your brother is in an _infantry_, not a cavalry,\nregiment.'\n\n\"Nothing, however, shook my feeling that I had seen a reality; and she was\nso much struck by my persistence that she privately made notes of the\ndates and of the incidents, even to the minutest details of my dream, and\nthen for a few days the matter dropped, but I felt the truth was coming\nnearer and nearer to all. In a short time the news came in the\npapers:--'Shot down on the morning of the 25th, when on his way to\nLucknow.' A few days later came one of his missing letters, telling how\nhis own regiment had mutinied, and that he had been transferred to a\ncommand in the 12th Irregular Cavalry, bound to join Havelock's force in\nthe relief of Lucknow.\n\n\"Some eight years after, the officer who was riding by him when he fell,\nCaptain or Major Grant, visited us and when, in compliance with my aunt's\nrequest, he detailed the incidents of that sad hour, his narration tallied\n(even to the description of buildings on their left) with the notes she\nhad taken the morning of my dream. I should also add that we heard my\nbrother had made the alteration in his beard and whiskers, just about the\ntime that I had spoken of him as wearing them differently.\"\n\n  \"L. A. W.\"\n\nThe next case which I will present is from Dr. A. K. Young, F. R. C. S.\nI., of the Terrace, Monaghan, Ireland.\n\nOne Monday night, in December, 1836, Dr. Young had the following dream,\nor, as he would prefer to call it, revelation. He found himself suddenly\nat the gate of Major N. M.'s avenue, many miles from his home. Close to\nhim was a group of persons, one of them a woman with a basket on her arm,\nthe rest men, four of whom were tenants of his own, while the others were\nunknown to him. Some of the strangers seemed to be murderously assaulting\nH. W., one of his tenants, and he interfered. He goes on to say:\n\n\"I struck violently at the man on my left and then with greater violence\nat the man's face to my right. Finding to my surprise that I did not knock\nhim down either, I struck again and again with all the violence of a man\nfrenzied at the sight of my poor friend's murder. To my great amazement I\nsaw that my arms, although visible to my eye, were without substance; and\nthe bodies of the men I struck at and my own came close together after\neach blow through the shadowy arms I struck with. My blows were delivered\nwith more extreme violence than I ever before exerted; but I became\npainfully convinced of my incompetency. I have no consciousness of what\nhappened after this feeling of unsubstantiality came upon me.\"\n\nNext morning, Dr. Young experienced the stiffness and soreness of violent\nbodily exercise and was informed by his wife that in the course of the\nnight he had much alarmed her by striking out again and again with his\narms in a terrific manner, \"as if fighting for his life.\" He in turn\ninformed her of his dream and begged her to remember the names of the\nactors in it who were known to him.\n\nOn the morning of the following day, Wednesday, he received a letter from\nhis agent, who resided in the town close to the scene of his dream,\ninforming him that his tenant, H. W., had been found on Tuesday morning at\nMajor N. M.'s gate speechless and apparently dying from a fracture of the\nskull, and that there was no trace of the murderers. That night Dr. Young\nstarted for the town and arrived there on Thursday morning. On his way to\na meeting of the magistrates he met the senior magistrate of that part of\nthe country and requested him to give orders for the arrest of the three\nmen whom, besides H. W., he had recognized in his dream, and to have them\nexamined separately. This was done. The three men gave identical accounts\nof the occurrence, and all named the woman who was with them. She was then\narrested and gave precisely similar testimony.\n\nThey said that between eleven and twelve on Monday night they had been\nwalking homeward, all together along the road, when they were overtaken by\nthree strangers, two of whom savagely assaulted H. W., while the other\nprevented his friends from interfering. The man H. W. did not die, and no\nclue was ever found to the assassins.\n\nThe Bishop of Clogher writes confirmatory of Dr. Young's account.\n\n\"Borderland cases\" are those in which the percipient, though seeming to\nhimself to be awake, may be in bed, has perhaps been asleep, and is in\nthat condition between sleeping and waking known as reverie and which we\nhave seen is favorable for the action of the subliminal self, either as\nagent or percipient.\n\nPassing, then, from dreams to \"Borderland cases,\" the first example under\nthis head which I will present is from Mrs. Richardson, of Combe Down,\nBath, England.\n\nShe writes:--\n\n    \"August 26th, 1882.\n\n    \"On September 9th, 1848, at the Siege of Mooltan, my husband,\n    Major-General Richardson, C. B., then adjutant of his regiment, was\n    most severely wounded, and supposing himself dying, asked one of the\n    officers with him to take the ring off his finger and send it to his\n    wife, who at that time was fully one hundred and fifty miles distant,\n    at Ferozepore. On the night of September 9th, 1848, I was lying in my\n    bed between sleeping and waking, when I distinctly saw my husband\n    being carried off the field seriously wounded, and heard his voice\n    saying, 'Take this ring off my finger and send it to my wife.'\n\n    \"All the next day I could not get the sight nor the voice out of my\n    mind. In due time I heard of Gen. Richardson having been severely\n    wounded in the assault on Mooltan. He survived, however, and is still\n    living. It was not for some time after the siege that I heard from\n    Colonel L., the officer who helped to carry Gen. Richardson off the\n    field, that the request as to the ring was actually made to him, just\n    as I had heard it at Ferozepore at that very time.\n\n    \"M. A. RICHARDSON.\"\n\nThe following questions were addressed to Gen. Richardson.\n\n1. \"Does Gen. Richardson remember saying, when he was wounded at Mooltan,\n'Take this ring off my finger and send it to my wife,' or words to that\neffect?\"\n\nAns. \"Most distinctly; I made the request to my commanding officer, Major\nE. S. Lloyd, who was supporting me while my man was gone for assistance.\"\n\n2. \"Can you remember the _time_ of the incident?\"\n\nAns. \"So far as my memory serves me, I was wounded about nine P. M., on\nSunday, the 9th September, 1848.\"\n\n3. \"Had Gen. Richardson, before he left home, promised or said anything to\nMrs. R. as to sending his ring to her in case he should be wounded?\"\n\nAns. \"To the best of my recollection, never. Nor had I any kind of\npresentiment on the subject. I naturally felt that with such a fire as we\nwere exposed to, I might get hurt.\"\n\nThe next case is from Miss Hosmer, the celebrated sculptor. It was written\nout by Miss Balfour, from the account given by Lydia Maria Child, and\ncorrected by Miss Hosmer, July 15th, 1885.\n\n\"An Italian girl named Rosa was in my employ for some time, but was\nfinally obliged to return home to her sister on account of confirmed\nill-health. When I took my customary exercise on horseback, I frequently\ncalled to see her. On one of these occasions I called about six o'clock P.\nM., and found her brighter than I had seen her for some time past. I had\nlong relinquished hopes of her recovery, but there was nothing in her\nappearance that gave me the impression of immediate danger. I left her\nwith the expectation of calling to see her again many times. She\nexpressed a wish to have a bottle of a certain kind of wine, which I\npromised to bring her myself next morning.\n\n\"During the remainder of the evening I do not recollect that Rosa was in\nmy thoughts after I parted with her. I retired to rest in good health and\nin a quiet frame of mind. But I woke from a sound sleep with an oppressive\nfeeling that some one was in the room.\n\n\"I reflected that no one could get in except my maid, who had the key to\none of the two doors of my room--both of which doors were locked. I was\nable dimly to distinguish the furniture in the room. My bed was in the\nmiddle of the room with a screen around the foot of it. Thinking some one\nmight be behind the screen I said, 'Who's there?' but got no answer. Just\nthen the clock in the adjacent room struck five; and at that moment I saw\nthe figure of Rosa standing by my bedside; and in some way, though I could\nnot venture to say it was through the medium of speech, the impression was\nconveyed to me from her of these words: 'Adesso son felice, son contenta.'\nAnd with that the figure vanished.\n\n\"At the breakfast table I said to the friend who shared the apartment with\nme, 'Rosa is dead.' 'What do you mean by that?' she inquired; 'you told\nme she seemed better yesterday.' I related the occurrence of the morning\nand told her I had a strong impression Rosa was dead. She laughed and said\nI had dreamed it all. I assured her I was thoroughly awake. She continued\nto jest on the subject and slightly annoyed me by her persistence in\nbelieving it a dream when I was perfectly sure of having been wide awake.\nTo settle the question I summoned a messenger, and sent him to inquire how\nRosa did. He returned with the answer that she died that morning at five\no'clock.\n\n  \"H. G. HOSMER.\"\n\nI will also introduce here as a \"Borderland case\" an extract from _The\nLife and Times of Lord Brougham, written by himself_ (1871), the extract\nbeing an entry in his journal during a journey in Sweden in December,\n1799. It is as follows:--\n\n\"We set out for Gothenburg [apparently on December 18th], determined to\nmake for Norway. About one in the morning, arriving at a decent inn, we\ndecided to stop over night. Tired with the cold of yesterday, I was glad\nto take advantage of a hot bath before I turned in, and here a most\nremarkable thing happened to me--so remarkable that I must tell the story\nfrom the beginning.\n\n\"After I left the High School, I went with G., my most intimate friend, to\nattend the classes at the University. There was no divinity class, but we\nfrequently in our walks discussed and speculated upon many grave\nsubjects--among others, on the immortality of the soul, and a future\nstate. This question, and the possibility, I will not say of ghosts\nwalking, but of the dead appearing to the living, were subjects of much\nspeculation; and we actually committed the folly of drawing up an\nagreement written with our blood, to the effect that which ever of us died\nfirst should appear to the other, and thus solve any doubts we had\nentertained of the 'life after death.' After we had finished our classes\nat college, G. went to India, having got an appointment there in the Civil\nService.\n\n\"He seldom wrote to me, and after the lapse of a few years I had almost\nforgotten him; moreover, his family having little connection with\nEdinburgh, I seldom saw or heard anything of them, or of him through them,\nso that all his school-boy intimacy had died out, and I had nearly\nforgotten his existence. I had taken, as I have said, a warm bath, and\nwhile lying in it and enjoying the comfort of the heat after the late\nfreezing I had undergone, I turned my head round, looking towards the\nchair on which I had deposited my clothes, as I was about to get out of\nthe bath. On the chair sat G., looking calmly at me.\n\n\"How I got out of the bath I know not, but on recovering my senses I found\nmyself sprawling on the floor. The apparition, or whatever it was that had\ntaken the likeness of G., had disappeared.\n\n\"This vision produced such a shock that I had no inclination to talk about\nit even to Stewart; but the impression it made upon me was too vivid to be\neasily forgotten; and so strongly was I affected by it that I have here\nwritten down the whole history, with the date, 19th December, and all the\nparticulars, as they are now fresh before me.\n\n\"No doubt I had fallen asleep; and that the appearance presented so\ndistinctly to my eyes was a dream, I cannot for a moment doubt; yet for\nyears I had had no communication with G., nor had there been anything to\nrecall him to my recollection; nothing had taken place during our Swedish\ntravels either connected with G. or with India, or with anything relating\nto him, or to any member of his family. I could not discharge from my mind\nthe impression that G. must have died, and that his appearance to me was\nto be received as a proof of a future state; yet all the while I felt\nconvinced that the whole was a dream; and so painfully vivid, so unfading\nthe impression, that I could not bring myself to talk of it or make the\nslightest allusion to it.\"\n\nIn October, 1862, Lord Brougham added as a postscript:--\n\n\"I have just been copying out from my journal the account of this strange\ndream: _Certissima mortis imago!_ And now to finish the story, begun about\nsixty years ago. Soon after my return to Edinburgh, there arrived a letter\nfrom India, announcing G.'s death, and stating that he had died on the\n19th of December!\n\n\"Singular coincidence! Yet, when one reflects on the vast number of dreams\nwhich night after night pass through our brains, the number of\ncoincidences between the vision and the event are perhaps fewer and less\nremarkable than a fair calculation of chances would warrant us to expect.\nNor is it surprising, considering the variety of thoughts in sleep, and\nthat they all bear some analogy to the affairs of life, that a dream\nshould sometimes coincide with a contemporaneous, or even with a future,\nevent. This is not much more wonderful than that a person whom we have had\nno reason to expect should appear to us at the very moment we have been\nthinking or speaking of him. So common is this, that it has for ages grown\ninto the proverb, 'Speak of the devil.' I believe every such seeming\nmiracle is, like every ghost story, capable of explanation.\"\n\nI have introduced in full Lord Brougham's statement of the case and his\nmethod of reasoning upon it; let us for a moment analyze each.\n\nI have also introduced Harriet Hosmer's experience along with that of Lord\nBrougham, because they are both notable persons whose evidence regarding\nmatters of fact could not be impugned, and whose strength of character,\nhonesty of purpose, and knowledge of affairs enables us to throw out of\naccount any idea of imposture or self-deception in either case. These\ncases, then, must be received as having actually occurred as related; and\nbeing so received they render all the more credible other cases reported\nby persons less well known.\n\nWhat was the character of the apparitions or appearances which were\npresented; were they, properly speaking, dreams? In Miss Hosmer's\nstatement she stoutly affirms that she was awake, and she gives good\nreasons for so believing, namely, before she _saw_ anything, but only\n_felt_ that some one was in the room, she _awoke_ from a sound sleep; she\nreasoned with herself regarding the possibility of any one getting into\nthe room; she called out: \"Who's there?\" She saw the furniture, heard the\nclock strike, and counted five; and in another account which I also have,\nshe heard the familiar noises about the house of servants at their usual\nwork, and she resolved to get up. All this before she saw anything\nunusual; then turning her head she saw Rosa. Clearly this was not a dream\nbut a vision occurring possibly in a condition of reverie.\n\nTaking up Lord Brougham's case: in simply recording the facts in his diary\nhe speaks of his experience as a _vision_ and the idea that it was a\n_dream_ was evidently an after-thought. He was _enjoying_ the heat; he was\n_about to get out of the bath_; he _turned_ his head. He describes the\nsensations and actions of a man who is awake, or certainly not in a\ncondition to have dreams disconnected with his actual surroundings. After\nall this, looking toward the chair upon which he had deposited his\nclothes--still a part of his surroundings, of which he was perfectly\nconscious--he saw G. on the chair _looking calmly at him_.\n\nNow to have _dreamt_ of G., his old school-fellow and friend, looking\ncalmly at him, would not have been anything shocking nor even surprising;\nit would not have been even _uncommon_ among dreams--it would have been\nnothing out of the ordinary course of nature. Dreams seldom shock or even\nsurprise us--surely not unless there is something intrinsically shocking\nrepresented by them; but when we see the phantasm of a person whom we know\ncannot be there--that is unusual, that is not in the ordinary course of\nnature, as we are accustomed to observe nature, and it surprises us,\nshocks us, perhaps frightens us; but it does so because we are awake and\ncan reason about it and compare its strangeness with the usual order of\nthings.\n\nLord Brougham was awake, he did so reason, and was accordingly shocked.\n\nSo vivid was the apparition that he tumbled out of the bath and fainted.\nIt is only some time after this, when writing up his diary, that he has no\ndoubt that he had fallen asleep. Preconceived theories about apparitions\nnow come up in his mind and get him into trouble; he must _explain_ his\nvision.\n\nNow for the explanation. Lord Brougham finds, on returning to Scotland,\nthat his former friend is dead, and that the time of his death\ncorresponded with the time at which he had seen his apparition in Sweden,\nDecember 19th.\n\n\"Singular coincidence!\" That is Lord Brougham's explanation; and that is\nthe usual explanation; but it is ill-considered--it is weak--it does not\ncover the ground.\n\nLord Brougham had but two theories from which to choose: namely, Chance\nand Supernaturalism; and of the two horns of the dilemma he chose the\neasier one.\n\nLet us, however, place ourselves, for the moment, on his ground, namely,\nthat (1) It was a dream; and (2) dreams are so numerous that it is not\nsurprising that some of them coincide with contemporaneous events.\n\nEvidently the more numerous the coincidences, or the dreams which\ncorrespond to contemporaneous events, the weaker becomes the theory of\n_chance_ coincidences. Supposing, then, Lord Brougham's case to have been\nunique, that not another similar case was known to have occurred, then we\nshould have no particular hesitation in assigning it to the category of\nchance coincidences; but even then it would be out of the order of _usual_\ncoincidences both in interest and the number of separate points involved;\nit would excite special interest, but the reference of it to chance would\nnot be considered unreasonable: if, however, three or four such cases had\nbeen reported and discussed in a generation, thoughtful people would\nbegin to inquire if there might not be some relation of sequence, or\npossibly of cause and effect; but when hundreds of cases have been\nreported, because they have been systematically sought for--veridical\ndreams connected with the moment of the death of the agent, with fainting,\nwith trance, with moments of supreme excitement, or of extreme danger, so\nmany different conditions in which by careful observation it is found that\nsuch hallucinations and symbols relating to actual contemporaneous\noccurrences originate and are telepathically transmitted--the matter is\nthen quite removed from the category of chance coincidences, and any\nattempt to force these cases there to-day denotes either ignorance of\nestablished facts or inability to appreciate logical reasoning or even\nmathematical demonstration. This is all upon the supposition that the case\nin question was a dream. On the other hand, now place the case where it\nreally belongs as a _waking_ or Borderland _vision_--an event in a class a\nhundred-fold less numerous than dreams--and in which class corresponding\nevents are at least tenfold _more numerous_, and we see how conspicuously\nweak is the coincidence theory.\n\nNeither need the other horn of the dilemma, namely, Supernaturalism, any\nlonger be taken. A newly recognized method of mental interaction is\ngradually coming into view; a new principle and law in psychology is being\nestablished; and under this law the erratic and discredited facts of\nhistory as well as the facts of present observation and experiment are\nfalling into line and becoming intelligible.\n\nThe new principle or law, as we have seen, is this: Perceptions, of the\nclass which have usually been known as hallucinations, may be originated\nand transferred _telepathically_; in other words, there is a subliminal\nself, which, under various conditions on the part of either agent or\npercipient, or both, may come to the surface and act, impressing the\nsensitive percipient through the senses, by dreams, visions, and\napparitions, as well as through hallucinations of hearing and touch.\n\nReturning to our well considered cases illustrating some of these various\nconditions: having presented examples of veridical or truth-telling\ndreams, and of waking or borderland visions also corresponding to actual\nevents taking place at the same time, I will next present cases where the\npercipient was _undoubtedly awake_ and in a normal condition. The\nfollowing case is reported on the authority of Surgeon Harris of the Royal\nArtillery, who, with his two daughters, was a witness of the occurrence:\n\n\"A party of children, sons and daughters of the officers of artillery\nstationed at Woolwich, were playing in the garden. Suddenly a little girl\nscreamed, and stood staring with an aspect of terror at a willow tree\nstanding in the grounds. Her companions gathered round, asking what ailed\nher. 'Oh!' said she, 'there--there. Don't you see? There's papa lying on\nthe ground, and the blood running from a big wound.' All assured her that\nthey could see nothing of the kind. But she persisted, describing the\nwound and the position of the body, still expressing surprise that they\ndid not see what she so plainly saw. Two of her companions were daughters\nof one of the surgeons of the regiment, whose house adjoined the garden.\nThey called their father, who at once came to the spot. He found the child\nin a state of extreme terror and agony, took her into his house, assured\nher it was only a fancy, and having given her restoratives sent her home.\nThe incident was treated by all as what the doctor had called it, a fancy,\nand no more was thought of it. News from India, where the child's father\nwas stationed, was in those days slow in coming, but the arrival of the\nmail in due course brought the information that the father of the child\nhad been killed by a shot, and died under a tree. Making allowances for\ndifference in time, it was found to have been about the moment when the\ndaughter had the vision at Woolwich.\"\n\nThe next case is from Mr. Francis Dart Fenton, formerly in the native\ndepartment of the Government, Auckland, New Zealand. In 1852, when the\nincident occurred, Mr. Fenton was engaged in forming a settlement on the\nbanks of the Waikato.\n\nHe writes:--\n\n    \"March 25th, 1860.\n\n    \"Two sawyers, Frank Philps and Jack Mulholland, were engaged cutting\n    timber for the Rev. R. Maunsell, at the mouth of the Awaroa Creek, a\n    very lonely place, a vast swamp, no people within miles of them. As\n    usual, they had a Maori with them to assist in felling trees. He came\n    from Tihorewam, a village on the other side of the river, about six\n    miles off. As Frank and the native were cross-cutting a tree, the\n    native stopped suddenly and said, 'What are you come for?' looking in\n    the direction of Frank. Frank replied, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I\n    am not speaking to you; I am speaking to my brother.' Frank said,\n    'Where is he?' The native replied, 'Behind you. What do you want?'\n    (to the other Maori). Frank looked round and saw nobody; the native no\n    longer saw any one, but laid down the saw and said, 'I shall go across\n    the river; my brother is dead.' Frank laughed at him, and reminded him\n    that he had left him quite well on Sunday (five days before), and\n    there had been no communication since. The Maori spoke no more, but\n    got into his canoe and pulled across. When he arrived at the\n    landing-place, he met people coming to fetch him. His brother had just\n    died. I knew him well.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries as to his authority for this narrative, Mr. Fenton\nwrites the editors of _Phantasms of the Living_:--\n\n    \"December 18th, 1883.\n\n    \"I knew all the parties well, and it is quite true. Incidents of this\n    sort are not infrequent among the Maoris.\n\n    \"F. D. FENTON,\n\n    \"Late Chief Judge, Native Law Court of New Zealand.\"\n\nThe following case was first published in the _Spiritual Magazine_ in\n1861, by Robert H. Collyer, M. D., F. C. S.\n\nAlthough published in a spiritual publication, Dr. Collyer states that he\nhimself is not a believer in spiritualism, but, on the contrary, is a\nmaterialist and has been for forty years.\n\nHe writes from Beta House, 8 Alpha Road, St. John's Wood, N. W.:--\n\n    \"April 15th, 1861.\n\n    \"On January 3d, 1856, my brother Joseph being in command of the\n    steamer _Alice_, on the Mississippi, just above New Orleans, she came\n    in collision with another steamer. The concussion caused the flagstaff\n    or pole to fall with great violence, which coming in contact with my\n    brother's head, actually divided the skull, causing of necessity\n    instant death. In October, 1857, I visited the United States. When at\n    my father's residence, Camden, New Jersey, the melancholy death of my\n    brother became the subject of conversation, and my mother narrated to\n    me that at the very time of the accident the apparition of my brother\n    Joseph was presented to her. This fact was corroborated by my father\n    and four sisters. Camden, N. J., is distant from the scene of the\n    accident, in a direct line, over one thousand miles. My mother\n    mentioned the fact of the apparition on the morning of the 4th of\n    January to my father and sisters; nor was it until the 16th, or\n    thirteen days after, that a letter was received confirming in every\n    particular the extraordinary visitation. It will be important to\n    mention that my brother William and his wife lived near the locality\n    of the dreadful accident, and are now living in Philadelphia; they\n    have also corroborated to me the details of the impression produced\n    upon my mother.\"\n\nDr. Collyer then quotes a letter from his mother which contains the\nfollowing sentences:--\n\n    \"CAMDEN, N. J., UNITED STATES,\n    \"March 27th, 1861.\n\n    \"MY BELOVED SON,--On the 3d of January, 1856, I did not feel well and\n    retired early to bed. Some time after I felt uneasy and sat up in bed;\n    I looked around the room, and to my utter amazement, saw Joseph\n    standing at the door looking at me with great earnestness; his head\n    was bandaged up, a dirty night-cap on, and a dirty white garment,\n    something like a surplice. He was much disfigured about the eyes and\n    face. It made me quite uncomfortable the rest of the night. The next\n    morning Mary came into my room early. I told her I was sure I was\n    going to have bad news from Joseph. I told all the family at the\n    breakfast table. They replied, 'It was only a dream and nonsense;' but\n    that did not change my opinion. It preyed on my mind, and on the 16th\n    of January I received the news of his death; and singular to say both\n    William and his wife, who were there, say that he was exactly attired\n    as I saw him.\n\n      \"Your ever affectionate mother,\n        \"ANNE E. COLLYER.\"\n\nIn reply to questions, Dr. Collyer wrote: \"My father, who was a scientific\nman, calculated the difference of longitude between Camden and New Orleans\nand found that the mental impression was at the exact time of my brother's\ndeath....\n\n\"In the published account I omitted to state that my brother Joseph, prior\nto his death, had retired for the night in his berth; his vessel was\nmoored alongside the levee, at the time of the collision by another\nsteamer coming down the Mississippi. Of course my brother was in his\n_nightgown_. He ran on deck on being called and informed that a steamer\nwas in close proximity to his own. These circumstances were communicated\nto me by my brother William, who was on the spot at the time of the\naccident.\"\n\nIn addition to these accounts, Mr. Podmore says:--\n\n\"I called upon Dr. Collyer on March 25th, 1884. He told me that he\nreceived a full account of the story verbally from his father, mother, and\nbrother in 1857.... He was quite certain of the precise coincidence of\ntime.\"\n\nA sister also writes corroborating all the main statements.\n\nOther senses besides that of sight may receive the telepathic impression.\nIn the following cases the sense of hearing was so impressed. The first\naccount is from Commander T. W. Aylesbury, late of the Indian Navy. It is\nfrom Mr. Gurney's collection in _Phantasms of the Living_.\n\n\"The writer when thirteen years of age was capsized in a boat when landing\non the Island of Bally, east of Java, and was nearly drowned. On coming to\nthe surface after being repeatedly submerged, the boy called out for his\nmother. This amused the boat's crew, who spoke of it afterwards and jeered\nhim a good deal about it. Months after, on arrival in England, the boy\nwent to his home, and while telling his mother of his narrow escape he\nsaid, 'While I was under the water I saw you all sitting in this room; you\nwere working on something white. I saw you all--mother, Emily, Eliza, and\nEllen.' His mother at once said, 'Why, yes, and I _heard_ you cry out for\nme, and I sent Emily to look out of the window, for I remarked that\nsomething had happened to that poor boy.' The time, owing to the\ndifference in longitude, corresponded with the time when the voice was\nheard.\"\n\nCommander Aylesbury adds in another letter:\n\n\"I saw their features (my mother's and sisters'), the room and the\nfurniture, and particularly the old-fashioned Venetian blinds. My eldest\nsister was seated next to my mother.\"\n\nThe following is an extract from a letter written to Commander Aylesbury\nby one of his sisters and forwarded to Mr. Gurney, in 1883:--\n\n\"I distinctly remember the incident you mention in your letter (the voice\ncalling 'Mother'); it made such an impression upon my mind I shall never\nforget it. We were all sitting quietly at work one evening; it was about\nnine o'clock. I think it must have been late in the summer, as we had left\nthe street door open. We first heard a faint cry of 'Mother'; we all\nlooked up and said to one another, 'Did you hear that? some one cried out\n\"Mother.\"' We had scarcely finished speaking when the voice again called\n'Mother' twice in quick succession, the last cry a frightened, agonizing\ncry. We all started up and mother said to me, 'Go to the door and see what\nis the matter.' I ran directly into the street and stood some few minutes,\nbut all was silent, and not a person to be seen; it was a lovely evening,\nnot a breath of air. Mother was sadly upset about it. I remember she paced\nthe room and feared something had happened to you. She wrote down the\ndate the next day, and when you came home and told us how nearly you had\nbeen drowned, and the time of day, father said it would be about the time\nnine o'clock would be with us. I know the date and the time corresponded.\"\n\nIn the next case three of the senses--sight, hearing, and touch were\nconcerned. It is from Mr. Gurney's collection.\n\n    \"From Mr. Algeron Joy, 20 Walton Place, S. W.\n\n    \"Aug. 16th, 1883.\n\n    \"About 1862 I was walking in a country lane near Cardiff by myself,\n    when I was overtaken by two young colliers who suddenly attacked me.\n    One of them gave me a violent blow on the eye which knocked me down,\n    half-stunned. I distinctly remembered afterwards all that I had been\n    thinking about, both immediately prior to the attack and for some time\n    after it.\n\n    \"Up to the moment of the attack and for some time previously, I was\n    absorbed in a calculation connected with Penarth Docks, then in\n    construction, on which I was employed. My train of thought was\n    interrupted for a moment by the sound of footsteps behind me. I looked\n    back and saw the two young men, but thought no more of them, and\n    immediately returned to my calculations.\n\n    \"On receiving the blow, I began speculating on their object, what they\n    were going to do next, how I could best defend myself, or escape from\n    them; and when they ran away, and I had picked myself up I thought of\n    trying to identify them and of denouncing them at the police station,\n    to which I proceeded after following them until I lost sight of them.\n\n    \"In short, I am positive that for about half an hour previous to the\n    attack, and for an hour or two after it, there was no connection\n    whatever, direct or indirect, between my thoughts and a person at that\n    moment in London, and whom I will call 'A.'\n\n    \"Two days afterwards, I received a letter from 'A,' written on the day\n    after the assault, asking me what I had been doing and thinking about\n    at 4:30 P. M., on the day previous to that on which he was writing. He\n    continued: 'I had just passed your club and was thinking of you, when\n    I recognized your footstep behind me. You laid your hand heavily on my\n    shoulder. I turned, and saw you as distinctly as I ever saw you in my\n    life. You looked distressed, and in answer to my greeting and inquiry,\n    'What's the matter?' You said, 'Go home, old fellow, I've been hurt.\n    You will get a letter from me in the morning, telling you all about\n    it.' You then vanished instantaneously.\n\n    \"The assault took place as near 4:30 as possible, certainly between\n    4:15 and 4:45. I wrote an account of it to 'A' on the following day,\n    so our letters crossed, he receiving mine, not the next morning as my\n    _double_ had promised, but on the succeeding one at about the same\n    time as I received his. 'A' solemnly assured me that he knew no one in\n    or near Cardiff, and that my account was the only one he had received\n    of the incident. From my intimate personal knowledge of him I am\n    certain that he is incapable of uttering an untruth. But there are\n    reasons why I cannot give his name even in confidence.\n\n    \"ALGERON JOY.\"\n\nApparitions are perhaps more frequently seen by a single percipient; there\nare, however, numerous well authenticated cases where they have been seen\nby several persons at the same time, sometimes by the whole and sometimes\nonly by a part of the persons present.\n\nSuch cases are called _collective_. Here are two such cases reported to\nMr. Gurney by physicians.\n\nFirst, one from Dr. Wyld, 41 Courtfield Road, S. W.\n\n    \"December, 1882.\n\n    \"Miss L. and her mother were for fifteen years my most intimate\n    friends; they were ladies of the highest intelligence and perfectly\n    truthful, and their story was confirmed by one of the servants, the\n    other I could not trace.\n\n    \"Miss L., some years before I made her acquaintance, occupied much of\n    her time in visiting the poor. One day as she walked homewards she\n    felt cold and tired and longed to be at home warming herself at the\n    kitchen fire. At or about the minute corresponding to this wish, the\n    two servants being in the kitchen, the door-handle was seen to turn,\n    the door opened, and in walked Miss L., and going up to the fire she\n    held out her hands and warmed herself, and the servants saw she had a\n    pair of _green_ kid gloves on her hands. She suddenly disappeared\n    before their eyes, and the two servants in great alarm went upstairs\n    and told the mother what they had seen, including the green kid\n    gloves. The mother feared something was wrong, but she attempted to\n    quiet the servants by reminding them that Miss L. always wore black\n    and never green gloves, and that therefore the 'ghost' could not have\n    been that of her daughter.\n\n    \"In about half an hour the veritable Miss L. entered the house, and\n    going into the kitchen warmed herself at the fire; and she had on a\n    pair of _green_ kid gloves which she had bought on her way home, not\n    being able to get a suitable black pair.\n\n    \"G. WYLD, M. D.\"\n\nThe next case is from Dr. Wm. M. Buchanan, 12 Rutland Square, Edinburgh.\n\nHe writes:--\n\n    \"The following circumstance took place at a villa about one and a half\n    miles from Glasgow, and was told me by my wife. Of its truth I am as\n    certain as if I had been a witness. The house had a lawn in front of\n    about three or four acres in extent, with a lodge at the gateway\n    distinctly seen from the house, which was about eighty yards' distant.\n    Two of the family were going to visit a friend seven miles' distant,\n    and on the previous day it had been arranged to take a lady, Miss W.,\n    with them, who was to be in waiting at a place about a mile distant.\n    Three of the family and a lady visitor were standing at one of the\n    dining-room windows waiting for the carriage, when they, including my\n    wife, saw Miss W. open the gate at the lodge. The wind had disarranged\n    the front of a pelisse which she wore, which they distinctly saw her\n    adjust. She wore a light gray-colored beaver hat, and had a\n    handkerchief at her mouth; it was supposed she was suffering from\n    toothache to which she was subject. She entered the lodge to the\n    surprise of her friends, and as she did not leave it, a servant was\n    sent to ask her to join the family; but she was informed that Miss W.\n    had not been there, and it was afterwards ascertained that no one\n    except the woman's husband had been in the lodge that morning.\n\n    \"The carriage arrived at the house about ten A. M., and Miss W. was\n    found at the place agreed upon, in the dress in which she appeared at\n    the lodge, and suffering from toothache. As she was a nervous person,\n    nothing was said to her about her appearance at the gate. She died\n    nine years afterwards.\"\n\n    Sometimes an apparition seemingly intended for one person is not\n    perceived by that person, but is seen by some other person present who\n    may be a stranger to the agent or person whose image is seen. The\n    following case is in point. It is from Mrs. Clerke, of Clifton Lodge,\n    Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood, S. E., and also belongs to Mr. Gurney's\n    collection:--\n\n    \"In the month of August, 1864, about three or four o'clock in the\n    afternoon, I was sitting reading in the verandah of our house in\n    Barbadoes. My black nurse was driving my little girl, about eighteen\n    months or so old, in her perambulator in the garden. I got up after\n    some time to go into the house, not having noticed anything at all,\n    when this black woman said to me, 'Missis, who was that gentleman that\n    was talking to you just now?' 'There was no one talking to me,' I\n    said. 'Oh, yes, dere was, Missis--a very pale gentleman, very tall,\n    and he talked to you and you was very rude, for you never answered\n    him.' I repeated there was no one, and got rather cross with the\n    woman, and she begged me to write down the day, for she knew she had\n    seen some one. I did, and in a few days I heard of the death of my\n    brother in Tobago. Now the curious part is this, that I did not see\n    him, but she--a stranger to him--did; and she said that he seemed very\n    anxious for me to notice him.\n\n    \"MAY CLERKE.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries Mrs. Clerke says:--\n\n\"(1) The day of the death was the same, for I wrote it down. I think it\nwas the third of August, but I know it was the same.\n\n\"(2) The description 'very tall and pale' was accurate.\n\n\"(3) I had no idea he was ill. He was only a few days ill.\n\n\"(4) The woman had never seen him. She had been with me about eighteen\nmonths and I considered her truthful. She had no object in telling me.\"\n\nHer husband, Colonel Clerke, corroborates as follows:--\n\n\"I well remember that on the day on which Mr. John Brersford, my wife's\nbrother, died in Tobago--after a short illness of which we were not\naware--our black nurse declared she saw, at as nearly as possible the time\nof his death, a gentleman exactly answering to Mr. Brersford's\ndescription, leaning over the back of Mrs. Clerke's easy-chair in the open\nverandah. The figure was not seen by any one else.\n\n  \"SHADWELL H. CLERKE.\"\n\nIn this instance, looking upon the dying brother as the agent and the\nsister as the _intended_ percipient, the question arises, why was _she_\nunable to perceive the telepathic influence which presented the likeness\nof her brother, while the colored nurse, an entire stranger to him, sees\nand describes him standing by his sister's chair and apparently anxious\nthat she should recognize him?\n\nIn another of Mr. Gurney's cases, of four persons present in a business\noffice where the phantasm of a fifth well-known person appeared, two\npersons saw the phantasm and two did not.\n\nAbridged from Mr. Gurney's account the circumstances were as follows:--\n\nThe narrator is Mr. R. Mouat, of 60 Huntingdon St., Barnsbury, N., and the\nincident occurred in his office on Thursday, September 5th, 1867. The\npersons concerned were the Rev. Mr. H., who had a desk in the same office\nand who may be considered the _agent_; Mr. Mouat, himself, and Mr. R., a\ngentleman from an office upstairs in the same building, the _percipients_;\nwhile a clerk and a porter who were also present saw nothing.\n\nMr. Mouat goes into his office at 10:45 o'clock on the morning of\nSeptember 5th, sees his clerk and the porter in conversation, and the Rev.\nMr. H. standing at the corner of a table at the back of the clerk. He is\nabout to speak to Mr. H. about his being there so early (more than an hour\nbefore his usual time), when the clerk commenced speaking to him about\nbusiness and especially a telegram concerning which something was amiss.\nThis conversation lasted several minutes and was decidedly animated.\nDuring this scene, Mr. R., from an office upstairs, comes in and listens\nto the excited conversation. He looks at Mr. H. in a comical way,\nmotioning with his head toward the two disputants, as much as to say \"they\nare having it hot;\" but to Mr. R.'s disgust Mr. H. does not respond to the\njoke. Mr. R. and the porter then leave the room. Mr. Mouat turns to Mr.\nH., who was all the while standing at the corner of the table, notices\nthat he looks downcast, and is without his neck-tie; he says to him,\n\"Well, what is the matter with _you_, you look so sour?\" Mr. H. makes no\nreply, but looks fixedly at Mr. Mouat. Having finished some papers he was\nreading Mr. Mouat noticed Mr. H. still standing at the table. The clerk at\nthat moment handed Mr. Mouat a letter saying, \"Here, sir, is a letter from\nMr. H.\"\n\nNo sooner was the name pronounced than Mr. H. disappeared in a second.\n\nMr. Mouat is dumfounded--so much so that the clerk notices it. It is then\ndiscovered that the clerk has not seen Mr. H. at all, and declares that he\nhas not been in the office that morning. The letter from Mr. H. was\nwritten on the previous day and informs Mr. Mouat that he is ill, and will\nnot be at the office the next day, and asks to have his letters sent to\nhis house.\n\nThe next day, Friday, Mr. H. enters the office at his usual hour, twelve\no'clock; and on being asked by Mr. Mouat where he was the previous day at\n10:45 o'clock, he replied that at that time he had just finished\nbreakfast--was at home with his wife, and did not leave the house all day.\n\nThe following Monday Mr. Mouat meets Mr. R. and asks him if he remembers\nbeing in his office the previous Thursday morning. R. replies that he\ndoes, perfectly. Does he remember who were present and what was going on?\n\"Yes,\" said Mr. R., \"you were having an animated confab with your clerk\nabout a telegram. Besides yourself and the clerk there were present the\nporter and Mr. H.\"\n\nOn being informed that Mr. H. was at home, fourteen miles' distant, at\nthat time, Mr. R. became indignant that any one should insinuate that he\ndid not know a man was present when he saw him. He insisted on calling the\nporter to corroborate him; but on being questioned, the porter, like the\nclerk, declared that he did not see anything of Mr. H. that morning.\n\nHere, in broad daylight, of four persons present and engaged in business,\ntwo saw Mr. H. and addressed him either in words or by signs, while two\nothers with equal opportunities did not see him at all.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. H. at home during the time had no particular experience of\nany kind. All that can be said is, that, it must have been about his usual\ntime for starting for the office; he had sent a letter about his mail\nwhich he knew would then be received, and all the general routine and\nhabit of his life would tend to direct his mind to that locality at that\nparticular time. He was ill as he appeared to be to those who saw his\n_appearance_ at the office, and very likely he was negligently dressed.\n\nWhy should two of those present have seen his apparition, and two others\nhave failed to see it? For the simple reason that, as in ordinary\nthought-transference, or in the \"willing game\" some are _good subjects_,\nor percipients, and others are not. For the same reason that of ten\npersons making trial of Planchette-writing, the board will move for only\ntwo or three out of the whole number--that is, in only a few would the\nhands act automatically in response to a subliminal self; and for the same\nreason it may also be true that amongst several persons, in only a few of\nthose present, can the sense of sight or hearing be effected by a\nphantasm.\n\nIn many instances, children, and in some instances, very young children,\nhave been the percipients--children too young to perceive any difference\nbetween the phantasm and a real person, and who have accordingly addressed\nit and spoken of it as they would of a real person. Even animals,\nespecially horses and dogs, have given unmistakable evidence--by\ncrouching, trembling, and fright--of perceiving the same phantasms that\nhave been seen by persons who were present with them. The phantom being,\nso to speak, _in the air_, it is perceived by those whose organization is\nso adjusted as to make it _impressionable_, and to constitute, to a\ngreater or less degree, what is known as a _sensitive_.\n\nDoubtless, on close examination, it would be found that persons capable of\nhypnotization, though they may never have been hypnotized, natural\nsomnambulists, persons accustomed to vivid dreaming, reverie, abstraction,\nand kindred states, in other words, persons in whom the subliminal self\nsometimes gives indications of independent action, are most likely to have\nsome _marked_ psychical experience. It may be only once in a lifetime, and\nthis one instance _may_ be the perception of a phantasmal appearance.\n\nIn bringing to a close these examples of apparitions, I wish to introduce\none which has specially impressed me. It was the experience of a child--it\nis reported by the percipient herself. The statement is singularly\nstraightforward, and simple; something was done on account of the vision\nwhich impressed the circumstance upon others who did not see it, for\nprompt action founded upon what was seen, saved a life. I give it in the\npercipient's own words, written to Mr. Gurney. It is from Mrs. Brettany, 2\nEckington Villas, Ashbourne Grove, Dulwich.\n\nShe writes:--\n\n    \"November, 1884.\n\n    \"When I was a child I had many remarkable experiences of a psychical\n    nature, and which I remember to have looked upon as ordinary and\n    natural at the time.\n\n    \"On one occasion (I am unable to fix the date, but I must have been\n    about ten years old) I was walking in a country lane at A., the place\n    where my parents then resided. I was reading geometry as I walked\n    along, a subject little likely to produce fancies, or morbid phenomena\n    of any kind, when, in a moment, I saw a bedroom, known as the White\n    Room in my home, and upon the floor lay my mother, to all appearances\n    dead.\n\n    \"The vision must have remained some minutes, during which time my real\n    surroundings appeared to pale and die out; but as the vision faded\n    actual surroundings came back, at first dimly, and then clearly. I\n    could not doubt that what I had seen was real. So instead of going\n    home, I went at once to the house of our medical man, and found him at\n    home. He at once set out with me for my home, on the way putting\n    questions I could not answer, as my mother was to all appearances well\n    when I left home.\n\n    \"I led the doctor straight to the White Room, where we found my mother\n    actually lying as in my vision. This was true, even to minute details.\n\n    \"She had been seized suddenly by an attack of the heart, and would\n    soon have breathed her last but for the doctor's timely arrival. I\n    shall get my father and mother to read this and sign it.\"\n\n    \"JEANIE GWYNNE-BRETTANY.\"\n\nMrs. Brettany's parents write:--\n\n    \"We certify that the above is correct.\"\n\n    \"S. G. GWYNNE.\n    \"J. W. GWYNNE.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries, Mrs. Brettany states further:\n\n    \"The White Room in which I saw my mother, and afterwards actually\n    found her, was out of use. It was unlikely she should be there.\n\n    \"She was found lying in the attitude in which I had seen her. I found\n    a handkerchief with a lace border beside her on the floor. This I had\n    distinctly noticed in my vision. There were other particulars of\n    coincidence which I cannot put here.\"\n\nMrs. Brettany's father writes further:--\n\n    \"I distinctly remember being surprised by seeing my daughter in\n    company with the family doctor, outside the door of my residence; and\n    I asked, 'Who is ill?' She replied, 'Mamma.' She led the way at once\n    to the 'White Room,' where we found my wife lying in a swoon on the\n    floor. It was when I asked when she had been taken ill that I found it\n    must have been after my daughter had left the house. None of the\n    servants in the house knew anything of the sudden illness, which our\n    doctor assured me would have been fatal had he not arrived when he\n    did.\n\n    \"My wife was quite well when I left her in the morning.\"\n\n    \"S. G. GWYNNE.\"\n\nTaking, as we must, the main incidents of this narrative as true, we have\neither a simple case of clairvoyance on the part of Mrs. Brettany as a\nchild, or else, on the other hand, the subliminal self of the unconscious\nmother hastened to impress the situation upon the sensitive child, and\nwith the definite good result which is recorded.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\n\nIn gathering up the results of these investigations, it must be stated\nthat in showing their relation to science there is no thought of any\ndetraction from the nobility and greatness of scientific labor and\nachievement in the material world--that is grand almost beyond expression.\nThe attitude of science is conservative, and it is right; but sooner or\nlater it must awake to the fact that here is a new field for investigation\nwhich comes strictly within the limits of its aims, and even of its\nmethods. Many individual members of the great body of scientific workers\nsee and know this; gradually the majority will see it.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be stated that there is no intention of\ncovering the whole ground of alleged occult psychic phenomena, but only a\nportion, even of such as relate to our present life. The subject of the\nreturn of spirits is untouched; it is only shown that the domain of\nalleged spiritualistic manifestations is deeply trenched upon by the\naction of the subliminal self of living people; what lies beyond that is\nneither affirmed nor denied; it rests upon ground yet to be cleared up and\nconsidered; and any facts open to satisfactory investigation are always\nwelcomed by any of the many persons and societies interested in\ndiscovering what is true relating to it.\n\nConfining ourselves within the limits assigned, if the series of alleged\nfacts which has been presented in the preceding chapters be true, then we\nare in the presence of a momentous reality which, for importance and\nvalue, has not been exceeded, if, indeed, it has been approached by any of\nthe discoveries of modern times.\n\nBut, it may be said, your alleged facts are not new; they are coeval with\nhistory, with mythology, with folk-lore, with religion. Granted that the\nfacts are old, that similar ones have been known from very early times,\nhow have these facts been treated by the leaders of thought in the\nnineteenth century?\n\nThat the earth goes round the sun is an old fact, yet it was not made\npatent and credible, even to the cultivated, much less to the average\nmind, till recent times. Evolution has been going on since millions of\nyears before the human race came into existence--it is a very ancient\nfact, yet it is only within the memory of men still living that it has\nbeen found out and accepted. So telepathy has existed ever since the race\nwas young, yet few even now know the facts, observations, and experiments\nupon which its existence is predicated or comprehend either its theories\nor its importance. The subliminal self has been active in every age of\nwhich we have any record. Yet it has never been recognized as forming a\npart of each and every individual's mental outfit, but its wonderful\naction has either been discredited altogether, or else has been credited\nto foreign or supernatural agencies.\n\nBut telepathy can no longer be classed with fads and fancies; if not\nalready an accepted fact, it has certainly attained to the dignity of a\ntheory supported by both facts and experiments; a theory which has\nattracted to its study a large company of competent men in every civilized\ncountry.\n\nA theory, no matter in what department of investigation it may be found,\nwhether relating to matter or mind, is strong in proportion to the number\nof facts which it will bring into line, harmonize and reduce to system. It\nis that which makes the Nebular Theory of the formation of the planetary\nsystem so wonderfully strong; it harmonizes and reduces to system so many\nknown but otherwise unrelated and unsystematized facts; and it is easier\nto find excuses or form minor theories to account for isolated and\napparently erratic facts, like the retrograde motions of the satellites of\nUranus and Neptune, than to give up a theory, at once so grand in itself\nand at the same time harmonizing so many important astronomical phenomena.\nThe same is true of the undulatory theory of light, and again of the\ntheory of evolution, which forty years ago was looked upon as a flimsy\nhypothesis, but which is now universally accepted as an established truth.\nSome of the facts are still unclassified and unexplained, yet it so\nharmonizes in general the facts of the visible world, that instead of a\nmass of disjointed and heterogeneous objects and phenomena, such as men\nbeheld in nature only a hundred years ago, the arbitrary work of a blind\nchance or a capricious Creator, we now behold a beautiful and orderly\nsequence, progression, and unfolding of the natural world according to\nlaws which command our admiration and stimulate our reverence.\n\nApart from recent studies, exactly the same condition of chaos and\nconfusion exists regarding psychical phenomena as existed concerning the\nfacts in the physical world only a hundred years ago. Nor is it likening\ngreat things to small when we compare the nebular hypothesis, or the\ntheory of evolution, conceptions which have educated an age and vastly\nenlarged the boundary of human thought, to the theory of telepathy and the\nfact and power of the subliminal self. For if it was important that men\nshould know the laws governing inanimate matter, to comprehend the orbits\nand motions of the planets; if it developed the understanding to\ncontemplate the grandeur of their movements, the vast spaces which they\ntraverse, and the wonderful speed with which they accomplish their various\njourneys--if such knowledge has enlarged the capacity of men's minds,\ngiven them truer notions of the magnitude of the universe, and grander\nconceptions of nature and the infinite power and intelligence which\npervades and is exhibited in it, is it not equally important and equally\nimproving and practical to study the subtler forces which pervade living\norganisms, the still finer laws and adjustments which govern the action of\nmind?\n\nIt has been contended by a large and intelligent class of writers, and\nthose who most pride themselves on scientific methods and the\ninfallibility of scientific inductions, that mind is only the product of\norganization and ceases to have any activity or even existence when the\norgans through which it usually manifests itself have perished. The\ngeneral consensus of mankind is a sharp protest against this\nconclusion--but the experimental proofs have, to many, seemed in favor of\nthis scientific denial;--the healthy brain in general exhibits a healthy\nmental activity, the diseased or imperfect brain shows impaired mental\naction, and the disorganized brain simply exhibits no mental activity nor\nany evidence whatever of the existence of mind. Nevertheless, it is a lame\nargument; it is simply an attempt to prove a negative.\n\nThe healthy rose emits an agreeable odor which our senses appreciate. You\nmay destroy the rose--it does not prove that the fragrance which it\nemitted does not still exist even though our senses fail to appreciate it.\n\nBut experiment and scientific methods have also somewhat to say upon this\nsubject. And first, in August, 1874, twenty-two years ago, at the moment\nwhen the materialistic school was at the height of its influence, both the\nscientific and religious world were brought to a momentary\nstandstill--like a ship under full headway suddenly struck by a tidal\nwave--when one of the most eminent scientific men of his time, or of any\ntime, standing in his place as president of the foremost scientific\nassociation in the world, spoke as follows: \"Abandoning all disguise, the\nconfession which I feel bound to make before you is that I prolong the\nvision backward across the boundary of experimental evidence and discover\nin matter, which we, in our ignorance, and notwithstanding our professed\nreverence for its Creator, have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the\npromise and potency of every form of life.\"[2]\n\n    [2] Prof. Tyndall's address before the British Association at Belfast,\n    August, 1874.\n\nOn that day the tap-root of materialism was wounded, and materialism\nitself has been an invalid of increasing languor and desuetude ever since.\nOn the other hand, supernaturalism in every form was left in little better\nplight.\n\nTo thinking men of all classes this bold declaration opened up the grand\nthought, not new, but newly formulated and endorsed, that as the seed\ncontained all the possibilities of the future plant--the ovum all the\npossibilities of the future animal, so matter, which had been thought so\nlightly of, contained within itself the germ, potency, and promise of\nnature in all her subsequent developments--of the vast universe of suns\nand systems, planets and satellites, and of every form of life,\nsensation, and intelligence which in due process of evolution has appeared\nupon their surfaces. It pointed the way to the thought of an infinite\ncausal energy and intelligence pervading matter and working through nature\nin all its various grades of life from the first organized cell up to the\ngrandest man. It gave a new meaning to mind in man, as being an\nindividualized portion of that divine potency which ever existed in\nmatter, and which acting through constantly improving and developing\norganisms, amidst constantly improving environments, at length appeared a\ndifferentiated, individualized, seeing, reasoning, knowing, loving spirit.\n\nThe mind, then, is of importance. It is no transient visitor which may\nhave made its appearance by chance--a concatenation of coincidences,\nfortunate or unfortunate, but it is the intelligent tenant and master of a\nsingularly beautiful and complicated house, a house which has been\nmillions upon millions of years in the building, and yet which will be\nlightly laid aside when it ceases to accommodate and fulfil the needs of\nits tenant.\n\nWho and what, then, is this lordly tenant whose germ was coeval with\nmatter, whose birth was in the first living cell which appeared upon the\nplanet, whose apprenticeship has been served through every grade of\nexistence from the humble polyp upwards, whose education has been carried\non through the brain and organs of every grade of animal life with its\ncountless expedients for existence and enjoyment, until now, as lord of\nits domain, it looks back upon its long course of development and\neducation, looks about upon its environments and wonders at itself, at\nwhat it sees, and at what it prophesies. Truly what is this tenant, what\nare its powers, and why is it here at all?\n\nThese are the questions which it has been the business of the strongest\nand wisest to discuss, from the time men began to think and record their\nthoughts until the present time; but how various and unsatisfactory have\nbeen the conclusions. The mental philosophers, psychologists, and\nencyclopedists simply present a chaos of conflicting definitions,\nprinciples, and premises, upon none of which are they in full agreement\namongst themselves; they are not even agreed regarding the nature of\nmind--whether it is material or immaterial--how it should be studied, how\nit is related to the body, indeed whether it is an entity at all, or\nsimply \"a series of feelings or possibilities of them\"; whether it\npossesses innate ideas or is simply an accretion of experiences. In\nshort, the stock of generally received facts relating to mind has always\nremained exceedingly small. Psychologists have busied themselves chiefly\nabout its usual and obvious actions, and when in full relation to the\nbody, ignoring all other mental action or arbitrarily excluding it as\nabnormal and not to be taken into account in the study of normal mind; so\nwith only half the subject under consideration true results could hardly\nbe attained.\n\nSince the organization of the Society for Psychical Research, in 1882, new\nfields of investigation have been undertaken and the _unusual_ phenomena\nconnected with the operations of mind have been systematically studied. A\nvery hasty and imperfect sketch of this study and of the results obtained\nhas been given in the preceding chapters, but for the use here made of\nthese studies in connection with his own observations the writer alone is\nresponsible. In these studies the field of investigation has been greatly\nextended beyond that examined by the old philosophers and physiologists.\nBeyond the usual activities in which we constantly see the mind\nengaged--observation of surroundings made by the senses, memory of them,\nreasoning about them, and putting them in new combinations in science,\nliterature, or art--new activities have been observed, activities lying\nentirely outside the old lines, in new and hitherto unexplored fields.\n\nIt has been demonstrated by experiment after experiment carefully made by\ncompetent persons that sensations, ideas, information, and mental pictures\ncan be transferred from one mind to another without the aid of speech,\nsight, hearing, touch, or any of the ordinary methods of communicating\nsuch information or impressions. That is, Telepathy is a fact, and mind\ncommunicates with mind through channels other than the ordinary use of the\nsenses.\n\nIt has been demonstrated that in the hypnotic condition, in ordinary\nsomnambulism, in the dreams and vision of ordinary sleep, in reverie, and\nin various other subjective conditions the mind may perceive scenes and\nevents at the moment transpiring at such a distance away or under such\nphysical conditions as to render it impossible that knowledge of these\nscenes and events could be obtained by means of the senses acting in their\nusual manner. That is, mind under some circumstances _sees_ without the\nuse of the physical organ of sight.\n\nAgain, it has been demonstrated that some persons can voluntarily project\nthe mind--some mind--some centre of intelligence or independent mental\nactivity, clothed in a recognizable form, a distance of one, a hundred, or\na thousand miles, and that it can there make itself known and recognized,\nperform acts, and even carry on a conversation with the person to whom it\nwas sent. That is, mind can _act_ at a distance from, and independent of,\nthe physical body and the organs through which it usually manifests\nitself.\n\nThese propositions present an aspect of mind which the authorities in the\nold fields of psychology have failed to observe or to recognize; or if\nthey have at times caught a glimpse of it they have rather chosen to close\ntheir eyes and deny altogether the phenomena which these propositions\nimply, because they found it was impossible to classify them in their\nsystem. It has been to a degree a repetition of the folly exhibited by\nGalileo's contemporaries and critics, who refused to look through his\ntelescope lest their favorite theories of the universe should be damaged.\nNevertheless, this newly studied aspect exists, and is adding greatly to\nour knowledge of the nature and action of mind.\n\nStill another class of unusual mental phenomena found in this outlying\nfield of psychology is that known under the general name of automatism;\nand by this is meant something more than the \"unconscious cerebration\" and\n\"unconscious muscular action\" of the physiologists, and something quite\ndifferent from that.\n\nThere is, first, the class of motor automatisms, including\nPlanchette-writing and other methods of automatic writing, drawing,\npainting, and kindred performances, also poetical or metrical\nimprovisations, and trance, and so-called inspirational speaking:--Second,\nthere are the sensory automatisms; or such as are manifested by\nimpressions made upon the senses and which are reckoned as hallucinations.\nThe impression of hearing a voice, of feeling a touch, or seeing a vision\nmay be reckoned as examples of this kind of automatism.\n\nNo other division of this newly cultivated field presents so many unusual\nand debatable phenomena. Not only do those modern mysteries,\nPlanchette-writing, trance-speaking, and mediumistic utterances come\neasily under this class of mental phenomena, but all that vast array of\nalleged supernatural phenomena which pervades the literature of every\nnation since the time when men first began to record their experiences.\nThe oracles of the Greeks and Romans, the daemon of Socrates, the voices\nof Joan of Arc, and the widespread custom of divination by means of\ncrystal-gazing in some of its many forms have already been referred to and\ntheir relation to automatism or the action of the subliminal self has been\nnoted.\n\nThere is still one important class of persons who have wielded an enormous\ninfluence upon mankind, an influence in the main wholesome, elevating, and\ndeveloping, whose relation to automatism demands a passing consideration.\nI refer to the religious chiefs of the world.\n\nAs prominent examples of those founders of religions we will briefly\nnotice Moses, Zoroaster, Mahomet, and Swedenborg. Each either professed\nhimself to be, or his followers have credited him with being, the inspired\nmouthpiece of the Deity. There can be no doubt in the minds of candid\nstudents that each one of these religious leaders was perfectly honest,\nboth as regards his conception of the character and importance of his\ndoctrines and also regarding the method by which he professed to receive\nthem. Each believed that what he taught was ultimate and infallible truth,\nand was received directly from the Deity. It is evident, however, that\nfrom whatever source they were derived the doctrines could not all be\nultimate truth, since they were not in harmony amongst themselves; but\nthe authors of them all present their claim to inspiration, and whose\nclaim to accept and whose to reject it is difficult to decide. But\naccepting the theory that each promulgated the doctrines, theological,\ncosmological, and ethical, that came to him automatically through the\nsuperior perception of the subliminal self, all the phenomena fall into\nline with the well ascertained action of that subliminal self.\n\nThe truth which Moses saw was such as was adapted to his age and the\npeople with whom he had to deal. So there came to his perception not only\nthe sublime laws received at Sinai, but also the particulars regarding the\ntabernacle and its furnishing--the rings and the curtains, the dishes and\nspoons and bowls and covers, the rams' skins dyed red, the badgers' skins,\nand the staves of shittim wood. The same also is true regarding the\nteachings of Zoroaster.\n\nThe splendid results which followed the promulgation of Mahomet's\nrevelation to a few insignificant Arab tribes are proof of its vital germ\nof truth and of its adaptability to the soil into which it fell. It\ndeveloped into a civilization from which, at a later period, a benighted\nand debased Christianity relighted its torch.\n\nAlso the teachings of Swedenborg, notwithstanding the apparent egotism of\nthe man and the tiresome verbiage of many of his communications, are\nelevating and refining in character and useful to those who are attracted\nto them. That in either case an infinite Deity spoke the commonplace which\nis attributed to Him in these communications is incredible, but to suppose\nit all, both the grand and the trivial, the work of the subconscious self\nof the respective authors is in accordance with what we know of automatism\nand of the wonderful work of the subliminal self when left free to\nexercise its highest activities.\n\nLet us examine with some care the history of two examples of unusual or\nsupranormal mental action, the first found in one of the earliest of human\nrecords, and reckoned as fully inspired; the other equally unusual\noccurring within the last half century and making no claim to any\nsupernatural assistance.\n\nThe first example is presented in the first chapter of Genesis, and is a\nclear, connected, and in the main correct, though by no means complete,\naccount of the changing conditions of the earth in the earliest geological\nperiods, and of the appearance in their proper order of the different\ngrades of life upon its surface. That such a written account should have\nexisted three thousand years before any scientifically constructed\nschedule even of the order in which plants and animals succeeded each\nother, much less of the manner in which the earth was prepared for their\nreception and nurture, is a most remarkable circumstance, regarded either\nfrom a literary or a scientific standpoint. It has been criticised for its\nlack of scientific exactness, and the supposed error of representing light\nas created before the sun, ignoring the early existence of aquatic life,\nand similar points. But let us take our stand with the grand old seer,\nwhoever he may have been, whom we know as Moses, who gave to the world\nthis graphic account of the order of creation so many centuries before\nscience had thrown its light upon the condition of the earth in those\nfar-off ages, and let us endeavor to see what his quickened vision enabled\nhim to behold.\n\nThe panorama opens and discloses in an hour the grand progressive action\nof millions upon millions of years.\n\nThe first picture represents the created earth covered with water and\nenveloped in a thick mantle of steaming mist, causing a condition of\nabsolute and impenetrable darkness upon its surface. In the language of\nthe seer, \"The earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the\nface of the deep.\" For ages the unbroken ocean which covered the earth was\nheated by internal fires; the rising vapor as it met the cooler atmosphere\nabove was condensed and fell in one constant downpour of rain. Unceasing,\nsteaming mist, vapor, and rain, wholly impenetrable to light: such were\nthe conditions.\n\nAt length, as the cooling process went on, the density of the mists was\ndiminished;--the wonderful fiat went forth, \"Let light be\"--and light was.\nBut still the mantle hung close upon the unbroken ocean.\n\nThe second picture appears. Not only was there light but a firmament--an\narch with a clear space underneath it; and it divided the waters which\nwere above it from the waters which were beneath it.\n\nPicture the third. The waters were gathered together and the continents\nappeared; and the land was covered with verdure--plants and trees, each\nbearing seed after its kind. Of the inhabitants of the sea the seer had\ntaken no account. It was simply a picture that he saw--a natural,\nphenomenal representation.\n\nPicture the fourth. The mists and clouds are altogether dispelled. The\nclear sky appears. The sun comes forth to rule the day--the moon to rule\nthe night. The stars also appear.\n\nPicture the fifth. The lower orders of animals are in full possession of\nthe earth and sea--fish, fowl, and sea-monsters.\n\nPicture the sixth. The higher orders of creation, mammals and man.\n\nSuch was the phenomenal aspect of the various epochs of creation roughly\noutlined, strong, distinct, and in the main true. Not even the scientific\ncritic with his present knowledge could combine more strength and truth,\nwith so few strokes of the brush.\n\nRelieved of the burden of inspiration and the necessity for presenting\nabsolute and unchangeable truth, and presenting the seer as simply telling\nwhat he saw, the picture is wonderful, and the telling is most graphic. It\nneeded no deity nor angel to tell it--it was there--and the subliminal\nself of the seer whose special faculty it was to see, perceived the scene\nin all its grandeur. He also was the one best fitted to perceive the laws\nwhich should make his people great, and describe the forms and ceremonies\nwhich should captivate their senses and lead them on to higher\nintellectual, moral, and ethical development.\n\nNext take the other example. Fifty years ago a young man, not yet twenty\nyears of age, uneducated, a grocer's boy and shoemaker's apprentice, was\nhypnotized; and it was found that he had a most remarkable mental or\npsychical constitution. He had most unusual experiences, and presented\nunusual psychical phenomena which need not be recounted here.\n\nAt length it was impressed upon him as it might have been upon Socrates or\nJoan of Arc, or Swedenborg or Mahomet, that he had a mission and had a\nmessage to give to the world. He came from the rural town where he had\nspent his boyhood to the city of New York and hired a room on a prominent\nthoroughfare. He then, in his abnormal condition, proceeded to choose\nthose who should be specially associated with him in his work--men of\ncharacter and ability whom he did not even know in his normal state.\nFirst: Three witnesses were chosen who should be fully cognizant of\neverything relating to the method by which the message or book was\nproduced. Of these one was a clergyman, one a physician, and one an\nintelligent layman. Second: A scribe qualified to write out the messages\nas he dictated them, to edit and publish them. Third: A physician to put\nhim into the hypnotic, or as it was then called, the magnetic condition,\nin which he was to dictate his messages.\n\nThe first lecture was given November 28th, 1845, and the last June 21st,\n1847. During this time 157 lectures were given, varying in length from\nforty minutes to four hours, and they were all carefully written out by\nthe scribe. To 140 of these manuscripts were attached 267 names of persons\nwho listened to them and subscribed their names as witnesses at the end of\neach lecture--to some a single signature was affixed, to some, many. Any\nperson really desirous of knowing the purport of these lectures and the\nmanner of their delivery could be admitted by making application\nbeforehand.\n\nAt each sitting the speaker was first put into the deep hypnotic trance in\nwhich he was rigid and unconscious; but his sub-conscious or second self\nwas active and lucid, and associated with the principles and knowledge\nwhich he needed and which he was to communicate. From this condition he\ncame back to the somnambulic state in which he dictated that which he had\nacquired in the deep trance, or what he called the \"superior condition\";\nand the transition from one of these states to the other took place many\ntimes during each lecture. Such were the conditions under which Andrew\nJackson Davis produced the _Principles of Nature--Her Divine\nRevelation_--a book of nearly 800 pages, divided into three parts:--First,\na setting forth of first principles, which served as a philosophical\nexplanation or key to the main work. Second, a cosmogony or description of\nthe method by which the universe came to its present state of development,\nand third, a statement of the ethical principles upon which society should\nbe based and the practical working of these principles. It assumes to be\nthoroughly scientific and philosophical. It has literary faults, and there\nis plenty of opportunity for cavil and scientific fault-finding; but these\nremarkable facts remain.\n\nA poor boy, thoroughly well known and vouched for by his neighbors for his\nstrict integrity, having had only five months of ordinary district school\ninstruction for his education, having never read a scientific or\nphilosophical book, and not a dozen all told of every kind, having never\nassociated with people of education except in the most casual way, yet in\nthe manner just described he dictated a book containing the outlines of a\nthoroughly sound and reasonable system of philosophy, theology, and\nethics, and a complete system of cosmogony representing the most advanced\nviews in geology, which was then in its infancy--astronomy, chemistry, and\nother departments of physical science, criticising current scientific\nopinions, and in points where he differed from these opinions giving full\nand cogent reason for that difference.\n\nOn March 16th, 17th, and 20th, 1846, he announced the fact of the motion\nof our sun and solar system about a still greater centre, in harmony with\nthe Nebular Hypothesis by which he explained the formation of the whole\nvast system. He also announced the existence of an eighth and ninth\nplanet, and the apparently abnormal revolution of the satellites of\nUranus. Neptune, the eighth planet, had not then been discovered and was\nnot found until six months later. On the 29th of April he announced the\ndiscovery and application of diamagnetism by Faraday, concerning which\nnone of his associates had any knowledge, and which I believe had not then\nbeen noticed in this country. He gave a distinct and vivid description of\nthe formation of the different bodies constituting the solar system, of\nthe introduction of life upon our planet, and of its evolution from grade\nto grade from the lowest to the highest--all in minute detail, in general\naccord with established scientific deduction and in scientific and\ntechnical language. In several particulars he differed from the received\nopinions, and gave his reasons for so doing. No claim was made to\ninspiration nor to the presentation of absolute or infallible truth, but\nwhen hypnotized and in what he termed the \"superior condition,\" his\nperceptive faculties were vastly increased, and that which he then\nperceived he made known. He simply gave the truth as he saw it, and he\ncommended it to the judgment and reason of mankind for reception or\nrejection. In other words, the subliminal self was brought into action by\nhypnotism, and then by means of its greatly increased perceptive powers he\ngathered knowledge from various sources quite inaccessible to him in his\nordinary state, and seemingly inaccessible also to others.\n\nConcerning the truth or falsity of the revelations beyond what was already\nknown or has since been confirmed by science, I do not assume to pronounce\njudgment; but that this also, as well as the first chapter of Genesis,\nfrom either a literary or scientific standpoint, is one of the most\nremarkable productions of this or of any age, will not be denied by any\ncompetent and candid examiner; while the remarkable character of the book\nwill be still better appreciated when the status of the theory of\nevolution and of the science of geology fifty years ago is taken into the\naccount.\n\nHere are presented two prominent examples of supranormal mental\nactivity--one in the early ages of man's development, when _everything_\nwas supernatural, the immediate work of a god--the other in man's later\ndevelopment when natural law is found intervening between phenomena and\ntheir cause, and when it is found possible for men to comprehend the fact\nthat truth, extraordinary and even that which had previously been unknown\nor was beyond the reach of the senses in their ordinary state, may\nnevertheless be discovered or revealed by other means than direct\ncommunications from Deity.\n\nIt is seen, then, how various and how wonderfully important are the mental\nphenomena grouped under the general designation of automatism.\n\nMany examples of this and other classes of unusual mental action have been\ngiven in previous chapters, not as cumulative evidence of their\nverity--that would require volumes, but simply to illustrate the subject\nand give some degree of definiteness to our reasoning regarding them. Not\neven all the _classes_ of facts properly belonging to our subject have\nhere been represented; but taking them as they have been enumerated and\nhastily described, they constitute a body of well observed and well\nauthenticated facts and phenomena of undeniable interest, and if received\nas true their importance is certainly to be compared with the greatest\ndiscoveries of modern science. They are, however, the very facts which the\nscience and philosophy of to-day hesitates to accept. The only exception\nto this statement is found in the treatment lately accorded to hypnotism,\nwhich after a hundred years of hesitation, rejection and even ridicule,\nhas at length been definitely received as regards its main facts. It is\ntrue, however, that in numerous other instances the evidence regarding\nunusual mental states and phenomena is equally weighty and unimpeachable;\nbut because these phenomena are unusual, marvelous or seemingly\nmiraculous, belonging to no recognized class of mental action, therefore\nit is argued, they cannot be genuine; there _must be_ some flaw in the\nevidence and they cannot be accepted.\n\nIt is tedious going over the arguments which reduce this mode of reasoning\nto an absurdity. The same reasoning has been applied to every important\ndiscovery in physical science for the past three hundred years; and if it\nwere carried out to its logical conclusions no substantial advance in\nhuman knowledge could ever take place, since every discovery or\nobservation of phenomena outside of known laws must on that ground be\nrejected. And the history of scientific discoveries shows that this has\nactually been the case. The announcement of the discovery of the movements\nof the planets around the sun, of the attraction of gravitation, of the\nidentity of lightning with electricity, of the relation and derivation of\nspecies in the world of living forms--of the discovery of living toads in\ngeological strata of untold antiquity, and scores of other now accepted\nfacts, were accounted visionary and were received with scoffs and jeers by\nthe accredited leaders of science, because they were outside of any known\nnatural laws; and it was only after the study and contemplation of the new\ndiscoveries had educated and enlarged the minds of a new generation of men\nto a better understanding of the extent and magnitude of nature and her\nlaws that the scoffs subsided and the new facts quietly took their places\nas accredited science.\n\nThe same process is going on regarding mental phenomena to-day. It may\nrequire a generation for men unused to think in this direction to become\nfamiliarized with the thought that telepathy, clairvoyance, and the\nsubliminal self, with its augmented powers, are facts in nature; but\nthousands of intelligent people, and many accustomed to examine facts\ncritically and according to approved methods, are already so interpreting\nnature, and their number is constantly increasing.\n\nSuch are some of the facts discovered by the pioneers in this outlying\nfield of psychology. In attempting to explain or account for them it is\nuseless to take refuge in the hazy definitions of the old psychologists,\nor to imagine that the secret is bound up in the vital processes which\noccupy the biologist and physiologist, interesting and important as those\nstudies are; even the neurologist can help us comparatively little--he can\ntell us all about diseases of the nervous system and how they manifest\nthemselves, and his labor has earned for him the gratitude of mankind; but\nhe cannot tell us how thinking is accomplished, nor what thought is; he\ncannot tell the cause of so normal and easily observed a phenomenon as\nordinary sleep, much less of the new faculties which are developed in\nsomnambulism. In all these related departments of science, in considering\nmental phenomena it is found convenient to deny the existence of that for\nwhich they cannot account. Nature's processes, however, are simple when\nonce we comprehend them, so much so that we wonder at their simplicity,\nand wonder that we ever could have failed to understand them; and we learn\nto distrust explanations which are involved and complicated, knowing that\nerror often lies that way. And of this kind for the most part, the\nattempted explanations of mental processes in terms of physiology have\nproved to be; they are complicated, inapplicable, and unsatisfactory; and\nthey give no aid in the generalizations which have hitherto been so much\nneeded.\n\nThe phenomena in this new field at first sight seem heterogeneous, without\nsystem or any common bond; they seem each to demand a separate origin and\nfield. But let the idea of the subliminal self, intelligent, and endowed\nwith its higher perceptive faculties, be presented, and lo! all these\nrefractory phenomena fall into place in one harmonious system. The\nsubliminal self is the active and efficient agent in telepathy--it is that\nwhich sees and hears and acts far away from the body, and reports the\nknowledge which it gains to the ordinary senses, sometimes by motor and\nsometimes by sensory automatism--by automatic writing, speaking, audition,\nthe vision, the phantasm. It acts sometimes while the primary self is\nfully conscious--better and most frequently in reverie, in dreams, in\nsomnambulism, but best of all when the ordinary self is altogether\nsubjective and the body silent, inactive, and insensible, as in that\nstrange condition which accompanies the higher phases of trance and\nlucidity, into which few enter, either spontaneously or by the aid of\nhypnotism. Then still retaining its attenuated vital connection, it goes\nforth and sees with extended vision and gathers truth from a thousand\nvarious and hidden sources.\n\nWill it act less freely, less intelligently, with less consciousness and\nindividuality when that attenuated vital connection is severed, and the\nbody lies--untenanted?\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  A.\n\n  A., Miss, Perceives an induced phantom, 236\n\n  A., Miss, Her journey automatically described, 188\n\n  A. B., Clairvoyance of, 102-105\n\n  Alexis,     \"         , 86-87\n\n  Anaesthesia, local, produced by hypnotism, 67\n\n  Apollonius, Clairvoyance of, 80\n\n  Apparitions or Phantasms, Collective Cases, 293, 294, 295, 299\n\n  Automatism, 151\n      \"       Ancient and modern, 331\n      \"       Grades or kinds of, 151-154\n      \"       Motor and sensory, 198, 319\n\n  Automatisms, Sensory, considered as hallucinations, 219\n      \"           \"     manifested by hearing, 220\n      \"        The daemon of Socrates, 220\n      \"        Voices and visions of Joan of Arc, 221\n\n  Automatic writing, by Planchette, 158, 180\n      \"        \"        Mr. W. T. Stead, 186-193\n      \"     drawing and painting by Mrs. Burton, 194\n\n  Aylesbury, Commander T. W., Case by, 289\n\n\n  B.\n\n  B., Madame, Hypnotic subject, 58-61, 131-135, 183\n\n  Barrett, Prof. W. T., and the S. P. R., 5\n\n  Bernheim, Prof., His theories of hypnotism, 36\n    \"         \"    Post hypnotic suggestions, cases, 63-67\n\n  Bishop, The mind-reader, 8\n\n  Bourne, Ansel, Double personality of, 119, 182\n\n  Borderland cases. Between sleeping and waking, 269\n      \"        \"  --visions, 269, 271, 273\n\n  Braid, His theory of hypnotism, 31\n\n  Brettany, Mrs., Vision, percipient awake, 304\n\n  Brittan, Dr. S. B., Cases reported by, 99-101\n\n  Brown, A. J., A second personality, 119, 182\n\n  Brougham, Lord, Borderland case, 273-279\n\n  Buchanan, Dr. W. B., Case by, collective, 295\n\n  Burton, Mrs. Julietta T., Automatic writing, 194\n    \"      \"       \"        Drawing and painting by, 195\n    \"      \"       \"        Portrait, by (Frontispiece), 196\n    \"      \"       \"        Psychometric powers, 199\n\n\n  C.\n\n  Carpenter, Dr. Wm. B., His theory, 9\n\n  Charcot, Prof., His theory of hypnotism, 33\n\n  Chiefs, Religious, 320\n    \"         \"      Moses, Zoroaster, Mahomet, Swedenborg, 320\n\n  Clairvoyance, 74\n       \"        Instances of, 78-109\n       \"        Ancient and modern, 81\n       \"        Nature of, 109\n\n  Cleave, Mr. A. H. W., and Mr. H. P. Sparks, Phantasm produced by, 234\n\n  Clerke, May, Case reported by, 296\n\n  Collyer, Dr. R. H., Case, vision, reported by, 285, 288\n\n  Coues, Dr. E., Case reported by, 88-90\n\n  Crystal-gazing, Used for producing visions, 200\n    \"      \"      Cases reported by Mr. E. W. Lane, 201\n    \"      \"      Practised in all ages, 203\n    \"      \"      Amongst the Hebrews, 204\n    \"      \"        \"      \"  Greeks, 205\n    \"      \"      In the Opera of Parsifal, 206\n    \"      \"      The Shew-stone of Dr. Dee, 204\n    \"      \"      What it really is, 208\n    \"      \"      Experiments of Miss X., 209-214\n    \"      \"      Col. Wickham's pouch-belt found by, 214\n    \"      \"      Springs and wells used for, 216\n\n  Cumberland, Mind-reader, 8\n\n\n  D.\n\n  Davis, A. J., Production of _Principles of Nature, Her Divine\n    Revelation_, by, 328\n\n  Deyer, Col. J. J., His well, in relation to Crystal-gazing, 216\n\n  Diagrams, Illustrating thought-transference, 19\n\n  Dreams, Definite impressions during, 263\n    \"     Veridical, cases of, 263, 266\n\n  Dufay, Dr., Case reported by, 95\n\n\n  E.\n\n  Elliotson, Dr., Mesmeric treatment by, 43\n\n\n  F.\n\n  Fenton, Mr, F. D., Vision, case reported by, 284\n\n  Fitzgerald, John, Clairvoyance of, 101\n\n\n  G.\n\n  Gerault, Dr., Clairvoyance, case reported by, 95\n\n  Gibert, Dr., Experiments, hypnotizing at a distance, 59\n\n  Ghost-stories, Status of, 1\n\n  Glissoid, Mr. E. M., Hypnotic experiments by, 231\n\n  Gurney, Mr. E., Experiments, 21\n    \"       \"     Cases reported, 263-266, 284-289, 291-294, 295, 299\n\n  Gurwood, John, His supposed spirit, 170\n     \"      \"    His crest, 171\n     \"      \"    In the Peninsular War, 173\n\n  Guthrie, Malcolm, Experiments in Thought-Transference, 18\n\n\n  H.\n\n  Hammond, Dr. Wm. A., Experiments reported by, 56\n\n  Harris, Surgeon, A child's vision, case reported, 282\n\n  Hauffe, Madame, The Seeress of Proverst, 83-86\n\n  Hodgson, Dr. Richard, Case reported by, 122\n\n  Hosmer, Harriet, Borderland case, 271\n\n  Hypnotism, In literature, 2\n      \"      Historical sketch of, 28\n      \"      Braid's theory of, 31\n      \"      Mesmer's theory of, 29\n      \"      Charcot's theory of, 33\n      \"      Bernheim's theory of, 36-39\n      \"      Stages of, 41, 51, 52\n      \"      Therapeutic effects of, 42-50\n      \"      Psychic aspect of, 51-71\n      \"      Rapport in, 54\n      \"      Suggestion in, 61-67\n\n  Hypnotizing at a distance, 57\n      \"         \"     \"    Experiments by Prof. Janet and Dr. Gibert, 58\n      \"         \"     \"    Experiments by Prof Richet and Dr. Hericourt, 60\n\n\n  I.\n\n  Individual, The, Conception of, 149\n\n\n  J.\n\n  James, Prof., Case examined by, 122\n\n  Jane, Clairvoyance of, 90-94\n\n  Janet, Prof., Hypnotizing at a distance, 60\n    \"     \"     Hypnotic experiments by, 131\n\n  Joan of Arc, Her voices and visions, 221\n\n  Joy, Mr. A., Case hallucination affecting sight, hearing and touch, 291\n\n\n  L.\n\n  L. A. W., Remarkable dream or vision, 263\n\n  Leonie, Leontine, Leonore, 131-135\n\n  Liebeault, Dr., Suggestion fulfilled after many days, 63\n      \"       \"   Suggests a disappearance, 66\n\n  Lucidity, See Clairvoyance.\n\n\n  M.\n\n  \"Marie,\" Clairvoyance of, 95-99\n\n  Mesmer, Anton, 29\n\n  Mesmerists, The early, 31\n\n  Mesmerization of inanimate objects, 69\n\n  Magnetized water, Detection of, 71, 215\n\n  M. L., Clairvoyance of, 105-108\n\n  Moses, The vision of, 323\n\n  Mouat, Mr. R., Narrates a case, phantasms, 299\n\n  Myers, Mr. F. W. H., His important work, 145\n    \"     \"     \"      Cases examined and reported by, 91, 124, 164, 214\n\n\n  N.\n\n  Newnham, Rev. Mr. and Mrs., Planchette writing, 164-168\n\n\n  O.\n\n  Oracles, Greek, 79\n\n\n  P.\n\n  Perception, Definition of, 225\n\n  Perceptions, which are reckoned as hallucinations, 226\n\n  Personality, Double or multiplex, 116\n       \"          \"         \"       cases of, 117, 124-128\n       \"          \"   in dreaming, 141\n\n  _Phantasms of the Living_, Cases from, 231, 263, 289\n       \"     Produced at a distance, case, 234-238\n       \"     Collective cases, 293, 294, 295-299\n\n  Phenomena, Psychical, Compared with physical, 311\n\n  Planchette, 154-180\n\n  Podmore, Mr. F., Case by, 288\n\n  Psychical Research, Eng. Society for, established, 3\n\n  Puysegur, Marquis de, 30\n\n\n  R.\n\n  R., Miss, and Miss V., Planchette writing, 168\n\n  Rapport, Hypnotic, Example, 56\n     \"        \"      Experiments by Mr. Gurney and Dr. Myers, 56\n     \"        \"      Experiments by Dr. Hammond, 56\n     \"        \"      At a distance, 57\n\n  Reed, On Personality, 116\n\n  Revelation, A modern, 327\n\n  Richardson, Mrs. M. A., Borderland case reported by, 269\n\n  Russell, Mrs. J. M., Case by, 246-248\n\n  Ruth, Mrs. Wickham's servant, Crystal-gazing, 214\n\n\n  S.\n\n  Sidgwick, Prof. H., Vice-Pres. S. P. R., 5\n     \"      Mrs. H., Cases reported by, 88-94\n\n  Society for Psychical Research, formation of, 3-5, 316\n\n  Socrates, Daemon of, 220\n\n  Somnambulism, 129\n       \"        Hypnotic, 131\n\n  Stainton, Moses, Rev. W., Phantoms perceived by, 237, 238\n\n  Stead, W. T., His automatic writing, 186\n    \"      \"    Miss A.'s journey automatically described by, 188\n    \"      \"    Needs of a stranger written out by, 189\n    \"      \"    His correspondent in a railway car, 192\n\n  Stewart, Prof. Balfour, 5\n\n  Subliminal self, The key to many psychical phenomena, 260\n      \"       \"    Sources of information of, 177\n      \"       \"    Theory of, 257\n\n  Suggestion, Post-hypnotic, 61\n\n  Smith, J. W., and Kate, Experiments, 22\n\n  Swedenborg, Clairvoyance of, 81-83\n\n\n  T.\n\n  Telepathy, Theories regarding, 250-261\n      \"      Explained by the action of the subliminal self, 257-261\n      \"      No longer a mere fancy, 309\n\n  Thought-transference, First report on, 6\n     \"         \"        Classification, 11\n     \"         \"        Experiments by diagrams, 18\n     \"         \"        Tested by taste, 21\n     \"         \"           \"      objects, 13\n     \"         \"           \"      cards, 13\n     \"         \"           \"      fictitious names, 14\n     \"         \"           \"      two percipients, 23, 24\n\n  Tyndall, Prof., His Belfast address, effect of, 312-313\n\n\n  U.\n\n  Urim and Thummim, A method of Crystal-gazing, 204\n\n\n  V.\n\n  V., Louis, Case of, 124\n\n  V., Miss, Planchette writing by, 159-164\n\n  Verity, The Misses, perceive induced phantasms, 239-244\n\n  Visions, Percipient being awake, 282\n     \"     Cases, 282, 284-286, 289-291, 304\n\n  Voisin, Dr., Cases reported by, 124, 148\n\n\n  W.\n\n  Water, magnetized, detected by patients, 71, 77\n\n  Wedgwood, Mr. H., Planchette-writing, 168-174\n\n  Willing game, 6\n\n  Wyld, Dr., Case reported by, 294\n\n\n  X.\n\n  X., Case illustrating sensory automatism, 184\n\n  X., Felida, Case, double personality, 117-119\n\n  X. Miss., On Crystal-gazing, 209\n\n\n  Y.\n\n  Young, Dr. A. K., Remarkable dream or vision, 266\n\n\n  Z.\n\n  Z., Alma, Case of, 125\n\n  _Zoist, The_, Report of cases in, 42\n\n\n\n\n_January, 1897._\n\nHenry Holt & Co.'s\n\nNewest Books.\n\n\nThe Island of Cuba.\n\nBy Lieut. A. S. ROWAN, U. S. A., and Prof. M. M. RAMSAY. With Maps and\nIndex. 12mo, $1.25.\n\n    \"Excellent and timely, a clear and judicial account of Cuba and its\n    history.\"--_The Dial._ \"Conveys just the information needed at this\n    time.\"--_Philadelphia Times._\n\n\nEnglish Literature.\n\nBy BERNHARD TEN BRINK. Vol. II. Part 2. From the Middle of the Fourteenth\nCentury to the Accession of Elizabeth. 12mo, $2.00.\n\n    \"Has taken highest rank in its department.\"--_Outlook._\n\nEarlier Volumes:--_Vol. I._ To Wyclif. $2.00.--_Vol. II._ Part 1. Through\nthe Renaissance. $2.00.\n\nTen Brink's Lectures on Shakespeare. $1.25.\n\n\nTelepathy and the Subliminal Self.\n\nBy Dr. R. OSGOOD MASON. A work treating of hypnotism, automatism, trance,\nand phantasms. (_To be published at once._) 12mo.\n\n    \"It is with the hope of aiding somewhat in the efforts now being made\n    to rescue from an uncertain and unreasoning supernaturalism some of\n    the most valuable facts in nature, and some of the most interesting\n    and beautiful psychical phenomena in human experience, that this book\n    is offered to the public.\"--_From the Preface._\n\n\nA Diplomat in London. (1871-77.)\n\nBy CHARLES GAVARD. A book giving interesting light on the diplomacy of the\nCommune, and on the English aristocracy of the time. (_To be published at\nonce._) 12mo.\n\n\nIn India.\n\nBy ANDRE CHEVRILLON. 12mo, $1.50.\n\n    \"A masterpiece.... Such a vivid reflection of the country, its people,\n    its architecture, and its religion, that we become unconscious of the\n    printed page, for we see and feel that mystery of the\n    world--India.\"--_Bookman._\n\n\n\n\nRichard Brinsley Sheridan.\n\nBy W. FRASER RAE. With an Introduction by Sheridan's great-grandson, the\nMarquess of Dufferin. With portraits. 2 vols., 8vo, $7.00.\n\n    \"A story of romantic and human interest.\"--_Atlantic Monthly._ \"A\n    marvelously ingenious and deft piece of biographical narration.... Mr.\n    Rae has told a full and interesting story, and has told it well.\"--_N.\n    Y. Tribune._ \"The best biography of Sheridan in existence.\"--_Review\n    of Reviews._\n\n\nSocial Forces in German Literature.\n\nBy Prof. KUNO FRANCKE. 8vo, $2.00 _net_. (_This book is being translated\ninto German._)\n\n    \"We owe a debt of gratitude to the author ... his exposition is\n    admirable.\"--_Nation._\n\n\nOn Parody.\n\nBy ARTHUR SHADWELL MARTIN. An essay on the art, and humorous selections.\n12mo, $1.25.\n\n    \"Of infinite delight and resource to lovers of English\n    verse.\"--_Outlook._ \"Full of good examples.\"--_Nation._\n\n\nModern Political Orations. (1838-1888.)\n\nTwenty-four speeches by Brougham, Macaulay, Fox, Cobden, Bulwer-Lytton,\nBright, Morley, Beaconsfield, Gladstone, Chamberlain, Parnell, McCarthy,\nChurchill, etc., etc. Edited by LEOPOLD WAGNER. $1.00 _net_.\n\n\nRussian Politics.\n\nBy HERBERT M. THOMPSON. With maps. $2.00.\n\n    \"Most intelligible and interesting.\"--_Atlantic Monthly._\n\n\nAnimal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture.\n\nBy E. P. EVANS. With 78 Illustrations. $2 _net_.\n\n    \"Many a ponderous and voluminous work on mediaeval history and art,\n    requiring months for its study, is really far less valuable than this\n    little book.\"--The Hon. ANDREW D. WHITE, in Appleton's _Popular\n    Science Monthly_.\n\n\nInternational Bimetallism.\n\nBy FRANCIS A. WALKER. 3d edition. $1.25.\n\n    \"An elaborate study of bimetallism from the first bimetallist in the\n    United States, and there is not a syllable in it that is favorable to\n    the free, unlimited, and independent coinage of silver by the United\n    States.\"--_Christian Register._\n\n\n\n\nHenry Holt & Co.'s Recent Fiction.\n\n\nThe Honorable Peter Stirling.\n\nBy PAUL L. FORD. A brilliant novel of New York Political Life. _Sixteenth\nedition._ $1.50.\n\n    \"Timely, manly, thoroughbred, and eminently suggestive.\"--_Atlantic\n    Monthly._\n\n\nEmma Lou: Her Book.\n\nBy MARY M. MEARS. 12mo, $1.00.\n\n    \"The neatest, closest, and most accurate description of village life\n    in exactly the way an uncommonly bright girl would see it. It is its\n    exceeding naturalness which is so taking.... We are inclined to give\n    the book the highest of encomiums as a sound, wholesome, and most\n    amusing story.\"--_N. Y. Times._\n\n\nThe Buckram Series.\n\nNarrow 16mo, with frontispiece, 75c. each.\n\n    \"That admirable Buckram Series--to which a dull book is never\n    admitted.\"--_N. Y. Times._\n\n\nOut of Bounds.\n\nBeing the Adventures of an Unadventurous Young Man. By A. GARRY.\n\n    \"An exceedingly good story ... graceful and interesting.\"--_N. Y.\n    Commercial Advertiser._ \"A story which none will read but to\n    enjoy.\"--_Boston Times._\n\n\n_Earlier Issues._\n\nAnthony Hope's Romances.\n\n    6 vols. The Prisoner of Zenda (31st Ed.). The Indiscretion of the\n    Duchess (10th Ed.). A Man of Mark (9th Ed.). The Dolly Dialogues (9th\n    Ed.). A Change of Air (9th Ed.). Sport Royal (3d Ed.).\n\nA Man and His Womankind. A novel. By NORA VYNNE.\n\nSir Quixote of the Moors. A Scotch Romance. By JOHN BUCHAN.\n\nLady Bonnie's Experiment. A quaint pastoral. By TIGHE HOPKINS.\n\nKafir Stories. Tales of adventure. By WM. CHAS. SCULLY.\n\nThe Master-Knot (2d Edition). And \"Another Story.\" By CONOVER DUFF.\n\nThe Time Machine. The Story of an Invention. By H. G. WELLS.\n\nTenement Tales of New York. By J. W. SULLIVAN.\n\nSlum Stories of London. (_Neighbors of Ours._) By H. W. NEVINSON.\n\nThe Ways of Yale (6th Edition). Sketches, mainly humorous. By H. A. BEERS.\n\nA Suburban Pastoral (5th Edition). American stories. By HENRY A. BEERS.\n\nJack O'Doon (2d Edition). An American novel. By MARIA BEALE.\n\nQuaker Idyls (5th Edition). By Mrs. S. M. H. GARDNER.\n\nJohn Ingerfield (6th Edition). A love tragedy. By JEROME K. JEROME.\n\n\n\n\n_Sixteenth Edition of a New York Novel._\n\nThe Hon. Peter Stirling\n\nAnd what people thought of him.\n\nBy PAUL LEICESTER FORD. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50.\n\n\n_The Nation_: \"Floods of light on the _raison d'etre_, origin, and methods\nof the dark figure that directs the destinies of our cities.... So\nstrongly imagined and logically drawn that it satisfies the demand for the\nappearance of truth in art.... Telling scenes and incidents and\ndescriptions of political organization, all of which are literal\ntranscripts of life and fact--not dry irrelevancies thrown in by way of\nimparting information, but lively detail, needful for a clear\nunderstanding of Stirling's progress from the humble chairmanship of a\nprimary to the dictator's throne.... In the use of dramatic possibilities,\nMr. Ford is discreet and natural, and without giving Stirling a heroic\npose, manages to win for him very hearty sympathy and belief. Stirling's\nprivate and domestic story is well knit with that of his public\nadventures.... A very good novel.\"\n\n_The Atlantic Monthly_: \"Commands our very sincere respect ... there is no\nglaring improbability about his story ... the highly dramatic crisis of\nthe story.... The tone and manner of the book are noble.... A timely,\nmanly, thoroughbred, and eminently suggestive book.\"\n\n_The Review of Reviews_: \"His relations with women were of unconventional\nsincerity and depth.... Worth reading on several accounts.\"\n\n_The Dial_: \"One of the strongest and most vital characters that have\nappeared in our fiction.... A very charming love-story. To discern the\nsoul of good in so evil a thing as Municipal politics calls for sympathies\nthat are not often united with a sane ethical outlook; but Peter Stirling\nis possessed of the one without losing his sense of the other, and it is\nthis combination of qualities that make him so impressive and admirable a\nfigure.... Both a readable and an ethically helpful book.\"\n\n_The New York Tribune_: \"A portrait which is both alive and easily\nrecognizable.\"\n\n_New York Times_: \"Mr. Ford's able political novel.\"\n\n_The Literary World_: \"A fine, tender love-story.... A very unusual but,\nlet us believe, a possible character.... Peter Stirling is a man's\nhero.... Very readable and enjoyable.\"\n\n_The Independent_: \"Full of life. The interest never flags.... It is long\nsince we have read a better novel or one more thoroughly and naturally\nAmerican.\"\n\n_The Boston Advertiser_: \"Sure to excite attention and win popularity.\"\n\n\n\n\nAnthony Hope's Romances\n\nIn Buckram Series.\n\n18mo, with Frontispieces, 75 cents each.\n\n\nThe Prisoner of Zenda. _32d Edition._\n\n    \"A glorious story, which cannot be too warmly recommended to all who\n    love a tale that stirs the blood. Perhaps not the least among its many\n    good qualities is the fact that its chivalry is of the nineteenth, not\n    of the sixteenth, century; that it is a tale of brave men and true,\n    and of a fair woman of to-day. The Englishman who saves the king ...\n    is as interesting a knight as was Bayard.... The story holds the\n    reader's attention from first to last.\"--_Critic._\n\n\nThe Indiscretion of the Duchess. _10th Edition._\n\n    \"Told with an old-time air of romance that gives the fascination of an\n    earlier day; an air of good faith, almost of religious chivalry, gives\n    reality to their extravagance.... Marks Mr. Hope as a wit, if he were\n    not a romancer.\"--_Nation._\n\n\nA Man of Mark. _9th Edition._\n\n    \"More plentifully charged with humor, and the plot is every whit as\n    original as that of Zenda ... returns to the entrancing manner of 'The\n    Prisoner of Zenda.'... The whole game of playing at revolution is\n    pictured with such nearness and intimacy of view that the wildest\n    things happen as though they were every-day occurrences.... Two\n    triumphs of picturesque description--the overthrow and escape of the\n    President, and the night attack on the bank. The charmingly wicked\n    Christina is equal to anything that Mr. Hope has done, with the\n    possible exception of the always piquant Dolly.\"--_Life._\n\n\nThe Dolly Dialogues. _9th Edition._\n\n    \"Characterized by a delicious drollery; ... beneath the surface play\n    of words lies a tragi-comedy of life.... There is infinite suggestion\n    in every line.\"--_Boston Transcript._\n\n\nA Change of Air. _9th Edition._\n\nWith portrait and notice of the author.\n\n    \"A highly clever performance, with little touches that recall both\n    Balzac and Meredith.... Is endowed with exceeding originality.\"--_New\n    York Times._\n\n\nSport Royal. _3d Edition._\n\n    \"His many admirers will be happy to find in these stories full\n    evidence that Anthony Hope can write short stories fully as dramatic\n    in incident as his popular novels.\"--_Philadelphia Call._\n\n\nHENRY HOLT & CO., 29 W. 23d St., New York.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Telepathy and the Subliminal Self","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":71281}