{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_56489/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_56489","id":"gutenberg_56489","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56489","summary":null,"tags":["Apparitions","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Telepathy"],"text":"Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, Jane Robins and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n _THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES._\n\n EDITED BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.\n\n APPARITIONS\n AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.\n\n\n\n\n APPARITIONS\n\n AND\n\n THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE:\n\n _AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE\n FOR TELEPATHY_.\n\n BY\n\n FRANK PODMORE, M.A.\n\n _WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS._\n\n LONDON:\n WALTER SCOTT, LTD.,\n 24 WARWICK LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n 1894.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTORY 1\n\n Position of the subject--Founding of the Society for\n Psychical Research--Definition of telepathy--General\n difficulties of the inquiry--Special sources of\n error--Fraud--Hyper\u00e6sthesia--Muscle-reading--Thought-forms and\n number-habit.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS\n IN THE NORMAL STATE 18\n\n Transference of Tastes--Of pain, by Mr. M. Guthrie and\n others--Of sounds--Of ideas not definitely classed, by Professor\n Richet, the American Society for Psychical Research, Dr.\n Ochorowicz--Transference of visual images, by Dr. Blair Thaw, Mr.\n Guthrie, Professor Oliver Lodge, Herr Max Dessoir, Herr Schmoll,\n Dr. von Schrenck-Notzing, and others.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS\n WITH HYPNOTISED PERCIPIENTS 58\n\n Transference of tastes, by Dr. Azam--Of pain, by Edmund Gurney--Of\n visual images, by Dr. Li\u00e9beault, Professor and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick,\n Dr. Gibotteau, Dr. Blair Thaw.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF MOVEMENTS AND\n OTHER EFFECTS 82\n\n Inhibition of action by silent willing, by Edmund Gurney, Professor\n Barrett, and others--Origination of action by silent willing, by\n Dr. Blair Thaw, M. J. H. P., and others--Planchette-writing, by\n Rev. P. H. Newnham, Mr. R. H. Buttemer--Table-tilting, by the\n Author, by Professor Richet--Production of local an\u00e6sthesia, by\n Edmund Gurney, Mrs. H. Sidgwick.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF TELEPATHIC EFFECTS\n AT A DISTANCE 105\n\n Induction of sleep, by Dr. Gibert and Professor Janet, Professor\n Richet, Dr. Dufay--Of hysteria and other effects, by Dr.\n Tolosa-Latour, M. J. H. P.--Transference of ideas of sound, by Miss\n X., M. J. Ch. Roux--Of visual images, by Miss Campbell, M. L\u00e9on\n Hennique, Mr. Kirk, Dr. Gibotteau.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS\n THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE 143\n\n On chance coincidence--Misrepresentation--Errors of\n observation--Errors of inference--Errors of narration--Errors of\n memory--\"Pseudo-presentiment\"--Precautions against error--\"Where\n are the letters?\"--The spontaneous cases as a true natural group.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n TRANSFERENCE OF IDEAS AND EMOTIONS 161\n\n Transference of pain, Mr. Arthur Severn--Of smell, Miss X.--Of\n ideas, Miss X., Mrs. Barber--Of visual images, Mr. Haynes,\n Professor Richet, Dr. Dupr\u00e9--Of emotion, Mr. F. H. Krebs, Dr. N.,\n Miss Y.--Of motor impulses, Archdeacon Bruce, Professor Venturi.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n COINCIDENT DREAMS 185\n\n Discussion of the evidence for telepathy derivable from\n dreams--Chance-coincidence--Simultaneous dreams, the Misses\n Bidder--Transference of sensation in dreams, Professor Royce, Mrs.\n Harrison--Dreams conveying news of death, etc., Mr. J. T., Mr.\n R. V. Boyle, Captain Campbell, Mr. E. W. Hamilton, Mr. Edward A.\n Goodall--Clairvoyant dream, Mrs. E. J.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n ON HALLUCINATION IN GENERAL 207\n\n Common misconceptions--Hypnotic hallucinations, experiments by\n MM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, Mr. Myers--_Point de rep\u00e8re_--Post-hypnotic\n hallucinations, Professor Li\u00e9geois, Edmund Gurney--Spontaneous\n hallucinations, Professor Sidgwick's census--Table showing\n classification of spontaneous hallucinations--Origin of\n hallucinations, sometimes telepathic--Proof of this, calculation of\n chance-coincidence, allowance for defects of memory--Conclusion.\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n INDUCED TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS 226\n\n Possible misconceptions--Accounts of experiments, by Rev. Clarence\n Godfrey, Herr Wesermann, Mr. H. P. Sparks, and A. H. W. Cleave, Mrs\n B----, Dr. von Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Wiltse, Mr. Kirk.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n SPONTANEOUS TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS 247\n\n Auditory hallucinations, Miss Clark, Mr. William Tudor--Visual\n hallucinations--Incompletely developed, Countess Eugenie Kapnist,\n Miss L. Caldecott, Dr. Carat--Completely developed, Miss Berta\n Hurly, Mrs. McAlpine, Miss Mabel Gore Booth--Hallucinations\n affecting two senses, Rev. Matthew Frost, M. A----.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATIONS 268\n\n Illusions, epidemic hallucinations, illusions of\n memory--Explanations of collective hallucination--Auditory\n hallucinations, Mr. C. H. Cary, Miss Newbold--Visual\n hallucinations, Mrs. Greiffenberg, Mrs. Milman and Miss Campbell,\n Mr. and Mrs. C----, Mr. Falkinburg, Dr. W. O. S., Rev. C. H.\n Jupp--Collective hallucinations with percipients apart, Sister\n Martha and Madame Houdaille, Sir Lawrence Jones and Mr. Herbert\n Jones.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n SOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION 297\n\n Reciprocal cases, Rev. C. L. Evans and Miss ---- --A misinterpreted\n message, Miss C. L. Hawkins-Dempster--Heteroplastic hallucination,\n Mrs. G----, Frances Reddell, Mr. John Husbands, Mr. J----\n --\"Haunted houses,\" Mrs. Knott and others, Surgeon-Major W. and\n others.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN TRANCE 326\n\n Definition of clairvoyance--Accounts of phenomena observed\n with Mrs. Piper, by Professor Lodge, Professor W. James, and\n others--Accounts of experiments by Mr. A. W. Dobbie, Dr. Wiltse,\n Mr. W. Boyd, Dr. F----, Dr. Backman.\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN THE NORMAL STATE 351\n\n Observations of M. Keulemans--Crystal-visions, Miss X., Dr.\n Backman, Miss A. and Sir Joseph Barnby--Spontaneous clairvoyance,\n Mrs. Paquet, Mr. F. A. Marks, Mrs. L. Z.--Clairvoyance in dream,\n Mrs. Freese--Clairvoyant perceptivity in an experiment, Dr.\n Gibotteau.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS 371\n\n _Resum\u00e9_, the proof apparent--The proof presumptive--The\n alleged influence of magnets and metals--The alleged marvels of\n spiritualism--Usage of the word telepathy--On various theories\n of telepathy--Difficulties of a physical explanation--Value of\n theory as a guide to investigation--Is telepathy a rudimentary or a\n vestigial faculty?--Our ignorance stands in the way of a conclusive\n answer--Imperative need for more facts.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\n The following pages aim at presenting in brief compass a selection\n of the evidence upon which the hypothesis of thought-transference,\n or telepathy, is based. It is now more than twelve years since\n the Society for Psychical Research was founded, and nearly eight\n since the publication of _Phantasms of the Living_. Both in the\n periodical _Proceedings_ of the Society and in the pages of Edmund\n Gurney's book,[1] a large mass of evidence has been laid before\n the public. But the papers included in the _Proceedings_ are\n interspersed with other matter, some of it too technical for the\n taste of the general reader; whilst the two volumes of _Phantasms\n of the Living_, which have for some time been out of print, were\n too costly for the purse of some, and too bulky for the patience of\n others. The attention which, notwithstanding these drawbacks, that\n work excited on its first appearance, the friendly reception which\n it met with in many quarters, and the fact that a considerable\n edition has been disposed of, encouraged the hope that a book on\n somewhat similar lines, but on a smaller scale, might be of service\n to those--and their number has probably increased within the last\n few years--who take a genuine interest in this inquiry. Accordingly\n in the autumn of 1892 I obtained permission from the Council of the\n Society for Psychical Research to make full use, in the compilation\n of the present work, not merely of the evidence already published\n by us, but of the not inconsiderable mass of unpublished records in\n the possession of the Society.\n\n It will be seen that the present book has little claim to novelty\n of design; but it is not merely an abridged edition of the larger\n work referred to. On the one hand it has a somewhat wider scope,\n and includes accounts of telepathic clairvoyance and other\n phenomena which did not enter into the scheme of Mr. Gurney's book.\n On the other hand, the bulk of the illustrative cases here quoted\n have been taken from more recent records; and, in particular,\n certain branches of the experimental work have assumed a quite\n new importance within the last few years. Thus the experiments\n conducted by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at Brighton have strengthened\n the demonstration of thought-transference, and have gone far to\n solve one or two of the problems connected with the subject; and\n the evidence for the experimental production of telepathic effects\n at a distance has been greatly enlarged by the work of MM. Janet\n and Gibert,[2] Richet, Gibotteau, Schrenck-Notzing, and in this\n country by Mr. Kirk and others.[3] It may be added that some of\n the criticisms called forth by _Phantasms of the Living_, and our\n own further researches, have led us to modify our estimate of\n the evidence in some directions, and to strengthen generally the\n precautions taken against the unconscious warping of testimony.\n\n To say, however, that the following pages owe much to Edmund\n Gurney is but to acknowledge the obligation which all students\n of the subject must recognise to his keen and vigorous intellect\n and his colossal industry. My own debt is a more personal one. To\n have worked under his guidance, and to have been stimulated by his\n example, was an invaluable schooling in the qualities demanded by\n an inquiry of this nature. Of the living, I owe grateful thanks,\n in the first instance, to Professor and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, who\n have read through the whole of the book in typescript, and have\n given help and counsel throughout. Miss Alice Johnson, Mr. F. W.\n H. Myers, the late Dr. A. T. Myers, Miss Porter, and others have\n also given me welcome help in various directions. In acknowledging\n this assistance, however, it is right to add that, though I trust\n in my estimate of the evidence presented, and in the general tenour\n of the conclusions suggested, to find myself, with few exceptions,\n in substantial agreement with my colleagues, yet I have no claim to\n represent the Society for Psychical Research, nor right to cloak my\n own shortcomings with the authority of others.\n\n One word more needs to be said. The evidence, of which samples are\n presented in the following pages, is as yet hardly adequate for the\n establishment of telepathy as a fact in nature, and leaves much to\n be desired for the elucidation of the laws under which it operates.\n Any contributions to the problem, in the shape either of accounts\n of experiments, or of recent records of telepathic visions and\n similar experiences, will be gladly received by me on behalf of the\n Society for Psychical Research, at 19 Buckingham Street, Adelphi,\n W.C.\n\n FRANK PODMORE.\n\n _August 1894._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: The book actually bore on the title-page the names of\nEdmund Gurney, F. W. H. Myers, and the present writer. But the division\nof authorship, as explained in the Preface, was as follows:--\"As\nregards the writing and the views expressed, Mr. Myers is solely\nresponsible for the Introduction, and for the 'Note on a Suggested\nMode of Psychical Interaction;' and Mr. Gurney is solely responsible\nfor the remainder of the book.... But the collection, examination, and\nappraisal of evidence has been a joint labour.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Some account of the earlier experiments by MM. Janet and\nGibert was included in the supplementary chapter at the end of the\nsecond volume of _Phantasms_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See Chapters V. and X. of the present book.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPARITIONS AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY--SPECIAL GROUNDS OF CAUTION.\n\n\nIt is salutary sometimes to reflect how recent is the growth of our\nscientific cosmos, and how brief an interval separates it from the\nchaos which went before. This may be seen even in Sciences which deal\nwith matters of common observation. Amongst material phenomena the\nfacts of Geology are assuredly not least calculated to excite the\ncuriosity or impress the imagination of men. Yet until the middle of\nthe last century no serious attempt was made to solve the physical\nproblems they presented. The origin of the organic remains embedded\nin the rocks had indeed formed the subject of speculation ever since\nthe days of Aristotle. Theophrastus had suggested that they were\nformed by the plastic forces of Nature. Medi\u00e6val astrologers ascribed\ntheir formation to planetary influences. And these hypotheses, with\nthe alternative view of the Church, that fossil bones and shells were\nrelics of the Mosaic Deluge, appear to have satisfied the learned of\nEurope until the time of Voltaire, who reinforced the rationalistic\nposition, as he conceived it, by the suggestion that the shells, at\nany rate, had been dropped from the hats of pilgrims returning from\nthe Holy Land. Yet Werner and Hutton were even then preparing to\nelucidate the causes of stratification and the genesis of the igneous\nrocks. Cuvier in the next generation was to demonstrate the essential\nanalogies of the fossils found in the Paris basin with living species;\nAgassiz was to investigate the relation of fossil fishes and to show\nthe true nature of their embedded remains. Nay, even in the middle of\nthe present century, so slow is the growth and spread of organised\nknowledge, it was possible for a pious Scotchman to ascribe the origin\nof mountain chains to a cataclysm which, after the fall of Man, had\nbroken up and distorted the once symmetrical surface of the earth;[4]\nfor a Dean of York to essay to bring the Medi\u00e6val theory up to date and\nprove that the whole series of geological strata, with their varied\norganic remains, were formed by volcanic eruptions acting in concert\nwith the Mosaic Deluge;[5] and for another English divine to warn his\nreaders against any sacrilegious meddling with the arcana of the rocks,\nbecause they represented the tentative essays of the Creator at organic\nforms--a concealed storehouse of celestial misfits![6]\n\nThe subject-matter of the present inquiry has passed, or is now\npassing, through stages closely similar to those above described.\n\"Ghosts\" and warning dreams have been matters of popular belief and\ninterest since the earliest ages known to history, and are prevalent\namongst even the least advanced races at the present time. The\nSpecularii and Dr. Dee have familiarised us with clairvoyance and\ncrystal vision. Many of the alleged marvels of witchcraft were\nprobably due to the agency of hypnotism, which in later times, under\nthe various names of mesmerism, electrobiology, animal magnetism, has\nattracted the curiosity of the unlettered, and from time to time the\nserious interest of the learned. These phenomena indeed were made the\nsubject of scientific inquiry, first in France and later in England,\nduring the first half of the present century; have now again, after a\nbrief period of eclipse, been investigated for the last two decades\nby competent observers on the Continent, and are at length winning a\nrecognised footing in scientific circles in this country. Yet within\nthe last two or three years we have witnessed the spectacle of more\nthan one medical man, of some repute in this island, laughing to scorn\nall the researches of Charcot and Bernheim, just as their prototypes a\ngeneration or two ago ignored the results of Cuvier and Agassiz, and\nheld it an insult to the Creator to accept the scientific explanation\nof coprolites.\n\nAnd as regards the other subjects, to which must be added the\nalleged marvels of the Spiritualists, there have indeed been one\nor two isolated series of observations by competent inquirers, but\nfor the most part the learned have held themselves free to ascribe\nthe phenomena without investigation to fraud and hysteria, and the\nunlearned to \"magnetism,\" \"psychic force,\" or the Devil. For whilst\nmen of science, preoccupied for the most part with other lines of\ninquiry, have kept themselves aloof, the vacant ground was naturally\noccupied by the ignorant and credulous, and by those who looked to\nwin a harvest from ignorance and credulity. It is not of course\nimplied that all persons who interested themselves in such matters\ncame under one or other of these categories. There were many sensible\nmen and women amongst them, but they lacked for the most part the\nspecial training necessary for such inquiries, or they failed through\nwant of co-operation and support. No serious and organised attempt\nat investigation was made until, in 1882, the Society for Psychical\nResearch was founded in London, under the presidency of Professor Henry\nSidgwick. He and his colleagues were the pioneers in the research, and\ntheir example has been widely followed. Two years later an American\nsociety under the same title (now a flourishing branch of the English\nsociety) was founded in Boston; and there are at the present time\nsocieties with similar objects at Berlin, Munich, Stockholm, and\nelsewhere. Moreover, the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Psychologie Physiologique, which\nwas founded in Paris, under the presidency of M. Charcot, in 1885, has\ndevoted much attention to some forms of telepathy.\n\nBut the forces of superstition and charlatanry, to which this vast\nterritory has been ceded for so long, have bequeathed an unfortunate\nlegacy to those who would now colonise it in the name of Science;\nand the preliminary difficulties of the undertaking can perhaps most\neffectually be met by a frank recognition of that fact. On the one\nhand, a large number of thinking men have been repelled, and still feel\nrepulsion, from a subject whose record is so unsavoury. On the other\nhand, the appetite for the marvellous which has been so long unchecked\nis not easily restrained. The old habits of inaccuracy, of magnifying\nthe proportions of things, of confusing surmises with facts, cannot be\neradicated without long and careful discipline. To one writer, indeed,\nthose dangers seemed so serious that he solemnly warned the Society for\nPsychical Research, at the outset of its career, against the risk of\nstimulating into disastrous activity inborn tendencies to superstition,\nby even the semblance of an inquiry into these matters. Without going\nto such lengths, it may be conceded to the critic that even with those\nwho endeavour to apply scientific methods to the investigation the\nmental attitude is liable to be warped by the environment, and that\nhere, as elsewhere, evil communications may corrupt. As regards the\nactual investigators this difficulty is growing less serious, as more\nmen who have received their training in other branches of science are\nattracted to the inquiry, and as the affinities of the subject to\nlong-recognised departments of knowledge become daily more apparent.\nIn another direction, however, this mental attitude presents still a\nmore or less formidable obstacle. Many of the observations on which\nstudents of the subject are compelled to rely are derived from persons\nwho have had no training in such habits of accuracy as are required in\nscientific research. When accounts of the ornithorhynchus first reached\nthis country naturalists laughed at the traveller's tale of a beast\nwith the tail of a beaver and the bill and webbed feet of a duck. In\nthe same way scientific men for long refused to admit the existence of\naerolites, as they now decline to credit the reports of a Sea Serpent\nof colossal proportions. In all these cases, so long as the alleged\nfacts rest solely on the testimony of men untrained in habits of close\nobservation and accurate reporting, a suspension of judgment seems\nto be justified. And if these considerations are valid in ordinary\ncases, a much higher degree of caution may be reasonably demanded of\ninvestigators who leave the neutral ground of the physical sciences\nto enter upon a field in which the emotions and sympathies are most\nkeenly engaged, and in which the incidents narrated may have served\nto afford support to the dearest hopes and sanction to the deepest\nconvictions of the narrator. So insidious, in such a case, is the work\nof the imagination, so untrustworthy is the memory, so various are the\nsources of error in human testimony, that it may be doubted whether we\nshould be justified in attaching weight to the phenomena of telepathic\nhallucination and clairvoyance, to which a large part of this book is\ndevoted, if the alleged observations were incapable of experimental\nverification. Certainly in such a case, though the recipient of an\nexperience of this kind might cherish a private conviction of its\nsignificance, it would hardly be possible for such a view to win\ngeneral assent.\n\nIn fact, however, the clue to the interpretation of the more striking\nphenomena, in the case of which, since they occur for the most part\nspontaneously, direct experiment or even methodical and continuous\nobservation are rarely possible, is furnished by actual experiment on\na smaller scale and with mental affections of a less unusual kind.\nThe thesis which these pages are designed to illustrate and support\nis briefly: _that communication is possible between mind and mind\notherwise than through the known channels of the senses_. Proof of\nthe existence of such communication, provisionally called _Thought\nTransference_ or _Telepathy_ (from _tele_ = at a distance, and _pathos_\n= feeling), will be found in a considerable mass of experiments\nconducted during the last twelve years by various observers in\ndifferent European countries and in America. Before proceeding, in the\ncourse of the next four chapters, to examine this part of the evidence\nin detail, it will be well to consider its various defects and sources\nof error--defects common in some degree to all experiments of which\nliving beings are the subject, and sources of error for the most part\npeculiar to this and kindred inquiries. The word _experiment_ in this\nconnection usually, and rightly, suggests the most perfect form of\nexperiment, that in which all the conditions are known, and in which\nthe results can be predicted both quantitatively and qualitatively.\nIf, for instance, we add a certain quantity of nitric acid under given\nconditions to a certain quantity of benzine, we know that there will\nresult a certain quantity of a third substance which is unlike either\nof its constituents in taste, smell, and physical properties. Or if we\nburn a given quantity of coal in a particular engine, we can predict,\nwithin narrow limits of error, the total amount of energy which will be\nevolved. That we cannot in the second instance predict with absolute\naccuracy the amount of energy produced is simply due to the difficulty\nof measuring with precision all the factors in the case. But when we\nleave the problems of chemistry and physics and approach the problems\nof biology, the difficulties increase a hundredfold. Here not only are\nwe unable to measure the various factors, we cannot even name them.\nNo skill or forethought would have enabled an observer, from however\npatient a study of parentage and environment, to have predicted the\nappearance, say, of Emanuel Swedenborg or Michael Faraday. Of the\nseven children of John Lamb and his wife it might have seemed easier\nto conjecture that the majority would not survive childhood, and that\none would become insane, than that another should take his place\namongst those whose writings the world would not willingly let die.\nAnd even where, as in most biological researches, the results drawn\nfrom observation can be to some extent checked and controlled by direct\nexperiment, generations may elapse before the balance of probabilities\non one side or the other becomes so great as to lead to unanimity\namongst the inquirers. One of the most interesting, and certainly not\nthe least important, of the questions now occupying biologists, is\nthat of the transmission to the offspring of characters acquired in\nthe lifetime of the individual. Observations have been accumulated on\nthe subject since before the days of Lamarck; and these observations,\ninterpreted and confirmed by experiment, have been adduced and are\nstill held by many as evidence that such transmission occurs. On the\nother hand, Weismann and his followers contend that no such inference\ncan legitimately be drawn from the observations and experiments quoted,\nand that the occurrence of such transmission is irreconcilable with\nwhat is known of the growth and development of the germ. And for all\nthat has been said and written the opinion of competent biologists is\nstill divided upon the question.\n\nBut in many biological problems the conditions are much simpler, and\nthe questions at issue can more readily be brought to the test of\nexperiment. Yet even so various unknown factors are included, and the\nresults obtained are correspondingly difficult of interpretation.\nNo question affects us more nearly than the part played by the\nseveral kinds of food in repairing the daily waste of the human body.\nStatistics and analyses have been collected of workhouse, prison, and\nmilitary dietaries; innumerable experiments have been conducted on\nfasting men and hypertrophied dogs and rabbits; and yet the precise\nfunction of nitrogenous substances in nutrition is still undetermined.\nAgain, the import of the experiments made during the last few decades\nby Goltz, Hitzig, Ferrier, Horsley, and others on the functions of\nvarious areas of the brain substance, and the exact nature and degree\nof localisation which those experiments imply, are still matter of\ndebate amongst the physiologists concerned.\n\nTo take yet another instance, and one which has a more intimate\nbearing upon the experiments to be discussed. Some years ago Dr.\nCharlton Bastian claimed to have proved experimentally the fact of\nabiogenesis, or the generation of living organisms from non-living\nmatter. He had placed various organic infusions in glass tubes, which\nwere heated to the boiling point and then hermetically sealed. When\nthe tubes were, after a certain interval, unsealed, the contained\nliquid was found in some cases to be swarming with bacteria. Believing\nthat these micro-organisms and their germs were invariably destroyed\nby the heat of boiling water, Dr. Bastian saw no other conclusion\nthan that the bacteria were formed directly from the infusion. His\nconclusions were not accepted by the scientific world. But they were\nrejected, not because the fact of abiogenesis was regarded as in itself\nimprobable, nor yet because Dr. Bastian was unable to indicate by what\nsteps or processes the transformation of an infusion of hay into\nliving organisms of definite and relatively complex structure could\nbe conceived to take place, but because Pasteur, Tyndall, and others\nshowed that the germs of some of these micro-organisms are capable of\nsustaining for some minutes the heat of boiling water; and further,\nthat when elaborate precautions were taken, by filtering and otherwise\npurifying the air, tubes containing similar infusions would remain\nsterile for an indefinite period.\n\nThe conclusion that under certain conditions thought-transference\nmay occur rests upon reasoning similar to that by which Dr. Bastian\nsought to establish a theory of abiogenesis. Neither the organs by\nwhich nor the medium through which the communication is made can be\nindicated; nor can we even, with a few trifling exceptions, point to\nthe conditions which favour such communication. But ignorance on these\npoints, though a defect, is not a defect which in the present state of\nexperimental psychology can be held seriously to weaken the evidence,\nmuch less to invalidate the conclusion. That conclusion rests on the\nelimination of all other possible causes for the effect produced.\nBut at this point the analogy between the two researches fails. Dr.\nBastian's conjecture was based on a short series of experiments\nconducted by a single experimenter under one uniform set of conditions.\nAt the first breath of criticism the whole fabric collapsed. The\nexperiments here recorded represent the work of many observers in many\ncountries, carried on with different subjects under a great variety of\nconditions. The results have been before the world for about twelve\nyears, and during that period have been subjected to much adverse and\nsome instructive criticism. But no alternative explanation which has\nyet been suggested has attained even a momentary plausibility.\n\nWhether the elimination of all other possible causes is indeed\ncomplete, or whether, as in Dr. Bastian's case, there may yet lurk in\nthese experiments some hitherto unsuspected source of error, the reader\nwill have the opportunity of judging for himself. To assist him in\nforming a judgment some of the main disturbing causes will be briefly\nindicated.\n\n(1) _Fraud._--In nearly all the experiments referred to in this\nbook the agent was himself concerned in the inquiry as a matter of\nscientific interest. But it necessarily happens on occasion that\nneither agent nor percipient are by education and position absolutely\nremoved from suspicion of trickery in a matter where trickery might to\nimperfectly educated persons appear almost venial. If any such cases\nhave been admitted, it is because the precautions taken appear to us to\nhave been adequate. At the same time, the investigators of the Society\nfor Psychical Research have come across some instances of fraud in\ncases where they had grounds for assuming good faith, and it may be\nuseful, therefore, to illustrate some of the less obvious methods of\nacquiring intelligence fraudulently. The conditions of the experiment\nshould of course, as far as possible, preclude, even where there is\nno ground for suspecting fraud, communication between the percipient\nand the agent, or any one else knowing the idea which it is sought to\ntransfer.\n\nIn the autumn of 1888 some experiments were conducted with a person\nnamed D., whose antecedents afforded, it was thought, justification\nfor the belief that the claims which he put forward were genuine. D.\nacted as agent, the percipient being a subject of his own, a young\nwoman called Miss N., who was apparently in a light hypnotic sleep\nduring the experiment. It was soon discovered that the results were\nobtained by means of a code formed from a combination of Miss N.'s\nbreathing with slight noises--a cough or the creak of a boot--made by\nD. himself. I have seen a somewhat similar code employed in Prince's\nHall, Piccadilly, where the conjurer stood in the middle of the hall\nwith a coin or other object in his hand, a description of which he\ncommunicated to his confederate on the platform by means of a series\nof breathings, deep enough visibly to move his dress-coat up and down\non the surface of his white collar, punctuated by slight movements\nof head or hand. The novel feature in the first case, however, was\nthat the percipient herself furnished the groundwork of the code, the\npunctuation alone being given by the conjurer. A still more elaborate\nform of collusion is described at length by Bonjean.[7] In this case\nthe subject, a young woman named Lully, appears to have read the words\nto be conveyed after the fashion of a deaf mute, by the motion of\nthe lips of the showman. Lully was apparently in a hypnotic trance,\nwith the eyes fast closed. Another form of fraud, since it does not\nrequire the aid of a confederate, is perhaps worthy of note. Some years\nago a young Australian came to this country with a reputation for\n\"genuine thought-reading,\" based on the successful mystification of\nsome members of a certain Colonial Legislature. The writer had a few\nexperiments with this person, in which several small objects--a knife,\na glass bottle, etc.--placed in the full light of a shaded lamp, were\ncorrectly named. The object was in each case placed behind the back of\nthe \"Thought-reader,\" who looked intently at the writer's eyes, which\nwere in turn fixed upon the brightly illuminated object. Experiments\nmade under more usual conditions, not dictated by the \"Thought-reader,\"\ncompletely failed; and there can be little doubt that the initial\nsuccesses were due to the \"Thought-reader\" seeing the image of the\nobject reflected in the agent's cornea.\n\n(2) _Hyper\u00e6sthesia._--But, after all, it is rarely necessary to\ntake special precautions against fraud, for there are dangers to be\nguarded against of a more subtle kind. There are various, and as yet\nimperfectly known methods of communication by which indications may\nbe unconsciously given and as unconsciously received. Thus, to take\nthe last instance, it is pretty certain that cornea-reading does not\nalways imply fraud, and that hints may be gained in all good faith\nfrom any reflecting surface in the neighbourhood of the experimenter;\nor the movements of lips, larynx, and even hands and limbs may betray\nthe secret to eye or ear. We know little of the limits of our sensory\npowers even in normal life; and we do know that in certain subconscious\nstates--automatic, hypnotic, somnambulic--these limits may be greatly\nexceeded, and that indications so subtle as frequently to escape\nthe vigilance of trained observers may be seized and interpreted\nby the hypnotic or automatic subject. It is clear, therefore, that\nresults which it is possible to attribute to deliberate fraud stand\nalmost necessarily self-condemned. For if the precautions taken by\nthe investigators left such an explanation open, much more were\nthose precautions insufficient to guard against the subtler modes of\ncommunication referred to. It is not the friend whom we know whose eyes\nmust be closed and his ears muffled, but the \"Mr. Hyde,\" whose lurking\npresence in each of us we are only now beginning to suspect.\n\nThere is a case recorded by M. Bergson,[8] in which a hypnotised boy is\nsaid to have been able to state correctly the number of the page in a\nbook held by the observer, by reading the corneal image of the figures.\nThe actual figures were three millimetres high, and their corneal image\nis calculated by M. Bergson to have been O.1 mm., or about 1/250 of an\ninch in height! In some other experiments conducted by M. Bergson with\nthe same subject the acuteness of vision is said to have exceeded even\nthis limit. In another case, recorded by Dr. Sauvaire,[9] a hypnotised\nsubject was able to recognise the King of Clubs, face downwards,\nin two different packs of cards. In the first of these cases the\nresults, which could not have been attained by the senses under normal\nconditions, must apparently be attributed to hyper\u00e6sthesia. Instances,\nespecially of auditory hyper\u00e6sthesia, are of course quite familiar to\nthose who have studied the phenomena of hypnotism. In Dr. Sauvaire's\ncase, however, the power of distinguishing the cards by touch may have\nbeen the result of practice. Mrs. Verrall records (_Proceedings Soc.\nPsych. Research_, vol. viii. p. 480) that she acquired such a power by\nmeans of \"a longish series of experiments\"; and Mr. Hudson, in _Idle\nDays in Patagonia_, tells of a gambler who by careful training had\ndeveloped the same faculty in a very high degree.\n\nIt seems probable in the cases described by M. Bergson and Dr.\nSauvaire, and possible also in the case of Mr. D.'s subject, that there\nwas no intentional deception, and that the hypnotised person was not\nhimself aware of the means by which his knowledge was attained.[10]\nThe same remark probably applies to the following case, in which,\nthough the conditions of vision were certainly unusual, it seems not\nclear whether the degree of success attained should be attributed to\nabnormal sensibility of the eyes, or to the facility acquired by long\npractice. In a series of experiments at which the writer assisted, in\n1884, an illiterate youth named Dick was hypnotised, a penny was placed\nover each eye, and the eyes and surrounding features were elaborately\nbandaged with strips of sticking-plaster; a handkerchief being bound\nover all. Under these conditions Dick named correctly objects held in\nfront of him, even at a considerable distance, a little above the level\nof his eyes. Normal vision appeared to be impossible. Mr. R. Hodgson,\nhowever, repeated the experiment upon himself, and found after several\ntrials that he also could see objects, though fitfully and imperfectly,\nunder the same conditions, the channel of vision being a small chink in\nthe sticking-plaster on the line where it was fastened to the brow.\n\n(3) _Muscle-reading._--From this last case we may pass to the\nillustrations of \"thought-reading\" given by professional conjurers\nand others, where it seems clear that the skill exhibited in the\ninterpretation of unconscious movements and gestures is due rather to\nlong practice and careful observation than to any abnormal extension\nof faculty. It hardly needs saying that experiments in which contact\nis permitted between the agent and percipient can rarely be regarded\nas having evidential value. It has been demonstrated again and again\nthat with the fullest intention of keeping the secret to themselves,\nmost \"agents\" in such circumstances are practically certain to betray\nit to the professional thought-reader by unconscious movements of some\nkind. Indeed, it is difficult to place any limit to the degree of\nsusceptibility to slight muscular impressions which may be attained.\nA careful experimenter has assured the writer that when acting as\npercipient in some experiments with diagrams the slight movements of\nthe agent's hand resting upon her head gave her in one case a clue to\nthe figure thought of. And Mr. Stuart Cumberland has exhibited feats\nstill more marvellous before kings and commoners. Nor is it necessary,\nas already said, for successful muscle-reading that there should be\nactual contact in all cases. The eye or the ear can sometimes follow\nmovements of the lips or other parts of the body. But though we can\nlook for little evidence from experiments conducted with contact, or\nunder conditions which allow of interpretation by gesture, etc., and\ntheir repetition in this connection can rarely be expected to serve any\nuseful purpose, it seems worth pointing out that, if telepathy is a\nfact, we should expect to find it operating not merely where, from the\nconditions of the experiment, it must be presumed to be the sole source\nof communication, but also as an auxiliary to other more familiar modes\nof expression. It seems not improbable, therefore, that some of the\nmore startling successes of the professional \"thought-reader\" and some\nof the results obtained in the \"willing game\" may be due to this cause.\n\n(4) _Thought-forms._--There remains one other source of error to\nbe guarded against. An image--whether of an object, diagram, or\nname--which is _chosen_ by the agent may be correctly described by\nthe percipient simply because their minds are set to move in the\nsame direction. It must be remembered that, however unexpected and\nspontaneous they may appear, ideas do not come by chance, but have\ntheir origin mostly in the previous experience of the thinker. Persons\nliving constantly in the same physical and intellectual environment\nare apt to present a close similarity in their ideas. It would not\neven be _prima facie_ evidence of thought-transference, for instance,\nif husband and wife, asked to think of a town or of an acquaintance,\nshould select the same name. And investigation has shown that our\nthoughts move in grooves which are determined for us by causes\nmore deep-seated and more general than the accident of particular\ncircumstances. Thus it is found that individuals will show a preference\nfor certain figures or certain numbers over others; and that the\npreference for some geometrical figures tends to be tolerably constant.\nThe American Society for Psychical Research[11] made some interesting\nobservations on this point in 1888. Blank cards were issued to a large\nnumber of persons, with the request that the recipients would draw on\nthe card \"ten diagrams.\" 501 cards were returned, and the diagrams\ninscribed on them were carefully tabulated. It was found that of the\n501 persons no less than 209 drew circles, 174 squares, 160 equilateral\ntriangles and crosses, while three only drew wheels, two candlesticks,\nand one each a corkscrew, a ball, and a knife. It was found that the\nsimpler geometrical figures[12] occurred not only most frequently but\nas a general rule early in each series of ten. It follows, therefore,\nthat in an experiment the success of the percipient in reproducing a\ncircle, a square, or a triangle raises a much fainter presumption of\nthought-transference than if the object reproduced had been a corkscrew\nor a pine-apple. But so much was perhaps obvious even without a\ndetailed investigation. From a similar analysis of the guesses made,\nit can be shown that some percipients have decided preferences amongst\nthe simple numerals. And in the same way it seems probable that others\nhave a preference for particular cards. An important illustration of\nthe working of the \"number-habit\" has been brought forward by Professor\nE. C. Pickering of the Harvard College Observatory, U.S.A.[13] A\nrevision of part of the Argelander Star-Chart had been undertaken by\nseveral observatories, of which the Harvard Observatory was one. For\nthe purposes of the revision the assistant had the Argelander chart\nbefore him, whilst the observer, who was in ignorance of the magnitude\nassigned in the chart, made an independent estimate of the magnitude\nof each star. If no thought-transference or other disturbing cause\naffected the result, the amount of deviation of the later observations\nfrom the earlier in each tenth of a degree of magnitude would be\nrepresented by a smooth curve. As a matter of fact, it was found that\nthe number of cases of complete agreement were much greater, with\nsome observers more than 50 per cent. greater, than they should have\nbeen on an estimate of the probabilities. At first sight this excess\nof the actual over the theoretical numbers suggested the action of\nthought-transference between the assistant and the observer. But\nProfessor Pickering shows, on a further analysis of the figures, that\nalmost the whole of the excess was due to the preference of both the\nearlier and the later observers for 5 and 10 over all other fractions\nof a degree.\n\nThe practical deduction from this investigation is that in any\nexperiment care should be taken to exclude, as regards the agent at any\nrate, the operation of any diagram or number-habit.[14] If an object is\nthought of, it should if possible be chosen by lot, and should not be\nan object actually present in the room. If a card, it should be drawn\nfrom the pack at random; if a number, from a receptacle containing a\ndefinite series of numbers; if a diagram, it is preferable that it\nshould be taken at random from a set of previously-prepared drawings.\nIt will be seen that in the majority of the cases quoted in the four\nsucceeding chapters these precautions have been observed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 4: _Primary and Present State of the Solar System_, by P.\nMcFarlane. Edinburgh, Thomas Grant, _circa_ 1845.]\n\n[Footnote 5: At the meeting of the British Association in 1844; quoted\nby Hugh Miller, _Testimony of the Rocks_, pp. 358, 359.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _A Brief and Complete Refutation of the Antiscriptural\nTheory of the Geologists_, by a Clergyman of the Church of England.\nLondon, 1853; quoted by Hugh Miller, _loc. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 7: _L'Hypnotisme et la suggestion mentale._ Germer Bailli\u00e8re\net Cie. Paris, pp. 261-316.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Revue Philosophique_, Nov. 1887, quoted in _Proceedings\nof the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. p. 532.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Revue Philosophique_, March 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Mrs. Verrall states that after long practice she \"lost\nall consciousness of the means which enabled her to guess, and _saw_\npictures of the cards.\"]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Proceedings of the American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp.\n302 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 12: No doubt the great preponderance of geometrical figures\nis in some measure due to the use of the word \"diagram,\" which in\nEnglish would probably suggest to most persons a geometrical diagram.\nBut possibly the word has a different shade of meaning in American. It\nis certain too that a considerable proportion of the persons who filled\nin the cards were acquainted with the object of the inquiry.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Proc. American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp. 35-43.]\n\n[Footnote 14: It is not possible to eliminate the operation of such\npreferences in the percipient. But if care be taken that the series of\nthings to be guessed is chosen arbitrarily, the only effect of even a\ndecided preference for particular cards, numbers, etc., on the part\nof the percipient will be to lessen the number of coincidences due to\nthought-transference.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nEXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS IN THE NORMAL STATE.\n\n\nIt is somewhat remarkable that the facts of thought-transference should\nonly have attracted serious attention within the last two decades.\nWith waking percipients, indeed, such phenomena do not seem to occur\nunsought with sufficient frequency, or--if we leave on one side for the\nmoment telepathic hallucinations--on a sufficiently striking scale to\nafford evidence of any transmission of thought or sensation otherwise\nthan through the familiar channels. But the hypnotic state appears\nto offer peculiar facilities for such transmission, and hypnotism,\nunder the name of mesmerism, has now been closely studied by numerous\nobservers for upwards of a century. The earlier French observers,[15]\nindeed, occasionally recorded instances of what appears to have been\nthought-transference between the mesmerist and his subject. But these\nfacts were observed by the way, in the search for phenomena of another\nkind; and no attempt appears to have been made to follow up the clue\nby means of direct experiment. Even the English observers of 1840 and\nonwards, though familiar with what they termed \"community of sensation\"\nbetween the operator and his subject, appear never to have realised\nits possible significance. Dr. Elliotson, for instance, describes in\nthe _Zoist_ (vol. v. pp. 242-245) some experiments in which a lady,\nmesmerised by himself, was able to indicate correctly the taste of\nsalt, cinnamon, sugar, ginger, water, and pepper, as Dr. Elliotson\nplaced successively these various substances in his mouth. But he\nseems to have recorded the results chiefly from curiosity, and to\nhave regarded them as of little scientific interest compared with the\nstiffening of a limb, or the painless performance of an operation under\nmesmeric an\u00e6sthesia. Dr. Esdaile (_Practical Mesmerism_, p. 125), Mr.\nC. H. Townshend (_Facts in Mesmerism_, pp. 68, 72, 76, etc., etc.),\nProfessor Gregory (_Animal Magnetism_, p. 231), and other writers of\nthat time, record similar observations. But the subject seems to have\nbeen crowded out, on the one hand, with the more cautious observers,\nby the growing importance of hypnotism as an an\u00e6sthetic and a curative\nagency, on the other by the greater marvels of \"clairvoyance\" and\n\"spirit\" communications.\n\nIt was Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, who,\nin a paper read before the British Association at Glasgow in 1876,\nfirst isolated the phenomenon from its somewhat dubious surroundings,\nand drew public attention to its importance. Up to that time \"community\nof sensation\" or thought-transference seems to have been known only\nas a rare and fitful accompaniment of the hypnotic trance. But in\nthe course of the correspondence arising out of his paper Professor\nBarrett learnt of several instances where similar phenomena had been\nobserved in the waking state. The Willing game was just then coming\ninto fashion, and cases had been observed in which the thing willed had\nbeen performed without contact between the performer and the person\nwilling, and apparently without the possibility of any normal means\nof communication between them. Later, in the years 1881-82, a long\nseries of experiments, in which Professor Sidgwick, the late Professor\nBalfour Stewart, the late Edmund Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers and others\njoined with Professor Barrett, seemed to establish the possibility\nof a new mode of communication. And these earlier results have been\nconfirmed by further experiments continued down to the present time by\nmany observers both in this country and abroad. In the present chapter\nsome account will be given of experiments in the transference of\nsimple ideas and sensations performed with percipients in the ordinary\nwaking state. The next chapter will deal with similar results obtained\nwith hypnotised persons. In Chapters IV. and V. results of a more\ncomplicated or unusual character will be described and discussed.\n\n\n_Transference of Tastes._\n\nThe particular form of telepathy which first attracted attention to\nthe whole subject, the transmission to the percipient of impressions\nof taste and pain experienced by the agent, appears to have been\nobserved in the normal state very rarely. One such case may be here\nquoted. In the years 1883-85 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., of Liverpool,\nthe then head of a large drapery business in that city, conducted a\nlong series of experiments with two of his employees, Miss E. and\nMiss R. In September 1883 Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Edmund Gurney, and Mr.\nMyers, indicated respectively by the initials M. G., E. G., and M.,\nhad a series of trials with these percipients in the transference of\ntastes. The percipients, who were fully awake, were blindfolded; the\npackets or bottles containing the substances experimented upon were\nplaced beyond the range of possible vision; and in the case of strongly\nsmelling substances, either at a distance or outside the room; and\nother precautions were taken by the agents, by keeping the mouth closed\nand turning the head away, etc., in order that the percipients should\nnot become aware by the sense of smell of the nature of the substance\nexperimented with. Strict silence was of course observed. It may be\nconceded that when all possible precautions are taken, experiments\nwith sapid substances must be inconclusive when the agent is in the\nsame room with the percipient; since nearly all such substances have\nan odour, however faint. In view, however, of the extreme sensibility\nalready demonstrated (see below, pp. 23, etc.) of these particular\npercipients to transferred impressions of other kinds, it seems\nprobable that the results in this case also were actually due to\ntelepathy. The alternative explanation is to attribute to persons in\nthe normal waking state a degree of hyper\u00e6sthesia for which we have\nno exact parallel even in the records of hypnotism. For to persons of\nnormal susceptibility the odour of a small quantity, _e.g._ of salt or\nalum, in the mouth of another person at a distance of two or three feet\nwould certainly be quite inappreciable.\n\n\nNo. 1.--By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.\n\n_September 3, 1883._\n\n EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN.\n\n 1 M. E. Vinegar. \"A sharp and nasty taste.\"\n 2 M. E. Mustard. \"Mustard.\"\n 3 M. R. Do. \"Ammonia.\"\n 4 M. E. Sugar. \"I still taste the hot\n taste of the mustard.\"\n\n_September 4._\n\n 5 E. G. & M. E. Worcestershire sauce \"Worcestershire sauce.\"\n 6 M. G. R. Do. \"Vinegar.\"\n 7 E. G. & M. E. Port wine \"Between eau de Cologne and\n beer.\"\n 8 M. G. R. Do. \"Raspberry vinegar.\"\n 9 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes \"Horrible and bitter.\"\n 10 M. G. R. Alum \"A taste of ink--of\n iron--of vinegar. I feel\n it on my lips--it is as\n if I had been eating\n alum.\"\n 11 M. G. E. Alum (E. perceived that M. G.\n was as not tasting bitter\n aloes, E. G. and M.\n supposed, but something\n different. No distinct\n perception on account of\n the persistence of the\n bitter taste.)\n\n\n EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN.\n 12 E. G. & M. E. Nutmeg \"Peppermint--no--what you\n put in puddings--nutmeg.\"\n 13 M. G. R. Do. \"Nutmeg.\"\n 14 E. G. & M. R. Sugar Nothing perceived.\n 15 M. G. R. Do. Nothing perceived.\n (Sugar should be tried at an\n earlier stage in the series,\n as, after the aloes, we\n could scarcely taste it\n ourselves.)\n 16 E. G. & M. E. Cayenne pepper \"Mustard.\"\n 17 M. G. R. Do. \"Cayenne pepper.\"\n (After the cayenne we were\n unable to taste anything\n further that evening.)\n\nThroughout the next series of experiments the substances were kept\noutside the room in which the percipients were seated.\n\n _September 5._\n\n 18 E. G. & M. E. Carbonate of Soda Nothing perceived.\n 19 M. G. R. Caraway seeds \"It feels like meal--like a\n seed loaf--caraway seeds.\"\n (The _substance_ of the\n seeds seems to be perceived\n before their _taste_.)\n 20 E. G. & M. E. Cloves \"Cloves.\"\n 21 E. G. & M. E. Citric acid Nothing felt.\n 22 M. G. R. Do. \"Salt.\"\n 23 E. G. & M. E. Liquorice \"Cloves.\"\n 24 M. G. R. Cloves \"Cinnamon.\"\n 25 E. G. & M. E. Acid jujube \"Pear drop.\"\n 26 M. G. R. Do. \"Something hard, which is\n giving way--acid jujube.\"\n 27 E. G. & M. E. Candied ginger \"Something sweet and hot.\"\n 28 M. G. R. Do. \"Almond toffy.\"\n (M. G. took this ginger in\n the dark, and was some\n time before he realised\n that it was ginger.)\n 29 E. G. & M. E. Home-made Noyau. \"Salt.\"\n 30 M. G. R. Do. \"Port wine.\"\n (This was by far the most\n strongly smelling of the\n substances tried; the\n scent of kernels being\n hard to conceal. Yet it\n was named by E. as salt.)\n 31 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes \"Bitter.\"\n 32 M. G. R. Do. Nothing felt.\n\n (_Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_,\n vol. ii. pp. 3, 4.)\n\nFurther experiments in this direction are much to be desired. But\napart from the difficulty above referred to, experiments of the kind\nare liable to be tedious and inconclusive because of the inability of\nmost persons to discriminate accurately between one taste and another,\nwhen the guidance of all other senses is lacking. To conduct such\nexperiments to a successful issue, it would probably be necessary that\nthe percipients should have some preliminary training to enable them\nto distinguish by taste alone between various salts and pharmaceutical\npreparations.\n\n\n_Transference of Pains._\n\nExperiments in the transference of pains are not attended with the\nsame difficulties, nor open to the same evidential objections; and\nsome interesting trials of this kind with one of the same percipients,\nMiss R., met with a fair amount of success. The experiments were\ncarried on at intervals, interspersed with experiments of other kinds,\nby Mr. Guthrie at Liverpool during nine months in 1884 and 1885. The\npercipient on each occasion was blindfolded and seated with her back\ntowards the rest of the party, who each pinched or otherwise injured\nthemselves in the same part of the body at the same time. The agents\nin these experiments--the whole series of which is here recorded--were\nthree or more of the following:--Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr.\nHicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss\nRedmond, and on one occasion another lady. The results are given in the\nfollowing table:--\n\n\nNo. 2.--BY MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.\n\n 1.--Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised. 2.--Lobe of left\n ear pricked. Rightly localised. 3.--Left wrist pricked. \"Is it\n in the left hand?\" pointing to the back near the little finger.\n 4.--Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A\n lower joint of that finger was guessed. 5.--Left wrist scratched\n with pins. \"Is it in the left wrist, like being scratched?\"\n 6.--Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.\n\n 7.--Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.\n\n 8.--Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.\n\n 9.--Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.\n\n 10.--Hands burned over gas. \"Like a pulling pain ... then tingling,\n like cold and hot alternately,\" localised by gesture only.\n\n 11.--End of tongue bitten. \"Is it the lip or the tongue?\"\n\n 12.--Palm of left hand pricked. \"Is it a tingling pain in the left\n hand here?\" placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.\n\n 13.--Back of neck pricked. \"Is it a pricking of the neck?\"\n\n 14.--Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.\n\n 15.--Spot just above left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.\n\n 16.--Spot just above right wrist pricked. \"I am not quite sure, but\n I feel a pain in the right arm, from the thumb upwards to above the\n wrist.\"\n\n 17.--Inside of left ankle pricked. Outside of left ankle guessed.\n\n 18.--Spot beneath right collar-bone pricked. The exactly\n corresponding spot on the left side guessed.\n\n 19.--Back hair pulled. No result.\n\n 20.--Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.\n\n(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 424-452.)\n\n\n_Transference of Sounds._\n\nIt is noteworthy that there is little experimental evidence for the\ntransmission of an auditory impression. Occasionally, in trials with\nnames and cards the nature of the mistakes made has seemed to indicate\naudition, as when, _e.g._, _three_ is given for _Queen_ or _ace_ for\n_eight_. But obviously a long series of experiments and a long series\nof mistakes would be necessary to afford material for any conclusion.\nSometimes a percipient has stated that he heard the name of the thing\nthought of; as, for instance, in a case recorded in Chapter V., where\nthe percipient \"heard\" the word _gloves_ before \"seeing\" a vision of\nthem. But such cases appear to be rare. Experiments with a view to test\nthe transmission of _actual_ sounds could of course only be carried\nout under special conditions, of which one would be the separation\nof the agent from the percipient by a considerable intervening\nspace--and this condition is, of itself, found to interfere with\nsuccess. Some evidence, indeed, of a quasi-experimental character for\nthe transference of musical sounds at a distance will be given in a\nlater chapter (Chapter V., No. 33). Experiments with imagined sounds\nappear to have been rarely tried, or at least, successful results have\nrarely been recorded.[16] Occasionally indeed experimenters have put on\nrecord that in thinking of an object they have mentally repeated the\nname of the object as well as pictured the object itself, and there are\na few cases where the general idea of the object thought of appears to\nhave reached the percipient before the outlines of the form, which may\npossibly be explained as due to the reception of an auditory before a\nvisual impression.[17]\n\nThis lack of evidence for auditory transmission is no doubt largely\ndue to a desire on the part of experimenters in the first instance\nto make the proof of actual thought-transference as complete as\npossible. Experiments with sounds would impose a greater strain upon\nthe agents, since in most cases they must be imagined sounds. Moreover,\nin such experiments it would be at once more difficult to estimate\nwith precision degrees of success, and to preserve a permanent record\nof the result; and finally, the subject thought of would be more\neasily communicated either fraudulently, by a code, or by unconscious\nindications on the part of the agent. In this connection it is possibly\nsignificant that whilst in morbid conditions auditory hallucinations\nare much commoner than visual, the proportion appears to be reversed\nwith telepathic hallucinations. It seems probable that the apparent\ninfrequency of auditory transmission may be in part due to the fact\nthat in the modern world the sense of vision is for educated persons\nthe habitual channel for precise or important information. To the Greek\nin the time of Socrates no doubt the ear was the main avenue for all\nknowledge; it was the ear that received not merely the current talk of\nthe market-place and the gymnasium, but the oratory of the law-court,\nthe literature of the stage, and the philosophy of the Schools. But\nfor modern civilised societies the newspaper and the libraries have\nplaced the eye in a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. It seems\nlikely therefore, apart from all defects in such evidence, that the\nagent would find a greater difficulty, as a rule, in calling up a vivid\nrepresentation of a sound than of a vision; and that the percipient\nwould experience a corresponding difference in the reception and\ndiscrimination of the two classes of impressions.\n\n\n_Transference of Ideas not definitely classed._\n\nExperiments by PROFESSOR RICHET and others.\n\nIn the following cases, where the exact nature of the impression\nreceived was not apparently consciously classified by the percipient,\nit may be presumed to have been either of a visual or an auditory\nnature. M. Charles Richet (_Revue Philosophique_, Dec. 1884, \"La\nsuggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilit\u00e9s\") conducted a series\nof experiments in guessing the suits of cards drawn at random from a\npack. 2927 trials were made: ten persons besides M. Richet himself--who\nacted sometimes as agent and sometimes as percipient--taking part in\nthe experiments. In the 2927 trials the suit was correctly named 789\ntimes, the most probable number of correct guesses being 732. A similar\nseries of trials was conducted, on Edmund Gurney's initiative, by some\nmembers of the S.P.R. and others. There were 17 series, containing\n17,653 trials, and 4760 successes; the theoretically probable number,\non the assumption that the results were due to chance, being 4413.\nThe probability for some cause other than chance deduced from this\nresult is .999,999,98, which represents perhaps a higher degree of\nprobability than the inhabitants of this hemisphere are justified in\nattaching to the belief that the ensuing night will be followed by\nanother day.[18] In a similar series of experiments carried out under\nthe direction of the American S.P.R. the proportion of successes was\nlittle higher than the theoretically probable number.[19] But in the\nabsence of details as to the conditions under which the experiments\nwere made, no unfavourable inference can fairly be drawn from these\nresults. At any rate some very remarkable results were obtained later,\nin a series of trials made on the lines laid down by the committee of\nthe American Society. The agent in this case was Mrs. J. F. Brown, the\npercipient Nellie Gallagher, \"a domestic lately come from the county\nof Northumberland, in New Brunswick.\" The experiments appear to have\nbeen carried out with great care, and the results are recorded and\nanalysed at length (_Proc. Am. S.P.R._, pp. 322-349). 3000 trials were\nmade in guessing the numbers from 0 to 9 or from 1 to 10 inclusive. The\norder of the digits in each set of 100 trials was determined by drawing\nlots. The agent sat at one side of a table, the percipient at the other\nside. At first the percipient sat facing the agent, but after about\n1000 trials had been made her back was turned to the table--and this\nposition was continued to the end. The paper containing the numbers\nto be guessed was placed in the agent's lap, out of sight of the\npercipient. There was no mirror in the room. In the result the digits\nwere correctly named 584 times, or nearly twice the probable number,\n300. The proportion of the successes steadily increased, from 175 in\nthe first batch of 1000 trials, to 190 in the second, and 219 in the\nthird batch.\n\n\nNo. 3.--By DR. OCHOROWICZ.\n\nIn the following set of experiments, made by Dr. Ochorowicz,\nex-Professor of Psychology and Natural Philosophy at the University of\nLemberg, described in his book _La Suggestion mentale_ (pp. 69, 75,\n76), there are not sufficient indications in most cases to enable a\njudgment to be formed as to the special form of sense-impression made\non the percipient's mind. The percipient was a Madame D., 70 years of\nage. She had been shown to be amenable to hypnotism, but during these\nexperiments she was in a normal condition. She is described as being of\nstrong constitution and in good health; intelligent above the average,\nwell read, and accustomed to literary work. The first experiments\nwith Madame D. are not quoted here, not having been conducted, as Dr.\nOchorowicz explains, under strict conditions. The objects thought of\nhad been selected by the agent, instead of being taken haphazard, and\nthe choice had frequently been directly suggested by his surroundings.\nIt seemed possible, therefore, to explain the results as due to an\nunconscious association of ideas common to agent and percipient.\nDr. Ochorowicz, however, has shown by his careful analysis of the\nexperiments recorded in the earlier chapters of his book that he is\nfully aware of the risk of error from this and other causes, and in\nthe series of the 2nd May and the following days he tells us that\nadequate precautions were taken.\n\n\n _An Object._\n\n 36. A bust of M. N. | Portrait ... of a man ... a\n | bust.\n 37. A fan. | Something round.\n 38. A key. | Something made of lead ...\n | of bronze ... it is iron.\n 39. A hand holding a ring. | Something shining, a diamond\n | ... a ring.\n\n\n _A Taste._\n\n 40. Acid. | Sweet.\n\n\n _A Diagram._\n\n 41. A square. | Something irregular.\n 42. A circle. | A triangle ... a circle.\n\n\n _A Letter._\n\n 43. M. | M.\n 44. D. | D.\n 45. J. | J.\n 46. B. | A, X, R, B.\n 47. O. | W, A; no, it is an O.\n 48. Jan. | J ... (go on!) Jan.\n\n_Third Series_, May 6th, 1885.--Twenty-five experiments were made,\nof which, unfortunately, I have kept no record, except of the three\nfollowing, which impressed me most. (The subject had her back to us,\nheld the pencil and _wrote_ whatever came into her head. We touched her\nback lightly, keeping our eyes fixed on the letters we had written.)\n\n 49. Brabant. | Bra ... (I made a mental\n effort to help the subject,\n without speaking.)\n Brabant.\n 50. Paris. | P ... aris.\n 51. Telephone. | T ... elephone.\n\n _Fourth Series_, May 8th.--Same conditions.\n\n 52. Z. | L, P, K, J.\n 53. B. | B.\n 54. T. | S, T, F.\n 55. N. | M, N.\n 56. P. | R, Z, A.\n 57. Y. | V, Y.\n 58. E. | E.\n 59. Gustave. | F, J, Gabriel.\n 60. Duch. | E, O.\n 61. Ba. | B, A.\n 62. No. | F, K, O.\n\n\n _A Number._\n\n 63. 44. | 6, 8, 12.\n 64. 2. | 7, 5, 9.\n\n (I told my assistant to imagine the look of the number when\n written, and not its sound.)\n\n 65. 3. | 8, 3.\n 66. 7. | 7.\n 67. 8. | 8; no, 0, 6, 9.\n\nThen followed thirteen trials with fantastic figures, details of which\nDr. Ochorowicz does not record. He tells us, however, that only five\nof the representations presented even a general resemblance to the\noriginals.\n\nIt is to be observed that in this series of experiments contact was\nnot completely excluded in all the trials. But if Dr. Ochorowicz's\nmemory may be relied upon for the statement that the agent looked\nat the original letters and diagrams, and not at the percipient's\nattempts at reproducing them, the hypothesis of involuntary muscular\nguidance must be severely strained to account for the results. At any\nrate, in the three remaining trials in this series it seems clear that\nmuscle-reading is inadequate as an explanation.\n\n A person thought of.\n\n _Subject._ | _Answer._\n 68. The percipient. | M. O----; no, it's myself.\n 69. M. D----. | M. D----.\n\n An Image.\n\n 70. We pictured to ourselves | I see passing clouds ... a\n a crescent moon. M. | light ... (in a satisfied\n P---- on a background | tone)--it is the moon.\n of clouds, I in a |\n clear dark blue sky. |\n\n\n_Transference of Visual Images._\n\nNO. 4.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.\n\nThe experiments which follow were made by Dr. Blair Thaw, M.D., of New\nYork. The series quoted, which took place on the 28th of April 1892,\ncomprises all the trials in which Dr. Thaw was himself the percipient.\nDr. Thaw had his eyes blindfolded and his ears muffled, and the agent,\nMrs. Thaw, and Mr. M. H. Wyatt, who was present but took no part in\nthe agency, kept silent, except when it was necessary to state whether\nan object, card, number, or colour was to be guessed. The objects were\nin all cases actually looked at by the agent, the \"colour\" being a\ncoloured disc, and the numbers being printed on separate cards.[20]\n\n_1st Object._ SILK PINCUSHION, in form of Orange-Red Apple, quite\nround.--Percipient: _A Disc_. When asked what colour, said, _Red or\nOrange_. When asked what object, named _Pincushion_.\n\n_2nd Object._ A SHORT LEAD PENCIL, nearly covered by the nickel cover.\nNever seen by percipient. Percipient: _Something white or light. A\ncard. I thought of Mr. Wyatt's silver pencil_.\n\n_3rd Object._ A DARK VIOLET in Mr. Wyatt's button-hole, but not known\nto be in the house by percipient. Percipient: _Something dark. Not very\nbig. Longish. Narrow. Soft. It can't be a cigarette because it is dark\nbrown. A dirty colour._ Asked about smell, said: _Not strong, but what\nyou might call pungent; a clean smell_.\n\nPercipient had not noticed smell before, though sitting by Mr. Wyatt\nsome time, but when afterwards told of the violet knew that this was\nthe odour noticed in experiment.\n\nAsked to spell name, percipient said: _Phrygian, Phrigid, or first\nletter V if not Ph_.\n\n_4th Object._ WATCH, dull silver with filigree. Percipient: _Yellow\nor dirty ivory. Not very big. Like carving on it._ Watch is opened by\nagent, and percipient is asked what was done. Percipient says: _You\nopened it. It is shaped like a_ _butterfly_. Percipient held finger\nand thumb of each hand making figure much like that of opened watch.\nPercipient asked to spell it, said: _I get r-i-n-g with a W at first_.\n\n\nPLAYING CARDS.\n\nKING SPADES.--_Spades. Spot in middle and spots outside. 7 Spades. 9\nSpades._\n\n4 CLUBS.--_4 Clubs._\n\n5 SPADES.--_5 Diamonds._\n\n\nNUMBERS OUT OF NINE DIGITS.\n\n4.--Percipient said: _It stands up straight. 4_.\n\n6.--Percipient said: _Those two are too much alike, only a little gap\nin one of them. It is either 5 or 6_.\n\n3.--_3._\n\n1.--Percipient said: _Cover up that upper part if it is the 1. It is\neither 7 or 1_.\n\n2.--_9, 8._\n\n[From acting so much as agent in previous trials, I knew the shapes of\nthese numbers printed on cardboard, and as agent found the 5 and 6 too\nmuch alike. After looking hard at one of them I can hardly tell the\ndifference, and always cover the upper projection of the I because it\nis so much like a 7.\n\nThe numbers were printed on separate pieces of cardboard, and there\nwere about a hundred in the box, being made for some game.]\n\n\nCOLOURS, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.\n\n Chosen. 1st Guess. 2nd Guess.\n BRIGHT RED _Bright Red_\n LIGHT GREEN _Light Green_\n YELLOW _Dark Blue_ _Yellow_\n BRIGHT YELLOW _Bright Yellow_\n DARK RED _Blue_ _Dark Red_\n DARK BLUE _Orange_ _Dark Blue_\n ORANGE _Green_ _Heliotrope_\n\nThe percipient himself told the agents to change character of object\nafter each actual failure, thus getting new sensations.\n\nPercipient was told to go into next room and get something.\n\n_1st Object._ SILVER INKSTAND chosen.--Percipient says, _I think of\nsomething, but it is too bright and easy. It is the silver inkstand._\n\nPercipient told to get something in next room.\n\n_2nd Object._ A GLASS CANDLESTICK.--Percipient went to right corner\nof the room and to the cabinet with the object on it, but could not\ndistinguish which object.\n\n Percipient had handkerchief off to be able to walk, but was not\n followed by agents, and did not see them. Agents found percipient\n standing with hands over candlestick undecided.\n\nFrom the percipient's descriptions it would seem that the impression\nhere was of a visual nature, though Dr. Thaw himself says, \"I cannot\ndescribe my sensation as a visualisation of any kind. It seemed rather\nto be by some wholly subjective process that I knew what the agents\nwere looking at.\" It is not always, however, an easy task to analyse\none's own sensations; and, on the whole, it seems more probable that\nthere was visualisation, but of a very faint and ideal kind.\n\n\nNo. 5.--By MR. MALCOLM GUTHRIE.\n\nReference has already been made to the long series of experiments\ncarried on during the years 1883-85 by Mr. Malcolm Guthrie of\nLiverpool. During a great part of the series he was assisted by Mr.\nJames Birchall, Hon. Sec. of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical\nSociety. Professor Oliver Lodge, Edmund Gurney, Professor Herdman,\nand others co-operated from time to time. Throughout there were two\npercipients only, Miss R. and Miss E. The experiments were conducted\nand the results recorded with great care and thoroughness; and the\nwhole series, in its length, its variety, and its completeness, forms\nperhaps the most important single contribution to the records of\nexperimental thought-transference in the normal state.[21] Summing up,\nin July 1885, the results attained, Mr. Guthrie writes:--\n\n \"We have now a record of 713 experiments, and I recently set myself\n the task of classifying them into the 4 classes of successful,\n partially successful, misdescriptions, and failures. I endeavoured\n to work it out in what I thought a reasonable way, but I\n experienced much difficulty in assigning to its proper column each\n experiment we made. This, however, is a task which each student of\n the subject will be able to undertake for himself according to his\n own judgment. I do not submit my summary as a basis for calculation\n of probability. A few successful experiments of a certain kind\n carry greater weight with them than a large number of another\n kind; for some experiments are practically beyond the region of\n guesses....\n\n \"The following is a summary of the work done, classified to the\n best of my judgment:--\n\n\nFIRST SERIES.\n\n Key\n A. = Nothing perceived.\n B. = Complete.\n C. = Partial.\n D. = Misdescriptions.\n\n ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+\n Experiments and Conditions. |Total.| A. | B. | C. | D. |\n ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+\n Visual--Letters, figures, and cards-- | | | | | |\n Contact | 26 | 2 | 17 | 4 | 3 |\n Visual--Letters, figures, and cards-- | | | | | |\n Non-contact | 16 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 5 |\n Visual--Objects, colours, etc.--Contact| 19 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 2 |\n Do. do. Non-contact| 38 | 4 | 28 | 6 | 0 |\n Imagined visual--Non-contact | 18 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 3 |\n Imagined numbers and names--Contact | | | | | |\n and Non-contact | 39 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 10 |\n Pains--Contact | 52 | 10 | 30 | 9 | 3 |\n Tastes and smells--Contact | 94 | 19 | 42 | 20 | 13 |\n +------+----+-----+----+----+\n | 302 | 57 | 153 | 53 | 39 |\n Diagrams--Contact | 37 | 7 | 18 | 6 | 6 |\n Do. Non-contact | 118 | 6 | 66 | 23 | 23 |\n +------+----+-----+----+----+\n | 457 | 70 | 237 | 82 | 68 |\n ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+\n\n \"There were also 40 diagrams for experimental evenings with\n strangers, in series of sixes and sevens, all misdrawn, and not\n fairly to be reckoned in the above.\n\n 457 experiments under proper conditions.\n 70 nothing perceived.\n ---\n 387\n\n 319 wholly or partially correct; 68 misdescriptions = 18 per cent.\"\n\nIn the second series there were 123 trials; in 15 cases no impression\nwas received, and in 35 cases, or 32 per cent of the remainder, an\nincorrect description was given. In the third series, of 133 trials\nthere were 24 in which no impression was received and 40 failures:\nproportion of failures = 37 per cent. Mr. Guthrie attributes this\ngradual decline in the proportion of successes to the difficulty\nexperienced by both agents and percipients in maintaining the original\nlively interest in the proceedings.\n\n\nNo. 6.--By PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.\n\nSubjoined is a detailed description of experiments made on two evenings\nin 1884, recorded by Professor Lodge,[22] which leaves no room for\ndoubt that the impressions received in this instance by the percipient\nwere of a visual nature. The agent on the first evening was Mr. James\nBirchall, who held the hand of the percipient, Miss R. The only other\nperson present was Professor Lodge. The object was placed sometimes on\na wooden screen between the percipient and the agent, at other times\nbehind the percipient, whose eyes were bandaged. The bandage, it should\nbe observed, was a sufficient precaution against cornea-reading; but\nfor other purposes no reliance was placed upon it. It is believed that\nthe precautions taken were in all cases adequate to conceal the object\nfrom the percipient if her eyes had been uncovered. In the account\nquoted any remarks made by the agent or Professor Lodge are entered\nbetween brackets.\n\n _Object_--_a blue square of silk_.--(Now, it's going to be a\n colour; ready.) \"Is it green?\" (No.) \"It's something between green\n and blue.... Peacock.\" (What shape?) She drew a rhombus.\n\n [N.B.--It is not intended to imply that this was a success by any\n means, and it is to be understood that it was only to make a start\n on the first experiment that so much help was given as is involved\n in saying \"it's a colour.\" When they are simply told \"an object,\"\n or, what is much the same, when nothing is said at all, the field\n for guessing is practically infinite. When no remark at starting is\n recorded none was made, except such an one as \"Now we are ready,\"\n by myself.]\n\n _Next object--a key on a black ground._--(It's an object.) In a few\n seconds she said, \"It's bright.... It looks like a key.\" Told to\n draw it, she drew it just inverted.\n\n _Next object--three gold studs in morocco case._--\"Is it yellow?...\n Something gold.... Something round.... A locket or a watch\n perhaps.\" (Do you see more than one round?) \"Yes, there seem to\n be more than one.... Are there three rounds?... Three rings?\"\n (What do they seem to be set in?) \"Something bright like beads.\"\n [Evidently not understanding or attending to the question.] Told\n to unblindfold herself and draw, she drew the three rounds in a\n row quite correctly, and then sketched round them absently the\n outline of the case, which seemed therefore to have been apparent\n to her though she had not consciously attended to it. It was an\n interesting and striking experiment.\n\n _Next object--a pair of scissors standing partly often with their\n points down._--\"Is it a bright object?... Something long-ways\n [indicating verticality].... A pair of scissors standing up.... A\n little bit open.\" Time, about a minute altogether. She then drew\n her impression, and it was correct in every particular. The object\n in this experiment was on a settee behind her, but its position had\n to be pointed out to her when, after the experiment, she wanted to\n see it.\n\n _Next object--a drawing of a right-angled triangle on its\n side._--(It's a drawing.) She drew an isosceles triangle on its\n side.\n\n _Next--a circle with a cord across it._--She drew two detached\n ovals, one with a cutting line across it.\n\n _Next--a drawing of a Union Jack pattern._--As usual in drawing\n experiments, Miss R. remained silent for perhaps a minute; then\n she said, \"Now I am ready.\" I hid the object; she took off the\n handkerchief, and proceeded to draw on paper placed ready in front\n of her. She this time drew all the lines of the figure except the\n horizontal middle one. She was obviously much tempted to draw this,\n and, indeed, began it two or three times faintly, but ultimately\n said, \"No, I'm not sure,\" and stopped.\n\n[Illustration: ORIGINAL.]\n\n[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]\n\n [N.B.--The actual drawings made in all the experiments are\n preserved intact by Mr. Guthrie.]\n\n [END OF SITTING.]\n\n\nExperiments with MISS R.--_Continued_.\n\n I will now describe an experiment indicating that one agent may be\n better than another.\n\n _Object--the Three of Hearts._--Miss E. and Mr. Birchall both\n present as agents, but Mr. Birchall holding percipient's hands at\n first. \"Is it a black cross ... a white ground with a black cross\n on it?\" Mr. Birchall now let Miss E. hold hands instead of himself,\n and Miss R. very soon said, \"Is it a card?\" (Right.) \"Are there\n three spots on it?... Don't know what they are.... I don't think I\n can get the colour.... They are one above the other, but they seem\n three round spots.... I think they're red, but am not clear.\"\n\n _Next object--a playing card with a blue anchor painted on it\n slantwise instead of pips._--No contact at all this time, but\n another lady, Miss R----d, who had entered the room, assisted Mr.\n B. and Miss E. as agents. \"Is it an anchor? ... a little on the\n slant.\" (Do you see any colour?) \"Colour is black.... It's a nicely\n drawn anchor.\" When asked to draw she sketched part of it, but had\n evidently half forgotten it, and not knowing the use of the cross\n arm, she could only indicate that there was something more there\n but she couldn't remember what. Her drawing had the right slant\n exactly.\n\n _Another object--two pairs of coarse lines crossing; drawn in red\n chalk_, and set up at some distance from agents. No contact. \"I\n only see lines crossing.\" She saw no colour. She afterwards drew\n them quite correctly, but very small.\n\n[Illustration: ORIGINALS.]\n\n[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]\n\n _Double object._--It was now that I arranged the double object\n between Miss R----d and Miss E., who happened to be sitting nearly\n facing one another. [See _Nature,_ June 12th, 1884.] The drawing\n was a square on one side of the paper, a cross on the other. Miss\n R----d looked at the side with the square on it. Miss E. looked at\n the side with the cross. Neither knew what the other was looking\n at--nor did the percipient know that anything unusual was being\n tried. Mr. Birchall was silently asked to take off his attention\n and he got up and looked out of window before the drawings were\n brought in, and during the experiment. There was no contact. Very\n soon Miss R. said, \"I see things moving about.... I seem to see two\n things.... I see first one up there, and then one down there.... I\n don't know which to draw.... I can't see either distinctly.\" (Well,\n anyhow, draw what you have seen.) She took off the bandage and drew\n first a square, and then said, \"Then there was the other thing as\n well ... afterwards they seemed to go into one,\" and she drew a\n cross inside the square from corner to corner, adding afterwards,\n \"I don't know what made me put it inside.\"\n\n\nNo. 7.--By HERR MAX DESSOIR.\n\nIn June 1885 some successful experiments in thought-transference were\nmade by Herr Dessoir, of Berlin, author of _A Bibliography of Modern\nHypnotism_, and other works, with the co-operation of some friends,\nHerren Weiss, Biltz, and Sachse. There were in all eighteen trials\nwith diagrams in which Herr Dessoir was the percipient. The diagrams\nwhich follow--reproduced from the original drawings--were the result\nof six consecutive trials. They are, as will be seen, not completely\nsuccessful, but they convey a fair idea of the amount of success\nattained in the whole series. It should be noted that the impression\nreceived by the percipient appears to have been persistent; and that\nthe second attempt at reproduction, in five out of the six cases,\nwas more successful than the first. Herr Dessoir states that he was\ngenerally out of the room whilst the figure was being drawn; he\nreturned at the given signal, with eyes closely bandaged; \"I set myself\nat the table, and in many instances placed my hands on the table, and\nthe agent placed his hands on mine; the hands lay quite still on one\nanother. When an image presented itself to my mind, the hands were\nremoved ... and I took off the bandage and drew my figure.\"\n\nA full account of these experiments, and of others conducted by Herr\nDessoir, will be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 111-126; vol. v.\npp. 355-357.\n\n[Illustration: I.\n\nORIG.\n\nAgent: W. S.\n\n REP. 1. REP. 2.\n\nWhile the second reproduction was proceeding, an interruption occurred\nwhich prevented its completion.]\n\n[Illustration: II.\n\nORIG.\n\nAgent: H. B.\n\nREP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3. REP. 4.]\n\n[Illustration: III.\n\nORIG.\n\nAgent: H. B.\n\n REP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3.\n\n The percipient said, \"It looks like a\n window.\"\n]\n\n[Illustration: IV.\n\n ORIG.\n\n Agent: H. B.\n\nREP. 1.\n\nREP. 2.]\n\n[Illustration: REP. 3.\n\nV.\n\nOrig.\n\nAgent: H. B.]\n\n[Illustration: REP. 1. REP. 2.]\n\n[Illustration: VI.\n\n ORIG. REP. 1. REP. 2.\n\n Agent: E. W. The percipient said, \"It looks like a window.\"\n]\n\n\nNo. 8.--By HERR SCHMOLL and M. MABIRE.\n\nOf more recent experiments with diagrams, those recorded by Herr Anton\nSchmoll and M. Etienne Mabire are perhaps the most important.[23] The\nexperiments took place at Herr Schmoll's house, 111 Avenue de Villiers,\nParis. In addition to Herr Schmoll and M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll and four\nor five other persons assisted at one time or another. Mr. F. W. H.\nMyers was also present on three occasions. In all about 100 trials were\nmade with diagrams and real objects (the actual number of experiments\nof all kinds was 148), full details of which will be found in the\noriginal papers. The experiments were made in the evenings, in a room\nlighted by a hanging lamp. The agents, usually three or four in number,\nsat at a round table immediately under the lamp, and fixed their\neyes on the diagram or object, which was placed on the table before\nthem. The percipient, with his eyes bandaged, sat in full view of the\nagents with his back to them in a corner of the room at a distance\nof about ten feet from the object. Silence was maintained during the\nexperiments, except where otherwise expressly stated. The object or\ndiagram was carefully hidden before the handkerchief was removed from\nthe eyes of the percipient to enable him to draw his impression. In\nthe first nineteen experiments the figure was drawn with the end of a\nmatch dipped in ink, whilst the percipient was in the room. It was not\nlikely, under the circumstances, as the match moved almost noiselessly\nover the paper, that any indication of the figure drawn could by this\nmeans have been given to the percipient. Nevertheless, in the later\nexperiments quoted the precaution was taken to draw the figure whilst\nthe percipient was in another room, and a soft brush was substituted\nfor the match. The following is a record, by Herr Schmoll, of the last\ntwo evenings of the first series:--\n\n18.--_August 24th, 1886._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--M. Mabire.\n\n _Object_ (drawn)--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--M. Mabire saw \"a sort of semicircle like the tail of a\n comet, but of spiral construction, like some of the nebul\u00e6.\" What\n he saw he reproduced in the following manner:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n19.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Schmoll.\n\n _Object_ (drawn)--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--\"I see two double lines, that cross each other at about\n right angles.\" (Pause.) \"The two double lines now appear single,\n but like rays of light, and in the form of an =X=.\" (Another\n pause.) \"Now I see the upper part of the =X= separated from the\n lower by a vertical line.\" I draw:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n20.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.\n\n _Object_--A brass weight of 500 grms. was placed on the table.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--\"What I see looks like a short piece of candle, without\n a candlestick. It must be burning, for at the upper end I see it\n glitter.\"\n\n _Remark_--At the upper part of the object, indicated by the arrow,\n bright reflections, caused by the oblique lighting, were seen\n by all the agents (the weight was rubbed bright). The form seen\n decidedly resembles the original, especially the outline.\n\n21.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.\n\n _Object_--My gold watch (without the chain) was noiselessly placed\n before us, the back turned towards us; on the face are Roman\n numbers.\n\n _Result_--After five minutes: \"I see a round object, but I cannot\n describe it more particularly.\" (During the pause that followed,\n without causing the slightest noise, I turned the watch round, so\n that we saw the face.) Soon Mdlle. Louise called out: \"You are\n certainly looking at the clock over the piano, for now I quite\n clearly see a clock face with Roman numbers.\"\n\n [The watch, as was ascertained after the experiment, was not going\n at the time.]\n\n22.--_September 10th, 1886._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Schmoll.\n\n _Object_--A pamphlet (in 8vo) was slantingly placed on the table.\n\n _Result_--Completely failed. I saw nothing whatever.\n\n _Remark_--At the beginning of our trials to-day we had neglected to\n clear the table. The book was surrounded by other objects, and also\n badly lighted.\n\n23.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.\n\n _Object_--A piece of candle, 20 centimetres long, was placed on the\n table.\n\n _Result_--After eight minutes: \"I see it well, but not clearly\n enough to say what it is. It is a thin, long object.\"\n\n \"How long?\" asked M. Mabire.\n\n Frau Schmoll tried by separating her hands to give a measurement,\n but could not do it with certainty, and said, \"A full hand's\n length, about 20 centimetres.\" Begged for a further description,\n she said, \"I see something like a walking-stick, but at one end\n there must be gold, for something shines there.\" (The candle was\n _not_ burning.)\n\n24.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.\n\n _Object_--A Faience tea-pot was placed on the table:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--After five minutes: \"It is not a drawing, but a real\n object. I see very clearly a little vase, a little pot or pan.\"\n\n25.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--M. Mabire.\n\n _Object_--The stamp of the firm was placed on the table:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--After twenty minutes: \"The picture appears to be rather\n confused. But I believe that I see the lower part of a drinking\n glass.\" (Pause.) \"Now it has gone again.\" (A pause of five\n minutes.) \"Now I see another form, like two symmetrical S-shaped\n double curves, placed side by side.\" Then M. Mabire drew:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Remark_--Apparently the lower part was seen first, and then the\n upper.\n\n26.--_The same evening._\n\n _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.\n\n _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.\n\n _Object_--The double eye-glasses (pince-nez) belonging to M. Mabire\n were laid on the table.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n _Result_--After five minutes: \"I see two curves, open above, that\n do not touch each other.\" Then Mdlle. Louise drew:--\n\n[Illustration]\n\nUnfortunately, the original drawings and reproductions in this series\nwere not preserved. The figures given are facsimile reproductions of\nthose in Herr Schmoll's MS. record, which were copied at the time on\na reduced scale from the actual drawings made by the agent and the\npercipient respectively. In the second series the actual drawings have\nbeen preserved. In the experiments quoted below, as already stated, the\nfigure was drawn whilst the percipient was out of the room, and (with\nthe exception of No. 58) several copies were made of the drawing, \"in\norder that each agent might be able to see the drawing in an upright\nposition, and that he might be able to place it at the most favourable\npoint of view.\" The percipient when ready withdrew the bandage from\nhis eyes and, still seated in the chair with his back to the agents,\nexecuted the reproduction.\n\n_April 5th, 1887._\n\n -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------\n No. of | Percipient.| Agents. | Original | Result.\n Trial. | | | Drawing. |\n -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------\n | | | |\n 51 | Mdlle. | 4. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]\n | Louise M. | Mme. D. | |\n | | Mdlle. Jane. | |\n | | Mme. Schmoll | |\n | | M. Schmoll. | |\n | | | Each agent |Before drawing\n | | | had a copy | the above figure,\n | | | of the | Mdlle. Louise\n | | | original. | said, \"a\n | | | | terrestrial globe\n | | | | on a support.\"\n | | | | 10 minutes.\n | | | |\n 52 |Mdlle. Jane.| 4. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]\n | |Mdlle. Louise | |\n | | in place of | |\n | | Mdlle. Jane.| |\n | | |Four copies of | 10 minutes.\n | | | the original |\n | | | were used by |\n | | | the agents. |\n | | | |\n 53 |Mme. Schmoll| 3. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]\n | | | |\n | | | Three copies |During the\n | | | used. | experiment\n | | | | Mme. Schmoll said\n | | | | that she saw \"a\n | | | | little roof.\"\n | | | | 10 minutes.\n 54 |Mdlle. Jane.| 3. |[Illustration] | [Illustration]\n | | Mme. Schmoll | | 15 minutes.\n | | in place of | |\n | | Mdlle. Jane.| |\n | | | Three copies |\n | | | used. |\n -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------\n\nMdlle. Jane, _after having seen the original_, said that her first idea\nhad been that of a glass.\n\n_April 5th, 1887_ (_continued_).\n\n -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------\n No. of | Percipient.| Agents. | Original | Result.\n Trial. | | | Drawing. |\n -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------\n | | | |\n 55 | Mme. D. | 4. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]\n | | | |\n | | | Four copies | 10 minutes.\n | | | used. |\n | | | |\n 56 | M. Schmoll.| 4. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]\n | | Mme. D. | |\n | | in place | | [Illustration]\n | | of M. | |\n | | Schmoll. | |\n | | | Four copies | 10 minutes.\n | | | used. |\n | | | |\n 57 | A Failure. | | |\n | | | |\n 58 |Mdlle. Jane.| 6. |[Illustration]| After five minutes\n | | | | Mdlle. Jane said,\n | | | | \"I see a cat's head.\"\n | | | | On being asked to\n | | | | draw what she saw,\n | | | | she produced the\n | | | | following figure:--\n | | | |\n | | | This was the | [Illustration]\n | | | first time |\n | | | that an |\n | | | animal had |\n | | | been drawn. |\n | | | |\n 59 |Mdlle. Jane.| 6. |[Illustration]| At the end of five\n | | | | minutes, Mdlle. Jane\n | | | | having said, \"_it\n | | | | is a head in\n | | | | profile_,\" a cry\n | | | | of joy unfortunately\n | | | | escaped one of those\n | | | | present. This cry\n | | | | having betrayed to\n | | | This was the | Mdlle. Jane that she\n | | | first time | had guessed rightly,\n | | | that a head | no drawing was made.\n | | | had been | In order to repair\n | | | drawn. | the wrong as much\n | | | | as possible, Mdlle.\n | | | | Jane was asked\n | | | | which way the head\n | | | | was turned. \"To\n | | | | the left,\" she\n | | | | replied.\n -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------\n\nExperiments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 were failures. No. 65 was not an\nexperiment with a diagram.\n\n_April 8th, 1887._\n\n -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------\n No. of | Percipient. | Agents. | Original | Result.\n Trial. | | | Drawing. |\n -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------\n | | | |\n 66 | Mdlle. | 5. |[Illustration]| At the end of a few\n | Louise. |(plus Mr. | | minutes, Mdlle.\n | | Myers) | | Louise said, \"I see\n | | | | three fish on a\n | | | | skewer.\" Not being\n | | | | well understood, she\n | | | | explained, \"Three\n | | | | fish held by a\n | | | | skewer, that is as\n | | | | they are sold in the\n | | | | fish markets; but\n | | | | everybody\n | | | | knows that!\"\n | | | | Then she took off\n | | | | her bandage and\n | | | | drew--\n | | | |\n | | | This figure | [Illustration]\n | | | was drawn by |\n | | | Mr. Myers. |\n 67 | Failure. | | |\n | | | |\n 68 | Failure. | | |\n | | | |\n 69 | Mdlle. | 5. |[Illustration]| [Illustration]\n | Louise. |(plus Mr. | |\n | | Myers) | |\n -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------\n\nAppended is a statement from Mdlle. Jane D., a young lady of 20, who\nappears to have been one of the most successful percipients in this\nseries:--\n\n \"Whenever I have taken part in the experiments as percipient, I\n have endeavoured to expel from my mind all thoughts and images, and\n have remained inactive, with my hands over my eyes, waiting for\n the production of an impression; sometimes I have tied up my eyes,\n but this plan has not always been successful. At other times the\n _idea_ of an object has presented itself to me before I have seized\n its form, but most frequently I seemed to see the picture either\n black on a white ground, or white on a black ground. In general,\n the objects present themselves in an undecided manner, and pass\n away very rapidly; usually I only grasp a portion of them.\n\n \"Whenever I have been most successful, I have remarked that\n the picture has presented itself to my imagination almost\n instantaneously. Sometimes also I have been led to draw an object\n of which the name was forced on me, as if by some external\n influence.\n\n \"JANE D.\n \"Paris, _February 17th, 1888_.\"\n\nAppended are a few facsimiles of the most successful of the above\nresults, reproduced in the original size.\n\n[Illustration: No. 51.--ORIGINAL. No. 51.--REPRODUCTION.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 53.--ORIGINAL.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 53.--REPRODUCTION.]\n\n[Illustration: No 56.--ORIGINAL.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 56.--REPRODUCTION.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 58.--ORIGINAL. No. 58.--REPRODUCTION.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 66.--ORIGINAL.]\n\n[Illustration: No. 66.--REPRODUCTION.]\n\n\nNo. 9.--By DR. VON SCHRENK-NOTZING.\n\nBaron von Schrenk-Notzing, M.D., of Munich, whose work in hypnotism\nis well known, carried on a series of experiments with diagrams and\nnumbers, etc., in the course of the year 1890.[24] Space will not\npermit of our quoting these results in full. The following experiments\nare selected as being the only three in which the agent and percipient\nwere in different rooms. The percipient, Fr\u00e4ulein A., was a patient\nof Dr. von Schrenk-Notzing's, of rather hysterical temperament;\nthroughout the experiments she was in a normal condition and fully\nawake. In these three trials, which took place between 10.12 P.M. and\n10.23 P.M. on the 15th October 1890, Fr\u00e4ulein A. sat on a chair in the\nagent's study about a yard from the door leading into the adjoining\nroom, and with her back towards it; paper and pencil were on the table\nbefore her. In the adjoining room, about 12 feet in a direct line\nfrom the percipient, with the door of communication closed, Dr. von\nSchrenk-Notzing stood, beside a small table, and drew a rough diagram\nrepresenting the staff of \u00c6sculapius and the Serpent. When the drawing\nwas complete, to quote Dr. Schrenk-Notzing,\n\n \"I call 'Ready?' The percipient says, 'Yes.' We have been drawing\n at the same time in different rooms. On returning to the study I\n compare the drawings and see with astonishment that Fr\u00e4ulein A. has\n drawn a serpent. Even the open mouth and the thickened end of the\n tail in the reproduction agree with the original. The experiment\n has succeeded in its essential part, and as regards strictness of\n conditions I think it quite unassailable. Unconscious suggestion\n is absolutely excluded, when agent and percipient are in different\n rooms. Any corresponding association of ideas seems to me also\n impossible, for the idea of the staff of \u00c6sculapius first occurred\n to me in the other room. In the study there is no object which\n could have led up to the idea--no indication which could have\n pointed out the way.\"\n\nThe percipient had, in fact, drawn a spiral figure apparently intended\nto represent a serpent.\n\nThe two other experiments here referred to were performed in immediate\nsuccession, and under precisely similar conditions, the time allowed in\neach case being about two minutes.\n\nIn the second experiment the agent drew an arrow; the percipient drew\nanother spiral, with intersecting loops. In this case, as the agent\npoints out, the original idea of the serpent appears to have persisted\nin the percipient's mind.\n\nIn the third experiment the agent drew a triangle inscribed in a\ncircle; also two diameters to the circle, crossing each other at\nright angles, the vertical diameter bisecting the upper angle of the\ntriangle. The agent writes:--\n\n \"The drawing was done in the following way. I began with the\n triangle, and then drew the perpendicular on the base. The idea\n that thereupon occurred to me, that the figure was too simple,\n induced me to add a circle and to prolong the perpendicular to\n the circumference; finally I added the horizontal diameter. The\n percipient was drawing at the same time at table _b_, sitting\n on chair 5, with her back to the closed door of communication.\n Question from the next room, 'Are you ready?' Answer, 'Stop,' as I\n am about to open the door. Then, 'Now.' I open the door and enter\n the room. The two drawings agree except that the circle and the\n horizontal diameter are wanting. Even the perpendicular of the\n triangle, which has become obtuse angled, is prolonged beyond the\n base, just as in the original. This prolongation and addition of\n the perpendicular cannot be explained by any tendency of ideas to\n recur (diagram-habit). Only the fact that a triangle was drawn\n might, taken alone, be explained in some such way.\"\n\nFigures of the original diagrams in this case are given in the\n_Proceedings of the S.P.R._\n\nSome experiments with diagrams, conducted in July 1890 by Drs. Grimaldi\nand Fronda, have been published by Lombroso.[25] The subject was a\nyoung man of twenty, subject to hysterical attacks and spontaneous\nsomnambulism. The first experiments were made in the hypnotic state,\nwith numbers, and met with only moderate success. Later, however, the\ntrials were made in the normal state. At the first sitting diagrams\nwere tried. The subject had his eyes firmly bandaged and his ears\nplugged with cotton wool. The diagrams were drawn at a certain distance\n(_ad una certa distanza_) from the subject, and behind him. Under these\nconditions the first five experiments were completely successful; the\nsubject reproduced in turn a rhomb, a circle, a triangle, an irregular\npentagon, shaped something like the profile of a barn, and a cone. The\nnext experiment failed, only a formless scribble being obtained. The\nsubject was much exhausted, and fell into a semi-cataleptic state as\nsoon as the bandage was removed.\n\nSome success was obtained in later sittings, in the guessing of names\nand in the execution of mental commands. But the experiments had soon\nto be abandoned, on account of the health of the percipient.\n\nOther experiments with diagrams, in addition to those above referred\nto, will be found in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. i. pp.\n161-215, by Mr. Gurney, the writer, and others; vol. ii. pp. 207-216,\nby Mr. W. J. Smith. The paper on Thought-transference, etc., by\nProfessor C. Richet, _Proceedings_, vol. v. pp. 18-168, should also be\nconsulted in this connection.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 15: See, for instance, Puys\u00e9gur, _Memoires pour servir \u00e0\nl'\u00e9tablissement du magn\u00e9tisme_, pp. 22, 29 _et seq._, and P\u00e9t\u00e9tin,\n_Electricit\u00e9 Animale_, p. 127, etc. (quoted by Dr. Ochorowicz, _De la\nSuggestion mentale_).]\n\n[Footnote 16: Some trials were made by Mr. Guthrie with imagined\ntunes. But they were in no instance successful without contact;\nand as obviously the chances of unconscious indications being\ngiven, in any case considerable where tunes are in question, are\nmuch increased by contact, we should not be justified in regarding\nsuccessful results, under such conditions, as even _prima facie_ due\nto Thought-transference. (See _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 426, 447,\n448.)]\n\n[Footnote 17: See below, Chapter III.--Mrs. Sidgwick's experiments.]\n\n[Footnote 18: The calculation is by Professor F. Y. Edgeworth. (See\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 190.) Of course the statement in the\ntext must not be taken as indicating the belief of Mr. Edgeworth\nor the writer or any one else that the above figures demonstrate\nThought-transference as the cause of the results attained. The results\nmay conceivably have been due to some error of observation or of\nreporting. But the figures are sufficient to prove, what is here\nclaimed for them, that _some_ cause must be sought for the results\nother than chance.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 17 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 20: See Dr. Thaw's paper, _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol.\nviii. pp. 422 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 21: Records of these experiments will be found in the _Proc.\nof the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. pp. 263-283; vol. ii. pp. 1-5,\n24-42, 189-200; vol. iii. pp. 424-452.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ii. pp. 194-196.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. pp. 324 _et seq._;\nvol. v. pp. 169 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 24: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 3-22.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Trasmissione del Pensiero_, etc., Naples, 1891.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nEXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS WITH HYPNOTISED\nPERCIPIENTS.\n\n\nAs already stated, the hypnotic state offers peculiar facilities for\nobserving the transmission of thought and sensation. It is possible\nthat the superior susceptibility of the hypnotised percipient is in\nsome measure due simply to the quiescence and freedom from spontaneous\nmental activity very generally induced by the state of sleep-waking.\nThere are indications, moreover, that the hypnotic state itself may\npresent in many cases a specialised manifestation of that rapport\nwhich would appear to exist generally between Agent and Percipient\nin thought-transference. But the close association of the telepathic\nactivities with the consciousness which emerges in hypnotism and allied\nstates suggests an explanation of a more general kind, and may possibly\nthrow light on the evolution of the faculty itself.[26] However this\nmay be, there can be no question that the most remarkable results in\nexperimental telepathy so far recorded are those given in this and the\nfollowing chapters with hypnotised percipients.\n\n\n_Transference of Tastes._\n\nThe fact that notwithstanding this recognised facility comparatively\nfew observers have experimented with hypnotised subjects, except in\none or two directions, calls for some explanation. There are, indeed,\ninnumerable records of the transmission of sensations of taste and\npain in the hypnotic state. The uncertainty attending any experiment\nin the first direction with subjects in whom special exaltation of any\nparticular sense is not merely possible, but even under the conditions\nof the experiments probable, has been already pointed out. Such trials,\nconducted with a variety of substances nearly all of which are in some\ndegree odorous, must necessarily lie under suspicion. To the references\nquoted in the preceding chapter (p. 21) and to the experiments of\nthis nature recorded in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._[27] it will\nsuffice here to add one further instance, in which the hypothesis of\nhyper\u00e6sthesia seems hardly an adequate explanation of the result. In a\ncommunication to the _Revue Philosophique_ in February 1889, Dr. Dufay\nquotes the following passage from a letter received by him from Dr.\nAzam, the veteran historian of F\u00e9lida X.:--\n\n\nNo. 10.--By DR. AZAM.\n\n \"I myself, and I believe many other medical men, have observed\n cases of this or of a similar nature. I will quote two, in which I\n think I took all necessary precautions before being convinced of\n their truth.\n\n \"1st. About 1853 or 1854, I had under my care a young woman with\n confirmed hysteria: nothing was easier than to put her to sleep\n by various means. I consider myself entitled to state that, while\n holding her hand, my unspoken thoughts were transferred to her, but\n upon this I do not insist, error and fraud being possible.\n\n \"But the transmission of a definite sensation seemed to me to be\n absolutely certain. This is how I proceeded: Having put the patient\n to sleep, and seated myself by her side, I leaned towards her and\n dropped my handkerchief behind her chair; then, while stooping to\n lift it up, I quickly put into my mouth a pinch of common salt,\n which, unknown to her, I had beforehand put into the right-hand\n pocket of my waistcoat. The salt being absolutely without smell,\n it was impossible that the patient should have known that I had\n some in my mouth; but as soon as I raised myself again I saw her\n face express disgust, and she moved her lips about. 'That is very\n nasty,' she said; 'why did you put salt into my mouth?'\n\n \"I have repeated this experiment several times with other inodorous\n substances, and it has always succeeded. I report this fact alone\n because it seems to me to be certain.\"\n\n\n_Transference of Pain._\n\nExperiments with sensations of pain, as has been pointed out, stand on\na different footing. There is no special source of error to be guarded\nagainst. The following trials, conducted by Mr. Edmund Gurney, with the\nassistance of the present writer and others, on two evenings in the\nearly part of 1883, will perhaps suffice to indicate the possibility\nof such transmission. The percipient was a youth named Wells, at the\ntime of the experiments a baker's apprentice. He was hypnotised by Mr.\nG. A. Smith. During the trials Wells was blindfolded, and Mr. Smith\nstood behind his chair. On the first evening Mr. Smith held one of the\npercipient's hands; and throughout the series it was necessary for Mr.\nSmith to hold communication with Wells; the only words used, however,\nbeing the simple uniform question, \"Do you feel anything?\"[28]\n\n\nNo. 11.--By EDMUND GURNEY.\n\n_First Series. January 4th, 1883._\n\n 1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right arm was pinched\n continuously. Wells, after an interval of about two minutes, began\n to rub the corresponding part on his own body.\n\n 2. Back of the neck pinched. Same result.\n\n 3. Calf of left leg slapped. Same result.\n\n 4. Lobe of left ear pinched. Same result.\n\n 5. Outside of left wrist pinched. Same result.\n\n 6. Upper part of back slapped. Same result.\n\n 7. Hair pulled. Wells localised the pain on his left arm.\n\n 8. Right shoulder slapped. The corresponding part was correctly\n indicated.\n\n 9. Outside of left wrist pricked. Same result.\n\n 10. Back of neck pricked. Same result.\n\n 11. Left toe trodden on. No indication given.\n\n 12. Left ear pricked. The corresponding part was correctly\n indicated.\n\n 13. Back of left shoulder slapped. Same result.\n\n 14. Calf of right leg pinched. Wells touched his arm.\n\n 15. Inside of left wrist pricked. The corresponding part was\n correctly indicated.\n\n 16. Neck below right ear pricked. Same result.\n\nIn the next series of these experiments Wells was blindfolded, as\nbefore; but in this case a screen was interposed between Mr. Smith and\nWells; and there was no contact between them. During two or three of\nthe trials Mr. Smith was in an adjoining room, separated from Wells by\nthick curtains.\n\n\n_Second Series. April 10th, 1883._\n\n 17. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. After a lapse of\n about two minutes, Wells cried out, \"Who's pinching me?\" and began\n to rub the corresponding part.\n\n 18. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left arm pinched. Wells indicated the\n corresponding part almost at once.\n\n 19. Mr. Smith's right ear pinched. Wells struck his own right ear,\n after the lapse of about a minute, as if catching a troublesome\n fly, crying out, \"Settled him that time.\"\n\n 20. Mr. Smith's chin was pinched. Wells indicated the right part\n almost immediately.\n\n 21. The hair at the back of Mr. Smith's head was pulled. No\n indication.\n\n 22. Back of Mr. Smith's neck pinched. Wells pointed, after a short\n interval, to the corresponding part.\n\n 23. Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. Same result.\n\nAfter this, Mr. Smith being now in an adjoining room, Wells began,\nas he said, \"to go to sleep;\" and said that he \"didn't want to be\nbothered.\" He was partially waked up, and the experiments were resumed.\n\n [Four experiments with tastes are here omitted.]\n\n 28. Mr. Smith's right calf pinched. Wells was very sulky, and for a\n long time refused to speak. At last he violently drew up his right\n leg, and began rubbing the calf.\n\n After this Wells became still more sulky, and refused in the next\n experiment to give any indication whatever. With considerable\n acuteness he explained the reasons for his contumacy. \"I ain't\n going to tell you, for if I don't tell you, you won't go on\n pinching me. You only do it to make me tell.\" Then he added, in\n reply to a remonstrance from Mr. Smith, \"What do _you_ want me\n to tell for? they ain't hurting _you_, and _I_ can stand their\n pinching.\" All this time Mr. Smith's left calf was being very\n severely pinched.\n\nTo the onlooker the situation was rendered additionally piquant\nby the fact that the boy, at the very time when he was apparently\nacutely sensitive to pain inflicted upon Mr. Smith, showed no sign of\nsusceptibility when any part of his own person was pretty severely\nmaltreated. The only point in the trials which seems to call for\nspecial notice is the failure on two occasions to indicate the seat\nof pain when the agent's hair was pulled (7 and 21). Numerous trials\nwith the same and other percipients have shown that this particular\nexperiment rarely succeeds, possibly because the pain so caused is with\nmany people not of an acute kind.[29]\n\n\n_Transference of Visual Images._\n\nBut when we leave these experiments in the transfer of the less\nspecialised forms of sensation we find that but few observers have paid\nattention to the phenomena of telepathy in the hypnotic state. Probably\nthis is in some measure due to one or two initial difficulties in\nconducting experiments on such subjects. Opening the eyes to permit the\nsubject to reproduce a diagram will in many cases have the effect of\nwakening him. Again, with some persons it is a matter of difficulty to\nmaintain the exact stage of the hypnotic trance when they are quiescent\nenough for the alien impression to meet with little risk of disturbance\nfrom the subject's own mental activities, and yet sufficiently alert\nto prevent them from relapsing, as was frequently the case with Wells,\nthe percipient just referred to, into a torpid sleep from which no\nfurther response could be elicited. But, after all, these difficulties\nwhen they occur can readily be overcome by the exercise of a little\npatience. If the study of thought-transference in the hypnotic state\nhas been comparatively neglected, it is mainly because, as already\nsuggested, with most persons the more salient phenomena of the\ntrance--hallucination, an\u00e6sthesia, rigidity, etc.--have distracted\nattention from what may ultimately prove to be a more fruitful line of\ninquiry.\n\nFor the following record we are indebted to Dr. Li\u00e9beault, of Nancy,\nwho sent us the account in 1886.\n\n\nNo. 12.--By DR. LI\u00c9BEAULT.\n\n [The first series of experiments were made on the afternoon of\n the 10th December 1885, in Dr. Li\u00e9beault's house at Nancy. There\n were present, in addition, Madame S., Dr. Brullard, and Professor\n Li\u00e9geois, who acted as agent, and Mademoiselle M., the subject. The\n subject was hypnotised by Professor Li\u00e9geois, and experiments were\n made with diagrams, and in two cases the design--a water-bottle\n (_carafe_) and a table with a drawer and drawer-knob--was\n reproduced with exactness. Precautions had, of course, been taken\n to conceal the original design from the percipient. The account of\n the seventh and last experiment is quoted in full.]\n\n \"7. M. Li\u00e9geois wrote the word _mariage_, Mdlle. M. then wrote\n 'Monsieur.' Then she said 'Decanter,--no--picture--no.' [What is\n the letter?] 'It is an _l_--no, it is an _m_.' Then after thinking\n for some minutes, 'There is an _i_ in the word, an _a_ after the\n _m_--a _g_--another _a_--an _e_--there are six letters--no--seven.'\n When she had found all the letters and their places, _ma iage_, she\n could not find the letter _r_. After a few minutes it was suggested\n to her that she should try combinations with the different\n consonants, and finally she wrote _mariage_.\"\n\n [Further experiments were made by Dr. Li\u00e9beault, in conjunction\n with M. Stanislas de Guaita, on the 9th January 1886. The subject\n in this case was Mademoiselle Louise L., who was hypnotised by\n Dr. Li\u00e9beault. The first two experiments, which are not quoted\n here, suggest lip-reading or unconscious audition as a possible\n explanation; but the third experiment of this series and the two\n subsequent trials with Mdlle. Camille Simon present interesting\n illustrations of a telepathic hallucination superimposed upon a\n basis of reality.]\n\n \"3. Dr. Li\u00e9beault, in order that no hint should be given even in a\n whisper, wrote on a piece of paper, 'Mademoiselle, on waking, will\n see her black hat transformed into a red one.' The paper was first\n passed round to all the witnesses, then MM. Li\u00e9beault and De Guaita\n placed their hands silently on the subject's forehead, mentally\n formulating the sentence agreed upon. After being told she would\n see something unusual in the room, the young woman was awakened.\n Without a moment's hesitation she fixed her eyes upon the hat, and\n with a burst of laughter exclaimed that it was not her hat, she\n would have none of it. It was the same shape certainly, but this\n farce had lasted long enough--we must really give her back her own.\n ['Come now, what difference do you see?'] 'You know quite well.\n You have eyes like me.' ['Well what?'] We had to press her for\n some time before she would say what change had come over her hat;\n surely we were making fun of her. At last she said, 'You can see\n for yourselves that it is red.' As she refused to take it we were\n forced to put an end to her hallucination by telling her that her\n hat would presently resume its usual colour. The doctor breathed on\n it, and when it became, in her eyes, her own again, she consented\n to take it back. Directly afterwards she remembered nothing of her\n hallucination....\n\n \"Nancy, 9th January 1886.\n \"Signed, A. A. LI\u00c9BEAULT.\n STANISLAS DE GUAITA.\"[30]\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"We had one very successful experiment with a young girl of about\n fifteen, Mdlle. Camille Simon, in the presence of M. Brullard and\n several other persons. I gave her a mental suggestion that on\n waking she should see her hat, which was brown, changed to yellow.\n I then put her _en rapport_ with all the others, and I passed round\n a slip of paper indicating my suggestion, and asking them to think\n of the same thing. But, by a lapse of memory not unusual to me, I\n did not think after all of the colour which I had written down;\n I had a distinct impression that she would see her hat _red_. On\n awaking her I told her she would see something representing our\n common thought. When she was wakened she wondered at the colour of\n her hat. 'It was brown,' she said. After having thought for a long\n time, she assured us that really it did not look at all the same,\n that she could not quite define the colour, but that it seemed to\n her a sort of yellow-red. Then I remembered my aberration. In\n the present case the others thought of yellow, I of red: thus the\n object appeared yellow and red to the awakened somnambule; which\n proves that the mental suggestion may be the echo of the thought of\n many minds.\"\n\n [The following experiment, made with the same \"subject,\" and sent\n to us by Dr. Li\u00e9beault on June 3, 1886, is an interesting example\n of temporary latency of the telepathic impression:--]\n\n \"In another experiment with the same young girl it was suggested\n to her, mentally, by several persons that on awaking she would see\n a black cock walking about the room. For a considerable time after\n waking, nearly half-an-hour, she said nothing, although I told her\n she would see something. It was about half-an-hour afterwards that,\n having gone into the garden and looked by chance into my little\n courtyard, she came running back to us to say, 'Ah, I know what\n I was to see: it was a black cock. This came into my head when I\n was looking at your cock.' My cock is greenish-black on the wings,\n tail and breast; everywhere else he is yellowish-white. Here we\n have an idea caused by the sight of a real object associated with a\n fictitious idea mentally transmitted by the persons present.\"\n\nBetween the beginning of July and the end of October 1889 a series\nof trials in the transference of numbers was conducted by Mrs. H.\nSidgwick, with the assistance of Professor Sidgwick and Mr. G. A.\nSmith. The conditions were as follows:--Some small wooden counters,\nbelonging to a game called Loto, and having the numbers from 10 to 90\nstamped on them in raised figures, were placed in a bag. From this\nbag, which it will be seen contained 81 numbers in all, Mr. G. A.\nSmith drew a counter, placing it in a little wooden box, the edges of\nwhich effectually concealed it from the view of the percipient. The\npercipient, who had been previously placed in the hypnotic state by\nMr. Smith, sat with his eyes closed and guessed the number drawn. The\nremarks, if any, made during the experiments, and the results, were\nrecorded by Mrs. Sidgwick. After the first few days it was arranged,\nin order to avoid all possibility of bias in recording the numbers,\nthat Professor Sidgwick should draw the counter from the bag and hand\nit to Mr. Smith, and that Mrs. Sidgwick should be herself ignorant of\nthe number drawn. Throughout the experiments, although eight or more\nother persons tried to act as agent, Mr. Smith alone was successful.\nMr. Smith himself failed to produce any result when the percipients\nwere not hypnotised. The following detailed account of part of the\nexperiments on one day, July 6th, 1889, will give a fair idea of the\nwhole; but it should be added that in later experiments Mr. Smith kept\ncomplete silence, and that on several occasions a newspaper was placed\nover P.'s head. These precautions do not appear to have affected the\nsuccess of the experiment.\n\nThe percipient was Mr. P., a clerk in a wholesale business, aged about\nnineteen, who had been frequently hypnotised by Mr. Smith, and now\npasses into the hypnotic state very quickly, his eyes turning upwards\nas he goes off, before the eyelids close. He is a lively young man,\nwith a good deal of humour, and preserves the same character in the\nsleep-waking state.\n\n\nNo. 13.--By PROFESSOR and MRS. SIDGWICK.\n\n NUMBER NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.\n DRAWN.\n\n 87 S.: \"Now, P., you're going to see numbers. I shall\n look at them, and you will see them.\" P. (almost\n immediately): \"87. You asked me if I saw a\n number. I see an 8 and a 7.\" (Number put\n away.) P.: \"I see nothing now.\"\n\n 19 P.: \"18. What are those numbers on? I see only the\n letters like brass numbers on a door; nothing\n behind them.\"\n\n 24 P. (after a pause): \"I keep on looking.... I see it!\n an 8 and a 4--84.\"\n\n 35 P.: \"A 3 and a 5--35.\" S.: \"How did that look?\"\n P.: \"I saw a 3 and a 5, then 35.\"\n\n 28 P.: \"88. One behind the other, then one popped forward,\n and I could see two eights.\" (Illustrated\n it with his fingers.)\n 20 P.: \"I can't see anything yet.\" S.: \"You will directly.\"\n P.: \"23.\" S.: \"Saw that clearly?\" P.:\n \"Not so plain as the other.\" S.: \"Which did\n you see best?\" P.: \"The 2.\"\n NUMBER NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.\n DRAWN.\n\n 27 P.: \"I can see 7, and I think a 3 in front of it. I can\n see the 7.\" S.: \"Make sure of the first figure.\"\n P.: \"The 7's gone now.\"\n\n 48 S.: \"Here's another one, P.\" (This remark, though not\n always recorded, almost always began each experiment,\n until July 27th, when, to avoid the\n possibility of unconscious indications, Mr. Smith\n adopted the plan of not speaking at all.) P.:\n \"Another two, you mean. You say another\n one, but there are always two.\" S.: \"Yes,\n two.\" P.: \"Here it is. You said there were\n two! There's only one, an 8.\" Some remarks\n here not recorded. We think that Mr. Smith\n said there were two, and told him to look again.\n P. said he saw a 4. Mrs. Sidgwick: \"Which\n came first?\" P.: \"The 8 first, then the 4 to\n the left, so that it would have been 48. I should\n like to know how you do that trick.\"\n\n 20 P.: \"A 2 and an 0; went away very quickly that time.\"\n\n 71 P.: \"71.\"\n\n 36 P.: \"3 ... 36.\"\n\n 75 P.: \"I might turn round. Should I see them just the\n same over there?\" (Changed his position so as\n to sit sideways in the chair, and looking away\n from Mr. Smith.) S.: \"Well, you might try.\"\n P.: \"I don't think I see so well this way.\"\n (He did not move, however.) \"I see a 7 and a\n 5--75. Why don't you let them both come at\n once? I believe I should see them better if you\n let me open my eyes.\" (No notice was taken of\n this.)\n\n 17 S.: \"Now then, P., here's another.\" P.: \"Put it there at\n once.\" (Then, after some time:) \"You've only\n put a 4 up. I see 7.\" S.: \"What's the other\n figure?\" P.: \"4 ... the 4's gone.\" S.:\n \"Have a look again.\" P.: \"I see 1 now.\"\n S.: \"Which way are they arranged?\" P.:\n \"The 1 first and the 7 second.\"\n\n 52 S.: \"Here's another.\" P.: \"52. I saw that at once.\n I'm sure there's some game about it.\" (He had\n said something about this before, when the\n number was slow in coming. He said Mr.\n Smith was making game of him, and pretending\n to look when he was not looking.)\n\n 76 P.: \"76.\"\n\nIt will be observed that P. always speaks of \"seeing\" the figures, but\nas a matter of fact his eyes were closed, or appeared to be closed,\nthroughout the experiments, and the pupils, as already stated, were\nintroverted, at least at the commencement of the trance. That the\nimpression was of a visual nature there can be no reasonable doubt.\nThis may have been due to Mrs. Sidgwick's suggestion to the percipient\nthat he would _see_ the figures: though it seems equally probable that\nit was owing to the fact that Mr. Smith's impression was a visual\none. That the vision in most cases was perfectly distinct seems\nequally clear. It is difficult to decide whether impressions received\nunder such circumstances, with the eyes closed, are properly to be\nclassed as hallucinations.[31] That under appropriate conditions the\npercept was capable of rising to the level of an externalised sensory\nhallucination, the following experiments, which took place later on the\nsame day, July 6th, seem to show:--A blank sheet of paper was spread\nout on the table. P. was told that he would see numbers on it, and was\nthen partially awakened and his eyes opened. He was at once told to\nlook at the paper and see what came, but saw nothing for some time.\nDifferent stages of the hypnotic trance frequently exhibit different\nand mutually exclusive memories, and P. now had evidently forgotten all\nabout the previous state in which he had been guessing numbers, and\nappeared so wide awake that it was hard to believe that he was not in a\ncompletely normal condition. Mr. Smith stood behind him.\n\n NUMBER\n DRAWN. NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.\n 18 ... P.: \"23.\" S.: \"Is that what you can see?\" P.:\n \"Yes\" (but he added later that he did not see\n it properly).\n 87 ... P.: \"A 7, o. Oh, no, 8, 78. Funny! I saw a 7 and\n a little o, and then another came on the top of\n it, and made an 8.\"\n 37 ... P.: \"There's a 4, 7.\" Asked where, he offered to trace\n it,[32] and drew 47 in figures 1-1/2 inches long.\n\n NUMBER\n DRAWN. NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.\n\n 44 P.: \"No. I see 5, 4; it's gone again.\" S.: \"All\n right, look at it.\" P.: \"45.\" S.: \"Sure?\"\n P.: \"There's a 4;--the other's not so clear.\"\n (Then quickly:) \"Two fours; 44.\"\n\n As he looked one of them disappeared, and he turned the paper over\n to look for it on the other side; then looked back at the place\n where he saw it before and said, \"That's funny! while I was looking\n for that the other one's gone.\" When looking under the paper he\n noticed some scribbling on the sheet below and said, \"Has that\n writing anything to do with it?\" He seemed puzzled by the figures,\n which were apparently genuine externalised hallucinations. He could\n not make out why they came, nor why they disappeared.\n\n 37 P. (after long gazing): \"37.\" S.: \"Is that what you\n see?\" P.: \"It's gone. I'm pretty sure I saw\n 37.\"\n\n Mr. Smith then looked at the 37 again, and we told P. to watch\n whether it came back, but after a little while he said he thought\n he saw 29.\n\nSimilar trials were made with three other subjects, Miss B., T., and W.\nIn all 644 trials were made with the agent in the same room with the\npercipient, of which 131 were successful, that is, both digits were\ngiven correctly, though in 14 out of the 131 cases in reverse order.\nThe chance of success was of course 1 in 81, and the most probable\nnumber of complete successes was therefore 8. 218 trials were also made\nwith Mr. Smith in a different room from the percipient, but of these\nonly 9 succeeded, one having its digits reversed; 8 of these successes,\nhowever, occurred in the course of 139 trials with P., whilst 79\ntrials with T. yielded only one success. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.\n123-170.)\n\nAs regards the possibility of unconscious indications of the number\nthought of being given by the agent, it seems certain that no such clue\ncould have been perceived through the sense of sight or touch, contact\nbetween agent and percipient having been absolutely excluded throughout\nthe experiments. It remains to consider whether any indication could\nhave been given by means of sounds. In the presence of two or more\nattentive and vigilant witnesses any indications by sounds--_e.g._, an\nunconscious whispering of the number by Mr. Smith--could only have been\nperceived by persons of abnormal susceptibility. We know, indeed, of\nno precise limit which can be set to the hyper\u00e6sthesia of hypnotised\nsubjects. But, on the other hand, hyper\u00e6sthesia of any sense in such\nsubjects is generally the result of suggestion, direct or indirect,\non the part of the operator; and in these experiments the only\nsuggestion given--a suggestion apparently acted on throughout--was that\nthey should _see_ the result. Since, indeed, hypnotised persons are\napparently not necessarily aware of the channel by which information\nreaches them, this circumstance is not in itself conclusive; but taken\nwith the fact that no direct suggestion to hear was given, it tends to\nmake auditory hyper\u00e6sthesia less probable. It is perhaps more important\nto note that the experimenters, including Mr. Smith himself, were fully\naware of this source of error, and on their guard against it; that no\nmovements of Mr. Smith's lips, such as must have occurred if he had\nwhispered the number, were observed; and that a careful analysis of the\nfailures shows no tendency to mistake one number for another similar\nin sound--_e.g._, _four_ for _five_, _six_ for _seven_, or _five_ for\n_nine_.\n\n\n_Experiments with Agent and Percipient in different Rooms._\n\n[Illustration]\n\nHowever, the later experiments by the same observers, recorded below,\nin which a marked degree of success was obtained with agent and\npercipient in different rooms, will no doubt be considered to render\nuntenable any explanation of the kind above indicated. This further\nseries was carried on through the years 1890-1-2. Mrs. Sidgwick,\naided by Miss Johnson, conducted the experiments throughout, with\nthe occasional assistance of Professor Sidgwick, Dr. A. T. Myers,\nand others. The percipients were P., T., Miss B., and three others,\nand Mr. G. A. Smith was in nearly all cases the agent. Some of these\nexperiments, as in the last series, were with numbers of two digits;\nbut the percipient was now in a different room from the agent. At first\nthe trials were carried on in an arch, fitted up with two floors,\nunder the Parade at Brighton. On the ground-floor was a little lobby,\nkitchen, etc.; on the upper floor a sitting-room about 15 feet square.\nThe staircase, which, as shown in the plan subjoined, led directly out\nof the upper room, was not enclosed above, but had a door below, which\nwas kept shut during the experiments. The floor of the room above was\ncovered with a thick Axminster carpet. Even so the sound-insulation\nwas not perfect; but it was found that words spoken in ordinary\nconversation on one floor were indistinguishable on the other unless\nthe ear was pressed against the door or wall of the staircase. In the\nexperiments carried on at Mrs. Sidgwick's lodgings in Brighton the\npercipient sat in the room at a distance from the door, which was\nclosed, varying from 9 to 13 feet, and Mr. Smith was in the passage\noutside, Miss Johnson sitting between him and the door. Of course\nstrict silence was observed by the agent. One of the experimenters, in\nmost cases Miss Johnson, accompanied the agent, drew the number from\nthe bag, and noted each as it was drawn. Mrs. Sidgwick, of course in\nignorance of the number drawn, sat by the percipient and took notes of\nhis remarks. As in the previous series, the impressions received by the\npercipient, who in the first experiments was Miss B., appear generally\nto have been of a visual nature. Details of all the trials with Miss B.\nas percipient and Mr. Smith as sole agent are given in the following\ntable:--\n\n\nNo. 14.--By MRS. SIDGWICK AND OTHERS.\n\n(1) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT UPSTAIRS; AGENT DOWNSTAIRS.\n\n --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------\n Date 1890.\n |Quite\n | right.\n | |Digits\n | | Reversed.\n | | |First Digit\n | | | only right.\n | | | |Second Digit\n | | | | only right.\n | | | | |Wrong.\n | | | | | |Totals.\n | | | | | | | Notes.\n --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------\n Jan. 6 | .. | .. |6[33]| .. | 2 | 8 |{Professor Barret present\n \" 7 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 17 |{ in addition to the usual\n | | | | | | |{ party.\n \" 8 | .. |1[34]| 2 | .. | 3 | 6 |This set was done under\n \" 11 | 1 |1[34]| 8 | .. | 10 | 20 | very unfavourable\n \" 12 | 9 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 8 | 33 | conditions, as there were\n | | | | | | | three other percipients\n Mar. 17 | 3 | .. | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | in the room guessing at\n \" 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | the same time, which was\n | | | | | | | very confusing.\n \" 22 | 1 | .. | 5 | 1 | 4 | 11 |Drs. Myers, Penrose, and\n | | | | | | | Lancaster present in\n | | | | | | | addition to the usual\n | | | | | | | party.\n \" 23 | 2 | .. | 6 | .. | 10 | 18 |Drs. Myers and Rolleston\n July 8 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 2 | 3 | present in addition to\n \" 9 | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | the usual party.\n Nov. 6 | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | .. | 3 |Dr. Myers present.\n \" 10 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 3 |\n --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+\n Totals| 20 | 5 | 55 | 11 | 57 | 148 |\n --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------\n\n(2) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT DOWNSTAIRS; AGENT UPSTAIRS.\n\n --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------\n Mar. 17 | .. | .. | 4 | 1 | 13 | 18 |\n \" 23 | .. | .. | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 |\n June 16 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 2 | 3 | Miss McKerlie present.\n --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+\n Totals| .. | .. | 7 | 4 | 22 | 33 |\n --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------\n\n\n(3) PLACE, MRS. SIDGWICK'S LODGINGS. PERCIPIENT IN ROOM, AND AGENT IN\nPASSAGE.\n\n --------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---------------------------------\n Date |\n 1890. |\n |Quite right\n | |Digits\n | | reversed.\n | | |First Digit\n | | | only right\n | | | |Second digit\n | | | | only right\n | | | | |Wrong\n | | | | | |Totals Notes.\n --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------\n Mar. | | | | | | |\n 19.. | .. | .. | 1 |.. | 2 | 3 |\n | | | | | | |\n Dec. | | | | | | |\n 17.. | 2 | .. | 11 | 2 | 12 | 27 |These guesses were made by\n | | | | | | | table-tilting, Miss B. normal,\n | | | | | | | having her hands on the table.\n | | | | | | |Miss Robertson present on\n | | | | | | | December 17, 19, and 20.(A)\n \" 19.. | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | .. | 7 |\n \" 19.. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | 5 |Agent in room across passage,\n | | | | | | | but only one of the two\n | | | | | | | intervening doors closed.\n {| 1 | 1 | 2 |.. | .. | 4 |{Guesses made verbally by Miss\n {| | | | | | |{ B. hypnotised, having her\n \" 20 {| | | | | | |{ hands on the table.\n {| .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |{Guesses tilted by the table,\n {| | | | | | |{ at the same time as the\n | | | | | | |{ above.[35]\n \" 20.. | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | Miss B. hypnotised, guessing\n | | | | | | | the usual way.\n | 1 |1[36]| 4 | 2 | 6 | 14 |Guesses made by table-tilting,\n | | | | | | | Miss B. normal, having her\n | | | | | | | hands on the table.(A)\n --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+\n Totals | 7 | 3 | 23 | 8 | 30 | 71 |\n --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+\n Totals | | | | | | |\n of (1) | | | | | | |\n (2)&(3) | 27 | 8 | 85 |23 |109 | 252 |\n together| | | | | | |\n --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------\n\nIt will be seen that in 252 trials the number was guessed quite\ncorrectly 27 times, and with digits in reverse order 8 times--the most\nprobable number of complete successes by chance being 3. Further,\nin the unsuccessful trials the first digit was correctly guessed no\nfewer than 85 times. The proportion of successes in a series of trials\ncarried on during the same period with Mr. Smith in the same room\nwith Miss B. was, however, much higher--viz., 29 (three with digits\nreversed) out of 146 trials. It is noticeable that in the short series\nof trials with Miss B. in the lobby downstairs a very much smaller\ndegree of success was obtained, a result attributed by Mrs. Sidgwick to\nthe percipient's feeling ill at ease in her surroundings.\n\nAnother noteworthy point is the large proportion of cases in which the\nfirst digit was correctly named.[37] This disproportion is not found\nin the trials made with the agent and the percipient in the same room,\nand is possibly due, as suggested by Mrs. Sidgwick, to Mr. Smith in\nall cases concentrating his attention originally on the first digit.\nWhen in the same room with the percipient he would hear when the first\ndigit had been named, and would then turn his attention to the other;\nbut when out of the room he could not, of course, follow the process of\nguessing.\n\nA further series of trials was conducted with the percipient under\nthe same conditions, except that either P. or T. acted as agents\njointly with Mr. Smith. In all 53 trials were made, resulting in 9\ncomplete successes and two with the digits reversed. The proportion\nof successes, it will be seen, is much higher than in the experiments\nfirst described; but the series is too short to allow of a safe\nconclusion being drawn as to the superior efficacy of collective agency.\n\nExperiments conducted under similar conditions with four other\npercipients yielded a slight but appreciable measure of success.\nA large number of trials--nearly 400 in all--were made with Miss\nB. as percipient, the agent or agents being at a still greater\ndistance--viz., being either in a separate building, or with two\nclosed doors and a passage intervening; but practically no success\nwas obtained. Miss B. complained of the numbers being so far off.\n\"They are all muddled up,\" she said on one occasion; \"they seem miles\noff.\" It is not easy to account satisfactorily for this failure,\nbut it may probably be attributed partly to a prejudicial effect\nexercised by the novel conditions on the agent's or percipient's\nanticipation of success, and partly to the tedious waiting inseparable\nfrom experiments of this kind, where there is no ready means of\ncommunication at the end of each trial. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.\n536-552.)\n\n\n_Transference of Mental Pictures._\n\nBy MRS. SIDGWICK and MISS JOHNSON.\n\nLater on, after various trials had been made with little success with\nletters, playing cards, and diagrams, a series of experiments was made\nin the transference of mental pictures. There were in all 108 trials,\nwith 5 percipients--Miss B., P., and T., and two men, Whybrew and\nMajor, who had been subjects of an itinerant lecturer on Hypnotism.\nThe method of experiment was as follows:--A subject for a picture was\nwritten down by Mrs. Sidgwick or Miss Johnson and handed to Mr. Smith,\nwho then summoned up a mental representation of the subject suggested,\nwhich he tried to transfer to the percipient. Occasionally, to aid his\nimagination, he drew on paper a rough sketch of the subject. During the\nexperiment Mr. Smith was sometimes close to the percipient, sometimes\nbehind a screen, sometimes in another room.\n\nWhen in the same room it was occasionally necessary for Mr. Smith, in\norder to keep alive the percipient's interest and attention, to say a\nfew words to him from time to time. These remarks were always recorded.\nIn the earlier experiments the percipient's eyes were open, and he was\ngiven a white card or a crystal to look at; and he appears to have seen\nthe pictures as if projected on these objects. In the later trials the\npercipient's eyes were closed, but this change in the conditions does\nnot appear in any way to have affected the vividness of the impressions.\n\nSuccessful experiments were made with all five percipients, full\ndetails of which will be found in the paper referred to.[38] It will\nsuffice here to quote a few illustrative cases of success, complete or\npartial.\n\nThe first experiments were made on July 9th, 1890. Miss B. was the\npercipient. I quote the account of the first two trials:--\n\n\nNo. 15.\n\n The percipient, being in a hypnotic trance, had her eyes opened and\n was given a card and told to look out for a picture which would\n come on it.\n\n The subject, chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick, was _a little boy with a\n ball_. Mr. Smith sat close to Miss B., but neither spoke to her nor\n touched her. Miss B. presently said: \"A figure is coming--a little\n boy.\" Mrs. Sidgwick asked what he had in his hand, and Miss B.\n replied: \"A round thing; a ball, I suppose.\"\n\n For the next experiment Mr. Smith got behind a screen. The subject,\n _a kitten in a jar_, was again set by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss B. said:\n \"Something like an old cat--a cat--I think it's a cat.\" Mrs.\n Sidgwick: \"What is the cat doing?\" Miss B. (doubtfully): \"Sitting\n down.\" Mrs. Sidgwick: \"Is there anything else but a cat?\" Miss B.:\n \"No; only scratches about.\"\n\nIn all 21 experiments of the kind were tried with Miss B., of which\n8, including the two above recorded, may be classed as more or less\nsuccessful.\n\nThe following experiments were made with P. on November 5th, 1890.\nThe notes of these cases were taken by Miss Johnson, who was herself\nignorant of the subject, which was chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick.\n\nThe first experiment on this day was a failure.\n\n\nNo. 16.\n\n Subject: _A black kitten playing with a cork_. P.: \"Something\n like a cat; it's a cat.\" Mrs. Sidgwick: \"What is it doing?\" P.:\n \"Something it's been feeding out of--some milk, is it a saucer?\n Can't see where its other paw is--only see three paws.\"\n\n Subject: _A sandwich man with advertisement of a play_. P. said:\n \"Something like letter A--stroke there, then there.\" Mrs. Sidgwick:\n \"Well, perhaps it will become clearer.\" P.: \"Something like a head\n on the top of it; a V upside down?--two legs and then a head.--A\n man with two boards--looks like a man that goes about the streets\n with two boards. I can see a head at the top and the body and\n legs between the boards. I couldn't see what was written on the\n boards, because the edges were turned towards me.\" Mr. Smith told\n us afterwards that he had pictured to himself the man and one board\n facing him, thus not corresponding to the impression which P. had.\n\n Subject: _A choir-boy_.[39] P. said: \"Edge of card's going a dark\n colour. Somebody dressed up in white, eh? Can see something all\n white; edge all black, and like a figure in the middle. There's his\n hands up\" (making a gesture to show the attitude) \"like a ghost\n or something--you couldn't mistake it for anything but a ghost.\n It's not getting any better, it's fading--no, it's still there. It\n might frighten any one.\" He also made remarks about the difficulty\n of seeing a white figure on a white card (the blank card he was\n looking at was white), which Mr. Smith afterwards said corresponded\n with his own ideas.\n\n Subject: _A vase with flowers_. (Mr. Smith, still behind P.,\n was looking at a blue flower-pot in the window containing an\n indiarubber plant.) P. said: \"I see something round, like a round\n ring. I can see some straight things from the round thing. I\n think it's a glass--it goes up. I'll tell you what it is; it must\n be a pot--a flower-pot, you know, with things growing in it. I\n only guessed that, because you don't see things growing out of a\n glass.--It's not clear at the top yet. You see something going up\n and you can't see the top, because of the edge of the paper--it's\n cut off. I don't wonder, because it's no good wondering what Mr.\n Smith does, he does such funny things. I should fancy it might\n be a geranium, but there's only sticks, so you can't tell.\" Mrs.\n Sidgwick \"What colour is the pot?\" P.: \"Dark colour, between\n terra-cotta and red--dark red you'd call it.\" Here the somewhat\n confused impression, apparently corresponding to the struggle of\n ideas in Mr. Smith's mind between what he was seeing and what he\n was trying to think of, is an interesting point.[40]\n\nIn all 50 trials were made with P., 26 with agent and percipient in\nthe same room, 24 with agent and percipient in different rooms. Of\nthe former 14 were successful, of the latter only one. In the 35\nunsuccessful experiments no impression at all was received in 14 cases,\n7 of which occurred while agent and percipient were in the same room.\n\nTwo trials with Whybrew are worth quoting as illustrating the gradual\ndevelopment of the impression.\n\nThe percipient's eyes were closed during these experiments. The first\nwas made on July 11th.\n\n\nNo. 17.\n\n Subject: _A man riding_. Mr. Smith downstairs with Miss Johnson;\n Whybrew, upstairs with Mrs. Sidgwick, said, after some remarks\n on the former pictures: \"There's another one--I think it's like\n the other two--a puzzle [to see]--if I can find the picture. I\n hope I'll be able to see it properly. A kind of a square--square\n shadow--blowed if I can understand what it's meant for--I don't\n know what to make out of that. I don't know if that's meant to\n be the lower part of a pair of legs. Do you see a picture?\" Mrs.\n Sidgwick: \"I see something.\" Whybrew: \"I see them two spots, but I\n don't know what to make of them. If they're legs, the body ought\n to come.--Don't seem to come any brighter, but there's those two\n things there, that look like a pair of legs.\" Here Mr. Smith was\n asked to come upstairs and talk to him. He told him the picture\n was coming up closer and that he had turned the gas on to make it\n brighter. Whybrew: \"There's them pair of legs there.\" Mr. Smith:\n \"Yes\" (doubtfully). Whybrew \"Why, there's another. I never see\n that other pair before. Why, it's a horse. I expect it's like them\n penny pictures that you fold over. That horse--that's plain enough;\n but what's that other thing?\" Mr. Smith: \"Yes, I told you there\n was something else.\" Whybrew: \"Why, I see what it is now--it's\n supposed to be a man there, I expect.\" Mr. Smith: \"Yes.\" Whybrew:\n \"Riding him. But that ain't so good as the boy and the ball.\" Mrs.\n Sidgwick: \"How is the man dressed?\" Whybrew: \"Ordinary.\"\n\nThe second took place on July 16th, 1891.\n\n Mr. Smith having hypnotised Whybrew, sat by him, but did not speak\n to him at all after he knew the subject--_a man with a barrow of\n fish_--given him by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss Johnson, not knowing what\n the subject was, carried on the conversation with Whybrew. He said:\n \"It's the shape of a man. Yes, there's a man there. Don't know\n him. He looks like a bloke that sells strawberries.\" Miss Johnson\n asked: \"Are there strawberries there?\" Whybrew: \"That looks like\n his barrow there. What's he selling of? I believe he's sold out.\n I can't see anything on his barrow--perhaps he's sold out. There\n ain't many--a few round things. I expect they're fruit. Are they\n cherries? They look a bit red. Aren't they fish? It don't look\n very much like fish. If they're fish, some of them hasn't got any\n heads on. Barrow is a bit fishified--it has a tray on. What colour\n are those things on the barrow? They looked red, but now they\n look silvery.\" He was rather pleased with this picture and asked\n afterwards if it was for sale.\n\nOf 18 experiments with Whybrew 6 were successful. Of the 12 failures, 8\noccurred when agent and percipient were in separate rooms. There were\nonly two cases in which no impression was received--one with the agent\nin the same room.\n\nSeven trials were made with Major, of which 1 was completely and 2\npartially successful. Subjoined is the record of the only complete\nsuccess, which occurred on July 8th, 1891. The percipient was\nhypnotised and his eyes were closed; Mr. Smith sat by him, talking to\nhim and telling him that he was to see a picture.\n\n\nNo. 18.\n\n The subject given was _a mouse in a mouse-trap_. Regarding himself\n as a man of culture and being generally anxious to exhibit this,\n Major asked if it was to be an old master or a modern \"pot-boiler.\"\n He was told the latter, and he then discoursed on \"pot-boilers\" and\n how he knew all the subjects of them--mentioning two or three--in a\n very contemptuous manner. He did not seem to see anything, however,\n and appeared to be expecting to see an artist producing a rapid\n sketch. Then, when told that the picture was actually there, he\n suddenly exclaimed: \"Do you mean that deuced old trap with a mouse?\n He must have been drawing for the rat vermin people.\"\n\nThirty-two trials were made with T., of which only four were\nsuccessful--two completely, one partially, one completely, but\ndeferred--_i.e._, the subject of the preceding experiment, a black dog,\ncame before his vision after the agent had already passed to another\nsubject, the Eiffel Tower. T. had, of course, not been told the subject\nof the previous experiment. Instances of deferred impressions of this\nkind occurred also with Miss B. A few experiments were tried with\nanother percipient, a man named Adams, but without success; his own\nimagination appeared to be so fertile that any telepathic impression\nmust have been crowded out.\n\nAn analysis of the impressions showed that most of them were\nreproductions of objects familiar to the percipient, in certain cases\nof hallucinations previously imposed upon them in the course of these\nor other experiments. With some of the successful percipients these\nspontaneous impressions showed a marked tendency to recur. Thus P.\nhad a wrong impression--of an elephant--no less than four times in\nthe course of the experiments; and T. of a woman and a perambulator\nthree times. One of these coincided with the subject actually set,\nand the coincidence may perhaps therefore be attributed to chance.\nSpeaking generally, however, this tendency to repetition amongst the\npercipient's native impressions constitutes an additional argument, if\nany such is needed, for attributing the frequent coincidences of the\nimpression with the subject set to some other cause than the automatic\nassociation of ideas.\n\nAn instance of a quasi-experimental character, which closely resembles\nthe cases above described, is recorded by Dr. A. Gibotteau:--[41]\n\n\nNo. 19.--By DR. GIBOTTEAU.\n\n \"Madame P. complained of headache. I placed my hand upon her\n forehead, and in a few minutes she was in a light hypnotic sleep.\n Without deepening the trance I endeavoured to give her a sensation\n of calm and well-being, and to procure this sensation for myself\n in the first place, I called up a picture of the sea, in which air\n and water were full of sunlight. 'I feel a little better,' she\n said; 'how fresh the air is!' I then proceeded to imagine myself\n walking along the _Boulevard Saint Michel_, in a slight rain. I\n saw the hurrying people and the umbrellas. 'How strange it is!'\n said Madame P.; 'I seem to be at the corner of the _Boulevard Saint\n Michel_ and the _Rue des \u00c9coles_, in front of the _Caf\u00e9 Vachette_'\n (the exact spot I pictured); 'it is raining, there are a great many\n people, a hurrying crowd. They are all going up the street, and I\n with them. The air is very fresh. It gives me a pleasant, restful\n feeling.' With these words she opened her eyes and gave me further\n confirmation of her impressions.\n\n \"I should add that this scene took place in the provinces; I had\n not been in Paris for some months, nor Madame P. for several years.\n\n \"There had been no mention of the subject in the course of our\n conversation that day.\"\n\nIt will be seen that Dr. Gibotteau attempted to transfer to the\npercipient only the general sensation of calm and rest induced in\nhimself by the imagined scene, and that the success obtained was\ntherefore of a kind by no means anticipated.\n\nAnother experiment of the same nature is recorded by Dr. Blair Thaw in\nthe article already referred to (p. 31). The percipient was Mrs. Thaw,\nDr. Thaw and Mr. Wyatt were the agents. We are not told whether in\nthis instance, as on some other occasions, the percipient was actually\nhypnotised, but judging from previous experiments it may perhaps be\ninferred that she was at least in a condition called by Dr. Thaw \"a\npassive state,\" not easy to distinguish from the lighter stages of\nsleep-waking. The experiment took place on the 28th April 1892.\n\n\nNo. 20.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.\n\n _1st Scene._ Locomotive running away without engineer tears up\n station.--Missed.\n\n _2nd Scene._ The first real FLYING MACHINE going over Madison\n Square Tower, and the people watching.--Percipient: _I see lots\n of people. Crowds are going to war. They are so excited. Are they\n throwing water?_ (Percipient said afterwards she thought it was a\n fire and that was the reason of the crowd.) _Or sailors pulling at\n ropes._ Agent said, \"What are they doing?\" Percipient: _They are\n all looking up. It is a balloon or some one in trouble up there._\n Agent said, \"Why balloon?\" Percipient: _They are all looking\n up._ Agent said, \"I thought of a possible scene in the future.\"\n Percipient: _Oh, it's the first man flying. That's what he's doing\n up there._ Agent: \"Where is it?\" Percipient: _In the city_.\n\nAn account of a similar instance of the transfer to a hypnotised\npercipient of an imagined scene has been recorded by Mr. E. M. Clissold\nand Mr. Auberon Herbert.[42]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 26: See the discussion on this question in Chapter XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Vol. i. pp. 226, 241; vol. ii. pp. 17-19.]\n\n[Footnote 28: It is a frequent experience that hypnotised subjects are\nincapable of responding to any voice other than that of the person who\nhas hypnotised them. The difficulty can, indeed, generally be removed\nby asking the hypnotiser to place some other person in rapport with\nthe subject--_i.e._, to give the subject the suggestion that he should\nalso be able to hear the person indicated. At this early stage of our\nexperiments it would appear, however, that this device had for some\nreason not been adopted.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Cf. No. 19 in the series of similar trials conducted with\nMiss Relph, p. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Quoted in _Le Sommeil Provoqu\u00e9, etc_., by Dr. Li\u00e9beault,\nParis, 1889, pp. 295, 296.]\n\n[Footnote 31: For such impressions seen with closed eyes Kandinsky has\nproposed the name _pseudo-hallucinations_.]\n\n[Footnote 32: He had been, on previous occasions, asked to trace\nhallucinations.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Two of these were given completely right first and then\nchanged.]\n\n[Footnote 34: The first digit of the number drawn was guessed first.]\n\n[Footnote 35: See Chapter iv., pp. 96-100.]\n\n[Footnote 36: This was given completely right first and then changed.]\n\n[Footnote 37: As all numbers above 90 were excluded, and as 0 cannot\ncome first, the first digit should, by pure chance, have been correctly\nnamed more often than the second; but the disproportion, it will be\nseen, is far greater than could be thus accounted for.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 554-577.]\n\n[Footnote 39: This was an idea extremely familiar to P., who had been a\nchorister and was still connected with the choir of his church.]\n\n[Footnote 40: _Proceedings Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. viii. pp. 565,\n566.]\n\n[Footnote 41: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 334, 335.]\n\n[Footnote 42: See _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 677, 678.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nEXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF MOVEMENTS AND OTHER EFFECTS.\n\n\nIn the two preceding chapters we have discussed experiments where the\nimpression received by the percipient may be interpreted as having\nbeen a more or less accurate reproduction of the sensation experienced\nby the agent, or at most a translation of it into some other simple\nsensation. There have now to be considered various cases in which\nthe transmission of thought is productive of other results in the\npercipient than the simple duplication or translation of a sensation.\nThe most usual case is where the telepathic impulse leads to some\naction on the part of the percipient. It was frequently stated by the\nolder mesmerists[43] that the operator, by a silent act of will, could\ninduce a good subject to do or refrain from doing some prescribed or\ncustomary action. Isolated observations on such a point are little\nlikely to compel belief; the vanity or the credulity of the recorder\nmay be supposed to have led to his overlooking the negative instances,\nand attributing to his own peculiar gifts a result in reality due\nto chance. But, following on the clue thus obtained, the Committee\non Mesmerism appointed by the S.P.R. in 1882, to some of whose work\nreference has already been made (Chapter III., p. 60), succeeded in\nobtaining results less open to question.\n\n\n_Inhibition of Action by Silent Willing._\n\nThe first experiments of the kind were conducted on our friend Mr.\nSidney Beard, who was for some time an Associate of the Society\nand took an active interest in its work. Mr. Beard, who was easily\nhypnotised, would be entranced by Mr. Smith, and sit in a chair with\nclosed eyes. Then, to quote the account of a single experiment, a\nlist of twelve _Yeses_ and _Noes_ in arbitrary order was written by\none of ourselves and put into Mr. Smith's hand, with directions that\nhe should successively will the subject to respond or not to respond,\nin accordance with the list. A tuning-fork was then struck and held\nat Mr. Beard's ear, and the question, \"Do you hear?\" was asked by one\nof ourselves. This was done twelve times in succession, Mr. Beard\nanswering or failing to answer on each occasion in accordance with the\n\"yes\" or \"no\" of the written list--that is to say, with the silent\nwill of the agent. Similar trials on other occasions with Mr. Beard\nwere equally successful. The percipient's own account of the matter is\nas follows: \"During the experiments of January 1st [1883], when Mr.\nSmith mesmerised me, I did not lose consciousness at any time, but\nonly experienced a sensation of total numbness in my limbs. When the\ntrial as to whether I could hear sounds was made I heard the sounds\ndistinctly each time, but in a large number of instances I felt totally\nunable to acknowledge that I heard them. I seemed to know each time\nwhether Mr. Smith wished me to say that I heard them; and as I had\nsurrendered my will to his at the commencement of the experiment, I was\nunable to reassert my power of volition whilst under his influence.\"\n(_Proceedings of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. p. 256.)\n\n\nNo. 21.--By PROFESSOR BARRETT.\n\nFurther trials of the same kind were carried on in November 1883 by\nProfessor Barrett, at his own house in Dublin. The hypnotist and agent\nwas again Mr. G. A. Smith, the percipient a youth named Fearnley, a\nstranger to Mr. Smith. In the first series of trials Professor Barrett\nasked Fearnley, \"Now will you open your hand?\" at the same time\npointing to \"Yes\" or \"No,\" written on a card, and held in sight of Mr.\nSmith, but out of view from the percipient. Mr. Smith, who was not in\ncontact with the subject, directed his silent will in accordance with\nthe written indication. In twenty experiments conducted under these\nconditions there were only three failures. Later, to quote Professor\nBarrett,\n\n \"The experiment was varied as follows:--The word 'Yes' was written\n on one, and the word 'No' on the other, of two precisely similar\n pieces of card. One or other of these cards was handed to Mr.\n Smith at my arbitrary pleasure, care of course being taken that\n the 'subject' had no opportunity of seeing the card, even had he\n been awake. When 'Yes' was handed Mr. Smith was silently to will\n the 'subject' to answer aloud in response to the question asked by\n me, 'Do you hear me?' When 'No' was handed Mr. Smith was to will\n that no response should be made in reply to the same question. The\n object of this series of experiments was to note the effect of\n increasing the distance between the willer and the willed,--the\n agent and the percipient. In the first instance Mr. Smith was\n placed _three feet_ from the 'subject,' who remained throughout\n apparently asleep in an arm-chair in one corner of my study.\n\n \"At three feet apart, 25 trials were successively made, and _in\n every case_ the 'subject' responded or did not respond in exact\n accordance with the silent will of Mr. Smith, as directed by me.\n\n \"At 6 feet apart six similar trials were made without a single\n failure.\n\n \"At 12 feet apart six more trials were made without a single\n failure.\n\n \"At 17 feet apart six more trials were made without a single\n failure.\n\n \"In this last case Mr. Smith had to be placed outside the study\n door, which was then closed with the exception of a narrow chink\n just wide enough to admit of passing a card in or out, whilst\n I remained in the study observing the 'subject.' To avoid any\n possible indication from the tone in which I asked the question, in\n all cases except the first dozen experiments, I shuffled the cards\n face downwards, and then handed the unknown 'Yes' or 'No' to Mr.\n Smith, who looked at the card and willed accordingly. I noted down\n the result, and then, and not till then, looked at the card.\n\n \"A final experiment was made when Mr. Smith was taken across the\n hall and placed in the dining-room, at a distance of about 30 feet\n from the 'subject,' two doors, both quite closed, intervening.\n Under these conditions, three trials were made with success, the\n 'Yes' response being, however, very faint and hardly audible to me,\n who returned to the study to ask the usual question after handing\n the card to the distant operator. At this point, the 'subject' fell\n into a deep sleep, and made no further replies to the questions\n addressed to him.\"\n\nFurther trials were made under different conditions, the results being\nalmost uniformly successful.\n\nIn interpreting these results there is no justification for assuming\ndirect control by the agent over the organism of the percipient. Nor\ndoes the current phrase, endorsed as it is in the first case by the\npercipient himself, that the operator's will dominated the will of\nthe subject, give an adequate account of the matter. When, as in the\ncase of experiments previously described, the percipient's impression\nreproduces the sensation of the agent, there is nothing to indicate\nthat the impulse transferred directly affects the external organs, or\neven the intermediate sensory centres. In the absence of any direct\nevidence it is at least equally probable that the higher brain centres\nonly are concerned in the transmission in the first instance, and\nthat the transmitted idea is reflected downwards, until it actually\nassumes, as in some of the experiments recorded with P. and Miss B.,\nthe form of a sensory hallucination. Upon this view no fundamental\ndistinction need be drawn between the results before described and\nthose now under discussion. In the latter case the question is not one\nof transference of will or of a motor or inhibitory impulse. What is\nactually transferred from the agent is probably only a simple idea. Its\nsubsequent translation into action, or the inhibition of action, is\nas much the work of the percipient's mind as, in the other case, the\ntransformation of the idea of a number into a visual hallucination.\nAs regards the particular effect produced, it must be remembered that\nthe prime characteristic of the hypnotic state is its openness to\nsuggestion, and especially to suggestion coming through a particular\nchannel. It is the establishment of this suggestible state, which\nconsists essentially in the suppression of the controlling faculties\nwhich normally pass judgment on the suggestions received from without,\nand select those which are to find response in action, that Mr. Beard\ndescribes as the surrender of his will. So that when Mr. Beard answered\nour questions he did what his natural courtesy led him to do; when\nhe maintained silence his tendency to respond to the stimulus of\nour questions was momentarily overcome by the stronger stimulus of\nthe idea received from the agent. But the superior efficacy of the\nidea so transferred resulted not from any impulsive quality in the\nidea itself, but from the previously established relations between\nagent and percipient. The fact that experiments of this kind have\nrarely succeeded in the waking state is no doubt due to the inferior\nsuggestibility of that state.\n\n\n_Actions originated by Silent Willing._\n\nIn the paper already referred to (_supra_, p. 31) Dr. Blair Thaw\nrecords some experiments which present us with a modification of the\nWilling Game, but without contact. In most of the experiments the\nperson who was willed to perform a certain action--the nature of\nwhich had been previously communicated to the other experimenters in\nwriting--was in the same room as the agents. But the agents did not\nfollow the percipient about the room, nor did the percipient look at\nthe agents for guidance. The percipient appears to have been awake\nthroughout the experiments, but it seems probable that her condition\nwas not that of complete normal wakefulness.\n\nOf 26 experiments conducted under such conditions, 10 were completely\nand 12 partially successful. When, however, as in this case, there are\nseveral agents, all of whom are actually watching the movements of the\npercipient, it is impossible to feel convinced that no indication by\nthe movements of the eyes or by breathing was given to the percipient\nto show her whether or not she was moving in the right direction. In\nthe last four trials of the series, however, the percipient was willed\nto fetch an object from another room which was out of sight from the\nagents, and it is difficult to conceive that any indication could have\nbeen given to her of the object selected.\n\n\nNo. 22.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.\n\n _April 7th_, 1892.\n\n Mrs. Thaw, Percipient. Mr. M. H. Wyatt and Dr. Thaw, Agents. In the\n next four experiments an object was selected in another room, and\n then the percipient sent in for it. No clue was given as to what\n part of the room.\n\n _1st Object Selected._ A WOODEN CUPID, from a corner-piece in room\n with eight other objects on it.--Percipient first brought a photo\n from the lower shelf of corner-piece, then said: \"It's the wooden\n Cupid.\"\n\n _2nd Object._ MATCH-BOX on mantel.--Percipient seemed confused at\n first and brought two photos, then said: \"It's the brass match-box\n on mantel.\"\n\n _3rd Object._ A VELLUM BOOK on table, among twenty other\n books, chosen; but a bag under one window was thought of\n first.--Percipient went to table, put her hand on the book, then\n went to the bag and took it up, then back to the table and took the\n vellum book and then the bag, and appeared with both. Percipient\n was in sight of agents during this time, but did not see them.\n\n _4th Object._ BOOK on small table, among ten others.--Missed.\n\nIn commenting on these experiments, Dr. Thaw is himself inclined to\nattribute some of the results to \"an indistinct motor impulse of some\nkind, leading the percipient near the object.\" But in the experiments\nabove recorded, at any rate, it is sufficient, probably, to suppose the\ntransference of the idea of the object.\n\nExperiments of a somewhat similar nature are recorded by Dr. Ochorowicz\n(_La Suggestion mentale_, pp. 84-117). The subject in this case,\nMadame M., was sunk in the deep hypnotic state (_l'\u00e9tat aid\u00e9ique_), a\ncondition in which she would usually remain motionless until aroused by\nthe doctor. Under these circumstances Dr. Ochorowicz conducted upwards\nof forty experiments in conveying mental commands, a large proportion\nof which were executed by the subject with more or less exactness.\nThese trials have the drawback above indicated, common to all\nexperiments of the kind with the agent in the same room; moreover, each\nexperiment appears to have extended over a considerable period, and\nthe command--_e.g._, to rise from the chair and hand a cake from the\ntable to Dr. Ochorowicz--was frequently executed in stages. In judging\nof the results, however, it should be remembered that Dr. Ochorowicz\nhas elsewhere shown himself to be acute in criticism and accurate in\nobservation.\n\nSome experiments made by Dr. Gibert on Madame B., and recorded by\nProfessor Pierre Janet,[44] seem open to a similar objection. Dr.\nGibert communicated the mental command by touching Madame B.'s\nforehead with his own whilst concentrating his thoughts on the ideas\nto be conveyed. It is difficult to feel sure that the success of the\nexperiment under such conditions was not due to the command having\nbeen unconsciously muttered by Dr. Gibert within the hearing of the\npercipient. In the following account, however, thought-transference\nwould seem to be the simplest explanation of the results. The narrator,\nunfortunately, remains anonymous; he is, however, personally known to\nDr. Dariex, the editor of the periodical from which the account is\nextracted, and the experiments were obviously conducted with care.[45]\nIn this case it seems clear, since the command, though understood,\nwas on more than one occasion disobeyed, that the idea telepathically\nintruded into the percipient's mind was not necessarily associated with\nan impulse to action.\n\n\nNo. 23.--By J. H. P.\n\n [On the 6th December 1887], having placed M. in a deep trance,\n I turned my back upon her, and, without any gesture or sound\n whatever, gave her the following mental order:--\n\n \"When you wake up you are to go and fetch a glass, put a few drops\n of Eau de Cologne into it, and bring it to me.\"\n\n On waking up, M. was visibly preoccupied; she could not keep still,\n and at last came and placed herself in front of me, exclaiming--\n\n \"What an idea to put in my head!\"\n\n \"Why do you speak so to me?\"\n\n \"Because the idea that I have got can only come from you, and I\n don't wish to obey.\"\n\n \"Don't obey unless you like; but I wish you to tell me at once what\n you are thinking of.\"\n\n \"Well, then, I was to go and look for a glass, put some water in it\n with some drops of Eau de Cologne, and take it to you; it is really\n ridiculous.\"\n\n My order had then been perfectly understood for the first time.\n From that moment, December 6th, 1887, till to-day, with only two or\n three exceptions, the mental transmission, whether in the waking\n or sleeping state, has been most vivid. It is only disturbed at\n certain times, or when M. is feeling very anxious.\n\n On the 10th of December 1887, unknown to M., I hid a watch, that\n was not going, behind some books in my bookcase. When she arrived I\n put her to sleep, and gave her the following mental command:--\n\n \"Go and fetch me the watch that is hidden behind some books in the\n bookcase.\"\n\n I sat in my armchair with M. behind me, and was careful not to look\n in the direction where the object was hidden.\n\n M. suddenly got up from her armchair and went straight to the\n bookcase, but could not open it; making energetic movements the\n while, whenever she touched the door, and especially the glass.\n\n \"It is there! It is there! I am certain; but this glass burns me!\"\n\n I decided to open it myself; she rushed at my books, took them out,\n and seized the watch, delighted to have found it.\n\n Similar trials have been made with commands that one of my friends\n passed to me, written beforehand, and not in the presence of the\n subject, and the success has been complete; but if the person who\n passes me the order is unknown to her, she refuses to obey, saying\n that the command is not mine.\n\n * * * * *\n\n M. N., who was convinced that mental transmission is a fraud,\n assured me that I should never be able to transmit an order from\n him to M.\n\n I invited him to come to my house, at five o'clock in the evening,\n with a command written, which he was to give me only when M. was\n asleep, and outside my study.\n\n At 5.10 N. arrived and we went out, leaving M. in a trance; when we\n were separated from my study by the two intervening rooms, with all\n the doors shut, N. pulled out a small paper and said--\n\n \"You will read this command, we will both come back to M., and\n without any gestures, you will communicate it to her.\"\n\n \"Certainly.\"\n\n In the note was written, \"Give the mental command to M. to count\n out loud from 5 to 1; 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.\"\n\n We came back to my study; I sat at my desk as usual--I am in the\n habit of making notes during the progress of the experiments, so\n as to report them with scrupulous accuracy--and I sent N.'s mental\n command, while pretending to write. M. suddenly exclaimed--\n\n \"Doubtless, you imagine that I cannot count! I can count from 1 to\n 50,000, if I wish.\"\n\n Mental command--\"Count from 5 to 1.\"\n\n \"No, I will not obey a strange command; it is not a command of\n yours.\"\n\n All my efforts were useless; we had to abandon the experiment. The\n command was certainly understood; but M. N. retired, convinced that\n it had not been understood, and that even the trance was a sham!\n\n\n_Automatic Writing._\n\nSometimes the working of the telepathic impulse is of a more apparently\nmysterious kind. We have seen that Mr. Beard was fully conscious of the\naction of a restraining force; and Mrs. Thaw, who was in a condition\nlittle if at all removed from the normal, appears also to have been\naware of what she was doing, if perhaps without explicit recognition\nof her motives at the time of performing the prescribed actions. But\nin the various cases now to be described the telepathic impulse seems\nnever to have affected the normal consciousness of the percipient at\nall; and the results produced through the agency of his organism were\ndue to no recognised volition on his part. The intelligence directing\nhis hand was an intelligence working below and apart from his ordinary\nlife.\n\nNow this subterranean intelligence presents many points of analogy with\nthe secondary consciousness of the hypnotic subject; in both states\nwe find indications of thought and will distinct from those of waking\nlife, and of a memory not shared with that life. Moreover, it has\nbeen shown experimentally, by Mr. Edmund Gurney,[46] Professor Pierre\nJanet,[47] and others, that the consciousness which makes itself known\nthrough planchette is, in certain persons at any rate, identical with\nthe consciousness found in the hypnotic trance, so far as the test of\na common memory can be relied upon to prove identity. The superior\nsusceptibility to telepathic influences, already referred to, of the\nhypnotic subject, may perhaps, therefore, in the light of these later\nexperiments, be found to indicate a superior susceptibility of those\nparts of the brain whose workings lie below the ordinary consciousness,\nand reveal themselves only in the activities of trance and automatism.\n\nThe following is an illustrative case. The account is derived from\ncontemporary notes, made by the late Mr. P. H. Newnham, Vicar of Maker,\nDevonport, of a series of experiments conducted by himself and his\nwife during eight months in 1871.[48] Mr. Newnham would write, in a\nbook kept for the purpose, a question of the purport of which Mrs.\nNewnham was in ignorance; and Mrs. Newnham, holding her hand on a\nplanchette, would write an answer to the question. The conditions of\nthe experiments are described by Mr. Newnham, in an account written in\n1884, as follows:--\n\n\nNo. 24.\n\n \"My wife always sat at a small low table, in a low chair, leaning\n backwards. I sat about eight feet distant, at a rather higher\n table, and with my back towards her while writing down the\n questions. It was absolutely impossible that any gesture, or play\n of features, on my part, could have been visible or intelligible\n to her. As a rule she kept her eyes shut; but never became in the\n slightest degree hypnotic, or even naturally drowsy.\"\n\nIn all 309 questions with their answers were recorded under these\nconditions, before the experiments were finally abandoned on account of\ntheir prejudicial effect on Mrs. Newnham's health. The extracts from\nMr. Newnham's note-book given below show that Mrs. Newnham throughout\nhad some kind of knowledge, not always apparently complete, of the\nterms of the question.[49] But she was not herself consciously aware of\nthe purport either of the question or of the answer written through her\nhand.\n\n _January 29th._\n\n 13. Is it the operator's brain, or some external force, that moves\n the Planchette? Answer \"brain\" or \"force.\" A. Will.\n\n 14. Is it the will of a living person, or of an immaterial spirit,\n distinct from that person? Answer \"person\" or \"spirit.\" A. Wife.\n\n 15. Give first the wife's Christian name; then, my favourite name\n for her. (This was accurately done.)\n\n 27. What is your own name? A. Only you.\n\n 28. We are not quite sure of the meaning of the answer. Explain. A.\n Wife.\n\n Failing to get more than this at the outset, we returned to the\n same thought after question 114; when, having been closely pressed\n on another subject, we received the curt reply--\"Told all I know.\"\n\n _February 18th._\n\n 117. Who are you that writes, and has told all you know? A. Wife.\n\n 118. But does no one tell wife what to write? If so, who? A. Spirit.\n\n 119. Whose spirit? A. Wife's brain.\n\n 120. But how does wife's brain know (certain) secrets? A. Wife's\n spirit unconsciously guides.\n\n 121. But how does wife's spirit know things it has never been told?\n A. No external influence.\n\n 122. But by what _internal_ influence does it know (these) secrets?\n A. You cannot know.\n\nMr. Newnham, who was a Mason, took the opportunity on several occasions\nof questioning the planchette on details of the Masonic ritual and\narch\u00e6ology--of which Mrs. Newnham was of course ignorant--with very\nsurprising results. It will be seen from the extracts which follow\nthat Mrs. Newnham's answers showed not only an acquaintance with the\nterms of the question, but even a fragmentary knowledge of the correct\nanswer--knowledge which under the circumstances could hardly have been\nderived elsewhere than from the questioner's brain.\n\n _March 26th._\n\n 166. Of what language is the first syllable of the Great Triple\n R.A. Word?[50] A. Don't know.\n\n 167. Yes, you do. What are the three languages of which the word\n is composed? A. Greek, Egyptian, Syriac first syllable (_correctly\n given_), rest unknown.\n\n 168. Write the syllable which is Syriac. A. (First syllable\n correctly written.)\n\n 169. Write the syllable which is Egyptian. A. Second.\n\n 170. Can you not write the syllable itself? A. Third Greek.\n\n 174. Write down the word itself. A. First three and last two\n letters were written correctly, but four incorrect letters, _partly\n borrowed from another word of the same degree_, came in the middle.\n\n 176. Why do you write a word of which I know nothing? A. Wife tried\n hard to tell the word, but could not quite catch it.\n\n 177. Catch it from whom? A. Not quite sure.\n\n 178. Not quite sure of what? A. I know nothing. Wife doesn't quite\n know.\n\n 182. Write out the prayer used at the advancement of a Mark Master\n Mason. A. Almighty Ruler of the Universe and Architect of all\n worlds, we beseech Thee to accept this, our brother, whom we have\n this day received into our most honourable Company of Mark Master\n Masons. Grant him to be a worthy member of our brotherhood; and may\n he be in his own person a perfect mirror of all Masonic virtues.\n Grant that all our doings may be to Thy honour and glory, and to\n the welfare of all mankind.\n\n This prayer was written off instantaneously and very rapidly. It\n is a very remarkable production indeed. For the benefit of those\n who are not members of the craft, I may say that no prayer in the\n slightest degree resembling it is made use of in the Ritual of any\n Masonic degree; and yet it contains more than one strictly accurate\n technicality connected with the degree of Mark Mason. My wife has\n never seen any Masonic prayers, whether in \"Carlile,\" or any other\n real or spurious Ritual of the Masonic Order.\n\n 183. I do not know this prayer. Where is it to be found? A. Old\n American Ritual.\n\n 184. Where can I get one? A. Most likely none in England.\n\n 185. Can you not write the prayer that I make use of in my own\n Lodge? A. No, I don't know it.\n\nWe have to remark here not merely the exhibition of a will and an\nintelligence differing from the writer's normal self, but the display\nof a yet more alien disingenuousness. Similar evasions and inventions\noccur more than once in the course of these experiments. Indeed,\na certain degree of moral perversity is a frequent and notorious\ncharacteristic of automatic expression.\n\nSome interesting experiments of the same kind were conducted, in\nthe winter of 1892-93, by Mr. R. H. Buttemer, of Emanuel College,\nCambridge, and Mr. H. T. Green. Throughout the series the questions\nwere, as in the preceding case, written down, so that the percipient\nwas completely ignorant of their purport. The following is the record\nof the last experiments of the series.\n\n\nNo. 25.--By MR. R. H. BUTTEMER.\n\n February 18th, 1893, 8 P.M. Mrs. H., Miss B., Mr. and Miss M.\n present, in addition to Mr. Green, and Messrs. S., W., and Buttemer.\n\n Mr. Green, as usual, operated Planchette, and on this occasion sat\n with his back to all the other persons present.\n\n _Q._ (from Mr. M.): What was I doing this afternoon?\n\n _A._ i. ---- the sun ---- (all else illegible). ii. Enjoying the\n fresh air of heaven.\n\n _Q._ What was Mr. Rogers doing in Cambridge?\n\n _A._ i. (Irrelevant, or possibly connected vaguely with the\n question.) ii. Ask another, but Mr. Rogers came up on important\n business connected with the Lodge. (Correct.)\n\n _Q._ Where has Mrs. M. gone?\n\n _A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. Far, far away, but more next time. iii.\n Her mother has gone to--oh, what a happy place is London! iv.\n All change here for Bletchley. (Mrs. M. had possibly passed this\n station on her journey.)\n\n _Q._ Who has won the Association Match to-day?\n\n _A._ i. (Illegible.) ii. O ye simple ones, how long will ye love\n simplicity? Why, Oxford, of course. [This fact was known to some\n persons in the room, but not to Mr. Green.]\n\n One of the company then suggested the attempt to get the name on\n a visiting card transmitted, and the question was written, \"Write\n name on card.\" Mr. Green did not know that this experiment was\n about to be tried, and the card was picked from a pile at random.\n The name was John B. Bourne. A sentence was written by Mr. Green,\n which proved to be, \"Think of one letter at a time and then see\n what will happen.\" We did so.\n\n _A._ i. J for Jerusalem, O for Omri, H for Honey, and N for\n Nothing. ii. B for Benjamin, O for Olive, U for Unicorn. (The\n remaining letters were given incorrectly.)\n\n _Q._ How many of the Society's books are here? (There were two\n volumes of _Proceedings_ on the table.)\n\n _A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. The answer is 100-98.\n\n _Q._ What is 2 \u00d7 3?\n\n Two irrelevant answers were given, possibly owing to a slight\n disturbance in the room. The third answer was--\"When that noise has\n ceased and S. has finished knocking the lamp over, I say 6.\"\n\n A trial shortly after this, February 19th, gave no results, and the\n power of automatic writing appears to have entirely left Mr. Green\n for the present. (_Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ix. pp. 61-64.)\n\nIn this, as in Mr. Newnham's case, the mode of expression is again\ncharacteristic of the automatic consciousness. It is explained by Mr.\nButtemer that when two or more answers are given, the operator had been\nsimply told to write again, after the first irrelevant answer, without\nbeing shown the question.\n\n\n_Table Tilting._\n\nNo. 26.--By the AUTHOR.\n\nWe pass on to experiments in which the ideas transmitted from the\nagent find other subterranean channels in the percipient's organism\nfor their expression. Of all forms of intelligent automatism writing,\nnext to speaking, is probably in an educated percipient the easiest,\nbecause in normal life the commonest. In the cases, therefore, recorded\nbelow the actual movements involved, though of a relatively simple\nkind, as being unaccustomed called possibly for the exercise of a\ndegree of mental activity as high as would have been the case had\nwriting been the vehicle of expression. In the preceding chapter it was\nrecorded, in the experiments with numbers, that some of the answers\nwere given through the movements of a table on which the percipient's\nhands rested (p. 73). A series of experiments of this nature was made\nby the writer in November and December 1873, with the assistance of a\nfew friends, amongst whom were Mr. F. H. Colson, now Head Master of\nPlymouth College, and the Rev. W. E. Smith, of Corton, near Lowestoft.\nThe following is a description of the methods adopted. Three or four of\nus would sit round a small centre-legged table, cane-bottomed chair,\nwaste-paper basket, or metal tripod, with our hands resting on it. We\nfound that in a few minutes the table (or other instrument) would tilt\non one side, or move round and round, with considerable freedom. When\nthese motions had once been fairly established, one or two of those\npresent in the room would retire to a distance, keeping their backs to\nthe table, and think of a letter of the alphabet. The table would move\nfreely up and down, under the varying pressure of the hands laid on\nit, in a succession of small tilts. Those sitting at the table would\ncount the tilts--one tilt standing for A, two for B, three for C, and\nso on. Excluding second trials, there were 70 experiments conducted\nunder these conditions. The right letter was tilted in 27 cases, and in\ntwo others the next succeeding letter was given. On some occasions the\nproportion of successes was much higher; thus, on the 28th November,\nout of a total of 16 trials, 10 were correct. On the 1st December, on\nthe other hand, 10 trials were made without any success. It was the\nrule throughout that the agents should stand with their backs to the\ntable at some distance from it, and after the first few experiments we\nfound, or thought we found, that the thought-transference succeeded\nbest with a single agent. In order that the letter might not be\nguessed from the context, we generally took the initial or initial\nand final letters only of a word; in four cases only did the agent\nselect as many as three consecutive letters of a word. If the letters\nhad been arbitrarily chosen, the chances against the right letters\nbeing indicated would be 25 to 1. But as the letters actually selected\nwere in most cases constituent parts of a word, generally the initial\nletter, and as in some cases two or three consecutive letters were\nselected, the adverse chances would be reduced, roughly speaking,\nto something like 15 to 1. But even so the results attained are\nsufficiently striking.[51]\n\nIn these experiments the percipient or percipients themselves counted\nthe tilts; and it is probable that occasionally one or other of those\nseated at the table half-consciously guided its movements in conformity\nwith his own ideas of what the letter would be. But in a modified form\nof the experiment, introduced by Professor Richet, the percipients, two\nor three in number, were seated at one table and a printed alphabet\nwas placed on another table behind the percipients and out of their\nrange of vision. When the first table tilted,[52] under the automatic\nmovements of the hands resting on it, it caused a bell to ring. M.\nRichet or some other experimenter sat at the second table and drew\na pen slowly backwards and forwards over the printed alphabet. The\nletters to which the pen was pointing when the bell rang were noted,\nand it was found that they made up intelligible words and sentences,\nprovided that in some cases the next letter or the next but one were\nsubstituted for that actually given.[53] All necessary precautions were\ntaken that the alphabet should be out of sight of the \"mediums,\" who\nwere in most cases personal friends of M. Richet, and whose good faith\nwas, he believes, in all cases unimpeachable. Subjoined is an account\nof the results obtained on one evening. M. Richet appears from the\naccount to have been one of those seated at the tilting table.\n\n\nNo. 27.--By PROFESSOR RICHET.\n\n \"On the 9th of November we took the same precautions, but used\n an ordinary alphabet, not the circular one.[54] The name of the\n 'spirit' who came to the table was given as V I L L O N. Then we\n made a great noise, we repeated poetry, sang, and counted to such\n good purpose that P., who was at the alphabet, could hardly follow\n the ringing of the bell. We asked for some French poetry. The reply\n was--\n\n Q U S N N T K F S N E I G D R D A M S A M\n _O U, S O N T, L E S, N E I G E S, D A N T A N_\n\nThat is, \"Ou sont les neiges d'Antan?\"--a verse of Villon's, obviously\nknown to us all.\n\nWe then asked, what were the relations of Villon with the kings of\nFrance?\n\n K O U H T L E C R U E L\n _L O U I S, L E, C R U E L_\n\nLouis le cruel.\n\nWhat book ought we to read?\n\n E S S A Y S U R D A D M O N I N M A N H P\n _E S S A Y, S U R, D A E M O N I O M A N I E_\n\nThe reader will understand that if I mention these experiments, it is\nnot because the answers are interesting in themselves, but because the\nprecautions taken seemed sufficient to prevent the medium from gaining\nany knowledge of the movements of the operator at the alphabet.... I\nadd a few more replies; but the number and intrinsic significance of\nthese replies is a matter of but little importance.\n\n F E S T I N A L E N T E\n L O F A M D T M R E I I N A J U B R\n _I N F A N D U M, R E J I N A, J U B E S_\n R E N O V A R E D O L O R E M\n _R E N O V A R E, D O L O R E M_\n\n The old spelling of the word \"Rejina\" should be noticed.\" (_Proc.\n Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. v. pp. 142, 143.)\n\nIn this case it will be observed that P. alone was in possession of\nthe knowledge, without which all the efforts of those at the table\ncould have produced only a meaningless sequence of letters. In some\nother experiments of the series the procedure was more complicated. M.\nRichet, standing apart from both tables, asked a question, the answer\nto which was given by the percipients with a certain approximation to\ncorrectness. The results, though less striking than those already\nquoted, are yet such as to suggest that they were not due to chance.[55]\n\n\n_Production of Local An\u00e6sthesia._\n\nWe now pass to experiments of another kind, resembling those last\nquoted, inasmuch as the effects were produced without the consciousness\nof the percipient, but differing in the important particular that no\ndeliberate and conscious effort on his part could have enabled him\nto produce them. In experiments carried on with various subjects at\nintervals through the years 1883-87, at some of which the present\nwriter assisted, Mr. Edmund Gurney had shown that it was possible by\nmeans of the unexpressed will of the agent to produce local an\u00e6sthesia\nin certain persons. (_S.P.R._, vol. i. pp. 257-260; ii. 201-205; iii.\n453-459; v. 14-17.) In these experiments the subject was placed at a\ntable, and his hands were passed through holes in a large brown paper\nscreen, so that they were completely concealed from his view. Mr. G. A.\nSmith then held his hand at a distance of two or three inches from the\nfinger indicated by Mr. Gurney, at the same time willing that it should\nbecome rigid and insensible. On subsequently applying appropriate tests\nit was found, as a rule, that the finger selected had actually become\nrigid and was insensible to pain. In the last series of 160 experiments\nMr. Gurney, as well as Mr. Smith, held his hand over a particular\nfinger. In 124 cases the finger over which Mr. Smith's hand had been\nheld was alone affected; in 16 cases Mr. Gurney and Mr. Smith were\nboth successful; in 13 cases Mr. Gurney was successful and Mr. Smith\nfailed. In the remaining 7 cases no effect at all was produced. It is\nnoteworthy that in a series of 41 similar trials, in which Mr. Smith,\nwhile holding his hand in the same position, willed that no effect\nshould be produced, there was actually no effect in 36 cases; in 4\ncases the finger over which his hand was held, and in the remaining\ncase another finger, were affected. The rigidity was tested by asking\nthe subject, at the end of the experiment, to close his hands. When he\ncomplied with the request the finger operated on--if the experiment\nhad succeeded--would remain rigid. The insensibility was proved by\npricking, burning, or by a current from an induction coil. In the\nmajority of the successful trials the insensibility was shown to be\nproof against all assaults, however severe.\n\nIn these earlier experiments it seemed essential to success that Mr.\nSmith's hand should be in close proximity to that of the subject,\nwithout any intervening barrier. These conditions made it difficult\nto exclude the possibility of the subject learning by variations in\ntemperature, or by air currents, which finger was actually being\noperated on; though it is hard to conceive that the percipient could\nby any such means have discriminated between Mr. Gurney's hand and\nMr. Smith's. On the other hand, even if this source of error was held\nto be excluded, the interpretation of the results remained ambiguous.\nAs a matter of fact, Mr. Gurney himself was inclined to attribute the\neffects produced, not to telepathy, as ordinarily understood, but to\na specific vital effluence, or, as he phrased it, a kind of nervous\ninduction, operating directly on the affected part of the percipient's\norganism. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 254-259.)\n\nWith a view to test this hypothesis further experiments of the same\nkind were made by Mrs. Sidgwick during the years 1890 and 1892, the\nsubjects being P. and Miss B. already mentioned. The percipient was\nthroughout in a normal condition. As before, he sat at a table with\nhis hands passed through holes in a large screen, which extended\nsufficiently far in all directions to prevent him from seeing either\nthe operator or his own hands. Mr. Smith, as before, willed to produce\nthe desired effect in the finger which had been intimated to him,\neither by signs or writing, by one of the experimenters. Passing over\nthe trials, very generally successful, made under the same conditions\nas Mr. Gurney's experiments--_i.e._, with the agent's hand held at\na short distance without any intervening screen from the finger\nselected--we will quote Mrs. Sidgwick's account of the later series\nperformed under varied conditions. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.\n577-596.)\n\n\nNo. 28.--By MRS. H. SIDGWICK.\n\n In the second division, (_b_), of our experiments come those in\n which a glass screen was placed over the subject's hands. For the\n first four of these we used a framed window pane which happened\n to be handy. Then we obtained and used a sheet of 32 oz. glass,\n measuring 22 by 10 inches and 1/6 inch in thickness. This was\n supported on two large books placed beyond the subject's hands on\n each side, and in this position the upper surface of the glass\n was 2-1/4 inches above the surface of the table, so that there\n was ample room for the hands to rest underneath without touching\n the glass. Mr. Smith held his hand in the usual position over\n the selected finger, above the glass and not touching it. Under\n these conditions we tried 21 experiments with P., of which 18 were\n successful, and 6 with Miss B., all successful. In the case of the\n 3 failures with P., no effect was produced on any finger. In one\n successful case, the time taken was long, and we interrupted the\n experiment by premature testing in the way explained above.\n\n Division (_c_) includes those experiments in which Mr. Smith did\n not approximate his hand to that of the subject at all, but merely\n looked at the selected finger from some place in the same room as\n the subject, but out of his sight. The distances between him and\n the subject varied from about 2-1/2 to about 12 feet. Under these\n conditions we tried 37 experiments with P., 18 in 1890, of which\n 6 were failures, and 2 only partially successful, and 19 in 1892,\n of which 10 were failures. The proportion of success was, it thus\n appears, much less than under the previously described conditions,\n but still much beyond what chance would produce. Of the 6 failures\n in 1890, one was a case in which Mr. Smith made a mistake as to\n which finger we had selected, but succeeded with the one he thought\n of. In another case the left thumb instead of the right thumb\n became insensitive. In the other 4 cases no finger at all was\n affected.\n\n Of the 10 failures in 1892, no effect was produced in 4 cases;\n in another the right (viz., the little) finger of the wrong\n hand became insensitive;[56] in 4 cases an adjoining finger was\n affected--once only slightly--instead of that selected, and in the\n remaining case a finger distant from the selected one was slightly\n affected.\n\nSix experiments were made with Mr. Smith looking at the finger through\nthe opera-glass at a distance of from 22 to 25 feet; in three cases\nthe experiment succeeded, in three another finger was affected instead\nof that selected. Fourteen experiments were made with a closed door\nintervening between percipient and agent; 2 only succeeded, and in 8\na wrong finger was affected, no effect at all being produced in the\nremaining 4 cases. In a further series of 4 trials Mr. Smith held his\nhand near the percipient, and willed to produce no effect. The trials\nwere successful. In all these experiments P. was the percipient.\n\nThe rigidity was tested, as before, by asking the subject to close his\nhands; the an\u00e6sthesia, as a rule, by touches or the induction coil.\nTested by the latter means it was found, as the current was gradually\nincreased to the maximum, that the insensibility was not always\ncomplete. Flexibility and sensation were usually restored, for economy\nof time, by means of upward passes; but a few trials made later in the\nseries served to show that the finger could be restored to its normal\ncondition by a mere effort of will on the part of the agent. In some\ncases when their attention was specially directed to their sensations\nthe subjects were able to indicate beforehand the finger operated on,\nby reason of the feeling of cold in it. But as a rule they appeared to\nbe unaware which finger was affected. It is perhaps needless to point\nout that no conscious effort on their part could have produced the\nresults described.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 43: Cases are recorded in the _Zoist_ and other publications\nof the period. See the instances, quoted in _Phantasms of the Living_,\nvol. i. pp. 89-91, of the Rev. J. Lawson Sisson, Mr. Barth, Mr. N.\nDunscombe, and Mr. H. S. Thompson. Traditions of the marvels wrought by\nthe last-named gentleman still linger in Yorkshire society, and will no\ndoubt demand the serious attention of future students of folk-lore.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _Bulletin de la Soc. de Psychologie Physiologique_, 1885.]\n\n[Footnote 45: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 130-133.]\n\n[Footnote 46: See the account of his experiments on \"Peculiarities of\ncertain Post-hypnotic States,\" _Proc. S. P. R._, vol. iv. pp. 268-323.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \"L'Automatisme Psychologique.\"]\n\n[Footnote 48: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iii. pp. 6-23.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Mr. Newnham explains that \"five or six questions were\noften asked consecutively without her being told of the subject that\nwas being pursued.\"]\n\n[Footnote 50: Previous questions had been asked on the same subject,\nand the first syllable had already been correctly written. On a\nsubsequent occasion the same question was repeated and a wholly\nincorrect answer was given.]\n\n[Footnote 51: There were nine sittings in all, but the records of one\nwere imperfectly kept, and have not been preserved. In two cases the\ndetails given are insufficient; in the notes of the first evening it is\nstated that the person seated at the table \"failed three or four times,\nsucceeded once in giving word of (_i.e._, selected from) newspaper\n(which agent) held in his hand.\" These trials have been omitted\naltogether from the results given in the text. On the third evening\nthere is a record, \"gave S H but got wrong afterwards.\" The word\nthought of was _Sherry_. I have counted this trial as two successes and\ntwo failures, judging from the other experiments recorded that not more\nthan four consecutive letters at most would have been attempted.]\n\n[Footnote 52: In this case it will be observed the table tilted\nonly once for each letter. The method adopted (after trial of the\nalternative) in my own experiments, though slower and more cumbrous,\nwas apparently productive of more accurate results. It will be readily\nunderstood that it might be easier for the transmitted impulse to check\na movement, at once uncertain and spasmodic, which had been already\ninitiated, than to overcome, in a short space of time, the resistance\nof inertia and generate a new movement. The distinction may perhaps\nbe illustrated by the difference between the amount of force required\nto start a railway truck at rest on the level, and that which would\nsuffice to arrest one actually in gentle motion.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Of course substitutions of this kind considerably reduce\nthe value of the results obtained, but it will be found that when\nfull deduction has been made on this score, the coincidences remain\noverwhelmingly in excess of anything which could have been produced by\nchance.]\n\n[Footnote 54: In some previous experiments a circular alphabet had\nbeen used, with a view of preventing any of those seated at the first\ntable from learning by the movements of the operator's hand what\npoint of the alphabet he had reached. The other precautions described\nseemed, however, as M. Richet points out, sufficient to exclude all\nconsiderations of this kind.]\n\n[Footnote 55: _Rev. Phil._, Dec. 1884; see also _S.P.R._, vol. ii. pp.\n247 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 56: It happened on another occasion under these conditions\nthat the right little finger was slightly affected when the left little\nfinger, which had been selected, was so in a more decided manner.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nEXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF TELEPATHIC EFFECTS AT A DISTANCE.\n\n\nIn the cases so far described, where success has been attained, the\nagent and percipient, if not actually in the same room, have been\nseparated by a distance not exceeding at the most 25 or 30 feet. The\nanalogy of the physical forces would, of course, have prepared us to\nfind that the effect of telepathy diminishes in proportion to the\ndistance through which it has to act. And in fact we have but few\nrecords of successful experiments at a distance. Yet, on the other\nhand, we are confronted by a large body of evidence for the spontaneous\naffection of one mind by another, and that at a distance frequently\nof hundreds of miles. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, in\nview of the close similarity, in many cases, of the effects produced,\nthat the force operating in these spontaneous phenomena is identical\nwith, or at least closely allied to, that which causes the transfer of\nsensations or images from agent to percipient within the compass of a\nLondon drawing-room. It is probable, indeed, that the non-experimental\nevidence, for reasons already alluded to, and discussed at length in\nthe succeeding chapter, should be generously discounted. But it is not\neasy for an impartial inquirer to reject it altogether. Nor indeed is\nany such summary solution required by the results of experimental\ntelepathy. It is true that experiments at a distance have seldom\nsucceeded, and that we have no record of any long-continued series\nof such experiments at all comparable to those conducted, _e.g._, by\nMr. Guthrie or Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at close quarters. But it is also\nprobably true that such experiments have been comparatively seldom\nattempted. And if account be taken of the various drawbacks incident\nto experiments at a distance, the amount of success already achieved,\nthough no doubt less in proportion to the number of serious and\nwell-conceived attempts than is the case with experiments conducted\nunder the more usual conditions, is yet far from discouraging. For\ntrials at a distance are tedious; they consume much time, and call\nfor long preparation and careful pre-arrangement. The difficulties\nof securing the necessary freedom from disturbance are probably\nincreased when agent and percipient are separated. The interest in such\nexperiments is difficult to maintain apart from the stimulus of a rapid\nsuccession of trials with an immediate record of the results. Lastly,\nsuch experiments would generally be undertaken only after a series of\ntrials at close quarters; after, that is, some portion at least of the\noriginal stock of energy and enthusiasm has been exhausted. And even\nwhen such considerations have no effect upon the experimenter, it is\nlikely, as has been already pointed out, that the novel conditions\nwould of themselves affect unfavourably the imagination of the\npercipient, and thus prejudice the results. That, notwithstanding\nthese various drawbacks, there have been several successful series of\nexperiments at a distance is a matter of good augury for the future.\n\nIt is much to be desired that investigators should give attention to\nobtaining more results in this branch of the inquiry. For independently\nof the fact that results of the kind form an indispensable link between\ninstances of thought-transference at close quarters and the more\nstriking spontaneous cases at a distance, it is important to observe\nthat in experiments of the kind described in the present chapter the\ngravest objection which is at present urged, and may fairly continue\nto be urged, against most experiments at close quarters--viz., the\nrisk of unconscious apprehension through normal channels--is no longer\napplicable. Moreover, the results can only be attributed to fraud\non the extreme assumption that both parties to the experiment are\nimplicated in deliberate and systematic collusion.\n\n\n_Induction of Sleep at a distance._\n\nSome of the most striking experimental cases, which are concerned with\nthe production of hallucinations, are reserved for later discussion.\n(See Chapter X.)\n\nBut perhaps the most valuable body of testimony for the agency of\nthought-transference at a distance is to be found in the experiments\nrecorded by French observers in the induction of sleep. It is not\na little remarkable that this, one of its rarest and most striking\nmanifestations, should have been among the first and, until recently,\nalmost the only form of telepathy which attracted attention amongst\nFrench investigators. Moreover, of late years at any rate, this\nparticular form of experiment has rarely succeeded except in France,\nand with hypnotic subjects. But as the number of physicians who\npractise hypnotism increases in other countries, we may no doubt\nhope to see the observations already made confirmed and enlarged.\nThe analogy of the experiments in the induction of an\u00e6sthesia by\nthought-transference, recorded in the last chapter, would perhaps\nhave prepared us to accept the induction of sleep as a not improbable\neffect of telepathy. But we are not without more direct testimony. The\nopening sentences of Professor Janet's account of the experiment with\nMadame B. show us that, in this case at all events, the conscious will\nof the operator was necessary to produce the hypnotic trance, even at\nclose quarters. When, therefore, we find that the same cause, operating\nat a distance, is constantly followed by a like effect, there can be no\nreasonable ground for refusing to recognise the operator's will as in\nthis case also the cause of the sleep; unless, indeed, we are prepared\nto attribute all the results to chance.\n\n\nNo. 29.--Experiments by MM. GIBERT and JANET.\n\nIn the autumn of 1885 Professor Pierre Janet of Havre witnessed some\ntrials made by Dr. Gibert of the same town on Madame B., a patient of\nhis own. Madame B., whose fame has now reached beyond her native land,\nis described by Professor Janet as an honest peasant woman, in good\nhealth, with no indications of hysteria. She has been hypnotised since\nchildhood by various persons, and is occasionally liable to spontaneous\nattacks of somnambulism. One of the most remarkable features presented\nby Madame B.'s induced trances is that she can be awakened by the\nperson who hypnotised her and by no one else; and that his hand alone\ncan produce partial or general contractures, and subsequently restore\nher limbs to their normal condition.\n\n \"One day,\" to quote Professor Janet (\"Note sur quelques Ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes\n de Somnambulisme,\" _Revue Philosophique_, Feb. 1886), \"M. Gibert\n was holding Madame B.'s hand to hypnotise her (_pour l'endormir_),\n but he was visibly preoccupied and thinking of other matters, and\n the trance did not supervene. This experiment, repeated by me\n in various forms, proved to us that in order to entrance Madame\n B. it was necessary to concentrate one's thought intensely on\n the suggestion to sleep which was given to her, and the more the\n operator's thought wandered the more difficult it became to induce\n the trance. This influence of the operator's thought, however\n extraordinary it may seem, predominates in this case to such an\n extent that it replaces all other causes. If one presses Madame\n B.'s hand without the thought of hypnotising her, the trance is not\n induced; but, on the other hand, one can succeed in sending her to\n sleep by thinking of it without pressing her hand.\"\n\nOf course in experiments of this kind no precautions could exclude\nthe chance that some suggestion of what was expected might reach the\npercipient's mind through the gestures, the attitude, or even the\nsilence of the experimenter. But, acting on the clue thus given, MM.\nGibert and Janet succeeded in impressing mentally on Madame B. commands\nwhich were punctually executed on the following day. During the same\nperiod Dr. Gibert made three attempts, all of which met with partial\nsuccess, in inducing the hypnotic trance by mental suggestion given at\na distance. Subsequently, during February and March 1886, and again\nduring April and May of the same year, these trials were repeated with\nstriking results. During one of the trials which took place in April\nMr. F. W. H. Myers and Dr. A. T. Myers were present, and from their\ncontemporary record the following account is taken. Throughout these\ntrials, it should be stated, Madame B. was in the Pavillon, a house\noccupied by Dr. Gibert's sister, and distant about two-thirds of a mile\nfrom Dr. Gibert's own house. The distance intervening between agent and\npercipient in this series of experiments was in no case less than a\nquarter of a mile or more than one mile. In the first trial described\nby Mr. Myers (18 in the subjoined table) Madame B. actually went to\nsleep about twenty minutes after the effort at willing had been made;\nbut as some of the party had in the interval entered the house where\nshe was and found her awake, it seems possible that their coming had\nsuggested the idea of sleep. In the second case (No. 19) an attempt to\nwill Madame B. to leave her bed at 11.35 P.M. and come to Dr. Gibert's\nhouse had failed--the only result, possibly due to other causes, being\nan unusually prolonged sleep and a headache on waking. Subsequently, to\nquote Mr. Myers' account,\n\n \"(20) On the morning of the 22nd we again selected by lot an hour\n (11 A.M.) at which M. Gibert should will, from his dispensary\n (which is close to his house), that Madame B. should go to sleep\n in the Pavillon. It was agreed that a rather longer time should be\n allowed for the process to take effect; as it had been observed\n (see M. Janet's previous communication) that she sometimes\n struggled against the influence, and averted the effect for a time\n by putting her hands in cold water, etc. At 11.25 we entered the\n Pavillon quietly, and almost at once she descended from her room\n to the _salon_, profoundly asleep. Here, however, suggestion might\n again have been at work. We did not, of course, mention M. Gibert's\n attempt of the previous night. But she told us in her sleep that\n she had been very ill in the night, and repeatedly exclaimed:\n 'Pourquoi M. Gibert m'a-t-il fait souffrir? Mais j'ai lav\u00e9 les\n mains continuellement.' This is what she does when she wishes to\n avoid being influenced.\n\n \"(21) In the evening (22nd) we all dined at M. Gibert's, and in\n the evening M. Gibert made another attempt to put her to sleep\n at a distance from his house in the Rue S\u00e9ry,--she being at\n the Pavillon, Rue de la Ferme,--and to bring her to his house\n by an effort of will. At 8.55 he retired to his study; and MM.\n Ochorowicz, Marillier, Janet, and A. T. Myers went to the Pavillon,\n and waited outside in the street, out of sight of the house. At\n 9.22 Dr. Myers observed Madame B. coming half-way out of the\n garden-gate, and again retreating. Those who saw her more closely\n observed that she was plainly in the somnambulic state, and was\n wandering about and muttering. At 9.25 she came out (with eyes\n persistently closed, so far as could be seen), walked quickly\n past MM. Janet and Marillier without noticing them, and made for\n M. Gibert's house, though not by the usual or shortest route. (It\n appeared afterwards that the _bonne_ had seen her go into the\n _salon_ at 8.45, and issue thence asleep at 9.15: had not looked\n in between those times.) She avoided lamp-posts, vehicles, etc.,\n but crossed and recrossed the street repeatedly. No one went in\n front of her or spoke to her. After eight or ten minutes she grew\n much more uncertain in gait, and paused as though she would fall.\n Dr. Myers noted the moment in the Rue Faure; it was 9.35. At about\n 9.40 she grew bolder, and at 9.45 reached the street in front of\n M. Gibert's house. There she met him, but did not notice him, and\n walked into his house, where she rushed hurriedly from room to room\n on the ground-floor. M. Gibert had to take her hand before she\n recognised him. She then grew calm.\n\n \"M. Gibert said that from 8.55 to 9.20 he thought intently about\n her; from 9.20 to 9.35 he thought more feebly; at 9.35 he gave\n the experiment up, and began to play billiards; but in a few\n minutes began to will her again. It appeared that his visit to\n the billiard-room had coincided with her hesitation and stumbling\n in the street. But this coincidence may of course have been\n accidental....\n\n \"(22) On the 23rd, M. Janet, who had woke her up and left her\n awake,[57] lunched in our company, and retired to his own house at\n 4.30 (a time chosen by lot) to try to put her to sleep from thence.\n At 5.5 we all entered the _salon_ of the Pavillon, and found her\n asleep with shut eyes, but sewing vigorously (being in that stage\n in which movements once suggested are automatically continued).\n Passing into the talkative state, she said to M. Janet, 'C'est vous\n qui m'avez fait dormir \u00e0 quatre heures et demi.' The impression as\n to the hour may have been a suggestion received from M. Janet's\n mind. We tried to make her believe that it was M. Gibert who had\n sent her to sleep, but she maintained that she had felt that it was\n M. Janet.\n\n \"(23) On April 24th the whole party chanced to meet at M. Janet's\n house at 3 P.M., and he then, at my suggestion, entered his study\n to will that Madame B. should sleep. We waited in his garden, and\n at 3.20 proceeded together to the Pavillon, which I entered first\n at 3.30, and found Madame B. profoundly sleeping over her sewing,\n having ceased to sew. Becoming talkative, she said to M. Janet,\n 'C'est vous qui m'avez command\u00e9.' She said that she fell asleep at\n 3.5 P.M.\" (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 133-136.)\n\nThe subjoined table, taken, with a few verbal alterations, from Mr.\nMyers' article, gives a complete list of the experiments in the\ninduction of trance at a distance (_sommeil \u00e0 distance_) made by MM.\nJanet and Gibert up to the end of May 1886:--\n\n No. of | Date. |Operator.| Hour when | Remarks. |Success or failure.\n Experi-| | | given. | +---------------+\n ments. | | | | |\n -------+---------+---------+-----------+----------------------------+\n | 1885. | | | |\n 1 |October 3| Gibert | 11.30 A.M.|She washes hands and |\n | | | | wards off trance. | ?\n 2 | \" 9| do. | 11.40 A.M.|Found entranced 11.45. | 1\n 3 | \" 14| do. | 4.15 P.M.|Found entranced 4.30: |\n | | | | had been asleep about |\n | | | | 15 minutes. | 1\n |---------| | | |\n | 1886. | | | |\n 4 |Feb. 22| Janet | .. |She washes hands and |\n | | | | wards off trance. | ?\n 5 | \" 25| do. | 5 P.M. |Asleep at once. | 1\n 6 | \" 26| do. | .. |Mere discomfort observed. | 0\n 7 |March 1| do. | .. | do. do. | 0\n 8 | \" 2| do. | 3 P.M. |Found asleep at 4: has |\n | | | | slept about an hour. | 1\n 9 | \" 4| do. | .. |Will interrupted: trance |\n | | | | coincident but incomplete.| 1\n 10 | \" 5| do. |5-5.10 P.M.|Found asleep a few minutes |\n | | | | afterwards. | 1\n 11 | \" 6| Gibert | 8 P.M. |Found asleep 8.3. | 1\n 12 | \" 10| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1\n 13 | \" 14| Janet | 3 P.M. |Success--no details. | 1\n 14 | \" 16| Gibert | 9 P.M. |Brings her to his house: |\n | | | | she leaves her house a |\n | | | | few minutes after 9. | 1\n |---------| | | |\n 15 |April 18| Janet | .. |Found asleep in 10 |\n | | | | minutes. | 1\n 16 | \" 19| Gibert | 4 P.M. |Found asleep 4.15. | 1\n 17 | \" 20| do. | 8 P.M. |Made to come to his |\n | | | | house. | 1\n 18 | \" 21| do. | 5.50 P.M. |Asleep about 6.10: trance |\n | | | | too tardy. | ?\n 19 | \" 21| do. |11.35 P.M. |Attempt at trance during |\n | | | | sleep. | 0\n 20 | \" 22| do. | 11 A.M. |Asleep 11.25: trance too |\n | | | | tardy. | ?\n 21 | \" 22| do. | 9 P.M. |Comes to his house: |\n | | | | leaves her house 9.15. | 1\n 22 | \" 23| Janet | 4.30 P.M. |Found asleep 5.5, says |\n | | | | she has slept since |\n | | | | 4.30. | 1\n 23 | \" 24| do. | 3 P.M. |Found asleep 3.30, says |\n | | | | she has slept since 3.5. | 1\n 24 |May 5| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1\n 25 | \" 6| do. | .. |Success--no details. | 1\n | | | | +---\n | | | | | 18\n -------+---------+---------+-----------+--------------------------------\n\nWe have then in 25 trials 18 complete and 4 partial or doubtful\nsuccesses. In two of the latter Madame B. was found washing her hands\nto ward off the trance, and in two others the trance supervened only\nafter an interval of twenty minutes or more, and under circumstances\nwhich rendered it doubtful whether telepathy were the cause. It is\nimportant to note that during these earlier visits of Madame B. to\nHavre, about two months in all, she only once fell into ordinary sleep\nduring the daytime, and twice became spontaneously entranced; and that\nshe never left the house in the evenings except on the three occasions\n(14, 17, 21), on which she did so in apparent response to a mental\nsuggestion. There is little ground, therefore, for attributing the\nresults above given to chance.\n\nA further series of trials with the same percipient was conducted by\nProfessor Janet during the autumn of 1886. The results, communicated\nby him to Professor Richet, were published by the latter in the\n_Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 43-45.[58] In order to\nfacilitate comparison I have thrown these later results also into\ntabular form. In the later trials it will be observed that there is a\ntolerably constant retardation of the effect. The exact degree of the\nretardation it was not always possible to ascertain, as it was not\npracticable to keep Madame B. continually under observation, and to\nhave let those at the Pavillon into the secret, and to have asked them\nto exercise special vigilance at the time of the experiments would\nhave entailed the risk of vitiating the results. Moreover, in order to\navoid giving any suggestion by the hour of his arrival, M. Janet made\nit a rule during a great part of this period to come to the house at\nthe same hour--4 P.M. in most cases--for several days consecutively.\nWhen an early hour, therefore, had been chosen for the experiments,\nthe exact degree of success could only be determined if Madame B.'s\nmovements had chanced at the right time to come under the observation\nof those in the house. During the period of the trials Madame B. fell\nasleep in the daytime spontaneously only four times.\n\n No. of\n Experi- Date. Hour when Remarks. Success\n ments. given. or\n Failure.\n 1886.\n 1 8th Sept. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 4 P.M. M. J.\n entered unseen and without\n knocking ?\n 2 9th Sept. 3 P.M. Madame B. complained of\n headache F.\n 3 11th Sept. 9 (? A.M.) Found at 10, \"troubl\u00e9e et\n \u00e9tourdie\" F.\n 4 14th Sept. 4 P.M. M. J. enters at 4.15. Madame\n B. says she was asleep, but\n wakened by ringing of\n door-bell ?\n 5[1] 18th Sept. 3.30 P.M. Found asleep at 4 P.M.; states\n she was put to sleep at 3.30 S.\n 6[59] 19th Sept. 3 P.M. Went to sleep at about 3.15 S.\n 7 23rd Sept. 2 P.M. She was out walking F.\n 8 24th Sept. 3.15 P.M. Found asleep at 4. Had\n been seen awake at 3.15 ?\n 9 26th Sept. 3 P.M. Walking in garden F.\n 10 27th Sept. 8.30 P.M. Commanded by M. Gibert to\n come to his house. Left\n the Pavillon, entranced, at\n 9.5 P.M. [in the account in\n the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_\n the latter hour is given at\n _9.15_] S.\n 11 29th Sept. 3.50 P.M. Found asleep at 4.5 [given in\n _Revue_ as _5.5_] S.\n 12 30th Sept. 3.30 P.M. F.\n 13 1st Oct. 2.40 P.M. She was out walking F.\n 14 5th Oct. 4 P.M. Fell asleep suddenly at 4.5\n whilst talking with nurse in\n garden S.\n 15 6th Oct. 3 P.M. F.\n 16 9th Oct. 3.15 P.M. F.\n 17 10th Oct. 3.20 P.M. Found asleep at 4.5 ?\n 18 12th Oct. 3 P.M. F.\n 19 13th Oct. 5 P.M. Found asleep. Executed a\n mental command given at\n a distance--viz., to rise at\n M. J.'s entrance S.\n 20 14th Oct. 2.30 P.M. Found asleep at 3.20 ?\n 21 16th Oct. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 3.30 S.\n\n 22 24th Nov. 2.30 P.M. F.\n 23 3rd Dec. 4.10 P.M. F.\n 24 5th Dec. 4.10 P.M. F.\n 25 6th Dec. 4.10 P.M. Found awake, washing her\n hands ?\n 26 7th Dec. 2.30 P.M. Found asleep at 3.5 ?\n 27 10th Dec. 4.20 P.M. She was out walking F.\n 28 11th Dec. 3.15 P.M. ?\n 29 13th Dec. 4.5 P.M. Found asleep at 4.25. Had\n been seen awake a few\n minutes after 4 P.M. S.\n 30 14th Dec. 11.30 A.M. F.\n 31 18th Dec. F.\n 32 21st Dec. F.\n 33 22nd Dec. F.\n 34 23rd Dec. 3 P.M. Found asleep at 3.40 ?\n 35 25th Dec. 3.15 P.M. She was out walking. Bad\n headache came on at 3.20.\n Returned hurriedly, and at\n once fell asleep in the\n _salon_. S.\n\nThroughout the series, except in case 10, M. Janet was the operator.\nIt will be seen that in the 35 trials there were nine cases in which\nMadame B. was found asleep within half-an-hour of the attempt being\nmade to entrance her. In six other cases she was found asleep after a\nlonger interval, but there is nothing to indicate that the sleep did\nnot actually supervene at the right time. In one case she was found\nawake within fifteen minutes of the trial, but stated that she had\nbeen awakened by the ringing of the bell which announced M. Janet's\narrival. In one other case she was found washing her hands to ward off\nthe trance. Of the 17 failures Madame B. was out walking in four cases\nat the time of the trial, a circumstance which no doubt diminished the\nchances of success. In two cases headache or disturbance were produced;\nof the remaining 11 trials no details are given, and it is presumed\nthat no unusual effect was observed, and that there was no apparent\ncause for the failure. Of course, experiments carried on under these\nconditions, the trials being confined for the most part within a narrow\nrange of hours, and the subject liable to spontaneous trance, offer\nsome scope for chance coincidence. But as Madame B. actually fell\nasleep spontaneously on only four occasions during the period over\nwhich the trials extended, it will probably be considered that the\nnumber of coincidences, imperfect as they were, was considerably more\nthan could plausibly be attributed to accident or self-suggestion.[60]\n\nIn January 1887 M. Richet made some experiments of the same kind\non Madame B. Of 9 trials, however, two only could be described as\ncompletely successful, and three more as doubtful. A few further\ntrials, in December 1887 and January 1888, were even less successful.\nM. Richet has attempted on several occasions to influence other\nsubjects at a distance, but no series of successful results was\nattained; and isolated coincidences of the kind have, of course, little\nevidential value (_loc. cit._, pp. 47-51).[61]\n\n\nNo. 30.--Experiments by DR. DUFAY.\n\nIn a paper published in the _Revue Philosophique_ of September 1888, M.\nDufay, a physician formerly in practice at Blois, and now a Senator of\nFrance, records several instances in which he has himself succeeded in\nproducing sleep at a distance. In one case he hypnotised from his box\nin the theatre, as he believes without her knowledge, a young actress\nwho had been a patient of his, and caused her, whilst in the state of\nlucid somnambulism, to play a new and difficult part with more success\nthan she would have been likely to achieve in the normal state. In this\nparticular case, however, it seems possible that the subject may have\nreceived some intimation of Dr. Dufay's presence in the house, and that\nthe hypnotic state may have been due to expectation. Another case was\nthat of Madame C., who had been for some time treated hypnotically by\nDr. Dufay for periodical attacks of sickness and headache. So sensitive\ndid this patient become to his suggestions that she would fall into the\nhypnotic sleep as soon as the bell rang to announce his coming, and\nbefore he had actually entered the house. The circumstances under which\nDr. Dufay first made a deliberate attempt to influence Madame C. at a\ndistance were as follows:--He was in attendance on a patient whom he\nwas unable to leave, when he was unexpectedly summoned by Monsieur C.\nto hypnotise Madame C., who was in the height of an attack. He assured\nMonsieur C. that on his return home he would find Madame C. asleep\nand cured, as proved actually to be the case. However, here also, as\nDr. Dufay points out, self-suggestion is a possible explanation. The\nfollowing case seems less open to suspicion on this ground:--\n\n \"On another occasion,\" Dr. Dufay writes, \"Madame C. was in perfect\n health, but her name happening to be mentioned in my hearing, the\n idea struck me that I would mentally order her to sleep, without\n her wishing it this time, and also without her suspecting it. Then,\n an hour later, I went to her house and asked the servant who opened\n the door whether an instrument, which I had mislaid out of my case,\n had been found in Madame C.'s room.\n\n \"'Is not that the doctor's voice that I hear?' asked Monsieur C.\n from the top of the staircase; 'beg him to come up. Just imagine,'\n he said to me, 'I was going to send for you. Nearly an hour ago my\n wife lost consciousness, and her mother and I have not been able to\n bring her to her senses. Her mother, who wished to take her into\n the country, is distracted....'\n\n \"I did not dare to confess myself guilty of this catastrophe, but\n was betrayed by Madame C., who gave me her hand, saying, 'You did\n well to put me to sleep, Doctor, because I was going to allow\n myself to be taken away, and then I should not have been able to\n finish my embroidery.'\n\n \"'You have another piece of embroidery in hand?'\n\n \"'Yes; a mantle-border ... for your birthday. You must not look as\n though you knew about it, when I am awake, because I want to give\n you a surprise.'\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"I repeated the experiment many times with Madame C., and always\n with success, which was a great help to me when unable to go to\n her at once when sent for. I even completed the experiment by also\n _waking_ her from a distance, solely by an act of volition, which\n formerly I should not have believed possible. The agreement in time\n was so perfect that no doubt could be entertained.\n\n \"To conclude, I was about to take a holiday of six weeks, and\n should thus be absent when one of the attacks was due. So it\n was settled between Monsieur C. and myself that, as soon as the\n headache began, he should let me know by telegraph; that I should\n then do from afar off what succeeded so well near at hand; that\n after five or six hours I should endeavour to awaken the patient;\n and that Monsieur C. should let me know by means of a second\n telegram whether the result had been satisfactory. He had no doubt\n about it; I was less certain. Madame C. did not know that I was\n going away.\n\n \"The sound of moanings one morning announced to Monsieur C. that\n the moment had come; without entering his wife's room he ran to\n the telegraph office, and I received his message at ten o'clock.\n He returned home again at that same hour, and found his wife\n asleep and not suffering any more. At four o'clock I willed that\n she should wake, and at eight o'clock in the evening I received\n a second telegram: 'Satisfactory result, woke at four o'clock.\n Thanks.'\n\n \"And I was then in the neighbourhood of Sully-sur-Loire, 28\n leagues--112 kilometres--from Blois.\"\n\nSimilar experiments have been recorded by, amongst others, Dr. J.\nH\u00e9ricourt,[1] a colleague of M. Richet in the editing of the _Revue\nScientifique_, Dr. Dusart,[62] and Dr. Dariex.[63] In the last case\nthere were only five trials, the experiments being then discontinued\nat the request of the patient. The first three trials were completely\nsuccessful, the sleep supervening within, at most, a few minutes of\nthe time chosen by the agent.\n\nThe following narrative resembles those cited above in its general\nfeatures. But in view of the nature of the effect produced--a painful\nhysterical attack--it is perhaps hardly a matter for regret that the\ncase is without any exact parallel.\n\n\nNo. 31.--By DR. TOLOSA-LATOUR.\n\nIn this account, taken from a letter written to M. Richet by Dr.\nTolosa-Latour on the 5th March 1891 (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,\nSept.-Oct. 1893), Dr. Latour explains that he had repeatedly hypnotised\na lady who was seized in September 1886 with hysterical paralysis, and\nhad ultimately succeeded in effecting by this means a complete cure.\nPrior to his treatment, in 1885, she had suffered for some time from\ndaily hysterical attacks, and when she came under Dr. Latour she was\nstill occasionally subject to them, and found relief in the hypnotic\nsleep. Both symptoms had at the time which he writes almost completely\ndisappeared.\n\n \"I had made some very curious experiments, but I had never\n thought about either action at a distance or clairvoyance. It\n was while leaving Paris and reading your [M. Richet's] pamphlet\n in the carriage that the idea occurred to me of sending Mdlle.\n R. to sleep. It was Sunday, October the 26th, the very day of my\n departure. I remember the hour too; it was just before reaching\n Poitiers, where some relations of my grandmother were expecting me.\n I told my wife that I was going to try the experiment, and begged\n her to say nothing about it to any one. I began to fix my thoughts\n about six o'clock, and during the journey from Poitiers to Mignie\n (where we stayed several days) I again and again thought of this\n question, especially during the intervals of silence which always\n occur during a journey.\n\n \"I wished to cause a violent hysteric attack, as I knew that she\n had not been dangerously ill for a long time. So on Sunday, October\n the 26th, from six till nine o'clock in the evening, I fixed my\n thoughts intently on the experiment.\n\n \"Then, on my return, I asked my brother if Mdlle. R. had called him\n in, as she always did when she was ill. Among the patients' names\n I did not find hers. It seemed almost certain that my experiment\n had failed. A week afterwards I called on her, and was agreeably\n surprised to learn that, on the contrary, it was a success, as you\n will judge by her letter. She does not fix the day, but her sister\n and the nurse have told me that it was the second Sunday after the\n festival of St. Theresa--that is to say, after Wednesday the 15th;\n the first Sunday being the 19th, the second is of course the 26th.\n\n \"This is the letter:--\n\n \"_From_ MDLLE. R. to M. TOLOSA-LATOUR.\n \"_March_ 23_rd_, 1891.\n\n \"MY EXCELLENT FRIEND AND DEAR DOCTOR,--I wanted to write to you\n yesterday to give you the particulars of the attack I had about the\n middle of last October, but I was not able to do so till to-day.\n\n \"As I told you, it was about the middle of October; I do not\n remember the date, but I recollect very well that it was a festival\n day, and at half-past six in the evening.\n\n \"We had just been to see my sister and brother; we had had luncheon\n with them. I was perfectly well, without any excitement; it was\n five o'clock, and I reached home all right, but when I was sitting\n down, in the act of eating, I found myself unable to speak or open\n my eyes, and, at the same moment, I had a very severe, long, and\n violent attack, such as I do not remember to have had for a long\n time.\n\n \"I was so ill that I thought of sending for Raphael,[64] and my\n sister proposed it, but I thought that I ought not to disturb him,\n for, knowing that you were away, nobody could stop the convulsions\n and the excitement.\n\n \"I suffered horribly, for it was an attack in which I experienced,\n so to say, all my previous sufferings combined. I was completely\n broken down, but I have had no other attacks since, not even a\n spasm.\"\n\n\nNo. 32.--By J. H. P.[65]\n\nThe next case records the execution by the subject of a simple command\nto approach the operator, as in some of M. Gibert's experiments already\ndescribed, and the partial execution of an order of a more complicated\nkind, given from a distance of more than twenty-five miles:--\n\n It is possible to give M. a command in the waking state, but she\n must be quiet at the moment when she receives it.\n\n We had never made experiments of this kind until R. one day\n proposed that we should try to make M. come to the room where we\n were. M. was in a neighbouring house, and could not know that we\n were actually in a kiosk at the end of the garden.\n\n For three minutes I gave her the mental command to come. I began\n to think that I had failed, and continued energetically for three\n minutes more; she did not come, however.\n\n We were just thinking that the experiment had failed when the door\n opened suddenly and M. appeared.\n\n \"Well, do you think I have nothing else to do! Why do you call me?\n I have had to leave everything.\"\n\n \"We wanted to say 'good morning' to you.\"\n\n \"Very well! I am going away now.\"\n\n She shook hands with us and went away quickly; whereupon it\n occurred to me to make her stop just at the gate.\n\n (Mental command)--\"I forbid you to go out. You cannot open the\n gate; come back.\" And back she came, furious, asking if we were\n laughing at her.\n\n Now, to send this last command I had not moved at all from my\n place, and M. was completely invisible behind the garden wall;\n moreover, I was a long way from the window. I told her that this\n time she could open it, and let her go.\n\n I will finish with another experiment of the same kind, which only\n partly succeeded, but which will serve to show the intensity of the\n mental transmission between M. and me. I went away, one morning,\n without thinking of M. I had to be away all day, 38 kilom\u00e8tres from\n her. At 2.30 it occurred to me to send her a mental command, and I\n repeated it for ten minutes.\n\n \"Go at once to the dining-room; you will take a book there that is\n on the mantelpiece; you will take it up to my study, and you will\n sit in my armchair before my writing-table.\" I reached home at\n night. The next day, as soon as I saw M., and even before saying\n good morning to me, she cried: \"I did a clever thing yesterday.\n I must be losing my wits, I suppose! Just imagine! I came down\n without knowing why, opened the dining-room door, then went up to\n your study, and sat in your armchair. I moved your papers about,\n then I went back to my work.\"\n\n The command had then been understood; but she did not go into the\n dining-room, and she did not take the book from there.\n\n J. H. P.\n\n (_Annales des Sci. Psych._, May-June 1893.)\n\n\n_Transference of Simple Sensations._\n\nWe may now pass to experiments in the transference of simple\nimpressions of the same kind as those dealt with in Chapters II.\nand III. The following is a record of a series of trials in the\ntransference of auditory impressions:\n\n\nNo. 33.--From MISS X.\n\nMiss X. is a lady resident in London, who is known personally to the\npresent writer and other members of the S.P.R. She has experienced all\nher life frequent interchange of telepathic impressions with some of\nher friends. At the request of Mr. F. W. H. Myers, Miss X. and a friend\nD., also living in London, throughout the year 1888, with the exception\nof three months during which they were living in the same house,\nkept diaries in which any incident or feeling which might seem to be\ntelepathically connected with the other was recorded. The ladies during\na great part of the time saw each other constantly, and compared notes\nof their experience. In D.'s diary for the year there are thirty-five\nentries of the kind, of which twenty are believed to have been recorded\nbefore it was known whether or not there was any actual event to\ncorrespond with the impression. Of the twenty entries fourteen refer\nto hearing music played by Miss X., and two to reading books at, as D.\nbelieved, her telepathic instigation.\n\nThe entries in D.'s diary are given in italics. The degree of\ncorrespondence with the entries in Miss X.'s diary is indicated in the\nwords included between brackets.[66]\n\n (1) _Jan._ 6_th. Tried several books ... finally took to \"Villette.\"_\n\n\n (From Miss X.'s diary it appears that she willed D. to read _The\n Professor_, also by Charlotte Bront\u00eb.)\n\n (2) _Jan._ 23_rd. Sonnets, E.B.B._ 10.30 P.M.\n\n (In Miss X.'s diary, written at about 10 P.M., appears the entry,\n \"Sonnets viii.-ix., E.B.B.\")\n\n (3) _March_ 6_th. Hellers_, 7.30. (_i.e._, D. had an impression of\n hearing Miss X. playing. Miss X. states that she was actually\n playing Hellers at the time, but there is no note in her diary of\n the fact.)\n\n (4) _March_ 7_th. Beethoven waltzes_, 10. (Correct--recorded in X.'s\n diary after seeing D.'s entry.)\n\n (5) _March_ 8_th. No practice._ (_i.e._, X., contrary to her custom,\n was not playing at this hour: correct.)\n\n (6) _March_ 9_th. Music_ 7.30-8. (Correct.)\n\n (7) _March_ 10_th._ ?_Music_ 9.30-10 A.M. (Correct. Miss X. had told\n D. that she would be out at that hour, and had subsequently changed\n her plans, so that the music was unexpected to D., hence the note\n of interrogation.)\n\n (8) _March_ 13_th._ 7.40. _Music._ (Correct.)\n\n (9) _March_ 14_th._ 9.30 A.M. [Music.] _Evening of same day. Nothing\n but organs and bands, popular airs and Mikado_. ?_Flash of Henselt_\n 9 (P.M.)\n\n (10) _March_ 15_th._ 9-10. ?_Faint Henselt._ (Miss X. writes:--\"I\n remember that when D. showed me these entries I was specially\n interested. I was practising at the time some music of Henselt's\n she had never heard, and was playing this on all five occasions.\n D. notes it on the first three vaguely as 'Music,' something which\n she did not recognise. On the 14th I played it over to her, and\n afterwards she recognised it imperfectly. I was practising it for\n her, knowing she would like it, so that she was much in my mind at\n the time.\")\n\nThe following entries were made whilst D. and X. were in different and\ndistant counties:--\n\n (11) _August_ 15_th. Hellers_, 9.10-25. (Correct.)\n\n (12) _August_ 17_th. Slumber Song_, 7.35-50. (Correct. D. wrote of\n her two experiences, and X. read the letter aloud to her hostess,\n who remembered that X. had actually played the music named above at\n the time referred to.)\n\n (13) _September_ 14_th. Hall\u00e9_, 9 A.M. (Incorrect. X. was not\n playing.)\n\n (14) _November_ 18_th. Chopin Dead March_, _War March Athalie_,\n 7.15-8 P.M.\n\n (15) _November_ 25_th. Lieder_, 7.30.\n\n (16) _November_ 26_th. Lied, never gets finished._ 5.15-20.\n\n (Miss X. writes:--\"On each of the above three occasions D. asked\n me next day what I had played and found she was right. My playing\n of the Lied on November 26th was interrupted by the arrival\n of visitors, and the unfinished air naturally haunted me. D.\n writes:--On the day in question H. and I were together. I said\n to her that I could hear you [Miss X.] playing--a Lied we both\n associated with you--but that you never got beyond a certain part,\n which seemed to be repeated. H. replied, 'It is strange you should\n say that. I can't _hear_ her, but I have been seeing her at the\n piano for some minutes.' H. corroborates this.\")\n\nIt will thus be seen that in these 16 cases there were only two\ninstances (1 and 13) in which D.'s impression failed to correspond with\nthe facts. The remaining four entries (out of 20 recorded beforehand)\nrelate to impressions which also appear to have corresponded with the\nevent, but the degree of correspondence is more difficult to estimate.\n\nIn Miss X.'s own diary there are 55 entries during this period,\nof which 27 were made before the event was known. Of these 3 are\nfailures, and in two other cases it is doubtful whether the impression\nwas actually telepathic, or whether the coincidence should not be\nattributed to accident. In the other 22 cases of correspondence,\npresumably telepathic, Miss X. was sometimes the agent, sometimes the\npercipient. The impressions relate to events of various kinds, such as\nmeeting particular persons, receiving letters, and playing music. Of\nthe veridical impressions four were visual and one was a dream.[67]\n\n\nNo. 34.--From M. J. CH. ROUX.\n\nThe following record is taken from a paper by M. Jean Charles Roux,\nmedical student, published in the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_\n(vol. iii. pp. 202, 203). These experiments in thought-transference at\na distance were preceded by a series of fairly successful trials with\nplaying-cards at close quarters, and by some other experiments designed\nto test clairvoyance.\n\n_Third Series_: Experiments at a distance.\n\nLemaire is in his room, I in mine, with two rooms intervening. At an\nhour previously fixed on, I suggest a card to him.\n\n Date. Card thought of. Card guessed.\n\n (1) Mar. 15, 1892 4 hearts red, hearts; low number, five\n (2) \" 18, \" 10 hearts 3 diamonds\n (3) \" 27, \" 6 spades 6 clubs\n (4) \" \" \" Kg. diamonds Knave diamonds\n (5) \" \" \" ace diamonds 5 clubs\n (Agent had failed to concentrate his attention.)\n (6) \" \" \" Queen spades King spades\n (7) \" \" \" 4 clubs 6 clubs\n (8) Apr. 6, \" 3 clubs 5 clubs\n (9) \" \" 2 spades 2 spades\n\n_Fourth Series._\n\nThe account of the following six trials at a distance in space and\ntime, which are imperfectly recorded in the _Annales_, is taken from a\nletter received from M. Roux, dated the 19th December 1893:--\n\n (10) Paris, 2nd April.--Lemaire having gone out I drew a card from\n the pack, the 9 _Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. Then I\n wrote a note to the following effect: \"Guess the card that I am\n thinking of as I write these words,\" and left it on the table. A\n few minutes after Lemaire entered and guessed the 7 _Hearts_.\n\n (11) 3rd April.--Lemaire was out. I drew a card from the pack, the\n _ace Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. As on the previous\n day, I left a note on the table and went out immediately. When I\n came back at midnight I found a line from Lemaire saying he had\n guessed the _ace Hearts_.\n\n The four other experiments took place in a country town, at\n Chateauroux. We lived about 500 or 600 yards apart.\n\n (12) 13th April.--In the morning I saw Lemaire and said to him,\n \"At 2 o'clock you must guess a card that I shall suggest to you.\"\n I went home, and at a quarter to twelve I drew from the pack the\n 5 _Hearts_. I saw Lemaire again in the evening. He had guessed\n the 6 _Hearts_. He was walking in the street with a friend. At\n about two minutes to 2 P.M. he looked at his watch, remembered the\n experiment, and immediately the idea of _Hearts_ came to him. A few\n minutes later, when alone, he tried to guess the exact card, and\n decided on the 6 _Hearts_.\n\n (13) 13th April.--I said to Lemaire that on the 14th April, at 9\n A.M., he was to guess a card. After going home on the 13th April,\n at 10 P.M. I drew a card from the pack--4 _Clubs_. Next day, at 9\n A.M., Lemaire guessed 2 _Clubs_.\n\n (14) July 17th.--Lemaire was to guess a card at 9 o'clock. At 10\n minutes to 9, from my house, I tried to transfer the 4 _Spades_.\n (I have forgotten to make a note of whether I merely thought of\n this card or whether I drew it from a pack.) At 9 o'clock Lemaire\n guessed 5 _Spades_.\n\n (15) 30th July.--This experiment is more complicated but none the\n less interesting. On the 30th July, at 11 A.M., Lemaire was to\n guess a card which I had tried to suggest to him on the 26th July.\n This card was the _Knave Diamonds_. But he forgot to do it, and did\n not remember to guess the card till 7 P.M. on the 30th July. Now\n on this same day, the 30th July, from 6 to 6.30 P.M. I was myself\n engaged in guessing a card by clairvoyance, and after many attempts\n I decided on 7 _or_ 8 _Clubs_, and Lemaire, guessing the card at 7\n P.M., also decided upon 7 _Clubs_. So that I had suggested the card\n to him unconsciously.\n\nThus, omitting the last trial as of doubtful interpretation, we find\nthat in 14 trials the card was guessed correctly twice, the number\nalone once, and the suit alone nine times, or three times the probable\nnumber.\n\n\n_Transference of Visual Impressions._\n\nIn the four cases which follow the impression was of a well-marked\nvisual character; reaching, indeed, in the two last to the level of\nactual hallucination. It should be observed that in none of these four\ncases is the possibility of chance coincidence so entirely precluded\nas in many of the experiments at close quarters already cited. In the\nfirst of the cases recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (No. 40), and in some\nof Mr. Kirk's experiments (No. 37), the luminous patches seen by the\npercipients are not unlike rudimentary hallucinations of a sufficiently\ncommon type, and their resemblance in these instances to the objects\nactually looked at or thought of by the agents should not therefore\nbe pressed very far. In the other cases, however, the percipient\nreceived a well-marked impression of a definite object. But here\nthere is a flaw of another kind. The coincidences may have been due,\nas indeed Miss Campbell (No. 35) is careful to suggest, to a lucky\nshot on the part of the percipient at the object the agent would be\nlikely to choose. The very distinct nature of the impression produced\nin each case upon the percipient, as contrasted with the vague images\ncalled up, _e.g._ in Miss Campbell's case, by more or less conscious\nconjecture, is, however, against this interpretation; and the fact that\nin the first narrative the experiments quoted were the culmination of a\nsuccessful series of experiments at close quarters tells in favour of a\ntelepathic explanation for these also.\n\n\nNo. 35.--By MISS CAMPBELL and MISS DESPARD.\n\nA series of experiments in thought-transference at close quarters\nhad been carried on by the narrators at intervals from November 1891\nto October 1892. In sending the account of these experiments at a\ndistance, Miss Campbell explains that in the trial on October 25th,\n\"there was first an auditory impression, as if some one had said the\nword 'gloves,' and then the gloves themselves were visualised.\"\n\n (No. 1.) \"_June_ 22_nd_, 1892.\n\n \"Arranged that R. C. Despard should, when at the School of Medicine\n in Handel Street, W.C., between 11.50 and 11.55, fix her attention\n upon some object which C. M. Campbell, at 77 Chesterton Road, W.,\n is by thought-transference to discover.\"\n\n PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.\n\n \"Owing to an unexpected delay, instead of being quietly at home at\n 11.50 A.M., I was waiting for my train at Baker Street, and as just\n at that time trains were moving away from both platforms, and there\n was the usual bustle going on, I thought it hopeless to try on my\n part; but just while I was thinking this I felt a sort of mental\n pull-up, which made me feel sure that Miss Despard was fixing _her_\n attention, and directly after I felt 'my--compasses--no, scalpel,'\n seemed to see a flash of light as if on bright steel, and I thought\n of two scalpels, first with their points together, and then\n folding together into one; just then my train came up.\n\n \"I write this down before having seen Miss Despard, so am still in\n ignorance whether I am correct in my surmise, but as I know what\n Miss Despard would probably be doing at ten minutes to twelve,\n I feel that that knowledge may have suggested the thought to\n me--though this idea did not occur to me until just this minute, as\n I have written it down.\n\n \"C. M. CAMPBELL.\n\n \"77 Chesterton Road, W.\"\n\n AGENT'S ACCOUNT.\n\n \"At ten minutes to twelve I concentrated my mind on an object that\n happened to be in front of me at the time--two scalpels, crossed\n with their points together--but in about five minutes, as it\n occurred to me that the knowledge that I was then at the School of\n Medicine might suggest a similar idea to Miss Campbell, I tried to\n bring up a country scene, of a brook running through a field, with\n a patch of yellow marsh marigolds in the foreground. This second\n idea made no impression on Miss Campbell--perhaps owing to the\n bustle around her at the time.\n\n \"R. C. DESPARD.\"\n\n (No. 2.) \"_October_ 25_th_, 1892.\n\n \"At 3.30 P.M. R. C. Despard is to fix her attention on some object,\n and C. M. Campbell, being in a different part of London, is by\n thought-transference to find out what that object is.\"\n\n PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.\n\n \"At 3.30 I was at home at 77 Chesterton Road, North Kensington,\n alone in the room.\n\n \"First my attention seemed to flit from one object to another\n while nothing definite stood out, but soon I saw a pair of gloves,\n which became more distinct till they appeared as a pair of baggy\n tan-coloured kid gloves, certainly a size larger than worn by\n either R. C. D. or myself, and not quite like any of ours in\n colour. After this I saw a train going out of a station (I had just\n returned from seeing some one off at Victoria), almost immediately\n obliterated by a picture of a bridge over a small river, but I felt\n that I was consciously thinking and left off the experiment, being\n unable to clear my mind sufficiently of outside things.\"\n\n AGENT'S ACCOUNT.\n\n \"At 3.30 on October 25th I was at 30 Handel Street, Brunswick\n Square, W.C. C. M. C. and myself had arranged beforehand to make\n an experiment in thought-transference at that hour, I to try\n to transfer some object to her mind, the nature of which was\n entirely unspecified. I picked up a pair of rather old tan-coloured\n gloves--purposely not taking a pair of my own--and tried for about\n five minutes to concentrate my attention on them and the wish to\n transfer an impression of them to C. M. C.'s mind. After this I\n fixed my attention on a _window_, but felt my mind getting tired\n and therefore rather disturbed by the constant sound of omnibuses\n and waggons passing the open window.\n\n \"R. C. DESPARD.\n \"_October_ 25_th_, 1892.\"\n\nMiss Campbell writes later:--\n\n \"77 CHESTERTON ROAD, NORTH KENSINGTON, W.,\n _November_ 24_th_, 1892.\n\n \"With regard to the distant experiments, the notes sent to you were\n the only ones made. In the first experiment (scalpels) I wrote\n my account before Miss Despard's return, and when Miss Despard\n returned, before seeing what I had written [she] told me what she\n had thought of, and almost directly wrote it down.\n\n \"In the second experiment (gloves), I was just going to write\n my account when Miss Despard returned home, and she asked me at\n once, 'Well, what did I think of?' and I told her a pair of tan\n gloves--then sat down and wrote my account, and, when she read\n it through, she said, 'Yes, you have exactly described Miss M.'s\n gloves, which I was holding while I fixed my attention on them,'\n and then she wrote her account.\"\n\nThe next account is taken from the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,\nvol. iii. pp. 114-116. M. Hennique, the agent, had acted as agent in\nfour experiments at a distance with another percipient in the previous\nyear (_Annales_, vol. i. pp. 262-265). In the first the percipient saw\nvague lights, and finally a vase of flowers (very clear); the agent\nwas looking at a lamp covered by a transparent shade, with a vase of\nflowers painted on it. In the second the percipient again saw vague\nlights, and then a luminous sphere; the agent was looking at the lamp\nglobe placed on the table in full light. In the third, the percipient\nonly saw brilliant lights, like stars or jewels; the agent was looking\nat the word _Dieu_, in big letters. In the fourth the percipient,\nto his astonishment, saw _nothing_; the agent had willed him to\nsee nothing. In each case the percipient's impression was recorded\nin writing before any communication was received from the agent. In\nthe present case, it will be seen, the percipient received, not the\nimpression which the agent wished to transfer, but the image of another\nobject within the agent's field of vision, and which had entered his\nthoughts in connection with this very experiment.\n\n\nNo. 36.--From M. LEON HENNIQUE and M. D.\n\n \"On Friday, the 8th of July last, my friend Hennique and I made a\n further experiment in telepathy. Hennique was away from Paris, and\n separated from me by a distance of 171 kilom\u00e8tres. At midnight I\n wrote to Hennique the following letter:--\n\n \"'PARIS, _July_ 8_th_, 1892, _midnight_.\n\n \"'MY DEAR HENNIQUE,--A friend came unexpectedly to dinner. At\n 10.30, looking through the open window at the blue sky under the\n full moon, I thought all of a sudden of the experiment planned by\n us, of the telepathic meeting that we had fixed for eleven o'clock\n this evening, and my brain received at the same time the impression\n of a puppet. It seemed to me that you were trying to show me a\n little cardboard man fitted with strings to make his arms and legs\n move.\n\n \"'Reminded by this impression of my telepathic duty, I said\n good-night to my friend, and at eleven o'clock I waited, with my\n eyes closed, in the darkness of the dining-room. Nothing happened\n till twelve or fifteen minutes past eleven, when there appeared to\n me for an instant a small black silhouette, a Chinese shadow, as\n if you had cut out a little black figure and placed it in front\n of a light; for the round part, which seemed to be its head, was\n surrounded by a bluish halo. It was mostly this little black\n sphere--which I thought was a head--that I saw; the body I rather\n deduced than saw. 'D.'\n\n \"M. Hennique replied to me as follows:--\n\n \"'RIBEMONT (AISN\u00c9), _Sunday_, 10_th July_ 1892.\n\n \"'MY DEAR FRIEND,--It was a bottle full of water, surmounted by its\n cut-glass stopper, a large stopper, very bright, that served for\n our experiment. But the most curious part of the affair is that\n about four inches from the bottle there was actually hanging on the\n wall a nigger-doll, of the kind which you describe, belonging to\n my daughter. Was it reflected on the crystal? A mystery! For one\n second, but scarcely for a second, I had intended to telepathise\n the jumping-jack to you before choosing the water-bottle. It is\n certainly very odd!\n\n \"'LEON HENNIQUE.'\n\n \"M. Hennique added to this letter a water-colour drawing of the\n above-mentioned 'nigger-doll.' The head is a black circle, in which\n only the lips are red; the arms and legs are black; the chest is\n white, crossed with red; arms, thighs, and legs are jointed, and\n can be worked by a string.\n\n \"I wrote to my friend to ask him if, at 10.30--that is to say, at\n the moment when I had conceived of a jumping-jack, he had not,\n on his part, thought at the same moment, of the same object. He\n answered me:--\n\n \"'RIBEMONT, 14_th July_ 1892.\n\n \"'No; at 10.30 I was not thinking in the least of the jumping-jack;\n but, if I remember rightly, once or twice last year I wished to\n make use of it. It was only at the moment of choosing a simple\n object for the experiment that for an instant the idea of that\n little man came into my head; it was, you see, before beginning our\n experiment. This puppet was not four inches, but only two inches\n away from the water-bottle. There is something very curious in it,\n a physical or psychical effect, which I can't account for. The more\n so that this doll, _in cardboard mounted on strings_, is always\n fixed to the wall, above the table from which I am sending you my\n good wishes. It must have been about 9 o'clock, while tidying the\n before-mentioned table, that I had the idea of transmitting to you\n the image of the jumping-jack.\n\n \"'LEON HENNIQUE.'\"\n\n\nNo. 37.--By MR. JOSEPH KIRK and MISS G.\n\nDuring the year 1890 and onwards, Mr. Joseph Kirk, of 2 Ripon Villas,\nPlumstead, has carried on with a friend, Miss G., a series of\nexperiments in thought-transference at a distance varying from 400\nyards to about 200 miles. Some account of these experiments will be\nfound in the _Journal of the S.P.R._ for February and July 1891 and\nJanuary 1892. There are 22[68] trials in the transference of diagrams,\netc., there recorded. The object looked at by Mr. Kirk was generally\na square or oblong card, or a white disc with or without a picture,\ndiagram, or letter on it. The object was always illuminated by a strong\nlight.\n\nNotes of the experiments were in every case made independently in\nwriting by agent and percipient. In each case, with the exception\nof two occasions (on which Mr. Kirk's notes record his anticipation\nof failure), the percipient saw luminous appearances, often taking\nthe form of round or square patches of light, in correspondence\nwith the shape of the surface looked at by the agent. When Miss G.\nwas at Pembroke or Ilfracombe (Mr. Kirk remaining at Plumstead) the\ncorrespondence did not go beyond this; but in two or three cases,\nwhen Miss G. was also at Plumstead, at a distance of only 400 yards,\nthe percipient appears to have seen some details of the diagram on\nthe card, and in one instance a fairly accurate reproduction of the\ndiagram was given. Mr. Kirk on this occasion, 5th June 1891, was trying\nto impress three percipients--of whom Miss G. was one--and used three\ndiagrams, viz., a Maltese cross, a white oval plate with the figure 3\non it, and a full-sized drawing of a man's hand in black on white. Miss\nG.'s report is as follows:--\n\n \"5/6/91. Sat last night from 11.15 to 11.45. After a few minutes\n wavy clouds appeared [these are drawn as a group of roundish\n objects], followed by a pale bluish light very bright in centre.\n [This is drawn of an indefinite oval shape with roundish white spot\n in centre.] Near the end of experiment saw a larger luminous form,\n lasting only a moment but reappearing three or four times; it had\n lines or spikes about half an inch wide darting from it in varied\n positions.\"\n\nAppended are reproductions of Miss G.'s original drawings of her\nimpression, which bear, it will be seen, a marked likeness to a man's\nhand.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nIt should be added that Miss G. has not had any hallucinations of the\nkind except at times when Mr. Kirk was experimenting; and the amount\nof correspondence between her visions and the images which Mr. Kirk\nendeavoured to transfer would certainly seem beyond what chance could\nproduce.\n\n\nNo. 38.--By MR. KIRK and MISS G.\n\nA further series of seven trials with the same percipient in\nApril-June 1892 produced some interesting results. Full notes of the\nexperiments were, as in the previous cases, made by Mr. Kirk and Miss\nG. independently. Mr. Kirk wrote his notes immediately after the\nconclusion of the experiments, which were made late in the evening, at\na time previously agreed upon. Miss G., who was in the dark, and as a\nrule in bed, wrote her notes on the following morning before hearing\nfrom Mr. Kirk. No diagrams were used in this series, \"the object\nbeing,\" in Mr. Kirk's words, \"to test the possibility of influencing\nthe imagination, and inducing the percipient to visualise hallucinatory\nfigures of persons or animals thought of by the agent.\" Miss G. knew\nonly that diagrams would not be used. The distance between agent and\npercipient was about 400 yards.\n\nIn the first three trials (April 10th, 17th, and 24th, 1892) Mr. Kirk\npictured to himself some ducks in a room, a witch, and other figures.\nOn the 17th Miss G. saw at one time a small sunlike light, but with\nthis exception she had no impression at all on any of the three\noccasions.\n\nAt the fourth trial (1st May) Miss G. records the same night that she\nsaw \"a broken circle [Illustration], then only patches of faint light,\nnot cloudlike, but flat, which alternated with vertical streaks of pale\nlight.\" Afterwards, however, she had another vision, which she thus\nrecords on the following morning before meeting Mr. Kirk:--\n\n \"Soon after lying down last night, I had a rapid but most realistic\n glimpse of Mr. Kirk leaning against his dining-room mantelpiece;\n the room seemed brightly lighted, and he looked rather bothered,\n and just as I saw him he appeared to say, 'Doctor,[69] I haven't\n got my pipe.' This seems very absurd, the more so as I do not know\n whether Mr. Kirk ever smokes a pipe. I see him occasionally with\n a cigar or cigarette, but cannot remember ever seeing him with a\n pipe; if I have, it must have been years ago. I do not know whether\n my eyes were open or closed, but the vividness of the impression\n quite startled me. This occurred just after the expiration of time\n appointed for experiment (10.45-11.15).\"\n\nMr. Kirk reports in his account of the trial, written on the 1st May,\nthat he tried to transfer an image of himself, sitting on a low chair,\nand also the part of the room facing him in the light of the lamp. But\nafter seeing Miss G.'s report, he adds--\n\n \"The fact that I had another experiment to make [_i.e._, after the\n trial with Miss G.] enables me to trace minutely my actions before\n beginning it. Immediately the time had expired with Miss G., I got\n up and rapidly lit the gas and three pieces of candle, which I\n had ready in the cardboard box-cover, to illuminate the diagram.\n The room was therefore brilliantly lighted. I now rested with\n my right shoulder against the mantelpiece, with my face towards\n Miss G., but with my eyes bent on the carpet. In this position I\n thought intensely of myself and the whole room, and feeling really\n anxious to make a success, for at least six minutes. By this time\n my shoulder was aching very much with the constrained attitude\n and the pressure on the mantelpiece, and I broke off, using words\n (talking to myself) very similar to those given by Miss G. What I\n muttered, as nearly as I can remember, was, '_Now_, Doctor, I'll\n get my pipe.'... Until within the last few weeks I have not smoked\n a pipe for many years, and I do not think it probable that Miss G.\n has ever seen me use one; but it is an absolute certainty that she\n was not aware I had taken to smoke one recently.\"\n\nIn the fifth experiment of the series, made on the 9th May, the\nimpression which appears to have been transferred was fortunately\nrecorded beforehand. Mr. Kirk's report of that date, after describing\nan attempt to transfer an image of the room, and of an imaginary witch,\nruns as follows:--\n\n \"Continued to influence her some minutes after limit of time for\n experiment (11.30 P.M.). During this time I was much bothered by\n a subcurrent of thought, which I in vain strove to cast off. In\n the morning, just before time to get up, I had a vivid dream of\n my lost dog ('Laddie').[70] I dreamt he had returned, and that my\n wife, Miss G., and myself, made much of him. I thought of him all\n day, and tried to suppress the thought, fearing it would interfere\n with the success of experiment; feel worried and irritated at\n this, being really anxious to make an impression. Do not expect\n favourable result. Written same night. \"J. K.\"\n\nMiss G.'s report is as follows:--\n\n \"Experiment last night (9-5-92) most unsatisfactory. Saw only a\n glow of light and once for a few seconds a figure [of a vase].\n Some minutes after 11.30 (time for conclusion of experiment) it\n seemed as if the door of my room were open, and on the landing I\n saw a very large dog, moving as though it had just come upstairs.\n I cannot conceive what suggested this, nor can I understand why I\n thought of Laddie during time of experiment. I do not think we have\n mentioned him recently. My door was locked as usual. \"L. G.\"\n\nThe sixth experiment (15th May 1892) was, in the words of Mr. Kirk's\ncontemporary report, \"devoted to making hypnotic passes, done with\ngreat energy and concentration of mind. The passes were made, not only\nover Miss G.'s [imagined] face and arms, but specially over her hands,\"\nwith the view of inducing hypnotic sleep.\n\nMiss G. reports that she \"fell asleep before the time arranged had\nexpired. But it was only to awake again very soon, through dreaming I\nwas in a basement room ... making frantic efforts to strike a match,\nprevented doing so by some one behind clasping my wrists. The sensation\nwas so unpleasantly real that it awoke me.\" The time fixed for the\nexperiment had then passed. This was the only occasion in this series\non which Miss G. went to sleep during an experiment.\n\nIn the seventh experiment (5th June 1892) Mr. Kirk again made passes to\nsend Miss G. to sleep. Miss G., on her side, saw only something \"like\nthe varied but regular movements one sees in turning a kaleidoscope,\nonly without the colouring; it was simply luminous, and lasted more or\nless distinctly from 15 to 20 minutes.\" This impression may conceivably\nhave been due, as Mr. Kirk suggests, to the regular movements of his\nhands in making the hypnotic passes.\n\nIn estimating the value of the coincidences between Mr. Kirk's thought\nand Miss G.'s impressions in the fourth and fifth trials, it should not\nbe overlooked that the percipient's impressions were not vague images,\nsuch as are wont to crowd through our minds on the near approach of\nsleep, but clear-cut visions, approximating to visual hallucinations.\n\n\nNo. 39.--By MR. KIRK and MISS PRICKETT.\n\nMr. Kirk conducted another short series of experiments in March 1892,\nwith Miss L. M. Prickett, the distance between agent and percipient\nbeing about twelve miles. The results are given below. It is to be\nnoted that the percipient's impressions in this series seem generally\nto have been deferred. But in weighing the amount of correspondence\nbetween the diagrams and the percipient's reproductions, it should be\nobserved that of the four diagrams employed, three were reproduced\nwith substantial accuracy, and in their chronological order;\nand that even on the second and third evenings the percipient's\nimpressions--rectilinear figures inscribed in a circle--bore a general\nresemblance to the diagram actually selected. It is perhaps unfortunate\nthat three out of the four diagrams included circles or figures akin\nto circles, but as the percipient had not seen any of the diagrams\nbeforehand, this circumstance does not in any way invalidate the\nresults, though it weakens the argument against chance-coincidence.\n\n -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-\n No. of | Date and Hour. | Diagram looked at by |\n Experiment.| | Agent. |\n | | |\n -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-\n | | |\n { | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |\n { | 1st March, 1892. | |\n { | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | |\n 1 { | | |\n { |White circle with blue | |\n { | border, about 7 in. | |\n { | diam.--cross in | |\n { | centre blue. | |\n -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-\n { | Friday, |Agent did not experiment. |\n 2 { | 4th March, 1892. | Percipient sat, in ignorance |\n { | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | of agent's intentions. |\n | | |\n | | |\n | | |\n -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-\n { | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |\n 3 { | 8th March, 1892. | |\n { | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. | |\n | | |\n -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-\n\n [Note: table has been split]\n\n --------------------+--------------------------------------------+\n Impression received | Percipient's |\n by Percipient. | Remarks. |\n | |\n --------------------+--------------------------------------------+\n | \"No result whatever.\" |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n --------------------+--------------------------------------------+\n | Percipient wrote, \"Saw particularly |\n | one clear circle, at first all light, but |\n | after a little a dark centre, with a V, |\n | or triangle on it; * * * one or two |\n | flakes in the shape of bright crescents.\" |\n | Drew rough diagrams accordingly. |\n --------------------+--------------------------------------------+\n | Drew a figure like a capital E |\n | inscribed in a circle; also one other form|\n | with circular lines, \"all very |\n | indistinct.\" |\n --------------------+--------------------------------------------+\n\n -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-\n No. of | Date and Hour. | Diagram looked at by |\n Experiment.| | Agent. |\n -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-\n { | Friday | [Illustration] |\n { | 11th March, 1892. | |\n { | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. |Spots painted in blue on |\n { | | raised disc of whitening |\n { | | on white cardboard |\n 4 { | | about 14\" x 12\". |\n { | | |\n { | | |\n { | | |\n { | | |\n -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-\n { | Tuesday, | [Illustration] |\n { | 15th March, 1892. | |\n { | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. |In blue on white, about |\n { | | 4-1/2\" in longer diam. |\n 5 { | | |\n { | | [Illustration] |\n { | | |\n { | |In blue on white about |\n { | | 4\" high. |\n -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-\n { | Friday, | Was unable to experiment. |\n { | 18th March, 1892. | |\n 6 { | 10:30 to 11.0 P.M. | |\n { | | |\n { | | |\n { | | |\n -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-\n\n [Note: table has been split]\n\n ----------------+------------------------------------------------+\n Impression | |\n received | Percipient's Remarks. |\n by Percipient. | |\n ----------------+------------------------------------------------+\n [Illustration] |Drew first _a_, then _b_; \"then |\n | several times I saw your eyes, and that |\n | was all.\" Later on percipient sent |\n | diagram _c_. \"These spots represent |\n | what I called in my letter your |\n | eyes; but two, for there appeared |\n | more.\" [_b_, it will be observed, is a |\n | reproduction of the diagram looked |\n | at by the agent on the 1st and 8th |\n | March.] |\n ------------------+----------------------------------------------+\n |Was unable to sit. |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n | |\n ----------------+------------------------------------------------+\n [Illustration] |\"Knowing you were not sitting, I |\n | tried to reproduce what you intended |\n | on Tuesday [15th inst.], with |\n | the result shown here.\" [The first |\n | figure, it will be seen, is a partial |\n | reproduction of 8.] |\n ----------------+------------------------------------------------+\n\nMr. Kirk has conducted several other series of experiments in the\ntransfer of diagrams and ideas and in the induction of hypnotic sleep\nat a distance, with Miss G., Miss Porter, of 16 Russell Square, Mr. F.\nW. Hayes, and others. In one case the percipient was at Cambridge, a\ndistance of more than fifty miles from Plumstead. The results in nearly\nall these cases raise a certain presumption of thought-transference,\nthough the presumption is in most cases--owing partly to the conditions\nof the experiments--not so strong as in the two series last quoted. It\nis to be remarked that the series of experiments between Plumstead and\nCambridge were perhaps the least successful of any, a result which may\nperhaps be attributed partly to the distance, partly to the fact that\nthe agent and percipient were not personally acquainted.\n\nIt should be recorded that Mr. Kirk is strongly of opinion, as the\nresult of a careful analysis of the experiments conducted by him,\nthat telepathy, in these cases at any rate, operates as a rule\nsubconsciously, and that we ought to be prepared to find the most\nstriking proofs of its action in such undesigned coincidences as are\nquoted in Nos. 4 and 5 of the second series with Miss G.\n\n\nNo. 40.--From DR. GIBOTTEAU.\n\nDr. Gibotteau, in the year 1888, made the acquaintance, at a _cr\u00e8che_\nin connection with a Paris hospital, of a peasant woman named Bertha\nJ. Bertha was a good hypnotic, and Dr. Gibotteau succeeded on many\noccasions in inducing sleep at a distance. But Bertha claimed also to\nhave the power of influencing others telepathically--a power which in\nher case seems to have been hereditary, as her mother had a reputation\nfor sorcery. Bertha professed to be able, by the exercise of her will,\nto cause persons to stumble, or to lose their way, or to prevent them\nfrom proceeding in any given direction. She gave Dr. Gibotteau several\nillustrations of these powers, and he believes her pretensions to be\nwell founded (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 253-267,\nand pp. 317-337). The following instances of hallucinatory effects of a\nmore ordinary kind are taken from the same paper. In the last case, it\nwill be observed, the experience was collective. In none of the three\ncases were the percipients aware of Bertha's intention to experiment.\nIt will be seen that in the second case she succeeded in producing the\nemotional effect desired, though the imaginary object by which she\nintended to inspire terror was hardly of a kind calculated to frighten\na hospital surgeon. Dr. Gibotteau writes:--\n\n \"I am a good sleeper, and I do not remember ever waking of my\n own accord in the middle of my sleep. One night, about 2 or 3\n o'clock, I was abruptly awoke. With my eyes still shut I thought,\n 'This is one of B.'s tricks. What is she going to make me see?' I\n then looked at the opposite wall; I saw a circular luminous spot,\n and in the centre a brilliant object, about the size of a melon,\n that I stared at for several seconds, being wide awake, before it\n disappeared. I could not distinguish any form clearly, nor any\n detail, but the object was round, and parts of it appeared to be\n less luminous. I imagined that she had wished to show me a skull,\n but I could not recognise it; the wall was lighted up in that\n place as if by a strong lamp; the room was not completely dark,\n because the window had outside blinds, and the curtains were drawn\n back; but this brilliant object did not seem to give out any light\n beyond the area of which it occupied the centre on the wall. That\n was all. I waited a moment without seeing anything else, then I\n went fast asleep again. The next day I found Bertha, who had come\n to visit the hospital, and I questioned her cautiously. She had\n tried to show me first of all some dogs round my bed, then some\n men quarrelling, and finally a lantern. That was all. It will be\n seen that though the first two attempts failed, the third succeeded\n perfectly.\n\n \"After that, Bertha very often tried to hallucinate me; but I have\n never either seen or heard anything.\n\n \"I was more sensible to transmissions of a vague and general\n character. I have written elsewhere of illusions of the sense of\n space: I had a complete illusion of this kind, and P. a very\n curious commencement of an hallucination. I have also described the\n causeless terror that Bertha could inspire.\n\n \"Here is another account of a fright. One evening I was entering my\n house, at midnight. On the landing, as I was putting my hand on the\n door-handle, I said to myself, 'What a nuisance! here is another of\n B.'s tricks! She is going to make me see something terrifying in\n the passage; it is very disagreeable.' I was really a bit nervous.\n I opened the door suddenly, with my eyes shut, and seized a match;\n in a few minutes I was in bed, and, blowing out my candle, I put\n my head under the bed-clothes, like a child. The next day Bertha\n asked me if I had not seen a skeleton in the passage or in my\n room, and been very much frightened. It need hardly be said that a\n skeleton was the last thing in the world that could frighten me;\n and frankly, I think that I am not more of a coward than the common\n run of men.\"\n\nOn another occasion Dr. Gibotteau was in the company of a friend, M. P.\nThey had just parted from Bertha.\n\n \"After having deposited B. near her home, we went back to the\n Latin Quarter with the carriage. On reaching the Rue de Vaugirard,\n before the gate of the Luxembourg, I felt myself seized by a terror\n intense as it was absurd. The street was admirably lighted, there\n was not a single passer-by, and the Quarter at that hour (just\n about midnight) is perfectly safe. Moreover, this fright did not\n seem to depend on any cause. It was fear just for fear. 'It is\n absurd,' said I, 'I am frightened, very much frightened; it is\n certainly a trick of B.'s.' My friend laughed at me, and almost\n immediately, 'Why, it is taking hold of me also. I am trembling\n with fear. It is very disagreeable.' The impression lasted until we\n were in front of the gate of the Luxembourg Palace; we got out of\n the carriage at the corner of the Rue Soufflot and the Boulevard\n Saint-Michel. As soon as we set foot on the ground: 'Look,' said\n P., 'don't you see something white floating in the air, there, just\n in front of our eyes; it has gone.' I saw nothing, but I felt very\n strongly the _influence_ of B.\n\n \"The next day I met her at the hospital. 'Well! you saw nothing?'\n I begged her to tell me what we ought to have seen. This was her\n answer: 'First, your driver lost his way--oh! not you, you felt\n nothing; he took you by all sorts of queer ways.' It is a fact\n that our carriage, from the Rue de Babylone, had gone by a very\n complicated way, and one which, at the time, did not seem to me the\n right one, but I should not like to say anything definite about it.\n 'After that you were frightened.' (Which of us?) 'You at first,\n M. P. afterwards. Oh, yes! afraid of nothing at all, without any\n reason, but you were very frightened. Then you saw some white\n pigeons flying round you, quite near.' I had never heard her speak\n of this hallucination. As to the fright, that subject was familiar\n to her, and she has frightened me several times, deliberately, as I\n have related.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 57: An experiment of another kind, the description of which\nis here omitted, had been made on the morning of this day.]\n\n[Footnote 58: An account of these experiments is also contained in an\narticle by M. Richet in the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_ for February 1888.]\n\n[Footnote 59: M. Richet also took part in these two experiments.]\n\n[Footnote 60: It is not stated whether the hour of the experiment was\nchosen by lot, but this precaution was taken in many of the earlier\nexperiments.]\n\n[Footnote 61: An account of these experiments was also contributed by\nM. Richet to the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_, Feb. 1888.]\n\n[Footnote 62: _Revue Philosophique_, February and April 1886. A\ntranslation of these accounts is given in the _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.\npp. 222, 223.]\n\n[Footnote 63: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 257-267.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Dr. Latour's brother, house-surgeon at the hospital.]\n\n[Footnote 65: See No. 23, chap. iv.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Miss X.'s notes have been in some cases slightly\nabbreviated, in order to save space. Full details of the experiments\nwill be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 377-397.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Miss X. kindly submitted her diaries for inspection to\nMrs. Sidgwick, who has carefully examined them.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Excluding two in which the distance was only a few yards.]\n\n[Footnote 69: A familiar name given to Miss G. by Mr. and Mrs. Kirk.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Mr. Kirk explains later that this dog had been lost six\nyears before. They had all been much attached to him, and his loss was\nstill an occasional topic of conversation and of dreams by Mr. Kirk.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nGENERAL CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.\n\n\nIf the reader has been able to accept my estimate of the evidence\nbrought forward in the preceding chapters, the possibility of the\ntransmission of ideas and sensations, otherwise than through the known\nchannels of the senses, must be held to be proved by the experiments\nthere recorded. That proof can be impugned only on the ground that the\nprecautions taken against communication between agent and percipient\nby normal means were insufficient. For if the precautions are admitted\nto have been sufficient, there can be no question that the results\nwere not due to chance. It is not necessary here to enter into nice\ncalculations of the probabilities. If, for instance, the odds in favour\nof some other cause than chance for the results recorded on pp. 66-69\nwere to be expressed in figures, the total sum would compete with or\noutstrip the stupendous ciphers employed by the astronomer to denote\nthe distance of Sirius, or the weight of the Sun. But the kind of\nevidence now to be considered--the coincidence of some spontaneous\naffection of the percipient with some event in the life-history of the\nperson presumed to be the agent, as when one sees the apparition of a\nfriend at the time of his death--is of inferior cogency in two ways.\nThe coincidences are neither so numerous nor so exact; and the risk\nof error in the record is far greater. On the one hand, therefore,\nthere is a greater probability that the percipient's affection,\neven if correctly described, was unconnected with the state of the\nperson supposed to be the agent; on the other hand we have, in most\ncases, less assurance that the description given of his experience\nis in its essential features accurate. The part played by coincident\nhallucination in the question of telepathy may be illustrated from\nanother branch of scientific inquiry. For some years the \"Germ\nTheory\" rested mainly on observations of the distribution of certain\ndiseases, their periodic character and their mode of propagation and\ndevelopment; phenomena which, though sufficiently striking, are not in\nthemselves susceptible of exact interpretation. It was not until the\nminute organisms, whose existence had been so long suspected, had been\nactually isolated in the laboratory, and had been proved capable of\nreproducing the disease, that the connection of certain maladies with\nthe presence of certain microbes in the body became, from a plausible\nhypothesis, an accepted conclusion of Science. So here it is important\nto bear in mind that dreams, visions, and apparitions, however\ncaptivating to the imagination, do not form the main argument for\nbelieving in some new mode of communication between human minds. If all\nthe cases of the kind hitherto recorded could be shown one by one to be\nexplicable by more familiar causes,--though the result would indeed be\nto add a remarkable chapter to the history of human error; though it\nwould be a singular paradox that so many intelligent witnesses should\nhave been so mistaken, and with such undesigned unanimity; and that\na whole class of alleged phenomena should have sprung up without any\nsubstantial basis,--the grounds for the belief in telepathy would not\nbe seriously affected; we should merely have to modify our conceptions\nof its nature, and restrict its boundaries. But in fact there is no\nreason to anticipate so lame a conclusion. The incidents, of which\nexamples will be adduced in the succeeding chapters, though their value\nwill be differently estimated by different minds, are yet in their\naggregate not such as can plausibly be attributed to misrepresentation\nor chance coincidence. And, first, it is important to note that the\ncases must be considered in the aggregate. Separately, no doubt, each\nparticular case is susceptible of more or less adequate explanation by\nsome well-known cause; and in the last resort it would be unreasonable\nto stake the credit of any single witness, however eminent, against\nwhat Hume would call the uniform experience of mankind. But as a\nmatter of fact the experience of mankind is not uniform in this\nmatter; and when we are forced by the mere accumulation of testimony\nto go on adding one strained and improbable explanation to another,\nand to assume at last an epidemic of misrepresentation, perhaps even\nan organised conspiracy of falsehood, a point is at length reached\nin which the sum of improbabilities involved in the negation of\nthought-transference must outweigh the single improbability of a new\nmode of mental affection. If to any reader that point should seem not\nyet to have been reached--and the position could scarcely be held an\nunreasonable one--I would remind him that the cases quoted in this\nbook form but a small part of the evidence so far accumulated; and I\nwould ask that he should reserve his judgment until he has studied\nthe whole of the evidence recorded in _Phantasms of the Living_, in\nthe _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research, the\nscattered cases appearing from time to time in the pages of various\nEnglish and Continental periodicals dealing with this subject, and\nthe ever-growing mass of testimony printed in the _Proceedings_ and\n_Journal_ of the Society for Psychical Research in this country.[71] He\nwill then perhaps be prepared to endorse the verdict of a shrewd and\ngenial critic on the evidence presented in _Phantasms of the Living_,\nviz., that it \"can only be rejected as a whole by one who is prepared\nto repeat at his leisure what David is reported to have said in his\nhaste.\"[72]\n\nIt is of course not possible with our present knowledge to estimate\nwith any precision the probabilities for the coincidence by chance of\nsuch a vision as that recorded by Dr. Dupr\u00e9 (No. 47), or such a dream\nas Mr. Hamilton's (No. 58), with the event represented. Neither the\nnature of the percipient's impression in these and similar cases, nor\nthe event to which the impression corresponds, are sufficiently well\ndefined to admit of any numerical argument being based upon them. We\ncan only recognise that whilst dreams and mind's-eye pictures are not\nvery uncommon experiences, dreams and visions which faithfully reflect\nexternal events of an unlikely kind occur, if rarely, with sufficient\nfrequency to give us pause. The common sense which in such cases leads\nus to infer a connection between the event and the corresponding\nmental experience is our only guide. But one large class of our\nspontaneous evidences is susceptible of more exact treatment. Sensory\nhallucinations are affections at once well marked and unusual. If we\ncan ascertain their relative frequency it is possible to calculate with\nmore or less exactness the probabilities of the coincidence by chance\nwith some definite event. Such a calculation has been attempted in\nChapter IX. with regard to hallucinations of a certain well-defined\ntype coinciding with the death of the person represented. The\nconclusion there reached is that such coincidences are far too numerous\nto be ascribed to chance. This part of the evidence cannot therefore be\nsummarily dismissed, as suggested by more than one recent critic, on\nthe plea that hallucinations which coincide with a death may be set off\nagainst hallucinations which occur without any coincidence, and both\nalike be regarded as purely subjective and without significance. Our\nown estimate of the probabilities is, of course, provisional, and may\nultimately prove to be wide of the mark. But, meanwhile, it is at least\nproof against assault by conjectural statistics or the _obiter dicta_\nof amateur psychologists.\n\nBut in fact the criticism commonly made is not that, happening as\ndescribed, visions and hallucinations happened by chance; but that\nthey did not happen as described. This objection deserves careful\nconsideration. It must, I think, be admitted that a proportion, perhaps\na large proportion, even of the cases obtained at first-hand are so\nfar inaccurate as to have comparatively small value for scientific\npurposes; and of the residue, in which the central fact of an unusual\nsubjective experience on the part of the percipient and its coincidence\nwith some external event is fairly well established, it is possible\nthat the details are frequently--and where the record is not made\nuntil some years after the event, generally--untrustworthy. In order\nto estimate the nature and probable extent of these defects, it is\nproposed briefly to pass in review the various kinds of error to which\ntestimony is liable, and to note their bearings on the question at\nissue.\n\n\n_Errors of Observation._\n\nErrors of observation are here of very little importance. The thing\nto be observed is, of course, the percipient's own sensations. In\nsubsequent conversation he may exaggerate the exceptional nature of the\nimpression; but he can hardly make a mistake at the time in observing\nwhat is purely subjective. If a man calls green what we call red, we\nmay conclude that he is colour-blind; and if he asserts that he sees\na human figure where we see none, that he is hallucinated; but in\nneither case have we warrant for saying that he is making an erroneous\nstatement about his own sensations.\n\n\n_Errors of Inference._\n\nBut his interpretation of what he sees is a different matter. Not\nindeed that the mistake commonly made of taking a hallucination at\nthe time for a figure of flesh and blood, and subsequently for a\nhypothetical entity of another kind, directly affects the percipient's\ntestimony. So long as the witness accurately describes what he saw, it\nmatters little whether he believes in telepathic hallucinations, or in\nblack magic, ghosts, or the Himalayan Brothers. But there are one or\ntwo errors of inference of sufficient importance to deserve notice.\n\nA real figure seen under exceptional circumstances may at the time or\nin the light of subsequent events be regarded as a hallucination. Such\na mistake is, as a rule, possible only out of doors; and the commonest\nform of it is when a figure is seen by the percipient resembling some\nfriend believed to be at a distance, or in circumstances which make it\ndifficult to suppose that the figure was of flesh and blood. A curious\ninstance came under my notice recently. It was reported to me that\na lady had seen in a certain provincial town the ghost of a friend\nat about the time of her death. The figure, accompanied by another\nfigure, was seen in broad daylight at a distance of a few feet only;\nit was clearly recognised, and the proof of its non-reality lay in\nthe complete absence of recognition in return. It was subsequently\nascertained that the friend in question had actually been present in\nthe flesh, with a companion, at the spot where the figures were seen,\nbut that for sufficient reasons she desired to avoid recognition. Her\ndeath within a few days of the encounter was merely an odd coincidence.\n\nAnother kind of erroneous inference is worth noting. Cases are not\ninfrequently quoted, as presumably telepathic, of a dream or vision\nembodying information demonstrably not within the conscious knowledge\nof the percipient. The inference that he cannot have obtained the\ninformation by normal means is clearly unsound, unless it can be shown\nthat it was impossible for the information to have been received\nunconsciously. For it is well established that intelligence, even\nof events closely affecting the percipient, may enter through the\nexternal organs of sense and lie latent for days before emerging\ninto consciousness. It is obvious that, for instance, many of the\ncases quoted in which an invalid became aware of news (_e.g._, of the\ndeath of a relative) which had been studiously withheld from him by\nthose around may be thus explained. Whispers heard in sleep, or hints\nunconsciously received, may have betrayed the secret.[73]\n\n\n_Errors of Narration._\n\nOf much greater importance than errors of observation or inference\nare those due to defects either in narration or memory. Deliberate\ndeception amongst educated persons is no doubt comparatively rare,\nthough it would perhaps be unwise to hold out any pecuniary inducement\nfor the production of evidence. But there are those, like Colonel\nCapadose in Mr. Henry James' story _The Liar_, who tell ghost stories\nfor art's sake, and on a slender basis of fact build up a large\nsuperstructure of fiction. And there are many more who, with a natural\nand almost pardonable desire to appear as the hero, or at least the\n_raconteur_, of a good story, or from the mere love of the marvellous,\nallow themselves to exaggerate the coincidences, adjust the dates,\nelaborate the details, or otherwise improve the too bare facts of an\nactual experience. This kind of embellishment, however, is probably\nmore frequent in second-hand accounts, where the narrator speaks with\nless sense of responsibility, and, it may be added, of reality.\n\nAgain, a common form of inaccuracy is to quote as the experience of a\nfriend one of those weird stories which are passed on from mouth to\nmouth in ordinary society--the inconvertible currency of psychical\nresearch. We all know these old friends--at a distance, for no one has\never succeeded in making their nearer acquaintance. There is the ghost\nat No. 50 B---- Square; the driver of the dream-hearse, recognised a\nyear later in a lift, which fell straightway, with all its passengers,\nto the bottom of the hotel; the Form which accompanies the priest,\nor Quaker, or godly merchant to save him from robbery on his lonely\nnocturnal journeyings; the young lady who took part in some _tableaux\nvivants_ whilst her body was lying cold in death--and all the rest of\nthe phantom throng. Only a few months ago I heard one of them--it was\nthe ghost of the lift--from the son of a doctor, who assured me that\nthe incident occurred to one of his father's patients, and gave me the\nname of the foreign hotel which had been the scene of the disaster.[74]\n\n\nSometimes a story is improved by the narrator that it may the better\nserve for instruction and edification. This tendency is especially\nliable to distort the evidence in cases connected with death. It must\nbe remembered that though we may view a coincident hallucination, for\ninstance, as merely an instance of an idea transferred from a _living_\nmind, to the percipient it frequently represents the spirit of the\ndead. From a certain class of witnesses the account of such an incident\nis as little to be trusted as the text of an apocryphal gospel. It\ninevitably becomes a _Tendenz-schrift_, which reflects not the facts as\nthey occurred, but the narrator's conception of what the facts ought to\nhave been.\n\nIt is not necessary to dwell on these sources of error, for they are\nprobably apparent to all; and to give illustrative cases would be\nsuperfluous, and perhaps invidious. But it is important to observe\nthat stories so improved, whether from a desire to reinforce some\ntheological tenet, or from the mere love of sensation, are apt to\nbetray their origin in many different ways. Narrators of this kind\nrarely content themselves with the finer touches; the added ornaments\nare apt to be gross and palpable; the \"spirit\" will be made to speak\nwords of warning or comfort; to intimate his testamentary dispositions;\nor even--in somewhat bolder flight of fancy--to leave a solid memento\nbehind him. Now the authentic phantom is seldom either dramatic or\nedifying.\n\n\n_Errors of Memory._\n\nMore insidious and more difficult to guard against are errors of\nmemory. There is a natural and almost inevitable tendency to dramatic\nunity and completeness which leads to the unconscious suppression of\nsome details, and the insertion of others. Probably of all errors due\nto this cause a nice adjustment of the dates is the commonest. In\nperhaps the majority of second-hand cases, and in some of the more\nremote first-hand narratives, the coincidence is said to be exact to\nthe minute. \"_At that very moment my friend passed away_\" is a common\nphrase. As a matter of fact, in the best attested recent cases it can\nrarely be shown that the coincidence is precise, and the impression\nfrequently follows the death by some hours. But there is risk also\nof the actual transformation of the experience itself. A dream after\nthe lapse of years will be recalled as a hallucination,[75] a vague\nfeeling of discomfort as a vivid emotion, or even a mental vision; a\nhallucination not recognised at the moment will in the retrospect seem\nto have been identified with some person who died at about that time;\nand details, such as clothes worn or words spoken by the phantom, will\nbe borrowed from later knowledge and read back into the image preserved\nin the memory. There will further be a gradual simplifying and rounding\noff of the incident, a deepening of the main lines, and a suppression\nof what is not obviously relevant or coherent. With many persons\nthere can be no doubt that this process is almost, if not wholly,\nunconscious; and it need hardly be said that in that very fact lies the\nspecial danger against which we have to guard.[76]\n\nAs an instance of the gradual approximation of dates, I may cite a\ncase recorded in the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 401,\n527). The narrator wrote to Dr. Hodgson:--\"I once dreamed that W. T.\nH. was dead; and the same night he was thrown down several feet on\nto an engine, ... when he was taken up it was thought he was dead.\"\nFrom later inquiries it was ascertained that the accident did indeed\noccur as alleged--but a week or ten days after the dream![77] As an\nillustration of a different kind of metamorphosis, a case may be given\nwhich I recently received from a lady and her daughter--an account of\na \"ghost\" seen twenty-five years ago by the latter and her nurse. The\nyounger lady described to me the figure seen; the mother told me that\nshe had received a similar description from both nurse and daughter at\nthe time of the incident. Both ladies were clear-headed and sensible\nwitnesses, and it was impossible to doubt that they believed what\nthey said. But in her childish diary, which the younger lady kindly\nunearthed for my inspection, the only entry referring to the matter--an\nentry written in pencil and obviously as an afterthought--ran: \"Ellen\nsaw a ghost.\" If the diarist had herself shared the experience, it\nis difficult to believe that even the modesty natural to her age and\nsex would have withheld her from recording the fact for her private\nglorification.\n\nIt would be easy to multiply cases of this kind. But those who\ndemand most proof of the action of telepathy will probably be least\nexacting of evidence for the untrustworthiness of ancient memories.\nAs a matter of fact, we have the evidence of statistics to show that\nthe imagination does tend after a certain lapse of time to magnify\ncoincidences in matters of this kind, and even to invent coincidences\nwhere none existed. It will be shown in Chapter IX., in the discussion\non the results obtained from an inquiry into the distribution of\nsensory hallucinations, that whereas non-coincidental hallucinations\ntend to be forgotten after the passing of a few years, the records of\ncoincidental hallucinations--or at least of those which are alleged to\nhave coincided with the death of the person seen--are proportionately\nmore frequent ten years ago than at the present time, the inference\nbeing that a certain number of coincidences have been unconsciously\nimproved or invented in the interval.\n\n\n_Pseudo-presentiment._\n\nIn a letter published in _Mind_ (April 1888) Professor Royce,\nof Harvard, U.S.A., hazarded a hypothesis that there may occur\n\"instantaneous and irresistible hallucinations of memory which make\nit seem to one that something which now excites or astonishes him\nhas been prefigured in a recent dream, or in the form of some other\nwarning.\" In support of that hypothesis Professor Royce appeals to\nthe analogy of the well-known cases of double memory,--the impression\nof having at some previous time looked on a scene now present, or\nheard a conversation now taking place; and to two or three instances\nof undoubted hallucination of memory amongst the insane, recorded by\nKrafft-Ebing and Kraepelin. As regards the latter, it is sufficient\nto remark that the hallucinations occurred to persons whose minds\nwere admittedly diseased; that the hallucinations themselves were\napparently slow of growth, whereas the hypothesis requires that they\nshould be more or less instantaneous; and that in other respects they\ndo not present by any means a perfect parallel to the presumably\ntelepathic cases with which he compares them. In default, therefore,\nof more precise analogies, the hypothesis of pseudo-presentiment must\nbe regarded as, at best, a plausible guess. And even if it were fully\nsubstantiated it would only, as pointed out by Mr. Gurney (_Mind_,\nJuly 1888), apply to certain classes of telepathic cases, and those\nthe weakest from the evidential standpoint. At most the theory would\naccount for dreams and indefinite impressions of various kinds not\nmentioned beforehand. In some cases of this kind, and in a large class\nof so-called \"prophetic\" dreams, I am inclined to regard Mr. Royce's\nexplanation as possibly true, in the modified form suggested by Dr.\nHodgson (_Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 540 _et seq._)--_i.e._, if it\nis restricted to cases where there is a vague memory of some actual\ndream or other impression, bearing a more or less remote resemblance\nto the event; in other words, if we assume an illusion rather than a\nhallucination of memory. But it need hardly be said that no serious\ninvestigator would treat the uncorroborated accounts of dreams and\nvague feelings of this kind as evidence for anything whatever. To\nextend the hypothesis, as Professor Royce suggests, to cases where\nthere is evidence that the percipient's experience was mentioned\nbeforehand, is to suppose not one kind of pseudo-memory, but two,--a\npseudo-memory on the part of the percipient that he has had a certain\nsubjective experience, and a pseudo-memory on the part of some other\nperson that this experience was mentioned to him before the news of the\nevent to which it related. In recent cases, at any rate, the assumption\nof a double mistake of this kind seems unwarranted.[78] And to apply\nthis explanation to cases of actual sense-hallucination involves even\nmore violent improbabilities. It would require far more evidence than\nProfessor Royce can offer to make it credible that a man on hearing of\nthe death of a friend should straightway be capable of imagining that\nat a definite hour and in a particular place he had seen an apparition\nof that friend, when in fact he had had no experience of the kind. It\nis remarkable that Mr. Royce does not himself appear to have realised\nthe distinction between the two kinds of impressions.\n\n\n_Precautions against Error._\n\nWe have now to consider by what methods the various defects incident to\ntestimony on these matters may be best eliminated. As the evidence upon\nwhich reliance is placed will be illustrated by the examples quoted\nhereafter, it will not be necessary to dwell at length here upon the\nprecautions taken. The testimony at first-hand of the actual witnesses,\nit need hardly be said, is to be desired in any investigation; but in\nthe case of phenomena which are at once stimulating to the imagination,\nand, as being novel, have no recognised standard of probability by\nwhich narrator or auditor can check deviations from the truth, no\nother evidence is worthy of consideration.[79] It will be seen that in\nall the cases here quoted the witness, or one of the witnesses, has\nfurnished an account of his experience written by himself;[80] and\nit is worth noting that the very act of writing such an account to\nserve the purpose of a systematic inquiry is calculated to inspire the\npercipient with a sense of responsibility, and to lead him to weigh his\nwords with precision. I may add that by the courtesy of our informants\nwe have in most cases been enabled to question them orally on the\ndetails of their experience.[81]\n\nBut, for reasons already given, no case should be suffered to rest\nupon a single memory. It is of the highest importance, therefore, to\nobtain the corroborative testimony of persons who were cognisant of\nthe occurrence of the impression before the news of the corresponding\nevent. When this is not to be obtained, evidence of some unusual\naction on the part of the percipient, such as the taking of a journey,\nor the putting on of mourning, may be accepted as collateral proof\nof the reality of his impression. But, as we have already seen, the\nevidence of the attesting witnesses is liable to the same errors which\naffect the testimony of the percipient; and the evidence most to be\ndesired is of a kind exempt from these weaknesses--that of a letter\nor memorandum written before the news. In a large proportion of the\nnarratives dealt with, it is asserted that such a letter was written,\nor such a memorandum made. Unfortunately, this alleged documentary\nevidence is rarely forthcoming. It is possible that in some cases this\nstatement is merely a conventional dramatic tag,--an addition made\nunconsciously and in perfect good faith to round off the story.[82]\nIt cannot, however, I think, be regarded as surprising either that\na letter or note was not written at the time, or that, if written,\nit should not have been preserved. Sensory hallucinations--to take\nthe most striking instance--though unusual are not extremely rare\nexperiences; most educated persons are perfectly familiar with the\nfact of their occurrence and regard them (in most cases rightly) as\npurely subjective, the products of some transient cerebral disturbance,\nas little worthy of record as a headache or a bilious attack. Often,\nprobably, the telepathic hallucination is indistinguishable from the\nmass of purely subjective experiences of the same kind; and even should\nit be recognised at the time as exceptional, the want of leisure, the\nfear of ridicule, even the dislike of seeming to admit to himself the\npossibility of his experience having a sinister significance, would\nprobably deter the percipient from writing about it.[83] It is much\nmore likely that he would speak of it to an intimate friend, should\nopportunity occur. And when in the rare conjunction of an exceptional\nexperience, adequate leisure, and a sympathetic correspondent, or the\nhabit of writing a diary, the letter is actually written or the note\nmade, the chances which militate against its preservation are many.\nFew persons will take a general and impersonal (in other words, a\nscientific) interest in occurrences of this kind. Their own isolated\nexperience may possess a deep and abiding interest for themselves,\nand, less certainly, for their friends; an interest, however, which is\nquite compatible with the treatment of the attesting record as waste\npaper. But unless it can be used to illustrate or support a theory of\na future life, they seldom regard a \"ghost story\" as having any value\nother than that derived from the personal environment. It appears,\nindeed, to possess for most little more significance than the recital\nof an extraordinary run of luck at cards, or a fortunate escape from a\nrailway accident, between which it is commonly sandwiched. Again, few\npersons realise the high value of contemporary documentary evidence in\nmatters of the kind; there are many who would probably share the views\nof a courteous correspondent, who, after sending me condensed copies\nof some contemporary memoranda, wrote in answer to my inquiries:--\"I\nhave not got the originals; I destroyed them immediately I sent\nthem (_i.e._, the copies) to you, because I knew they would be more\npermanently preserved and recorded; being authenticated to Professor\nBarrett and you, there was no further need of them.\" And even when they\nescape immediate destruction the letters may, as in cases reported to\nus, be \"washed out\" or burnt; or may survive the perils of flood and\nfire only to be mislaid, so that they cannot be found without a more\nthorough search than the courtesy of our correspondents can induce them\nto make. Notwithstanding these various adverse chances, it will be\nfound that many of the narratives which follow are actually attested by\ncontemporary documentary evidence.\n\nWhen the great mass of narratives has been carefully examined and\ntested in the light of the considerations above set forth, and when\nall those which are remote in date, or for some other reason suspect,\nhave been eliminated, there will be found to remain an important body\nof testimony. And of this sifted residue, though we cannot predicate of\nany single narrative that it accurately represents the facts, or that\nthe coincidence with which it deals was not purely casual, yet looking\nat the cases as a whole, we may feel a reasonable assurance that in\ntheir essential features the facts are correctly reported, and that the\ncoincidences are not due to chance.\n\nI may conclude this chapter by calling attention to an argument of a\ndifferent kind, on which Mr. Gurney,[84] in reviewing the material\namassed chiefly in this country, laid considerable stress, and in which\nhe has been followed by an independent observer, Professor Royce,\ndealing with narratives received from correspondents in America.[85]\nBoth these investigators have pointed out, and probably all who make an\nequally careful and dispassionate study of the evidence will agree with\nthem, that the phenomena vouched for in the best-attested narratives\nform a true natural group. They are manifestly not the products of\nfolk-lore, nor of popular superstition, nor of the mere love of the\nmarvellous. They are singularly free from the more sensational and\nbizarre features--dramatic gestures or speech on the part of the\nphantasms, prophetic warnings, movement of objects, etc.--which are\nconspicuous in second-hand narratives. If these accounts were purely\nfictitious, it would be difficult to conceive by what process, coming\nfrom persons of widely separated social grades, of various degrees\nof education, and of different nationalities, they could have been\nmoulded to present such strong internal resemblances; resemblances\nconsisting not merely in the possession of many common features,\nbut in the absence of others which, by their frequent occurrence in\nadmittedly fictitious accounts, are proved to be the natural fruits\nof the unrestrained imagination. This undesigned unanimity is strong\nevidence that the restraint operating throughout has been the restraint\nof fidelity to fact, and that the narratives themselves owe little to\nthe imagination, and much to their reflection of genuine experience.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 71: Of the _Proceedings_ of the S.P.R., published by Kegan\nPaul, Trench, Tr\u00fcbner, & Co., three or four parts are published\nyearly. The _Journal_, which appears monthly, contains a record of\nrecent cases of interest, unaccompanied, for the most part, by any\ncritical commentary, and is privately printed for circulation amongst\nmembers and associates of the Society. Any reader, however, desirous\nof studying the subject may procure any number of the _Journal_\nreferred to in this book on application at the Rooms of the S.P.R., 19\nBuckingham St., Adelphi, W.C. Of the foreign periodicals referred to\nin the text, perhaps the most important is the _Annales des Sciences\nPsychiques_, edited by Dr. Dariex, and published by Germer Bailli\u00e8re\net Cie., Paris. Cases of interest are also to be found in _Sphinx_,\na German periodical, to be obtained through Kegan Paul & Co.; in the\n_Revue Spirite_ (Paris: 24 Rue des Petits-Champs); and elsewhere.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Professor C. Lloyd Morgan in _Mind_, 1887, p. 282.]\n\n[Footnote 73: See the case recorded by Miss X. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.\npp. 507, 508). In this instance Miss X. saw in the crystal a notice of\na friend's death in the form of an extract from the obituary column of\nthe _Times_, in which journal she had almost certainly seen the news,\nwithout perceiving it, the day before. There is a dream recorded in\n_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 687, 688, which may probably\nbe explained as the emergence in dream of intelligence unconsciously\nreceived a few hours before.]\n\n[Footnote 74: I have before me as I write one case of the kind which\nwill serve as a sample. A told us the story, and induced B to write\nto us about it. B informed us that he heard it from his brother C,\na F.R.S., who had received it from D, to whom it was told by E; who\nhad it from the lips of F, \"who was a visitor at the house where the\noccurrence took place.\" We wrote to D, who referred us to two sources\nof information, G and H. G wrote in reply to our letter that he heard\nthe story from a stranger at a dinner-party \"about three years ago,\"\nand promised further inquiries. H referred us to J and K. Our letter to\nK was answered by his cousin L, who wrote that she had heard it from M,\n\"who got it from some one who was present,\" and further inquiries were\nagain promised. It is needless to add that in cases of this kind the\nstory, like a will-o'-the-wisp, ever recedes as we advance, until it\nends with the nameless stranger at some dinner long since gone \"away in\nthe Ewigkeit.\"]\n\n[Footnote 75: There is, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out, a converse\nerror to be guarded against--viz., the gradual effacement of the lines\nof an impression, so that an actual waking hallucination has in some\ninstances come to be regarded, after a long interval, as only a dream.]\n\n[Footnote 76: A good illustration of this kind of embellishment, in a\ncase recorded at second-hand, will be found in the footnote on a case\nin Chapter XII.]\n\n[Footnote 77: So in a case given in the _Annales des Sciences\nPsychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 5-10, we have an extract from the log-book\nof the _Jacques-Gabriel_, which records that the captain, mate, and\nanother man when at sea heard, on the 17th July 1852, the sound of a\nwoman's voice crying. In a marginal note on the log-book the captain\nadds that on reaching port they learnt of the death of the mate's wife,\n\"_on the same day and at the same hour_.\" But the official register\nshows that the death took place on the 16_th June_ 1852.]\n\n[Footnote 78: That such a pseudo-memory on the part of a person not\nprofessing to be the actual percipient is possible after a long\ninterval appears to be shown by the account just cited of the \"ghost\"\nseen by the nurse in a foreign hotel. But we have no evidence that a\nmemory hallucination of this kind could be, as demanded by the theory,\nof instantaneous or very rapid growth; or that any verbal suggestion\ncould intercalate a false picture into a series of still recent and\nunimpaired memories.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Second-hand narratives have, however, a value of\ntheir own, as shown later; for by taking note of the features which\noccur commonly in such cases, but are absent from the best attested\nfirst-hand narratives, we obtain a valuable standard of comparison by\nwhich to check aberrations of memory.]\n\n[Footnote 80: An apparent exception to this statement will be found\nin Nos. 45 and 46, Chapter VII., and elsewhere, where the account is\nfurnished not by the actual percipient, but by a person to whom the\npercipient related his experience before he knew of its correspondence\nwith fact. The evidence in such cases, it should be pointed out, is as\ngood as first-hand; indeed, where, as in Nos. 45 and 46, the actual\npercipient was illiterate and the narrator educated, it may be regarded\nas better than first-hand.]\n\n[Footnote 81: This part of the work has been undertaken in this country\nby Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, Mr. E. Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers,\nmyself, and others; in America, chiefly by Professor Royce and Dr.\nHodgson.]\n\n[Footnote 82: In the _Times_ of the 6th January 1893 there appeared\na letter from a well-known writer, narrating how in 1851 he had\nreceived a description of the sea-serpent from a lady who had watched\nits movements for some half-hour in a small bay on the coast of\nSutherlandshire. So far the story is on a par with any of our own\nsecond-hand ghost stories. But the writer goes on to say that the\nserpent had rubbed off some of its scales on the rocks; that a few of\nthese scales, of the size and shape of scallop-shells, were for some\nyears in his own possession, but that when he searched amongst his\ncurios, in order to show these scales to Professor Owen, they were not\nto be found. The humble investigators of the S.P.R. have occasionally\nfound themselves in the same position as the illustrious anatomist.]\n\n[Footnote 83: See, for example, the case quoted in Chapter X., No. 63.]\n\n[Footnote 84: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 164-166.]\n\n[Footnote 85: _Proceedings American S.P.R._, pp. 350, 351.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTRANSFERENCE OF IDEAS AND EMOTIONS.\n\n\nBefore proceeding to give examples of the evidence for spontaneous\nthought-transference, it may be well to repeat something of what has\nbeen said in the preceding chapter. In the first place, the narratives\nquoted in this book are offered as samples only of the evidence of this\nkind actually accumulated. No single narrative can afford to stand\nalone. Each contains one or more elements of weakness; and in the last\nresort chance coincidence, memory-hallucination, or even deliberate\ndeception would be _in any single case_ a more probable explanation\nthan a new mode of mental affection. It is only, to borrow Mr. Gurney's\nmetaphor, as a faggot, and not as a bundle of separate sticks, that the\nevidence can finally be judged. But, in the second place, it is not\nclaimed that the evidence reviewed even in its entirety is by itself\nsufficient to demonstrate the possibility of the affection of one mind\nby another at a distance. The main proof of such affection is based on\nthe experiments already described, to which the spontaneous evidence\nso far adduced must be regarded as illustrative and in some degree\nauxiliary.\n\nIt will be more convenient, as a matter of arrangement, that the\nspontaneous experiences first considered should be those which\nresemble most closely the results of direct experiment, though this\nclassification has the disadvantage of placing in the forefront cases\nof the least definite and striking kind; cases, that is, which are most\nreadily explicable as due to chance coincidence. It is on all grounds,\ntherefore, expedient that the reader should reserve his final verdict\nuntil he has the whole case before him.\n\nIn the present chapter there will be adduced instances of the\nspontaneous transference of (1) simple sensations; (2) ideas and\nmental pictures; (3) emotional states; (4) impulses tending to action.\nThe first two classes, and in some measure the last, resemble the\nresults described in the first five chapters of this book; for the\nthird probably no direct experimental parallel can be offered, for the\nsufficient reason that vivid and intense emotion cannot be evoked at\nwill.\n\n\n_Transference of Simple Sensations._\n\nWe will begin by quoting two instances of the transference of simple\nsensation. The first we owe to the kindness of Mr. Ruskin. The\npercipient was Mrs. Severn, wife of the well-known landscape painter.\n\n\nNo. 41.--From MRS. ARTHUR SEVERN.\n\n \"BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,\n _October_ 27_th_, 1883.\n\n \"I woke up with a start, feeling I had had a hard blow on my mouth,\n and with a distinct sense that I had been cut and was bleeding\n under my upper lip, and seized my pocket-handkerchief, and held\n it (in a little pushed lump) to the part, as I sat up in bed, and\n after a few seconds, when I removed it, I was astonished not to\n see any blood, and only then realised it was impossible anything\n could have struck me there, as I lay fast asleep in bed, and so I\n thought it was only a dream!--but I looked at my watch, and saw it\n was seven, and finding Arthur (my husband) was not in the room, I\n concluded (rightly) that he must have gone out on the lake for an\n early sail, as it was so fine.\n\n \"I then fell asleep. At breakfast (half-past nine), Arthur\n came in rather late, and I noticed he rather purposely sat\n farther away from me than usual, and every now and then put his\n pocket-handkerchief furtively up to his lip, in the very way I had\n done. I said, 'Arthur, why are you doing that?' and added a little\n anxiously, 'I know you've hurt yourself! but I'll tell you why\n afterwards.' He said, 'Well, when I was sailing, a sudden squall\n came, throwing the tiller suddenly round, and it struck me a bad\n blow in the mouth, under the upper lip, and it has been bleeding\n a good deal and won't stop.' I then said, 'Have you any idea what\n o'clock it was when it happened?' and he answered, 'It must have\n been about seven.'\n\n \"I then told what had happened to _me_, much to _his_ surprise, and\n all who were with us at breakfast.\n\n \"It happened here about three years ago at Brantwood, to me.\n\n \"JOAN R. SEVERN.\"\n\nMr. Severn wrote to us on the 15th November 1883, giving an account of\nthe trivial accident described by the percipient, and adding that after\nleaving the boat he\n\n \"walked up to the house, anxious of course to hide as much as\n possible what had happened to my mouth, and getting another\n handkerchief walked into the breakfast-room, and managed to say\n something about having been out early. In an instant my wife said,\n 'You don't mean to say you have hurt your mouth?' or words to that\n effect. I then explained what had happened, and was surprised to\n see some extra interest on her face, and still more surprised when\n she told me she had started out of her sleep thinking she had\n received a blow on the mouth! and that it was a few minutes past\n seven o'clock, and wondered if my accident had happened at the same\n time; but as I had no watch with me I couldn't tell, though, on\n comparing notes, it certainly looked as if it had been about the\n same time.\n\n \"ARTHUR SEVERN.\"\n\n (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp, 188, 189.)\n\nSo far as I know, this is a unique instance, if we limit ourselves to\nfirst-hand evidence, of the spontaneous transference of a sensation\nof pain to a waking percipient.[86] Impressions of the kind, indeed,\nunless more definite and intense than the analogy of experiment gives\nus warrant for anticipating, would as a rule be quickly forgotten, or\nwould be naturally ascribed to some other source than telepathy. We owe\nthe record of the present instance to the fortunate chance that the\nagent and percipient met within an hour of the occurrence, and that the\npain of the percipient, though slight, was not such as could be readily\nattributed to ordinary causes. In the next instance, also, where the\nimpression belonged to a different sense, the agent and percipient were\nin the habit of meeting almost daily, otherwise it seems possible that\nthe coincidence would have escaped notice.\n\n\nNo. 42.--From MISS X.\n\nThe percipient was Miss X.; the agent was her friend D., already\nreferred to, who writes:--\n\n \"_April_ 13_th_, 1888.\n\n \"In the spring of 1881, in the evening after dinner, I accidentally\n set fire to the curtains of a sitting-room, and put myself and\n several others into some danger. The next morning, on visiting\n X., I heard from her that she had been disturbed overnight by an\n unaccountable smell of fire, which she could not trace, but which\n seemed to follow her wherever she went. I was led to discover the\n fire, and so probably to save the house, by what seemed a chance\n thought of X. I had left the room, unconscious of anything wrong,\n and had settled to my work elsewhere, when I suddenly remembered I\n had not put away some papers I had been looking at, and which I had\n thought might wait for daylight, but a strong feeling that X. would\n insist upon order, had she been there, induced me to go back, when\n I found the whole place in flames.\"\n\nMiss X., in describing the case, adds: \"I took considerable trouble to\nascertain the cause (of the smell of fire), and was quieted only by\nthe assurance that it was imperceptible to the rest of the household.\"\n(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 367.)\n\nWhen we leave these simple modes of feeling, and consider the\naffections of the higher senses of hearing and sight, we are confronted\nwith a new problem. Sensations of the first class are almost purely\nhomogeneous, they owe little or nothing to memory and imagination.\nMoreover, though generally due to an external cause, they are in the\ncase of smell or taste occasionally, and in that of pain frequently,\nexcited by causes within the organism. It is not, therefore, a matter\ncalling for comment that in such cases the transferred idea should\nassume a definitely sensory form. But when the organs of sight or\nhearing are sensibly affected, past experience has taught us to look\nfor an external cause; the line between _idea_ and _sensation_ is here\nsharply drawn and clearly understood.[87] The line, indeed, as drawn by\ncommon use may not correspond to any real distinction in the nature of\nthe experience itself. Ideas may be only paler sensations, and a train\nof thought nothing else than a series of suppressed hallucinations.\nBut at any rate the distinction, whether fundamental or not, serves\na useful purpose as a rough-and-ready means of classing our mental\nexperiences. A visual or auditory image either is on the same level\nof intensity as the series of impressions which represent for us the\nexternal world, or it falls below that level. In the former case we\ncall it a sensation or percept, in the latter, an idea. Sensations\nand percepts may be again subdivided, as objective or hallucinatory,\naccording as they do or do not correspond to a supposed material cause.\nIn the experiments described in the first five chapters, it will have\nbeen observed that when the transferred impression was of a visual\nnature it generally remained ideal, rising occasionally, however, as\nin some of the experiments with hypnotised percipients, and in Mr.\nKirk's cases, to the level of a complete sensory hallucination or\nquasi-percept. In the present chapter it is proposed to deal with\nauditory and visual phantasms which, so far as can be judged, were\nof an ideal kind, though one or two of the cases cited may seem to\napproximate to sensory embodiment. The more striking hallucinatory\neffects will be reserved for later chapters.\n\n\n_Transference of Ideas._\n\nThere is one kind of coincidence, so common as to have passed into\na proverb, which is often referred to as illustrating the action of\ntelepathy; that is, the idea of a person coming into the mind shortly\nbefore the person himself actually approaches. In most of the cases\ncited the coincidence is too indefinite to call for attention, as it\nis obvious that the narrator has not taken the elementary precaution\nof noting the \"misses\" as well as the \"hits.\" But if telepathy acts\nat all, there is no _\u00e0 priori_ unlikelihood of its acting in this\ndirection as well as in others, and it is to be desired that persons\nwho believe themselves susceptible to impressions of the kind would\nkeep a full record of their occurrence. Two instances which happened\nin his own recent experience are recorded by Professor Richet\n(_Proceedings S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 52). Leaving such cases, however,\nas too indefinite to have much evidential value, we may quote the\nfollowing as an example of an impression of a more detailed kind.\n\n\nNo. 43.--From MISS X.\n\nOn the 12th October 1891, Miss X. wrote to Mr. Myers as follows:--\n\n \"... I was much upset yesterday by the consciousness that a Master\n B. (son of A. B.) had arrived unexpectedly upon the scene ...\n no nurse--doctor three miles off--husband away. Being Sunday, I\n could not telegraph, but the news as to hour and sex arrived this\n morning. My impression was at 2.30 onwards. He arrived at 3.30,\n and in the interval I heard her voice over and over again calling\n my name. All is well now, but these impressions are not always\n comfortable.\"\n\nIn a later letter Miss X. writes:--\n\n \"A.'s own account is that (about two, I think), when she was made\n aware of her danger, the thought passed through her mind how\n fortunate it was that the impossibility of telegraphing would\n prevent anxiety at home, and then--that any way _I_ should know.\n No one expected to have any cause for anxiety for at least a week.\n Yes; I ought to have sent to Mrs. Sidgwick, but I was so wretchedly\n ill that--don't shudder--I never at the time even _thought_ of the\n S.P.R. I had been dreadfully worried all that week, and was utterly\n worn out.\"\n\nThe coincidence is, no doubt, not of the strongest kind. But in\nestimating its value it should not be overlooked that the impression\nwas sufficiently intense to produce a decided feeling of discomfort.\nAnd though Miss X. unfortunately omitted to send an account of her\nexperience until after she had learnt of its partial correspondence\nwith the event, she did not know at the time when the first letter was\nwritten that her impression was correct as regards the details of the\nabsence of husband and nurse. Whatever the value of the coincidence,\ntherefore, it seems clear that the account owes nothing to exaggeration\nor unconscious reading back of details. With this may be compared a\nnarrative sent to me in December 1891, by the Rev. A. Sloman, Master\nof Birkenhead School. On the 12th of the month, whilst Mrs. Sloman was\nabsent at a concert, a chimney in the school-house had caught fire,\nand Mr. Sloman had been summoned from his work to give directions\nfor dealing with the mischief. On the matter being mentioned to Mrs.\nSloman on her return, she at once explained that during the concert,\njust about the actual time of the fire, \"I suddenly began to think\nwhat you would do if the house took fire, and I distinctly pictured\nyou going into the kitchen and speaking about a wet blanket.\" The\naccount was written down and signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sloman on the\nday of the occurrence, and the coincidence in time between event and\nimpression seems to be well established. It must be admitted that the\napprehension of fire may not improbably have a more or less permanent\nplace in the background of a housewife's consciousness; still, even a\nslight outbreak of fire is not in an ordinary household a matter of\ncommon occurrence.\n\nThe next case is interesting as presenting evidence of the transference\nof an auditory impression. The account was originally published in the\n_Spectator_ of June 24th, 1882:--\n\n\nNo. 44.--From MRS. BARBER.\n\n \"FERNDENE, ABBEYDALE, near SHEFFIELD,\n _June_ 22_nd_, 1882.\n\n \"I had one day been spending the morning in shopping, and returned\n by train just in time to sit down with my children to our early\n family dinner. My youngest child--a sensitive, quick-witted little\n maiden of two years and six weeks old--was one of the circle.\n Dinner had just commenced, when I suddenly recollected an incident\n in my morning's experience which I had intended to tell her, and I\n looked at the child with the full intention of saying, 'Mother saw\n a big black dog in a shop, with curly hair,' catching her eyes in\n mine, as I paused an instant before speaking. Just then something\n called off my attention, _and the sentence was not uttered_. What\n was my amazement, about two minutes afterwards, to hear my little\n lady announce, 'Mother saw a big dog in a shop.' I gasped. 'Yes, I\n did!' I answered; 'but how did you know?' 'With funny hair,' she\n added, quite calmly, and ignoring my question. 'What colour was it,\n Evelyn?' said one of her elder brothers; 'was it black?' She said,\n 'Yes.'\"\n\nI called on Mrs. Barber in the spring of 1886, and heard full details\nof the incident from herself and Mr. Barber, who, though not himself\npresent at the time, was conversant with the facts. The incident\ntook place on January 6th, 1882, and Mrs. Barber allowed me to see\nthe note-book in which the account (substantially reproduced in the\n_Spectator_) was written down on January 11th. Of course there is\nalways the possibility in a case of this kind that the lips may have\nunconsciously begun to form the words, but in the present instance it\nseems unlikely that any indication of the kind would have escaped the\nnotice of the others present at the table. Mrs. Barber has given us\nother accounts, extracted from her journal, of thought-transference, in\nwhich the same percipient was concerned. She writes on December 26th,\n1886:--\n\n \"On Wednesday J. went to London, and on getting his breakfast at a\n little inn in C----, he found a 'blackclock' (_i.e._, cockroach)\n floating in his coffee. He fished it out and supposed it was all\n right, but on pursuing the coffee he got one in his mouth! Next\n day, at breakfast, he said, 'What's the most horrible thing that\n could happen to any one at breakfast? I don't mean getting killed,\n or anything of that sort.' E. looked at him for a moment and said,\n 'To have a blackclock in your coffee!'\n\n \"She was asleep in bed when her father returned the night before,\n and they met at the breakfast-table for the first time the next\n morning, when the question was asked quite suddenly. When asked how\n she came to think of it, she said, 'I looked at the bacon-dish, and\n thought a blackclock in the bacon,--no, he would see that--it must\n have been in the coffee.'\n\n \"She has a special horror of 'blackclocks,' so the incident may\n merely have been one of the numerous instances of her unusually\n quick wit.\n\n \"CAROLINE BARBER.\"\n\n\n_Transference of Mental Pictures._\n\nThe next three narratives are interesting as illustrating three\ndifferent stages in the externalisation of visual impressions. In the\nfirst case, which is quoted from the _Proceedings of the American\nS.P.R._ (pp. 444, 445), the impression seems to have been almost of the\nnature of an illusion--_i.e._, the idea emerged into consciousness only\nwhen a somewhat similar image was presented to the external organ of\nvision.[88]\n\n\nNo. 45.--From MR. HAYNES.\n\nIn a letter to Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Haynes writes:--\n\n \"BOSTON, _June_ 25, 1887.\n\n \"The name of the prisoner alluded to has passed from my\n recollection. He belonged in East Boston, and was sentenced for\n life for an assault upon a woman. I think he was pardoned some\n years ago, but am not certain about it. He had but one child, a\n boy about five years old, who always came with his wife to visit\n him. He seemed very fond of the child, always held him in his arms\n during the visit, and showed a good deal of feeling at parting.\n\n \"The following is an account of the affair made at the time:--\n\n \"'The following very singular incident I can vouch for as having\n actually occurred. I refer to it, not to illustrate a supernatural\n or any other unusual agency, as I am a sceptic in such matters, but\n as a remarkable instance of hallucination or presentiment.\n\n \"'I received a message from the wife of one of our convicts, in\n prison for life, that their only child, a bright little boy five\n years old, was dead, he having accidentally fallen into the water\n and been drowned. I was requested to communicate to the father the\n death of the child, but not the cause, as the wife preferred to\n tell him herself when she should visit him a week or two later.\n\n \"'I sent for him to the guard-room, and after a few questions in\n regard to himself, I said I had some sad news for him. He quickly\n replied, \"I know what it is, Mr. Warden; my boy is dead!\" \"How did\n you hear of it?\" I asked. \"Oh, I knew it was so; he was drowned,\n was he not, Mr. Warden?\" \"But who informed you of it?\" I again\n asked. \"No one,\" he replied. \"How, then, did you know he was dead,\n and what makes you think he was drowned?\" \"Last Sunday,\" he said,\n \"your little boy was in the chapel; he fell asleep, and you took\n him up and held him. As I looked up and caught sight of him lying\n in your arms, instantly the thought occurred to me that my boy was\n dead--drowned. In vain I tried to banish it from my mind, to think\n of something else, but could not; the tears came into my eyes, and\n it has been ringing in my ears ever since; and when you sent for\n me, my heart sunk within me, for I felt sure my fears were to be\n confirmed.\"\n\n \"'What made it more remarkable was the fact that the child was\n missed during the forenoon of that Sunday, but the body was not\n found for some days after.'\n\n \"The foregoing is copied from my journal, the entry made on the day\n of the interview, and I can assure you is strictly correct in every\n particular.\n\n \"GIDEON HAYNES.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries as to the name and address of the percipient,\nMr. Haynes writes:--\n\n \"His name was Timothy Cronan. He was pardoned in 1873 or 1874. Mr.\n Darling, the officer in the guard-room to-day, occupied the same\n position when I had the interview with Cronan. He was present,\n and remembers distinctly all the circumstances of the case, which\n were discussed by us at the time. Cronan served some ten or twelve\n years. ... He has not been heard from at the prison since his\n discharge.\"\n\nIn this case it may perhaps be inferred, from the circumstances of its\noccurrence, that the impression was of a rudimentary visual character.\n\nIn the next case it seems clear that the percipient saw what she\ndescribed, but the impression appears to have been of a purely inward\nnature.\n\n\nNo. 46.--From PROFESSOR RICHET.\n\n \"On Monday, July 2nd, 1888, after having passed all the day in my\n laboratory, I hypnotised L\u00e9onie at 8 P.M., and while she tried to\n make out a diagram concealed in an envelope I said to her quite\n suddenly: 'What has happened to M. Langlois?' L\u00e9onie knows M.\n Langlois from having seen him two or three times some time ago in\n my physiological laboratory, where he acts as my assistant. 'He has\n burnt himself,' L\u00e9onie replied. 'Good,' I said, 'and where has he\n burnt himself?' 'On the left hand. It is not fire: it is---I don't\n know its name. Why does he not take care when he pours it out?'\n 'Of what colour,' I asked, 'is the stuff which he pours out?' 'It\n is not red, it is brown; he has hurt himself very much--the skin\n puffed up directly.'\n\n \"Now, this description is admirably exact. At 4 P.M. that day M.\n Langlois had wished to pour some bromine into a bottle. He had\n done this clumsily, so that some of the bromine flowed on to his\n left hand, which held the funnel, and at once burnt him severely.\n Although he at once put his hand into water, wherever the bromine\n had touched it a blister was formed in a few seconds--a blister\n which one could not better describe than by saying, 'the skin\n puffed up.' I need not say that L\u00e9onie had not left my house,\n nor seen any one from my laboratory. Of this I am _absolutely\n certain_, and I am certain that I had not mentioned the incident of\n the burn to any one. Moreover, this was the first time for nearly a\n year that M. Langlois had handled bromine, and when L\u00e9onie saw him\n six months before at the laboratory he was engaged in experiments\n of quite another kind.\" (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 69, 70.)\n\nIn the next case the mental picture seems to have been much more vivid\nthan the visions of distant familiar scenes, or faces, which most\nof us can summon up by an effort of will; in fact, the impression\nprobably approached very nearly to a hallucination. It is noteworthy,\nhowever, that it did not apparently form part of the external order,\nbut replaced it. We have no means therefore of measuring the degree of\nvividness.\n\n\nNo. 47.--From DR. G. DUPR\u00c9.\n\n \"REIMS, _July_ 6_th_, 1891.\n\n \"One day in May 1890, I had just been visiting a patient, and was\n coming downstairs, when suddenly I had the impression that my\n little girl of four years old had fallen down the stone stairs of\n my house, and hurt herself.\"\n\n \"Then gradually after the first impression, as though a curtain\n which hid the sight from me were slowly drawn back, I saw my child\n lying at the foot of the stairs, with her chin bleeding, but I had\n no impression of hearing her cries.\n\n \"The vision was blotted out suddenly, but the memory of it remained\n with me. I took note of the hour--10.30 A.M.--and continued my\n professional rounds.\"\n\n \"When I got home I much astonished my family by giving a\n description of the accident, and naming the hour when it occurred.\"\n\n \"The circumstance made a great impression on me, and my memory of\n it is quite clear.\n\n \"Dr. G. DUPR\u00c9.\"\n\nIn a further letter Dr. Dupr\u00e9 adds:--\n\n \"REIMS, _August_ 2_nd_, 1891.\n\n \"The account which I have given you is exact in every point. Madame\n Dupr\u00e9 remembers it perfectly. As I had a great many visits to pay\n that day I did not return home at once, but continued my rounds. I\n took particular note of the time, however, and it was found to be\n exact.\n\n \"This phenomenon of perception seemed to me so curious that I noted\n all the particulars, in order to analyse them at my leisure.\n\n \"When I got home my first words were these, addressed to my wife,\n 'Loulou is hurt. Is it serious?' Madame Dupr\u00e9 exclaimed, 'Who\n told you?' 'No one,' I replied; 'I saw her fall,' and then while\n examining my little girl I told my wife about the vision.\n\n \"I did not relate the circumstance to any one else but my\n father-in-law, Dr. Bracon, and he did not take it very seriously.\n Indeed, I was not inclined to lay much stress upon the matter\n either, as I did not wish to be considered visionary or credulous.\"\n\nMadame Dupr\u00e9 writes:--\n\n \"25_th September_ 1891.\n\n \"My husband's account of his telepathic experience is perfectly\n correct. For my own part I was extremely surprised at the\n circumstances, for till then my attitude towards all questions\n of clairvoyance had been one of almost complete incredulity. Let\n me add, however, that my husband is of an excessively nervous\n temperament, and was liable to somnambulism in his youth. It is\n seldom that a night passes in which he does not talk in his sleep.\n It would be quite possible to hold a conversation with him for a\n few minutes whilst he is in this condition.\" (_Annales des Sciences\n Psychiques_, vol. i. pp. 324, 325.)\n\nIt seems permissible to conjecture that in this case Madame Dupr\u00e9, as\nin the previous case Professor Richet, was the agent.\n\n\n_Transference of Emotion._\n\nSometimes the telepathic impulse appears to express itself in a vague\nfeeling of alarm or distress. Of course, impressions of this sort, with\nno definite content, and not recognised at the time as having reference\nto any particular person, can do little to strengthen the proof of\ntelepathy. But when it has been shown, by the mention of the experience\nbeforehand, or by any unusual action consequent on its occurrence,\nthat the emotion was unique in the history of the percipient, and when\nthe coincidence with a serious crisis is clearly established, the\ntelepathic explanation may be admitted as at least plausible. These\nconditions appeared to be fulfilled in the following case, which is\nquoted from the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 474, 475).\n\n\nNo. 48.--From MR. F. H. KREBS.\n\nThe percipient in this case described his experience to Professor\nWilliam James, of Harvard, who writes as follows:--\n\n \"Mr. Krebs (special student) stopped after the logic lesson of\n Friday, November 26, and told me the facts related in his narrative.\n\n \"I advised him to put them on paper, which he has thus done.\n\n \"His father is said by him to be too much injured to do any writing\n at present.\n\n \"WM. JAMES.\n\n \"_December_ 1, 1886.\"\n\n From MR. F. H. KREBS.\n\n \"On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 24, I was very uneasy,\n could not sit still, and wandered about the whole afternoon with\n little purpose. This uneasiness was unaccountable; but instead of\n wearing away it increased, and after returning to my room at about\n 6.45 it turned into positive fear. I fancied that there was some\n one continually behind me, and, although I turned my chair around\n several times, this feeling remained. At last I got up and went\n into my bedroom, looked under the bed and into the closet; finding\n nothing, I came back into the room and looked behind the curtains.\n Satisfied that there was nothing present to account for my fancy,\n I sat down again, when instantly the peculiar sensation recurred;\n and at last, finding it unbearable, I went down to a friend's room,\n where I remained the rest of the evening. To him I expressed my\n belief that this sensation was a warning sent to show me that some\n one of my family had been injured or killed.\n\n \"While in his room the peculiar sensation ceased, and, despite my\n nervousness, I was in no unusual state of mind; but on returning to\n my room to go to bed it returned with renewed force. On the next\n day (the 25th), on coming to my grandfather's, I found out that the\n day before (the 24th), at a little past 12, my father had jumped\n from a moving train and been severely injured. While I do not think\n that this warning was direct enough to convince sceptics that I\n was warned of my father's mishap, I certainly consider that it is\n curious enough to demand attention. I have never before had the\n same peculiar sensation that there was some being besides myself in\n an apparently empty room, nor have I ever before been so frightened\n and startled at absolutely nothing.\n\n \"On questioning my father, he said that before the accident he was\n not thinking of me, but that at the very moment that it happened\n his whole family seemed to be before him, and he saw them as\n distinctly as if there.\n\n F. H. KREBS, JUN.\n\n \"_November_ 29, 1886.\"\n\n From MR. CHAUNCEY SMITH, JUN.\n\n \"I, the undersigned, distinctly remember that F. H. Krebs, Jun.,\n came into my room November 24 and complained of being very nervous.\n I cannot remember exactly what he said, as I was studying at the\n time, and did not pay much attention to his talk.\n\n \"On the 25th he came into my room in the evening, and made a\n statement that his state the evening before was the consequence of\n an accident that happened to his father, and that he had the night\n before told me that he had received a warning of some accident to\n some one dear to him. This I did not contradict, because I consider\n that it is extremely probable that he said it, and that I did not,\n through inattention, notice it.\n\n \"CHAUNCEY SMITH, JUN.\"\n\nThe present case well illustrates the difficulties attendant on any\nefforts to procure reliable contemporary evidence for psychical events.\nEven when, as here, the percipient himself took the right course, from\nthe standpoint of psychical research, his forethought was to a great\nextent frustrated by the shortcomings of his friend.\n\nWith this narrative may be compared three cases given in _Phantasms\nof the Living_ (vol. i. pp. 280 _et seq._) of the occurrence of\nexceptional distress to one twin at the time of the death of the other.\nMr. Leveson Gower has sent us an account of a similar marked fit of\ndepression, accompanied by \"a vivid sense of the presence of death,\"\nwhich coincided with the quite sudden and unlooked-for death of a near\nrelation, the late Lady Marion Alford. (_Journal S.P.R._, May 1888.)\nProfessor Tamburini records an analogous case. A lunatic died in the\nasylum at Reggio on the 21st May 1892. A letter of inquiry, dated the\n22nd May, was received at the asylum from the husband, who had not\npreviously written for more than a year; and it was ascertained that he\nwas prompted to write the letter by a feeling of \"great discomfort, as\nthough some misfortune were about to befall him,\" experienced on the\nprevious day, the day of the death.\n\n\nNo. 49.--From Dr N., of New York State.\n\nThe next case is specially interesting, because the emotion which was\nfelt in the first instance was succeeded by a visual impression of a\ndetailed kind. This case again comes to us from America (_Proc. Am.\nS.P.R._, pp. 397-400). Dr. N., the percipient, writes to Professor\nRoyce as follows:--\n\n [Postmarked _Aug._ 16, 1886.]\n\n \"In the convalescence from a malarial fever during which great\n hyper\u00e6sthesia of brain had obtained, but no hallucinations or false\n perceptions, I was sitting alone in my room looking out of the\n window. My thoughts were of indifferent trivialities; after a time\n my mind seemed to become absolutely vacant; my eyes felt fixed,\n the air seemed to grow white. I could see objects about me, but it\n was a terrible effort of _will_ to perceive anything. I then felt\n great and painful sense as of sympathy with some one suffering,\n who or where I did not know. After a little time I knew with whom,\n but how I knew I cannot tell; for it seemed some time after this\n knowledge of personality that I saw distinctly, in my brain, _not_\n before my eyes, a large, square room, evidently in a hotel, and saw\n the person of whom I had been conscious, lying face downward on the\n bed in the throes of mental and physical anguish. I felt rather\n than heard sobs and grieving, and felt conscious of the nature of\n the grief subjectively; its objective cause was not transmitted to\n me. Extreme exhaustion followed the experience, which lasted forty\n minutes intensely, and then very slowly wore away. Let me note:--\n\n \"1st. I had not thought of the person for some time and there was\n no reminder in the room.\n\n \"2nd. The experience was remembered with more vividness than that\n seen in the normal way, while the contrary is true of dreams.\n\n \"3rd. The natural order of perception was reversed, _i.e._, the\n emotion came first, the sense of a personality second, the vision\n or perception of the person third.\n\n \"I should be glad to have a theory given of this reverse in the\n natural order of perception.\"\n\nThe agent, M., is well known to both Professor Royce and Dr. Hodgson.\nIn the report it is stated that \"there can be no doubt of his high\ncharacter and general good judgment.\" He writes as follows:--\n\n \"BOSTON, _Nov._ 16_th_, 1886.\n\n \"Some years ago, perhaps eight or nine, while in a city of Rhode\n Island on business, my house being then, as now, in Boston, I\n received news which was most unexpected and distressing to me,\n affecting me so seriously that I retired to my room at the hotel,\n a large square room, and threw myself upon my bed, face downward,\n remaining there a long time in great mental distress. The acuteness\n of the feeling after a time abating, I left the room. I returned\n next day to Boston, and the day after that received a short letter\n from the person whose statement I enclose herewith, and dated at\n the town in Western New York, from which her enclosed letter comes.\n The note begged me to tell her without delay what was the matter\n with me 'on Friday, at 2 o'clock,'--the very day and hour when I\n was affected as I have described.\n\n \"This lady was a somewhat familiar acquaintance and friend, but I\n had not heard from her for many months previous to this note, and\n I do not know that any thought of her had come into my mind for a\n long time. I should still further add that the news which had so\n distressed me had not the slightest connection with her.\n\n \"I wrote at once, stating that she was right as to her impression\n (she said in her letter that she was sure I was in very great\n trouble at the time mentioned), and expressed my surprise at the\n whole affair.\n\n \"Twice since that time she has written to me, giving me some\n impression in regard to my condition or situation, both referring\n to cases of illness or suffering of some kind, and both times her\n impressions have proved correct enough to be considered remarkable,\n yet not so exact in detail or distinctness as the first time. I\n feel confident that I have her original letter, but have not been\n able to command the time necessary to find it.\n\n \"(Signed) M.\n\n \"P.S.--The three occurrences above detailed comprise all the\n experiences of this sort which I have had in my life.\"\n\nMr. M. has searched in vain for the original letter of Dr. N. referring\nto the incident. Two letters, however, referring to one of the later\nexperiences mentioned by him have been found, and copies of them, made\nby Dr. Hodgson on June 6th, 1887, are given below.\n\n\n(1.)\n\nDR. N. to MR. M.\n\n \"DOCTOR'S OFFICE, _July_ 24_th_,\n (Year not given).\n\n \"If I don't hear from you to-morrow, I shall write you a letter! I\n am anxious about you.\n\n \"N.\"\n\n\n(2.)\n\nMR. M. to DR. N.\n\n BOSTON, _July_ 26, 1883.\n\n \"What clairvoyant vision again told you of me Monday and Tuesday\n and Wednesday? Was it as vivid and real as the other time? It had,\n at least, a very closely related cause.\n\n \"It is past 1 A.M., but I will not go to bed till I have sent you\n a word. A letter will follow very soon. For two days I have been\n thinking of the way you wrote to me that time, and I should have\n written to you within twenty-four hours if I had not received the\n note from you. Please write to me as you proposed. This is only to\n tell you that I am alive and not ill, but tired, tired! Tell me of\n yourself. I have had a hard three months in the West, eighteen to\n twenty hours a day, scarce a respite--I am not ill; I am sure I am\n not, but I am _worked out_. I couldn't get to ---- or write.\n\n \"I used the telegraph even with my sisters.\n\n \"I hope for a letter, and will surely send you one.\n\n \"Yours,\n \"M.\"\n\nThese letters, which apparently relate to the second of the three\nexperiences mentioned by M., afford incidentally strong corroboration\nof the accuracy of the statements made as to the first and most\nremarkable experience.\n\nSeveral instances have been already published (_Phantasms of the\nLiving_, vol. ii. pp. 365-370) of what appears to be telepathic\naffection, in which there was no apparent link to connect the agent and\npercipient. Thus intimation of the deaths of three dukes--Cambridge,\nPortland, and Wellington--was conveyed to complete strangers. A similar\nimpression is recorded (_Journal S.P.R._, Nov. 1892) as affecting a\nstranger at the death of Lord Tennyson, and a somewhat similar instance\nis recorded (_Journal_, May 1892) in connection with the death of\nGeneral the Hon. Sir Leicester Smyth. The Head-master of a Grammar\nSchool in Leicester saw in a vision the irruption of water into the\nThames Tunnel (_Phantasms, loc. cit._). In all these cases, if we\naccept the incidents as telepathic, they recall, as Mr. Gurney remarks,\n\"the Greek notion of \u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, the Rumour which spreads from some unknown\nsource, and far outstrips all known means of transport.\" The evidence\nso far adduced, however, is by no means sufficient to establish any\nsuch conclusion. But the following narrative, which comes from a lady\nwell known to me, is worth considering in this connection.\n\n\nNo. 50.--From MISS Y.\n\n \"PERTH, 19_th January_ 1890.\n\n \"One Sunday evening I was writing to my sister, in my own room,\n and a wild storm was raging round the house (in Perth). Suddenly\n an eerie feeling came over me, I could not keep my thoughts on my\n letter, ideas of death and disaster haunted me so persistently. It\n was a vague but intense feeling; a sudden ghastly realisation of\n human tragedy, with no 'where,' 'how,' or 'when' about it.\n\n \"I remember flying upstairs to seek refuge with my mother, and\n I remember her soothing voice saying, 'Nonsense, child,' when I\n insisted that I was sure '_lots_ of people were dying.'\n\n \"We both thought it was a little nervous attack, and thought\n no more about it. But when we heard the news of the Tay Bridge\n disaster next day, we both noticed (we received the news separately\n from the maid when she came to wake us) that the time of the\n accident coincided with my strange experience of the evening\n before.\n\n \"We spoke of the 'coincidence' together, but did not attach much\n importance to it.\n\n \"I have never had any experience like it, before or since.\"\n\nMrs. Y., in a letter of the same date, corroborates her daughter's\nstatement. Mrs. Y.'s account, it should be added, was written without\nprevious consultation with Miss Y., and embodies her independent\nrecollection of the incident.\n\n \"On the night of the Tay Bridge disaster A. was sitting alone in\n her room, when she suddenly came running upstairs to me, saying\n that she had heard shrieks in the air; that something dreadful must\n have happened, for the air seemed full of shrieks. She thought a\n great many people must be dying. Next morning the milk-boy told the\n servant that the Tay Bridge was down.\"\n\nIn a later letter, Miss Y. adds:--\n\n \"My mother says she cannot remember my having any other experience\n of the kind. It happened before 9 P.M., we think.\"\n\n From the _Times_ of December 29th, 1879 (Monday), it appears\n that the accident took place on the previous evening (28th). The\n Edinburgh train, due at Dundee at 7.15 P.M., crossed the bridge\n during a violent gale. It was duly signalled from the Fife side\n as having entered on the bridge for Dundee at 7.14. It was seen\n running along the rails, and then suddenly there was observed a\n flash of fire. The opinion was the train then left the rails and\n went over the bridge.\n\n\n_Motor Impulses._\n\nOccasionally the telepathic impression manifests itself to\nconsciousness as a monition or impulse to perform a certain action.\nThere is no ground for thinking in such a case that the idea\ntransferred from the agent has in itself any special impulsive quality.\nThe impulse towards action is no doubt the result of the percipient's\nunconscious reasoning on the information supplied to him.\n\nSometimes the impulse to action, though strong, is vague and\ninarticulate. Thus Mrs. Hadselle, of Pittsfield, Mass., U.S.A.,\nnarrates (_Journal S.P.R._, May 1891) that some years ago she\nexperienced, when spending the evening with some friends, \"a sudden\nand unaccountable desire to go home, accompanied by a dread and fear\nof something, I knew not what.\" She eventually yielded to her impulse,\nand at some inconvenience returned home, just in time to rescue her\nson, who was insensible through the smoke from a fire of wet sticks in\nhis room. Professor Venturi (_Annales des Sci. Psy._, vol. iii. pp.\n331-333) relates that in July 1885, in obedience to an irresistible\nimpulse, he made a sudden and quite unpremeditated journey from\nPozzuoli to his home at Nocera, to find his child in serious danger\nfrom a sudden attack of croup. A case is recorded in the _Proc. Am.\nS.P.R._ (pp. 227, 228), in which a lady living in a Western State\nawoke in the night of January 30th-31st, 1886, with a strong feeling\nthat her daughter in Washington was ill and needed her, and in the\nmorning telegraphed to her son-in-law, offering to come at once. There\nhad been no previous cause of anxiety on the mother's part, but as a\nmatter of fact the daughter had been taken suddenly and seriously ill\non that night. A letter and the telegram relating to the event have\nbeen preserved. In another case Lady de Vesci, in 1872, telegraphed on\na sudden impulse from Ireland to a friend in Hong Kong. The telegram\narrived less than twenty-four hours before the recipient's death, an\nevent which Lady de Vesci had no reason to anticipate for some months\n(_Journal S.P.R._, October 1891).\n\nIn another case, also recorded by Mrs. Hadselle (_loc. cit._), the\nimpulse took the form of a voice bidding her go to a certain town,\nwhere, as it appeared, an intimate friend stood in urgent need\nof her. The effect produced in this case was so strong that the\npercipient actually bought a fresh railway ticket and changed her\nroute. In the following case the impulse found a more unusual mode of\nexpression--viz., utterance on the part of the percipient.\n\n\nNo. 51.--From ARCHDEACON BRUCE.\n\n \"ST. WOOLOS' VICARAGE, NEWPORT,\n MONMOUTHSHIRE, _July_ 6_th_, 1892.\n\n \"On April 19th, Easter Tuesday, I went to Ebbw Vale to preach at\n the opening of a new iron church in Beaufort parish.\n\n \"I had arranged that Mrs. Bruce and my daughter should drive in the\n afternoon.\n\n \"The morning service and public luncheon over, I walked up to the\n Vicarage at Ebbw Vale to call on the Vicar. As I went there I\n heard the bell of the new church at Beaufort ringing for afternoon\n service at three. It had stopped some little time before I reached\n the Vicarage (of Ebbw Vale). The Vicar was out, and it struck me\n that I might get back to the Beaufort new church in time to hear\n some of the sermon before my train left (at 4.35). On my way back\n through Ebbw Vale, and not far from the bottom of the hill on which\n the Ebbw Vale Vicarage is placed, I saw over a provision shop one\n of those huge, staring Bovril advertisements--the familiar large\n ox-head. I had seen fifty of them before, but something fascinated\n me in connection with this particular one. I turned to it, and\n was moved to address it in these, my _ipsissima verba_: 'You ugly\n brute, don't stare at me like that: has some accident happened to\n the wife?' Just the faintest tinge of uneasiness passed through\n me as I spoke, but it vanished at once. This must have been as\n nearly as possible 3.20. I reached home at six to find the vet.\n in my stable-yard tending my poor horse, and Mrs. Bruce and my\n daughter in a condition of collapse in the house. The accident had\n happened--so Mrs. Bruce thinks--precisely at 3.30, but she is not\n confident of the moment. My own times I can fix precisely.\n\n \"I had no reason to fear any accident, as my coachman had driven\n them with the same horse frequently, and save a little freshness\n at starting, the horse was always quiet on the road, even to\n sluggishness. A most unusual occurrence set it off. A telegraph\n operator, at the top of a telegraph post, hauled up a long flashing\n coil of wire under the horse's nose. Any horse in the world, except\n the Troy horse, would have bolted under the circumstances.\n\n \"My wife's estimate of the precise time can only be taken as\n approximate. She saw the time when she got home, and took that as\n her zero, but the confusion and excitement of the walk home from\n the scene of the accident leaves room for doubt as to her power of\n settling the time accurately. The accident happened about 2-1/4\n miles from home, and she was home by 4.10; but she was some time on\n the ground waiting until the horse was disengaged, etc.\n\n \"W. CONYBEARE BRUCE.\"\n\nArchdeacon Bruce adds later:--\n\n \"_May_ 20_th_, 1893.\n\n \"I think I stated the fact that the impression of danger to Mrs.\n Bruce was only momentary--it passed at once--and it was only when\n I heard of the accident that I recalled the impression. I did not\n therefore go home expecting to find that anything had happened.\n\n \"W. CONYBEARE BRUCE.\"\n\nMrs. Bruce writes:--\n\n \"The first thought that flashed across me as the accident happened\n was, 'What will W. say?' My ruling idea then was to get home before\n my husband, so as to save him alarm.\"\n\nThe Rev. A. T. Fryer, to whom the incident was originally communicated\nby the percipient, ascertained independently from the Vicar of Ebbw\nVale that the date of Archdeacon Bruce's visit to him was April 19th,\n1892. It is worth noting that here, as in case 45, an external object\nappears to have acted as a _point de rep\u00e8re_, and to have thus aided\nin the development of the transferred idea. Another instance of a\ntelepathic impulse leading to speech is to be found in the _Annales des\nSciences Psychiques_ (vol. i. p. 36). The Lady Superior of a convent\nwas moved during the celebration of a service to pray for the safety of\nthe children of a neighbour--a visitor to the convent--who was somewhat\nstartled by the Superior's abrupt action. It subsequently appeared\nthat at about the time of this prayer the two boys were involved in a\ncarriage accident.\n\nThe most striking evidence, however, of telepathically induced action\nis to be found in automatic writing. Some experimental cases of the\nkind have been quoted in Chapter IV. The spontaneous cases are more\nnumerous. Mr. Myers has recorded several instances in his article on\nMotor Automatism (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. pp. 26 _et seq._), and Mr.\nW. T. Stead has published, in the _Review of Reviews_ and elsewhere,\naccounts of messages and conversations with friends at a distance\nwritten through his hand. Generally speaking, however, where living\npersons are concerned, it is difficult, without full knowledge of all\nthe circumstances, to feel assured that the facts recorded by this\nmeans are not such as might conceivably have been within the knowledge\nof the writer, or at least within his powers of conjecture. The best\nevidence, therefore, for spontaneous telepathic automatism is no doubt\nafforded by those cases in which some altogether unforeseen event, such\nas the death of the presumed agent, is communicated. Such is the case\nrecorded by M. Aksakof (_Psychische Studien_, February 1889, quoted\nin _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 434, etc.), in which Mademoiselle Emma\nStramm, a Swiss governess at Wilna, on the 15th January 1887 wrote\nparticulars of the death on the same day of a former acquaintance\nof hers, August Duvanel, in Canton Zurich. A similar instance is\nrecorded by Dr. Li\u00e9beault (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i.\npp. 25, 26). The automatic writer was in this case at Nancy, and the\nperson whose death was announced was a young English lady resident at\nCoblentz. Dr. Li\u00e9beault was shown the written message within an hour or\ntwo of the s\u00e9ance, and some days before news of the death was received.\nOther cases of the kind are recorded by M. Aksakof and others (_Revue\nSpirite_, August 1891, April 1892, etc.).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 86: Two other examples are referred to in _Phantasms_,\nvol. i. p. 189, but in neither case is the evidence obtainable at\nfirst-hand.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Except, of course, in cases of rudimentary\nhallucinations, such as after-images and bright spots in the eyes and\nsinging in the ears, which are caused by the physical condition of the\nexternal organ.]\n\n[Footnote 88: See case No. 51, later; and compare Mr. Galton's\nobservations in his lecture at the Royal Institution on \"The Just\nPerceptible Difference\" (reported in the _Times_, January 30th, 1893).\nMr. Galton found that the ideal auditory impressions called up by\nreading the printed substance of a lecture enabled him to hear the\nlecturer's voice at a greater distance than when he had not the printed\ntext before him; the ideal appears to have supplemented the real\nimpression, as, in the case given in the text, the real reinforced the\nideal.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCOINCIDENT DREAMS.\n\n\nSeeing that so large a part of our lives is spent in sleep, we should\nperhaps be warranted in looking amongst dreams for evidence of the\ntransference of thought from one mind to another; especially as the\nquiescence and the absence of outward impressions characteristic of\nsleep are precisely the conditions indicated by our researches as\nfavourable to such transmission. Nor do the actual results in this\ndirection at all fall short of any reasonable expectation. Long before\nscientific attention was directed to the subject the coincidences\nreported between dreams and external events had won the special\nconsideration of the superstitious, and had given to the dreamer of\ndreams high rank in the company of the prophets and soothsayers.\nAnd such coincidences appear to be not less frequent at the present\ntime. My chief difficulty in writing this chapter has been the task\nof selection from the super-abundant material at hand, much of it\naccumulated within the last five or six years; and this material\nis itself the carefully-sifted residuum of a much larger mass of\ntestimony, inferior, if at all, by slight and various degrees. But\nnotwithstanding this great accumulation, it cannot be contended\nthat the proof of telepathy derived from a consideration of dream\ncoincidences is at all comparable in cogency with that furnished by\nimpressions received during waking life. That some at least of the\ndreams quoted below owed their origin to ideas transmitted to the\nsleeper from another mind will no doubt be admitted as probable, but\nthe probability depends perhaps not more on their intrinsic value than\non the analogy of similar testimony from waking percipients. When (as\nin some of the cases to be given later, in Chapters X.-XIII.) a witness\nof integrity asserts that he saw in broad daylight a figure where no\nsuch figure was, resembling a friend, and coincident with that friend's\ndeath, we are justified in attaching great weight to the coincidence.\nBut if the same witness had dreamt of the figure, instead of seeing\nit, the coincidence would deserve far less consideration. And yet the\ncerebral mechanism involved in both processes is no doubt very similar.\nA dream is a hallucination in sleep, and a hallucination is only a\nwaking dream; though it is probable that the waking impression, seeing\nthat it can contend on equal terms with the impressions derived from\nexternal objects, is more vivid than the common run of dreams. But\nthe evidence of dream coincidence is defective, primarily, from the\nfrequency of dreams; it is only a small proportion of educated persons,\nat any rate, who ever experience a hallucination, but everybody dreams\noccasionally, and some persons dream every night. Clearly there must be\nhere a wide scope for coincidence. Secondly, whilst dream impressions\nare probably less vivid at the time, they are certainly more elusive\nin the memory. There is a serious risk, therefore, that after the\nevent is known detailed correspondences may be read back into the\nindistinct picture preserved in the memory; or that a dream which at\nthe time made but a slight impression may be charged retrospectively\nwith emotional significance. Finally, as the dream does not enter into\nany organic series of impressions, and has no landmarks of its own,\neither in space or time, it becomes after the lapse of a few days, or\neven hours, a matter of difficulty to determine its date. Against\nthe last two sources of error it is indeed possible to guard. Under\nordinary circumstances no dream should be regarded as having evidential\nvalue which has not been either recorded in writing or mentioned to\nsome other person before the coincidence is known. Mention of the\ndream immediately after the receipt of the news, even with persons of\nproved accuracy, can by no means be regarded as equivalent to mention\nof it beforehand. For it is possible, as already pointed out (p.\n155), that some alleged coincident and prophetic dreams may be due to\nhallucination of memory, or still more probably to the embellishment\nand amplification of vague pre-existent memories.\n\nBut however carefully dreams are noted and described, the objection\nstill holds good that with impressions of such frequent occurrence\nchance alone will account for a considerable number of coincidences. It\nis easy, however, on a superficial view to exaggerate the probabilities\nof chance coincidence. The great majority of dreams, vague at the time\nand fugitive in the retrospect, are like footsteps in the sand. Yet as,\nhere and there, one set of footprints out of the millions impressed\nupon the shore of a long-forgotten sea has been preserved for us in\nsand now turned to stone, so now and then one dream stands out from\nall the rest, and leaves on the memory an imprint which the daily\nreflux of the tide of consciousness cannot efface. If we strike out of\nthe account all the dreams which are too vague to leave any permanent\nimpress on waking, all those which are purely inconsequent and\nfantastic, and all which can be readily traced to some physical cause,\nwe shall find that the number which we have to deal with,--the number,\nthat is, of vivid and passably realistic dreams,--though no doubt\nlarge, is perhaps not beyond the range of definite calculation. It\ncould not, for instance, be plausibly contended that the correspondence\nof a dream such as that of Captain Campbell's, recorded below,\nwith the death of the person portrayed, is on the same level as the\nprophetic vision of the City clerk, who, dreaming every other night\nof the success of some horse which he has backed, happens on some one\noccasion to dream of the future winner.\n\nIt will be observed that of the nine dreams which are given in full in\nthis chapter, no less than four are concerned with death. Of the much\nlarger number--149--of coincident dreams published in _Phantasms of the\nLiving_, no less than 79 relate to a death. Now, as dreams of death or\nsuggesting death do not form a large proportion of dreams in general,\ntheir startling preponderance amongst coincident dreams constitutes\nin itself an argument for ascribing such dreams to telepathy; for\nif any power exists whereby one mind can affect another, it would\nappear _\u00e0 priori_ probable that such a power would be exercised most\nfrequently and effectually at times of exceptional crisis. As has been\npointed out by Mr. Gurney (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. p. 303),\nthe preponderance amongst \"true\" dreams of dreams relating to death\nmay indeed be explained on the assumption that such dreams are more\nfrequently remembered than other \"true\" dreams. This assumption is no\ndoubt in a measure justified, but the consequences of admitting its\ntruth must not be overlooked; for it of course follows that a large\nnumber of coincident dreams are forgotten, _i.e._, that the grounds\nfurnished by dreams for believing in telepathy are much stronger than\nwould at first sight appear.\n\nAgain, the frequency of coincident dreams of death offers a favourable\nopportunity for estimating the probabilities of their occurrence by\nchance. The problem is simplified in one direction by the consideration\nthat death is at all events a unique event in the history of the agent.\nIf we can ascertain the proportion which \"true\" bear to \"not-true\"\ndreams of death, we can calculate by means of the tables of mortality\nthe probabilities for some other cause than chance. The problem was\nactually attempted by Mr. Gurney, who found that coincident dreams of\ndeath in the collection published in _Phantasms of the Living_ were\ntwenty-four times as numerous as chance would allow.[89]\n\nTheoretically, dreams are of considerable interest as throwing light\nupon the nature of waking impressions; for it should be observed\nthat dreams are of many kinds and of many degrees of vividness. Some\nin the vagueness and ideality of the impressions resemble closely\nthe waking experiences recorded in the preceding chapter. Others in\ntheir extreme clearness and semi-externalisation approach nearly to\nthe level of hallucinations. But whilst few persons above the level\nof the savage believe that their dream percepts correspond to actual\nexternal objects visibly present, there are some who think that the\nhallucinatory image of a dying friend which they see with their eyes\nopen, and taking a place in the external order of things, must, just\nbecause they see it with open eyes, form a part of that external order.\nAnd if the percipient himself is not under any such misconception,\nthe journalist who sneers at him for believing in \"ghosts\" is so, by\nhis own confession. If once it is recognised that between dreams and\nhallucinations there is no essential difference, the chief obstacle\nto the acceptance, by two different classes of minds, of telepathy as\nthe explanation of coincident hallucinations will have disappeared. It\nwill become clear, on the one hand, that a belief in the significance\nof such hallucinations does not necessarily carry with it a belief in\n\"ghosts\"; and on the other, that the fact of an apparition taking its\nplace as a fully externalised percept does not imply any substantial\nbasis for the percept.\n\nIn dealing with dreams we will discuss first those which resemble most\nclosely the experimental results and the cases considered in the last\nchapter, and proceed from these to dreams which include a definite\nrepresentation of the agent. Finally, cases of somewhat aberrant type\nand clairvoyant dreams will be considered.\n\n\n_Simultaneous Dreams._\n\nNo. 52.--From MISS INA BIDDER.\n\n \"RAVENSBURY PARK, MITCHAM,\n _June_ 10_th_, 1890.\n\n \"The night before last a curious case of what I cannot but call\n telepathy occurred between myself and my sister. (We sleep in the\n same room.) For the last two years the whole family have been very\n much interested in some skeletons and flint instruments found in\n a gravel pit in one of the fields. They have never been properly\n excavated, and about ten days ago my sister and I had been amusing\n ourselves pulling out, bone by bone, one of these 'pal\u00e6olithic\n men,' as we pleased to call them. He was a particularly interesting\n one, as we found a flint arrow-head in his hip-bone, but we only\n got to his ribs. On the night in question I dreamt that my father\n was excavating in a more approved method, taking off the top mould\n and leaving the bones in their original position in the brown\n earth, so that you could see the form of the man to whom they\n had belonged. In this way we lifted out the rest of the skeleton\n at which my sister and I had been working, and behold! when we\n got to the skull it had a snout. We were delighted to be able to\n prove this extraordinary fact respecting pal\u00e6olithic man, and\n the doctors crowded down from town to see the creature; but my\n sister was nowhere about, and in my anxiety to tell her of our\n discovery I woke myself and nearly woke her. I stopped myself just\n in time, thinking what a shame it was to spoil her night's rest\n for a dream. Still wishing she were awake to hear, and thinking\n again of the curious effect of the black, earth-filled skull, with\n its projecting snout, and dreaming of my dream, I turned over\n and dropped into another. Before I had got well started in this,\n however, I was awakened by my sister trying to light the candle.\n 'What is it?' I said, 'what's the matter?' 'I've just had such a\n horrid dream,' she answered; 'it haunts me still.' But I do not\n think I need repeat her dream, which I believe she has written.\"\n\nMiss M. Bidder writes as follows:--\n\n \"_June_ 9_th_, 1890.\n\n \"I was sleeping last night with my sister, with whom I have shared\n a room all my life. I was sleeping soundly, and my dreams, of which\n I now retain only the vaguest recollection, took their most usual\n form of a confused repetition of all the events of the past day\n jumbled together without meaning or sequence, and without even much\n distinctness. The whole scene of the dream was hazy and confused,\n until I became suddenly conscious of the figure of a skeleton in\n the foreground, as it were, which disturbed me in my dream with\n a sense of incongruity. I first made a half-conscious effort to\n banish the figure--which struck me with great horror--from my\n dream, but instead of disappearing it grew more and more prominent\n and distinct, while all the rest of the scene and the people in\n it seemed fading away. The figure of the skeleton, which I can\n perfectly recall, presented one of the most vivid impressions I\n ever remember to have received in a dream. It appeared to stand\n upright before me, with what seemed to be a dark cloak hanging\n about its limbs and forming a kind of background as of a black\n hood behind the skull, which showed against it with extreme\n distinctness. It was on the skull, which was facing me full, that\n my attention was chiefly concentrated, and as I stared at it it\n slowly turned sideways, showing, to my horror, the profile of a\n very long, sharp nose in place of the hollow socket. The feeling\n of terror with which I perceived this (for the first time) was so\n intense as to awaken me, nor could I even then entirely banish it.\n So unpleasantly strong, indeed, was the impression of some horrible\n presence which still remained, that it was with difficulty that I\n resisted the desire to rouse my sister that she might help me to\n shake it off. Some movement of mine did in fact presently awake\n her, and I at once began to tell her of my horrible dream. Before,\n however, I had described it to her, she interrupted me to tell me\n of a dream which she had had.\"\n\nHere it is perhaps permissible to conjecture that some common\nexperience of their waking life might have suggested to both sisters\nthe idea of a primeval skeleton with a snout. But it is remarkable,\nif such is the true explanation, that the common idea was elaborated\ninto a dream by the two percipients almost simultaneously. It must be\nadmitted, however, that such dreams, which have hitherto been reported\nonly as occurring between persons whose lives are spent for the most\npart in the same surroundings, have little value as evidence. It is\nonly those who believe, on evidence derived from other sources, in the\nreality of telepathy, who will be inclined to regard such cases as\npossibly due to its action, rather than to the spontaneous association\nof ideas in minds sharing the same experiences and moving to some\nextent in similar grooves.\n\n\n_Dreams coinciding with external events._\n\nIn the cases which follow the coincidence is of a more definite kind,\nand the question is now no longer of the correspondence of thought in\nclosely associated minds, but of the correspondence of thought with an\noutward event--with something done or suffered by the person whose mind\napparently affects that of the dreamer.\n\n\n_Transference of Sensation in Dreams._\n\nThe following case, quoted from the _Proc. of the Am. S.P.R._ (pp. 226,\n227), offers a curious parallel to some of the cases recorded at the\nbeginning of Chapter II. The narrator is a lady of Boston, whose good\nfaith is vouched for by Professor Royce. She wrote from Hamburg on the\n23rd of June 1887 to her sister, who was at that time in Boston, U.S.A.\nThe following is an extract from this letter:--\n\n\nNo. 53.\n\n \"I very nearly wrote from the Hague to say that I should be very\n thankful when we had a letter from you of the 18th of June saying\n that you were well and happy.... In the night of the 17th I had\n what I suppose to be a nightmare, but it all seemed to belong\n to you ... and to be a horrid pain in your head, as if it were\n being forcibly jammed into an iron casque, or some such pleasant\n instrument of torture. The queer part of it was my own dissociation\n from the pain, and conviction that it was yours. I suppose it was\n some slight painful sensation magnified into something quite severe\n by a half-asleep condition. It will be a fine example of what the\n Society for Psychical Research ought to be well supplied with--an\n _Ahnung_ which came to nothing.\"\n\nAs a matter of fact the lady in Boston to whom this letter was\naddressed is shown, on the evidence of a dentist's bill, to have spent\non the 17th June an hour and three-quarters in the operating chair,\nwhile a painful tooth was being stopped. The discomfort consequent on\nthe operation, as was learnt from the patient herself, \"continued as\na dull pain for some hours, in such wise that during the afternoon of\nthe 17th June the patient could not forget the difficulty at all. She\nslept, however, as usual at night. The nightmare in Europe followed the\noperation in Boston by a good many hours, but the pain of the tooth\nreturned daily for some three weeks.\" As the letter was written from\nEurope six days after the nightmare there was of course no possibility\nof any communication having passed in the interval except by telegram.\n\nIn the next case also the coincidence was of a trivial nature, but\nappears to have been exact in point of time. The narrative is quoted\nhere because the impression, though not described beforehand, was of\na quite unusual kind, being in part, if not altogether, a _waking_\nexperience. It is doubtful, indeed, whether it should be classed as a\ndream, and not rather as a \"borderland\" hallucination.\n\n\nNo. 54.--From MRS. HARRISON.\n\n \"_February_ 7_th_, 1891.\n\n \"I reside with my husband at 15 Lupton Street, N.W. This\n afternoon I was lying on the sofa, sound asleep, when I suddenly\n awoke, thinking I heard my husband sigh as if in pain. I arose\n immediately, expecting to find him in the room. He was not there,\n and looking at my watch I found it was half-past three. At six\n o'clock my husband came in. He called my attention to a bruise on\n his forehead, which was caused by his having knocked it against\n the stone steps in a Turkish bath. I said to him, 'I know when it\n happened--it was at half-past three, for I heard you sigh as if in\n pain at that time.' He replied, 'Yes, that was the exact time, for\n I remember noticing the clock directly after.'\n\n \"The gentleman who appends his name as witness was present when\n this conversation took place.\n\n \"LOUISA E. HARRISON.\n\n \"Witness: Henry Hooton, 23 Bunhill Row, E.C.\"\n\nThis account was sent to the S.P.R. by Mr. Harrison on the day of the\noccurrence described. In an accompanying letter he writes: \"Everything\nhappened exactly as stated.\"\n\nIn the cases which follow, with one exception, the dream impression\nwas of a well-marked visual nature. In the first three narratives the\ndream had reference to the death of the person represented. The mode\nof representation, however, it will be seen, differed in each case. In\nthe first, the associated imagery was in part of a fantastic nature,\nand the dream, though sufficiently exceptional to leave a feeling of\nfatigue on the following morning, and to induce the percipient to write\nan account of it to his friends, resembled in other respects the motley\ncrowd which throng through the gate of ivory. In the second case the\nsurroundings of the central figure were such as the waking imagination\nof the dreamer would naturally have conjured up in picturing the\ndeathbed of his friend.\n\n\nNo. 55.--From MR. J. T.\n\n This case is recorded at some length in the _Proceedings of the\n Am. S.P.R._ (pp. 394-397) by Professor Royce. Professor Royce\n explains that Mr. E., the agent, died after a short illness in\n New York City, on Tuesday, February 23rd, 1886. Mr. J. T., who,\n though an acquaintance of Mr. E., had heard nothing of him for some\n time, and, as indeed appears from the letters quoted, knew of no\n special cause for anxiety, was on the day of the death, and for\n some time afterwards, in St. John, New Brunswick. In consequence of\n severe snowstorms, no mails had been received in St. John from the\n South for some days, and at the time when the letter, an extract\n from which we give below, was written, it was not possible for\n the writer to have known of Mr. E.'s death. The original letter,\n written by Mr. J. T. to his wife, and dated Wednesday, March 3rd,\n 1886, on paper headed Hotel Dufferin, St. John, N.B., has been seen\n by Professor Royce:--\n\n \"I have not heard of you for an age. The train that should have\n been here on Friday last has not arrived yet. I had a very strange\n dream on Tuesday night. I have never been in Ottawa in my life,\n and yet I was there, in Mr. E.'s house. Mrs. E., Miss E., and the\n little girls were in great trouble because Mr. E. was ill. I had to\n go and tell my brother [Mr. E.'s son-in-law], and, strange to say,\n he was down a coal-mine.\n\n \"When I got down to him I told him that Mr. E. was dead. But in\n trying to get out we could not do it. We climbed and climbed, but\n always fell back. I felt tired out when I awoke next morning, and I\n cannot account for the dream in any way.\"\n\nThough the letter leaves it doubtful whether the dream actually\noccurred on the night of the death, or a week later, it appears from\nfurther correspondence that the percipient believes the dream to have\ntaken place on the night of the 23rd February, the night of the death,\nand this is the most natural interpretation of the letter.[90] In any\ncase, the dream preceded the news of the death.\n\nIn the next case, again, the dream is of a not uncommon type, but the\nimpression made, it will be seen, was such as to wake the dreamer at\nthe time, and to induce him in the morning to take the unusual course\nof noting the dream in his diary.\n\n\nNo. 56.--From MR. R. V. BOYLE.\n\n \"3 STANHOPE TERRACE, W.,\n _July_ 30_th_, 1884.\n\n \"In India, early on the morning of November 2nd, 1868 (which would\n be about 10 to 11 P.M. of November 1st in England), I had so clear\n and striking a dream or vision (repeated a second time after a\n short waking interval) that, on rising as usual between 6 and 7\n o'clock, I felt impelled at once to write an entry in my diary,\n which is now before me.\n\n \"At the time referred to my wife and I were in Simla, in the\n Himalayas, the summer seat of the Governor-General, and my\n father-in-law and mother-in-law were living in Brighton. We had not\n heard of or from either of them for weeks, nor had I been recently\n speaking or thinking of them, for there was no reason for anxiety\n regarding them. It is right, however, to say that my wife's father\n had gone to Brighton some months before on account of his health,\n though he was not more delicate than his elder brother, who is\n (1884) still living.\n\n \"It seemed in my dream that I stood at the open door of a bedroom\n in a house in Brighton, and that before me, by candle-light, I saw\n my father-in-law lying pale upon his bed, while my mother-in-law\n passed silently across the room in attendance on him. The vision\n soon passed away, and I slept on for some time. On waking, however,\n the nature of the impression left upon me unmistakably was that\n my father-in-law was dead. I at once noted down the dream, after\n which I broke the news of what I felt to be a revelation to my\n wife, when we thought over again and again all that could bear\n upon the matter, without being able to assign any reason for my\n being so strongly and thoroughly impressed. The telegraph from\n England to Simla had been open for some time, but now there was an\n interruption, which lasted for about a fortnight longer, and on\n the 17th (fifteen days after my dream) I was neither unprepared\n nor surprised to receive a telegram from England, saying that my\n father-in-law had died in Brighton on November 1st. Subsequent\n letters showed that the death occurred on the _night_ of the 1st.\n\n \"Dreams, as a rule, leave little impression on me, and the one\n above referred to is the only one I ever thought of making a note\n of, or of looking expectantly for its fulfilment.\n\n \"R. VICARY BOYLE.\"\n\nMrs. Boyle writes as follows:--\n\n \"6_th August_ 1887.\n\n \"I well remember my husband telling me one morning, early in\n November 1868, when at Simla, in India, that he had had a striking\n dream (repeated) in which my father, then at Brighton, seemed to be\n dying. We were both deeply impressed, and then anxiously awaited\n news from home. A telegram first reached us, in about a fortnight,\n which was afterwards confirmed by letters telling of my father's\n death having occurred on the same night when my husband had the\n dream.\n\n \"EL\u00c9ONORE A. BOYLE.\n\nMr. Gurney adds the following notes on the case:--\n\n \"The following entries were copied by me from Mr. Boyle's diary:--\n\n \"'Nov. 2. Dreamed of E.'s F[ather] early this morning.\n\n \"'Written before dressing.\n\n \"'Nov. 17. Got telegram from L[ouis] H[ack] this morning of his\n father's death on 1st Nov. inst.'\n\n \"The following notice of the decease of Mr. Boyle's father-in-law\n occurred in the _Times_ for 4th November 1868:--\n\n \"'On 1st Nov., at Brighton, William Hack, late of Dieppe, aged 72.'\n\n \"Mr. Boyle informed me that he is a 'particularly sound sleeper,\n and very rarely dreams.' This dream was a very unique and\n impressive experience, apart from the coincidence.\n\n \"There was a regular correspondence between Mrs. Boyle and her\n mother, but for several mails the letters had contained no mention\n of her father, on whose account absolutely no anxiety was felt.\n\n \"E. G.\"\n\nIt appears that the death actually occurred at about 2 P.M. in England,\nwhich was, allowing for the difference in longitude, about nine hours\nbefore the dream.\n\nIn the next case the dream is of a more unusual character. The figure\nof the agent appears to have stood alone, whilst the impression\nmade was such that the percipient is uncertain whether to class\nhis experience as a dream or a vision. Indeed, in the absence of\ndream-background, and in the life-like appearance of the figure, the\ndream bears a striking resemblance to a waking hallucination.\n\n\nNo. 57.--From CAPTAIN R. E. W. CAMPBELL\n\n(2nd Royal Irish Fusiliers).\n\n \"ARMY AND NAVY CLUB, PALL MALL, S.W.,\n _February_ 21_st_, 1888.\n\n \"I have much pleasure in enclosing you an account of a remarkable\n dream which occurred to me in the year 1886, together with three\n other accounts of the same, written by officers to whom the facts\n of the case are known. You are at liberty, in the interests of\n science, to make such use of them as you please.\n\n \"I was stationed at the Dep\u00f4t Barracks, Armagh, Ireland, on the\n 30th November 1886, and on the night of the same date, or early\n in the morning of the 1st December (I cannot tell which, as I\n did not refer to my watch), I was in bed in my room, when I was\n awakened by a most vivid and remarkable dream or vision, in which\n I seemed to see a certain Major Hubbersty, late of my regiment,\n the 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers, looking ghastly pale, and\n falling forward as if dying. He seemed to be saying something to\n me, but the words I could not make out, although I tried hard to\n understand him. The clothes he had on at the time appeared to me\n to have a thin red thread running through the pattern. I was very\n deeply impressed by my dream, and so much did I feel that there\n was something significant in it that on the 1st December, when\n at luncheon in the mess, I related it to three brother-officers,\n telling them at the same time that I felt sure we should soon hear\n something bad about Major Hubbersty. I had almost forgotten all\n about it when, on taking up the _Times_ newspaper of the following\n Saturday on the Sunday morning following, the first thing that\n caught my eyes was the announcement of Major Hubbersty's death at\n Penzance, in Cornwall, on the 30th November, the very date on which\n I had the remarkable dream concerning him.\n\n \"My feelings on seeing such a remarkable fulfilment of my dream can\n be better imagined than described. Suffice it to say that on the\n return from church of Messrs. Kaye and Scott I asked them to try\n and recollect anything peculiar which had happened at luncheon on\n the 1st December, when, after a few moments' deliberation, they at\n once recounted to me the whole circumstances of my dream, as they\n had heard them from my lips on the 1st December 1886. On seeing Mr.\n Leeper a few days afterwards at his father's house, Loughgall, Co.\n Armagh, he at once remembered all I had told him about the dream\n on the 1st December, on my questioning him about it. I, of course,\n can assign no possible cause for the remarkable facts related, as\n apart from the difference of our standing in the service, the late\n Major Hubbersty and I were in no wise particularly friendly to one\n other, nor had we seen very much of each other. I had not seen him\n for eighteen months previously. A very curious fact in connection\n with the dream is that it occurred to me in the very same room in\n the barracks as Major Hubbersty used to occupy when stationed at\n Armagh, several years previously.\"\n\nIn answer to an inquiry, Captain Campbell writes, on February 29th,\n1888:--\n\n \"I do not dream much, as a rule, and cannot recall to my mind ever\n before having had a dream of a similar nature to that dreamt by me\n about the late Major Hubbersty.\"\n\nMr. A. B. R. Kaye, Lieutenant Third Royal Irish Fusiliers, writes on\nAugust 20th, 1887, from 62 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin:--\n\n \"I was stationed in the barracks, Armagh Dep\u00f4t, Royal Irish\n Fusiliers, in November and December 1886. On the 1st of December at\n lunch there were present Lieutenant R. E. W. Campbell (2nd R.I.F.),\n Lieutenant R. W. Leeper (2nd R.I.F.), Lieutenant T. E. Scott (4th\n R.I.F.), and myself. During our conversation Major Hubbersty's\n name was mentioned, and Campbell told us that he had a dream about\n him the night before, how he had seen a vision of Major Hubbersty\n looking very pale and seeming to be falling forward, and saying\n something to him which he could not hear; also, he (Campbell) told\n us he was sure we would hear something about Major Hubbersty very\n soon.\n\n \"On the following Sunday, when Scott and I returned from church and\n went into the ante-room, Campbell, who was there, asked us both\n to try and remember anything peculiar that he had told us on the\n 1st. After a little time, we remembered about the dream, and he\n (Campbell) then showed us the _Times_ newspaper of the day before,\n containing the notice of Major Hubbersty's death, at Penzance, on\n November 30th, 1886, the same date as that on which he had the\n dream; also, I remember, he (Campbell) told us that in his vision\n he seemed to see the clothes which Major Hubbersty had on, and that\n there was a red thread running through the pattern of the trousers.\"\n\nThe two other friends mentioned by Captain Campbell, Messrs. Leeper and\nScott, have written letters to the same effect.[91]\n\nFrom these letters there can be no doubt that the coincidence made a\nmarked impression on each of those to whom the dream was related, and\nthis fact, perhaps even more than Captain Campbell's own narrative, is\na striking proof of the exceptional nature of the experience.\n\nThere is no reason in this case for supposing that the dream conveyed\nany other information than the fact of the agent's death. There is\nno evidence that the manner of death or the clothes worn by Major\nHubbersty resembled what was seen in the dream. The clothes in which\nthe figure appeared may have been a reminiscence of clothes which the\npercipient had actually seen worn on some occasion by the agent. But\nthis explanation will hardly apply to the following case, where the\ndream included a representation, accurate in more than one particular,\nof the agent as he actually appeared at the time. It is true that\nwe have to rely upon the percipient's memory after the interval of\na fortnight for the details of the dream, but since the dream was\nsufficiently impressive to cause a note to be taken of it by a person\nnot in the habit of making such notes, it seems not unreasonable to\ntrust the memory to that extent.\n\n\nNo, 58.--From MR. E. W. HAMILTON, C.B.\n\n \"PARK LANE CHAMBERS, PARK LANE, W.,\n _April_ 6_th_, 1888.\n\n \"On Wednesday morning, March 21st, 1888, I woke up with the\n impression of a very vivid dream. I had dreamt that my brother,\n who had long been in Australia, and of whom I had heard nothing\n for several months, had come home; that after an absence of twelve\n years and a half he was very little altered in appearance, but that\n he had something wrong with one of his arms; it looked horribly red\n near the wrist, his hand being bent back.\n\n \"When I got up that morning the dream recurred constantly to\n my thoughts, and I at last determined to take a note of it,\n notwithstanding my natural prejudices against attaching any\n importance to dreams, to which, indeed, I am not much subject.\n Accordingly, in the course of the day, I made in my little Letts'\n diary a mark thus: X, with my brother's name after it.\n\n \"On the following Monday morning, the 26th March, I received a\n letter from my brother, which bore the date of the 21st March, and\n which had been posted at Naples (where the Orient steamers touch),\n informing me that he was on his way home, and that he hoped to\n reach London on or about the 30th March, and adding that he was\n suffering from a very severe attack of gout in the left arm.\n\n \"The next day I related to some one this curious incident, and I\n commented on the extraordinary coincidence of facts with the dream\n except in one detail, and that was, that the arm which I had seen\n in my dream did not look as if it were merely affected with gout:\n the appearance it had presented to me was more like extremely bad\n eczema.\n\n \"My brother duly reached England on the 29th, having disembarked\n at Plymouth owing to the painful condition of his arm. It turned\n out that the doctor on board ship had mistaken the case; it was\n not gout, but a case of blood poisoning, resulting in a very bad\n carbuncle or abscess over the wrist joint.\n\n \"Since my brother's return, I have endeavoured to ascertain from\n him the exact hour at which he wrote to me on March 21st. He is not\n certain whether the letter to me was written before noon or after\n noon of that day. He remembers writing four short letters in the\n course of that day--two before luncheon and two after luncheon.\n Had the note addressed to me been written in the forenoon, it\n might nearly have coincided in time with my dream, if allowance\n be made for the difference of time between Greenwich and Naples;\n for, having no recollection of the dream when I woke, according to\n custom, at an early hour on the morning of the 21st, I presume I\n must have dreamt it very little before eight o'clock, the hour at\n which I was called.\n\n \"I may add that, notwithstanding an absence of twelve years and a\n half, my brother has altered very little in appearance; and that I\n have not to my knowledge ever noted a dream before in my life.\"\n\nOn April 12th, 1888, Mr. Gurney inspected the diary with the entry\n(X, Clem) under Tuesday, March 20th, 1888, though, as Mr. Hamilton\nexplained, \"it was early the next morning that I had the dream, for I\ngenerally consider all that appertains to bed relates to the day on\nwhich one gets into it\".\n\nMr. Gurney also saw the letter signed Clement E. Hamilton, and dated\nNaples, March 21st, 1888, which says \"am suffering from very severe\nattack of gout in left arm.\"\n\nThe next case presents several points of interest. In part, at least,\nit seems to have been a waking experience, possibly the prolongation\nof a dream. In this respect it resembles Mrs. Harrison's case, already\ncited (No. 54), and if correctly described, the incident possesses\ntherefore a higher evidential value than a mere dream, however vivid.\nI have here classed it as a dream, however, because the percipient\nhimself so describes it in his letter written a few days after the\nexperience. The utterance of words by the percipient finds a parallel\nin the case of Archdeacon Bruce (Chapter VII., No. 51). But in the\npresent case there is the additional feature that the percipient is\nconscious not only of the sound of his own voice, but of another voice\nin reply. The incident, it will be seen, though remote, is attested by\nletters written immediately after the event, and by the percipient's\nrecollection of action taken in consequence of the dream-warning.\n\n\nNo. 59.--From MR. EDWARD A. GOODALL, of the Royal Society of Painters\nin Water-Colours.\n\n \"_May_, 1888.\n\n \"At Midsummer, 1869, I left London for Naples. The heat being\n excessive, people were leaving for Ischia, and I thought it best to\n go there myself.\n\n \"Crossing by steamer, I slept one night at Casamicciola, on the\n coast, and walked next morning into the town of Ischia [Mr. Goodall\n then describes an accident to his hand, which prevented him from\n sketching.]\n\n \"It must have been on my third or fourth night, and about the\n middle of it, when I awoke, as it seemed, at the sound of my own\n voice, saying: 'I know I have lost my dearest little May.' Another\n voice, which I in no way recognised, answered: '_No_, not May, but\n your _youngest boy_.'\n\n \"The distinctness and solemnity of the voice made such a\n distressing impression upon me that I slept no more. I got up at\n daybreak, and went out, noticing for the first time telegraph-poles\n and wires.\n\n \"Without delay I communicated with the postmaster at Naples, and by\n next boat received two letters from home. I opened them according\n to dates outside. The first told me that my youngest boy was taken\n suddenly ill; the second, that he was dead.\n\n \"Neither on his account nor on that of any of my family had I any\n cause for uneasiness. All were quite well on my taking leave of\n them so lately. My impression ever since has been that the time of\n the death coincided as nearly as we could judge with the time of my\n accident.\n\n \"In writing to Mrs. Goodall, I called the incident of the voice a\n dream, as less likely perhaps to disturb her than the details which\n I gave on reaching home, and which I have now repeated.\n\n \"My letters happen to have been preserved.\n\n \"I have never had any hallucination of any kind, nor am I in the\n habit of talking in my sleep. I do remember once waking with some\n words of mere nonsense upon my lips, but the experience of the\n voice speaking to me was absolutely unique.\n\n \"EDWARD A. GOODALL.\"\n\nExtracts from letters to Mrs. E. A. Goodall from Ischia:--\n\n \"WEDNESDAY, _August_ 11_th_, 1869.\n\n \"The postman brought me two letters containing sad news indeed.\n Poor little Percy! I dreamt some nights since the poor little\n fellow was taken from us....\"\n\n \"_August_ 14_th_.\n\n \"I did not tell you, dear, the particulars of my dream about poor\n little Percy.\n\n \"I had been for several days very fidgety and wretched at getting\n no letters from home, and had gone to bed in worse spirits than\n usual, and in my dream I fancied I said: 'I have lost my dearest\n little May.' A strange voice seemed to say: 'No, _not_ May, but\n your youngest boy,' not mentioning his name.\"\n\nMr. Myers adds:--\n\n \"Mr. Goodall has given me verbally a concordant account of the\n affair, and several members of his family, who were present at our\n interview, recollected the strong impression made on him and them\n at the time.\"[92]\n\nIn the case which follows the agency is difficult to elucidate. The\npersons who were spectators of the scene represented in the dream can\nhardly be supposed to have been acquainted with the dreamer, and\nassuredly would not willingly have revealed the secret. The dream\nappears to have been of a clairvoyant character. The account is taken\nfrom the _Proceedings of the Am. S.P.R._, pp. 454 _et seq_.\n\n\nNo. 60.--From MRS. E. J.\n\n \"CAMBRIDGE (U.S.A.), _Nov._ 30, 1886.\n\n \"The dream I will endeavour to relate as clearly as possible.\n\n \"It occurred during the month of August, last summer, while we were\n boarding with Mrs. H., in Lunenburg, where I first met the Misses\n W. I am a perfectly healthy woman, and have always been sceptical\n as to hallucinations in any one, always before having felt the\n cause of the experience might be traced.\n\n \"In my dream I arrived unexpectedly at the house of the Misses\n W., in Cambridge, where I found everything in confusion, drawers\n emptied and their contents scattered about the floor, bundles\n unrolled, and dresses taken down from the closets. Then, as I\n stepped into one room, I saw some boys in bed,--three or four,\n I cannot distinctly remember. I saw their faces distinctly, as\n they sat up in bed at my approach, but the recollection of their\n faces has faded from me now. I could not reach the boys, for they\n disappeared suddenly, and I could not find them; but I thought,\n These cannot be the people whom the Misses W. trusted to care for\n their house in their absence; and I was troubled to know whether it\n was best to tell them when I should return to Lunenburg. This is\n all there was in the dream.\n\n \"Thinking only to amuse them, I related my dream at the\n breakfast-table the following morning, and I regretted doing so\n immediately, for anxiety showed itself in their faces, and the\n elder Miss W. remarked that she hoped my dream was not a forerunner\n of bad tidings from home. I laughed at the idea, but that morning\n the mail brought a letter telling them that their house had been\n entered, and when they went down they found almost the same\n confusion of which I had been a witness the night before--with\n everything strewn about the floor. It was a singular coincidence,\n surely.\"\n\nMiss W. writes:--\n\n \"7 ---- STREET, _Dec._ 4.\n\n \"I am not quite sure whether the incident to which you allude in\n your note is worthy your attention or not, but I will give you the\n facts, that you may judge for yourself of its value.\n\n \"The burglary, we suppose, took place on the night of the 17th or\n 18th of August, I being at the time, for the summer, in the town of\n Lunenburg, Mass.\n\n \"Coming down to breakfast on the morning of the 17th, a lady said\n to me that she had had a strange dream. She thought she went to\n our house, finding it in the greatest confusion, everything turned\n upside-down. As she entered one of the sleeping-rooms she saw two\n boys lying in the bed; but she could not see their faces, for as\n soon as they saw her they jumped up and ran off. I said, 'I hope\n that does not mean that we have been visited by burglars.'\n\n \"I thought no more about it, till the eleven o'clock mail brought\n a note from the woman in charge of the house saying that it had\n been entered,--that everything was in great confusion, many things\n carried off, and she wished we would come home at once. The\n policeman who went over the house with her said he had never seen a\n house more thoroughly ransacked.\n\n \"We found that in the upper attic room the bed had evidently been\n used, and there was, perhaps, more confusion in this room than in\n any other.\n\n \"The lady who had the dream was Mrs. E. J., of Cambridgeport. I\n was told that she had been suffering for about a year from nervous\n prostration, and she was evidently in a condition of great nervous\n excitement.\n\n \"I forbore to speak to her of the occurrence, as one of the ladies\n in the house told me that it had made an unpleasant impression on\n her mind.\n\n \"The whole thing seems rather curious to me, but I do not know that\n you will find it of any value in your investigations.\"\n\nA dream presenting similar features is recorded in the _Journal of the\nS.P.R._ for June 1890. Mr. William Bass, farm bailiff to Mrs. Palmer,\nof Turnours Hall, Chigwell, on Good Friday, 1884, \"awoke in violent\nagitation and profuse perspiration\" from a dream that something was\nwrong at the stables. He was at first dissuaded by his wife from\npaying any attention to the dream, but subsequently, at about 2 A.M.,\ndressed and proceeded to the stables (a third of a mile off) to find\nthat a mare had been stolen. The case has been investigated by Mr. T.\nBarkworth, of West Hatch, Chigwell, and by Mr. J. B. Surgey, of 22\nHolland Street, Kensington. In a dream recorded in _Phantasms of the\nLiving_ (vol. i. p. 369), Miss Busk, of 16 Montagu Street, W., dreamt\nthat in a spot in Kent well known to her she stumbled over \"the heads,\nleft protruding, of some ducks buried in the sand, under some firs.\"\nThe dream was mentioned at breakfast to Miss Busk's sister, Mrs. Pitt\nByrne, and an hour later the ladies learnt from their bailiff that some\nstolen ducks had accidentally been found buried on the spot and in the\nmanner described.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 89: _Phantasms_, vol. i. pp. 303-310. The statement in the\ntext must not be regarded as having more weight than its author himself\nwould have assigned to it. Mr. Gurney certainly regarded his estimate\nas little more than a guess--a guess indeed made by one who had\ncarefully studied and weighed the facts, so far as they could be known,\nbut because of our inevitable ignorance a guess still, rather than an\nestimate on the approximate accuracy of which it would be safe to rely.\nThe calculation depends on several assumptions, one or two of which,\nat least, are highly controvertible; for instance, the accuracy of the\n5187 persons who asserted that they had not within a given period of\ntwelve years had an exceptionally vivid and distressing dream relating\nto the death of a friend; and the accuracy of the twenty-four persons\nwho described themselves as having had within the same period a similar\ndream actually occurring within twelve hours of the death of the person\nrepresented. Probably the estimate given requires modification by large\nallowances being made in both directions for defects of memory. But\neven when thus discounted the coincidences will, it is thought, by any\none who carefully studies the subject be found to be more numerous than\ncan plausibly be attributed to chance.]\n\n[Footnote 90: A man writing on Wednesday would almost certainly say\n\"last night\" if he meant to indicate the preceding night, whereas,\nhaving just before written of \"Friday last,\" it was natural to describe\nthe Tuesday in the previous week as simply \"Tuesday.\"]\n\n[Footnote 91: These letters are omitted for want of space. They are\ngiven in full in the _Journal of the S.P.R._ for April 1888, pp. 255,\n256.]\n\n[Footnote 92: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 453-455.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nON HALLUCINATION IN GENERAL.\n\n\nBefore proceeding, in the chapters which follow, to cite instances of\nhallucinations which purport to have been telepathically originated, it\nseems needful to glance briefly at sensory hallucination in general.\nTo most persons, no doubt, the word connotes disease. Their ideas\nof hallucination are probably derived from vague reports of asylum\nexperience and _delirium tremens;_ or at least from the cases of\nGoethe's butt, Nicolai, the Berlin bookseller, and the Mrs. A. whose\nexperiences are described in Brewster's _Letters on Natural Magic_,\nboth of whom are known to have been under medical treatment for illness\nof which the hallucinations were regarded as a symptom. Indeed, until\nrecent years the tendency of even well-instructed opinion has been to\nregard a sensory hallucination as necessarily implying some physical\nor mental disorder. This misconception--for it is a misconception--has\nhad some curious consequences. Since it does occasionally happen that\na person admittedly sane and healthy reports to have seen the likeness\nof a human figure in what was apparently empty space, such reports have\nbeen by some perforce scouted as unworthy of credence, and by others\nregarded as necessarily indicating some occult cause--as testifying,\nin short, to the agency of \"ghosts.\" There was indeed the analogy of\ndreams to guide us. Few educated persons would regard dreams, on the\none hand, as a symptom of ill-health, or on the other as counterparts\nor revelations of any super-terrestrial world; or, indeed, as anything\nelse than purely subjective mental images. Yet dreams belong to the\nsame order of mental phenomena as hallucinations, and are commonly so\nclassed--such differences as exist being mainly due to the conditions\nunder which the two sets of phenomena respectively occur. In fact, a\nhallucination is simply a hypertrophied thought--the last member of\na series, whose intermediate terms are to be found in the mind's-eye\npictures of ordinary life, in the vivid images which some artists can\nsummon at will, and in the Faces in the Dark which many persons see\nbefore passing into sleep, with its more familiar and abundant imagery.\n\nOf recent years, however, our knowledge of hallucinations has been\nlargely augmented from two distinct sources. On the one hand, a\nsystematic attempt has been made to study the spontaneous non-recurrent\nhallucinations occurring amongst normal persons; on the other hand,\nwider knowledge of hypnotism and the discovery of various processes for\ninducing hallucinations has afforded facilities for the experimental\ninvestigation of their nature, mechanism, and genesis, both in the\ntrance and in waking life. The hallucinations, indeed, of the ordinary\nhypnotic subject, with which the public has been familiarised by\nplatform demonstrations, are possibly not sensory at all. When a\nhypnotised lad eats tallow-candle for sponge-cake, drinks ink for\nchampagne, or professes to see a lighted candle at the end of the\noperator's finger, we may conclude, if the performance is a genuine\none, that a false belief has been engendered in his mind; but we have,\nin most cases, no evidence that this belief includes any sensory\nelement. In many laboratory experiments, however, there can be little\nquestion that a complete sensory hallucination is induced, and that\nwhat the subject professes to see and hear is as real to him as the\nfurniture or the person of the operator. One or two such cases have\nbeen quoted in a previous chapter (Chap. III., p. 68). The nature\nand reaction of these hypnotic hallucinations have been investigated\nwith much ingenuity by various Continental observers.[93] MM. Binet\nand F\u00e9r\u00e9, to quote the best-known series of experiments, have found,\nspeaking generally, that the hallucinatory percept behaves under\nvarious conditions precisely as if it were a real percept. Thus, if\nthe subject is told to see a picture on a blank card, he will not\nonly see the picture at the time, but he will be able subsequently\nto pick out the card, recognising it by means of the hallucinatory\npicture impressed on it, from a number of similar cards. If the card is\ninverted, he will see the picture upside-down; if a magnifying glass is\ninterposed, he will see the picture enlarged; viewed through a prism,\nit will appear doubled; it will be reflected in a mirror; and if the\nhallucinatory image consists of written or printed words, he will see\nthe writing in the mirror inverted. Hallucinatory colours will develop\nafter-images of the complementary colour, precisely as if coloured\nsurfaces were actually present to the eyes of the _hallucin\u00e9;_ and a\nmixture of these hallucinatory colours will produce the appropriate\nthird colour. If other proof were needed of the sensory nature of\nthe induced affection, MM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9 find it in the observation\nthat with cataleptic subjects who have lost the sensitiveness of the\ncornea and conjunctiva, this sensitiveness is restored when a visual\nhallucination is enjoined upon them. M. Pierre Janet, in _L'Automatisme\nPsychologique_, has recorded a similar restoration of sensitiveness in\na subject's arm by the imposition of a tactile hallucination.\n\nIt is right to point out that these experiments, by the authors'\nadmission, succeed only occasionally, and that many of them have\nnot yet been confirmed by other observers. In fact, according to\nthe evidence collected by the S.P.R., the results of applying such\noptical tests differ with each individual. Thus Mr. Myers succeeded\nby post-hypnotic suggestion in inducing two young men to see\nhallucinatory images in the crystal enlarged by the application of a\nmagnifying glass (_S.P.R._, viii. 462, 463), and Miss X. (_id._, pp.\n485, 486) reports that she sees hallucinatory pictures distorted in\na spoon, reversed in a mirror, enlarged by a magnifying glass, and\ndoubly refracted by Iceland spar. She believes herself also to have\nexperienced complementary colours as the result of prolonged looking\nat a hallucinatory picture. But Mrs. Verrall (_id._, p. 474) finds the\ncrystal pictures vanish when the magnifying glass is applied; and Miss\nA. (_id._, p. 500) finds that the superimposition of a magnifying glass\ndoes not affect the picture. In all these cases, it should be noted,\nthe percipients were in their normal condition, and were more or less\nfamiliar with the nature of the optical effects following under similar\ncircumstances with real percepts.\n\nMM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9 suppose that the appropriate reaction of the\nhallucinatory picture to the various tests described is due to the\nhallucination being built up round a fragment of actual percept, such\nas a mark on a card, which would conform to ordinary optical laws. This\nimaginary nucleus they name the _point de rep\u00e8re_. It is not improbable\nthat in some cases this may be the true explanation. But experience\nleads us to infer that suggestion would be competent to produce all\nthe observed effects in cases where the subject, either from previous\nknowledge of the instrument or process, from the behaviour of the\ninvestigators, or from his own observations at the time, was aware\nof the nature of the effect to be expected. And it is not clear that\nMM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, and other investigators of this school, have been\nsufficiently on their guard against the abnormal receptivity of the\nhypnotised subjects with whom they have for the most part experimented.\nMiss X., it may be remarked, professes herself uncertain whether or\nnot to ascribe the results which she has recorded to self-suggestion.\nBut to choose between these alternative explanations is not important\nfor our present purpose. To whatever cause we may attribute the results\nobserved, there can be no doubt either of the sense of reality conveyed\nby the false percept, or of its appropriate behaviour under favourable\nconditions.\n\nAn instance may be quoted in detail which illustrates at once the\napparent attachment of the hallucination to an external object, and its\nsuccessful competition with the impressions of waking life. A lady of\nmy acquaintance, Sister L., was put into the hypnotic state by Mr. G.\nA. Smith in the spring of 1892. Whilst she was entranced, Mr. Smith, at\nmy request, handed to her several blank cards, and told her that one of\nthem (which had been privately marked on the back) bore a portrait of\nhimself, and that she was to look at it ten minutes after waking. A few\nminutes later, when engaged in conversation and apparently completely\nawake, Sister L. picked out the card in question from the little\nheap of similar cards and showed it to me, remarking that it was an\nexcellent likeness. Some half-hour later, when Sister L. was about to\ntake her departure, I handed her the card and said that Mr. Smith would\nbe glad if she would accept the photograph. She looked at the card,\nexpressed her thanks for the gift, and placed it in her pocket. When I\nmet her a few days later I learnt that on her arrival at home she had\nsearched in her pocket for the photograph, and had been much surprised\nto find there only a blank card. In this instance there can be little\ndoubt that a complete sensory hallucination was induced, and that it\npersisted, or was capable of being revived, for some 30 minutes or more\nafter the original impression had been established.\n\nThis last example, it will be seen, belongs to the important class of\npost-hypnotic hallucinations--_i.e._, hallucinations enjoined on the\nsubject in the hypnotic state, but realised only after waking. Special\ninterest attaches to hallucinations of this kind, because the subject\nis in a condition which, if not fully normal, at least approaches in\nsome cases very nearly to the normal, and is thus able to observe and\ndescribe his own sensations with care.[94]\n\nA more striking form of the same experiment, the post-hypnotic\nproduction of a completely developed hallucination of the human figure,\nhas been practised by Bernheim,[95] Beaunis,[96] Liegeois,[97] and\nothers. Thus M. Liegeois, on the 12th October 1885, told a hypnotised\nsubject that on the 12th October of the year following he would go to\nDr. Li\u00e9beault's house, where he would also see M. Liegeois, and would\nthank them both for the good done to his eyes. He would then see a\nperforming dog and monkey enter the consulting room, where they would\nperform many amusing tricks; ultimately he would see a gipsy enter\nwith a bear, to reclaim the dog and monkey, and would borrow two sous\nfrom M. Liegeois to give to the gipsy. On the 12th October 1886 the\nsubject entered Dr. Li\u00e9beault's consulting room and thanked him and\nM. Liegeois as arranged. He then saw a dog and monkey enter the room,\nand ultimately a gipsy. The bear he did not see, and the two sous,\nwhich were duly borrowed, he handed to the imaginary dog. With these\nexceptions the hallucinations enjoined a year before were exactly\nrealised. Some experiments of a similar nature are recorded by Mr.\nGurney (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 11-13). The subject was a servant\nnamed Zillah, in the service of Mrs. Ellis, of 40 Keppel Street,\nRussell Square. In the first two experiments Zillah was told in the\ntrance that at a certain hour on the following day she would see Mr. G.\nA. Smith. In each case the experiment succeeded.\n\n The third and last experiment with this \"subject\" was made on\n Wednesday evening, July 13th, 1887. On this occasion S. told her,\n when hypnotised, that the next afternoon at three o'clock she\n would see me come into the room to her. She was further told that\n I would keep my hat on, and would say, \"Good afternoon;\" that I\n would further remark, \"It is very warm;\" and would then turn round\n and walk out. These hallucinations were suggested in another room,\n where Zillah was taken for the purpose, and neither Mrs. Ellis nor\n any other person, except S. and myself, knew their nature. Zillah,\n as usual, knew nothing about them on waking. On the second day\n after, the following letter was received from Mrs. Ellis:--\n\n \"40 KEPPEL STREET, RUSSELL SQUARE, W.C.,\n _July_ 14_th_.\n\n \"DEAR MR. SMITH,--Mr. Gurney did not ask me to write in case\n there was anything to communicate with respect to Zillah, but as\n I _suppose_ you gave her a post-hypnotic hallucination, probably\n you will wish to hear of it. I will give you the story in her own\n words, as I jotted them down immediately afterwards--saying nothing\n to her, of course, of my doing so. She said: 'I was in the kitchen\n washing up, and had just looked at the clock, and was startled to\n see how late it was--five minutes to three--when I heard footsteps\n coming down the stairs--rather a quick, light step--and I thought\n it was Mr. Sleep' (the dentist whose rooms are in the house), 'but\n as I turned round, with a dish mop in one hand and a plate in\n the other, I saw some one with a hat on, who had to stoop as he\n came down the last step, and there was Mr. Gurney! He was dressed\n just as I saw him last night, black coat and grey trousers, his\n hat on, and a roll of paper, like manuscript, in his hand, and\n he said, 'Oh, good afternoon.' And then he glanced all round the\n kitchen, and he glared at me with an awful look, as if he was going\n to murder me, and said, 'Warm afternoon, isn't it?' and then,\n 'Good afternoon' or 'Good day,' I'm not sure which, and turned\n and went up the stairs again, and after standing thunderstruck a\n minute, I ran to the foot of the stairs, and saw like a boot just\n disappearing on the top step.' She said, 'I think I must be going\n crazy. Why should I always see something at three o'clock each day\n after the s\u00e9ance? But I am not nearly so frightened as I was at\n seeing Mr. Smith.' She seemed particularly impressed by the 'awful\n look' Mr. Gurney gave her. I presume this was the hallucination you\n gave her.\n\n \"AMELIA A. ELLIS.\"\n\nIt is important to note that in cases of this kind there is no\ndiscoverable _point de rep\u00e8re_, at least in the sense in which the\nphrase is understood by its authors; and the nature of the effect\nproduced--a moving figure, apparently occupying a position in solid\nspace--makes it very difficult to suppose that the hallucination is\nattached to any external object, which must necessarily be fixed. But\nthe whole discussion about the necessity of external excitation or of\n_points de rep\u00e8re_ seems beside the mark in such cases as these. For\nthere can be no question that what in the first instance excites the\nhallucination is not a present sensation, but a memory. Whether for\nthe full development of a sensory hallucination some external stimulus\nto the sense-organ is necessary is here a question of quite minor\nimportance. The really interesting fact in its bearing on the question\nof telepathic hallucination is that some hallucinations are shown\nto be centrally, not peripherally, initiated. It should be further\nremarked that Zillah's astonishment at seeing the figure is typical,\nsince in the case of post-hypnotic hallucinations in general neither\nthe injunction to see the figure, nor indeed any other incident of his\ntrance life, is remembered by the percipient in the normal state; and\nhe is therefore entirely ignorant of the chain of events which led up\nto the hallucination, and can only by inquiry and reflection ascertain\nthat the apparition which he has seen is of his own manufacture.\n\nFrom these experimental cases we may pass to the consideration of\nspontaneous hallucinations, and amongst them to that class with which\nwe are more directly concerned, the occasional hallucinations of sane\nand healthy persons. Owing, amongst other causes, to their comparative\ninfrequency, and to the difficulty of obtaining accurate contemporary\nrecords (since their occurrence cannot, as in the hallucinations of\ndisease, be foreseen), phenomena of this class have hitherto attracted\nlittle attention amongst psychologists.[98] Mr. Edmund Gurney,\nhowever, in 1884 and onwards conducted an inquiry, by means of a\nprinted schedule of questions, amongst a circle of some 6000 persons;\nand during the last four years, at the request of the Congress of\nExperimental Psychology which met at Paris in 1889, Professor Henry\nSidgwick, with the aid of a Committee of members of the S.P.R., has\ncarried on a similar investigation on a larger scale. 17,000 adult\npersons, for the most part resident in the United Kingdom, have been\nquestioned as to their experience of sensory hallucinations.[99] In\nthe result it appeared that 1684 out of 17,000, or 9.9 per cent.--to\nwit, 655 out of 8372 men, and 1029 out of 8628 women--had experienced a\nsensory hallucination at some time in their lives. In about one-third\nof the cases the percipient had more than one experience of the kind.\nThe phenomenon, therefore, though not so common as dreaming, is less\nrare than is generally supposed, seeing that about one in every ten\neducated persons has such an experience in the course of his life.\nThe inquiries of the Committee have revealed no general cause for the\ngreater number of these isolated hallucinations. In a small proportion\nof the cases there was a slight degree of ill-health, and in a rather\ngreater number there was a certain amount of anxiety or other emotional\nexcitement, to which the hallucinatory experience might with some\nplausibility be attributed.[100] But in the great majority of the\ncases there was no obvious antecedent to be discovered either in the\ncondition of the percipient or in the surrounding circumstances,\nand we are led to the conclusion that an isolated hallucination of\nthis kind is as little incompatible with ordinary health as a blush\nor a hiccough. At the same time we are entitled to infer, from the\nrelatively large proportion of cases occurring when the percipient is\nin bed, or alone, that quiescence and freedom from external stimuli are\nfavourable conditions for the genesis of hallucinations.[101] They\nmay, in short, be regarded as unusually vivid dreams, and have for\nthe most part just so much interest and significance. The nature and\nvariety of these casual hallucinations may be gathered from the table\non the following page.\n\nIf we turn to the mechanism of hallucinations, we shall find that--like\ndreams--some are apparently originated by the condition of the bodily\norgans; others again appear to be mere automatic reverberations of\nrecent sensation; whilst yet others cannot be referred to any immediate\nexternal stimulus, and suggest the \"spontaneous\" activity of the\nhigher cerebral centres. With the rudimentary hallucinations--singing\nin the ears, sparks and flashes of light, etc.--which are caused by\ntransient conditions of the external organs of sense, we are probably\nall familiar. But experience shows that a small nucleus of actual\nsensation may enter into more fully developed hallucinations. Thus,\nto take the simplest case, it is known that \"sparks\" may develop into\n\"Faces in the Dark,\" which are themselves on the border-line between\nmind's-eye pictures and hallucinations. (See _St. James's Gazette_,\n\"Faces in the Dark,\" Feb. 10, 1882, and _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p.\n171.) And in another recorded case (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. i. pp. 102,\n103) an artist was accustomed to see constantly at his studio the\nfigure of a man, under circumstances which strongly suggest that a\n_point de rep\u00e8re_ was furnished by those floating motes in the eyeballs\nwhich are liable momentarily to cloud the vision when the position is\nabruptly changed after a period of immobility. And we find cases where\nthe constructive impulse has so amplified and misinterpreted the data\nof normal sensation that we hardly know whether to class the result as\nhallucination or illusion. Thus, in a case given in _Phantasms_ (vol.\nii. p. 28), a young girl sees the face of a friend growing out of a\nyellow pansy; and an account of a similar incident has recently been\nfurnished to me by Mr. H. Smith, of the Central Telegraph Office. The\nreference in the first line of the following narrative is to a rumour\nof the house being haunted, the remembrance of which possibly gave a\ndefinite form to the apparition:--\n\n\nHALLUCINATIONS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE SENSE AFFECTED AND ACCORDING\nTO THE KIND OF PERCEPT.\n\n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)\n -----------------------------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-\n | Realistic Human | | |\n ---- | Phantasms | B | C |\n +-----+-----+-----+ | |\n |A1[102]| A2 | A3 | | |\n -----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-\n Visual | 296 | 105 | 272 | 120 | 18 |\n Visual and Auditory (vocal) | 30 | 41 | 10 | 1 | -- |\n Visual and Auditory (non-vocal) | 7 | 4 | 24 | 13 | 3 |\n Visual and Tactile | 13 | 7 | 4 | 5 | -- |\n Visual and Auditory (vocal) }| | | | | |\n and Tactile }| 5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | -- |\n Visual and Auditory (non-vocal)}| | | | | |\n and Tactile }| 1 | -- | 1 | 2 | -- |\n Auditory (vocal) | 172 | 57 | 144 | -- | -- |\n Auditory (vocal) and Tactile | 6 | 4 | 1 | -- | -- |\n Tactile | 6 | 8 | 55 | -- | -- |\n Tactile and Auditory (non-vocal) | -- | -- | 5 | -- | -- |\n +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-\n Total | 536 | 232 | 520 | 143 | 21 |\n -----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-\n\n [Note: Table split]\n\n Key:\n A1 = of living people.\n A2 = of dead people.\n A3 = unrecognised.\n B = Incompletely developed apparitions.\n C = Visions (i.e., scenes or pictures.\n\n (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)\n -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----\n | | | | | | | |\n D | E | F | G | H | I | J | Totals |\n | | | | | | | |\n | | | | | | | |\n -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----\n 10 | 23 | 22 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 8 | 912 |}\n 1 | 1 | -- | -- | 2 | 1 | -- | 87 |}\n -- | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | -- | 67 |}\n -- | 2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 31 |} 1120\n | | | | | | | |}\n 1 | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | 19 |}\n | | | | | | | |}\n -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4 |}\n 4 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 377 |} 388\n -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 11 |}\n -- | -- | 2 | 2 | -- | 35 | -- | 108 |} 114\n -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 6 |}\n -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----\n 16 | 33 | 27 | 16 | 17 | 53 | 8 |1622 | 1622\n -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----\n\n Key:\n D = Angels and religious phantasms.\n E = Grotesque, horrible or monstrous apparitions.\n F = Animals.\n G = Definite inanimate objects.\n H = Lights.\n I = Indefinite objects or touches.\n J = Insufficiently described for classification.\n\n NOTE.--This Table does not include 510 cases, of which the details\n are given at second-hand in 320, and are not given at all in 190.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"POST OFFICE, 3_rd Dec._ 1892.\n\n \"I had a turn last night, and for the moment thought I had caught\n the spook of my predecessor, but, alas! it all ended in smoke\n instead of spook. It gave me a turn, though, and made cold water run\n rippling down my back. It happened thus:--I had paid a good-night\n visit to the room of a dear little friend, a Callithrix monkey,\n whose lodgings are in a side building which has a door opening into\n the entrance hall. There was no light in the room of my friend,\n but a side light shone in through the door from the hall. (I was\n smoking.) On going out I looked back before shutting the door, and\n was startled to see just behind me, in the dark shade, the face of\n a human being--apparently an old man with grey hair. The face was\n perfectly distinct in every detail for an appreciable interval, and\n the eyes seemed to look sadly at me, and I looked sadly at him. The\n face moved, and the appearance, though a bit out of shape, still\n remained. I, however, saw what it was, and gave a gasp of relief\n which blew the old man's countenance into the shapelessness of the\n last remains of an extra strong puff of tobacco smoke I had left\n behind me.\"\n\nHallucinations of this kind, whose origin we can trace with more or\nless probability to some external sensation, may be in some respects\ncompared with the visions seen on blank cards by the subjects of\nMM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9. But there are other hallucinations which cannot\nwith any plausibility be referred to peripheral excitation. Such, as\nalready said, are many hypnotic hallucinations, and the majority of\nthe fully-developed hallucinations of normal life would appear to\nfall under the same category. Hallucinations of this class, like what\nmay be called hallucinatory[103] dreams, are no doubt due to the\nspontaneous activity of the higher cerebral centres; they are simply\nideas which take on sensory colouring. And just as the hallucinations\nof hypnotism, for the most part, are due to external suggestion, so\nit would seem that amongst the centrally initiated hallucinations\nof normal life there are some which owe their origin not to the\nspontaneous activity of the percipient's brain, but to an idea intruded\nfrom without--a suggestion not verbal but telepathic.\n\nThe proof of this proposition--the proof, that is, of the operation\nin certain cases of some distant cause external to the percipient's\norganism--lies in a numerical comparison of those hallucinations\nwhich coincide with an external event--_e.g._, the death of the\nperson seen--and those which do not. For when the relative frequency\nof hallucinations has been ascertained the probability of chance\ncoincidence in such cases can be exactly calculated. And should it\nappear that coincidental hallucinations are more frequent than chance\nwould allow, it is certain that some other cause has to be sought\nfor. And here we are met at the outset by a serious difficulty. It\nwould appear from the results of the census just described that\nhallucinations even of a vivid and interesting character tend very\nquickly to be forgotten. Thus, to take only the cases of _realistic_\napparitions resembling a living person, we find 157 cases recorded as\noccurring during the last ten years, and only 166 as occurring more\nthan ten years ago; although, as the average age of our informants is\nabout 40, we might have anticipated that the latter number would be\nabout three times as great as the former.[104] But the discrepancy\nbecomes still more striking if the figures are examined in detail. The\nsubjoined table gives the number of apparitions resembling the human\nform recorded for each of the last ten years:--\n\n ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-\n No. of Years Ago-- |1 and | b'tw'n--|2-3|3-4|4-5|5-6|6-7|7-8|\n |under | 1 and 2 | | | | | | |\n ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-\n Realistic } Living | 35 | 19 | 15| 13| 15| 13| 17| 12|\n Human } Dead | 12 | 10 | 7| 1| 7| 6| 6| 2|\n Apparitions } Unrecognised | 17 | 16 | 12| 17| 17| 13| 11| 10|\n +------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-\n | 64 | 45 | 34| 31| 39| 32| 34| 24|\n ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-\n\n ---+----+------\n 8-9|9-10|Total.\n | |\n ---+----+------\n 8| 10 | 157\n 8| 3 | 62\n 5| 8 | 126\n ---+----+------\n 21| 21 | 345\n ---+----+------\n\nIt will be seen that the number of hallucinations recorded as occurring\nbetween nine and ten years ago is less than one-third of the number\nrecorded for the last twelve months. Nay, if the analysis is carried\nstill further, it is found that within the last year the number of\nhallucinations remembered decreases month by month as we recede further\nfrom the present. The inference is irresistible, that the great\nmajority even of interesting hallucinations do not sufficiently impress\nthe memory to be preserved for a few years. After a careful analysis\nof the figures the Committee are of opinion that the number of visual\nhallucinations actually experienced by their informants since the age\nof ten would be approximately secured by multiplying the recorded\nnumber by _four_.[105]\n\nBut if hallucinations in general are not remembered enough,\ncoincidental hallucinations, at least those which coincide with the\ndeath of the person seen,[106] would appear to be remembered too well,\nas will appear from the following figures. There are 13 such cases\nrecorded during the last ten years. Now if we assume that this figure\naccurately represents the number of such coincidences that have\noccurred in the experience of our informants during the last ten years,\nthen, since the average age of our informants in this particular case\nis 46, we should expect to find for the whole period since the age of\nten years 47 such coincidences reported; that is on the assumption that\nno death-coincidence is ever forgotten, and that the liability to such\nhallucination is practically uniform during the entire period. We do\nactually find 65 cases; from which it should, the Committee think, be\ninferred, not only that few or no death-coincidences are forgotten,--a\nresult which is probably not surprising,--but also that a certain\nnumber of cases which are not death-coincidences have by the lapse of\ntime grown to appear so.[107] Nor is it difficult to conjecture the\nparticular form of error. It is probable that in most of the 18--more\nor less--spurious death-coincidences, there was an actual phantasm\nand an actual death, but that the two events did not stand in close\nrelation to each other. We have already (see Chap. VI.) seen reason to\nsuspect a constant tendency to magnify the closeness of a coincidence\nof this kind. Seen from a distance the two events--like a binary\nstar-system--are apt to coalesce into one; and a new spectral analysis\nis required to dissociate them.\n\nNor would it be safe to assume that the tendencies which have\ndemonstrably operated to falsify the more remote records have been\naltogether inactive during the last ten years. The causes which tend\nto sophisticate narratives of this kind, as already shown, are many\nand difficult to detect; the kind of evidence required to place the\nalleged death-coincidence beyond reasonable doubt has in some cases\nnever existed; in others, through the destruction of documents, the\ndeath of friends, or the mere lapse of time, it is now unattainable. Of\nthe 65 reported coincidences perhaps not more than one-fifth reach the\nevidential standard of the cases included in this volume. And whilst\nthere is a strong presumption that some proportion of those, which\nfrom one or other of the causes suggested inevitably fall below the\nstandard, yet represent facts with substantial accuracy, we have no\ntest which will enable us to determine with precision what narratives\nand to what extent are worthy of credence. Many of the best-attested\ncases are printed in full in the Report already referred to, and any\nreader who is interested in the matter will be able to form an estimate\nfor himself. Meanwhile, an attempt has been made, by means of a careful\nexamination of each narrative in detail, to estimate its evidential\nvalue. In the result it would appear that about 44 narratives rest\non evidence that may be regarded as fairly good. Of these 44 cases,\nhowever, 12 must be struck out, 3 as having been imported into the\ncensus,[108] and 9 because a certain amount of anxiety may be presumed\nto have existed, and may be supposed--though the evidence for such\naction is very slight--to have caused the hallucination. We thus have\n32 cases remaining, in which we have evidence of the occurrence of a\nhallucination, without apparent cause, within twelve hours of the death\nof the person seen.\n\nThe total number of recognised apparitions of living persons recorded\nat first-hand as occurring in the circle of 17,000 persons from which\nthese death-coincidences were drawn, is 322.[109] But if, in order to\nallow for forgetfulness, as already indicated (p. 221), we multiply\nthe number recorded by 4, we shall arrive at a total of 1288, as\nrepresenting the probable number actually experienced by our informants\nsince the age of ten. We have, therefore, 32 cases of hallucinations\ncoinciding with the death of the person seen, in an estimated total\nof nearly 1300 recognised apparitions of living persons--or about 1\nin 40. But the death-rate for England and Wales in the last completed\ndecade being 19.15 per 1000 per annum, the average probability that any\nparticular person will die on any particular day is 1000 \u00d7 365 / 19.15\n= about 1 in 19,000. That is, there is one chance in 19,000 that a man\nwill die on the day on which his apparition is seen and recognised,\nsupposing there to be no causal connection between the two events.\nOr in other words, for every hallucination which coincides with the\ndeath of the person seen, we should have to find about 18,999 similar\nhallucinations (_i.e._, recognised apparitions of living persons) which\ndo not so coincide.\n\nBut after making due allowance for forgetfulness on the one hand, and\nfor the creative activity of the imagination on the other, we find the\nactual proportion to be 1 to 40. In the face of these figures it would\nbe preposterous to ascribe the reported cases of hallucinations at the\ntime of death to chance. And the argument for some causal connection\nbetween hallucinations and external events is of course considerably\nstrengthened if, in addition to (_a_) the coincidences of visual\nhallucinations with death, we take account of (_b_) the coincidences\nof auditory hallucinations with death, and (_c_) the coincidences of\nboth visual and auditory hallucinations with other events than death,\nand (_d_) the cases in which the coincidence of the apparition with\nthe death is nearer than twelve hours, the limit assumed in the above\ncalculations.\n\nIt may not be superfluous to repeat (see _ante_, p. 27, footnote)\nthat the calculation above given does not purport to establish\nthought-transference as the cause of these coincidences. The cause may\nbe a greater prevalence of exaggeration and memory-illusion than the\nCommittee have allowed for. What the calculation does is to bring us\nface to face with the problem: Here are certain phenomena, demonstrably\nnot due to chance: do they reveal a new mode of communication between\nhuman minds, or merely a new source of fallacy in human testimony? It\nwill hardly be disputed that, in either event, to find an answer to the\nquestion will justify much labour spent upon the search.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 93: See _Animal Magnetism_, by Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, in the\nInternational Science Series, and the references there given.]\n\n[Footnote 94: In many cases the post-hypnotic performance of an\nenjoined action, or the experience of a post-hypnotic hallucination, is\nassociated with the partial recurrence of the hypnotic trance, or of\nsome condition closely allied to it. Mr. Edmund Gurney has carefully\ninvestigated the question (_Proc. S.P.R._, iv. pp. 268-323. See also\nDelb\u0153uf's article there quoted, \"De la pretendue Veille Somnambulique,\"\n_Rev. Phil._, Feb. 1887), and has shown that, with some subjects,\nduring the performance of the enjoined action a further command can be\ngiven, or a further hallucination imposed, and that the whole incident\nwill have passed from memory a few seconds later. In the case of some\npersons hypnotised by Dr. Bramwell, and bidden to see after waking\nan imaginary scene in a crystal, I have myself observed that they\nretained no recollection a few minutes later of the scene which they\nhad been describing; and in at least one case the subject at the time\nof the hallucination was apparently insensible to pain. On the other\nhand, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_loc. cit._, p. 270), \"there are\nsome cases in which no reason whatever appears for regarding the state\nin which the action is performed as other than normal,\" and the same\nremark apparently holds good of post-hypnotic hallucinations. And there\nare many persons who can see hallucinatory pictures in a crystal, a\nglass of water, etc., when in full health and in a perfectly normal\ncondition. See Mr. Myers' article already referred to (_S.P.R._, vol.\nviii.).]\n\n[Footnote 95: _De la Suggestion_, p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 96: _La Somnambulisme provoqu\u00e9_, p. 233.]\n\n[Footnote 97: _Rev. de l'Hypnotisme_, November 1886, p. 148.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Professor Sully, to quote a recent instance, in his work\non _Illusions_ in the International Scientific Series (ed. 1887),\ndevotes less than a page and a half to the discussion of the sensory\nhallucinations of normal life, and sums up the subject by saying\nthat \"when not brought on by exhaustion or artificial means, the\nhallucinations of the sane have their origin in a preternatural power\nof imagination\" (p. 117).]\n\n[Footnote 99: The question, which was worded as follows:--_Have you\never, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid\nimpression of seeing, or being touched by a living being or inanimate\nobject, or of hearing a voice, which impression, so far as you could\ndiscover, was not due to any external physical cause?_--was printed at\nthe top of a schedule containing twenty-five spaces for the names and\nother particulars of those answering. Collectors were instructed not\nto _select_ those of whom the question was asked; and to record alike\nnegative and affirmative answers. In the case of an affirmative answer\nbeing received, further particulars were sought. For a full discussion\nof the various sources of error incident to an inquiry of this nature,\nand the precautions taken to avoid them, and for details of the results\nobtained, the reader is referred to the Report of the Committee,\npresented in a condensed form to the Congress of Experimental\nPsychology which met in London in 1892, and to be published in full in\nthe _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part 26 (forthcoming).]\n\n[Footnote 100: There was ill-health alone in about 5 per cent., anxiety\nalone in about 11 per cent., and both ill-health and anxiety in about\n1.7 per cent. of first-hand cases.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Hallucinations occurring in the ambiguous state between\nwaking and sleeping are called by some writers _hypnagogic_. For the\npurposes of our investigation, coincident hallucinations occurring\nat times when it is doubtful whether the percipient is fully awake,\n_e.g._, when he is in bed, are termed \"borderland.\" Their evidential\nvalue is, of course, somewhat less than that of hallucinations\noccurring when the percipient is unquestionably awake. (See cases 57,\n59, 65, 66, etc.)]\n\n[Footnote 102: Including apparitions of persons not dead more than\ntwelve hours, and not known by the percipient to be dead.]\n\n[Footnote 103: As opposed to \"dream-illusions,\" which depend on various\norganic sensations, or on the stimulation of the external organs of\nsense. The distinction is made by Professor Sully, _loc. cit._, p. 139.]\n\n[Footnote 104: These figures do not include second-hand cases. There\nare besides 29 undated cases, most of which probably belong to the\nremote period. See column 1 of table on p. 218 (visual cases).]\n\n[Footnote 105: The calculation is based upon an analysis of the whole\nnumber of visual cases reported during the most recent month, which\nwould indicate an annual rate of about 140. The figures for the most\nrecent quarter indicate an annual rate of about 120.]\n\n[Footnote 106: A hallucination which _coincides_ with a death is\ndefined, for the purposes of this inquiry, as a hallucination which\noccurs within twelve hours of the death.]\n\n[Footnote 107: There is another possible explanation--viz., that some\nof the recent death-coincidences have been withheld from us, on account\nof the painful associations connected with them. That some cases--and\nrecent would be more affected than remote examples--have been withheld\non this account seems certain; but the explanation given in the text\nmust, it is thought, be held primarily responsible for the discrepancy\nin the figures.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Cases, that is, in which the collector is known or\nsuspected to have asked the question of the narrator, because he knew\nthat he was to receive an affirmative answer.]\n\n[Footnote 109: The gross total of visual phantasms recorded at\nfirst-hand as representing a living human being, or part of a human\nbeing (_e.g._, a hand or a face), is 381. This total includes cases\ngiven in columns 1, 4, and 5 of the table on p. 218. From this total we\nhave deducted 31 cases where the percipient has had other experiences\nbut has not enumerated them, and 28 cases which are estimated to have\noccurred before the age of ten, leaving the total given in the text,\n322.\n\nOf the gross total of 381, 80 are alleged to have coincided with the\ndeath of the person represented. Deducting in like manner 7 cases where\nthe percipient has had other unspecified experiences, and 8 where the\nexperience is believed to have occurred before the age of ten, we reach\nthe total of 65 given above.\n\nAs, however, more care was no doubt taken to procure first-hand\nevidence in the case of apparitions coinciding with a death than in\nother cases, it would perhaps lead to more accurate results if in the\nlarger total were included the second-hand non-coincidental cases,\n38 in number. The reader can, if he prefer, work out the result for\nhimself on this basis. But it will, of course, be understood that it\nis not practicable to sum up in a few pages the results of a long\ninvestigation; and those readers who are interested in the nature\nand distribution of casual hallucinations, and their relations to\ntelepathic apparitions, are referred to the forthcoming Report, from\nwhich the figures in the text are quoted.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nINDUCED TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.\n\n\nIn the present chapter we revert once more to experimental evidence.\nThe cases now to be discussed should, in the logical order, have\nbeen included in Chapter V., and for a proper appreciation of their\ntheoretic bearings and evidential value they ought to be considered in\nconnection with the instances of thought-transference at a distance\nthere recorded. It seemed best, however, to separate these instances\nof the experimental production of hallucinations at a distance, and\nreserve them for subsequent treatment, with the view of anticipating\nas far as possible the misconceptions to which this class of evidence\nis peculiarly open. In brief, until some attempt had been made to\nelucidate the nature of sensory hallucination in general, it seemed\nunwise to introduce matter so controvertible as apparitions of\nthe human figure. For we are here assailing the last fortress of\nsuperstition; in discussing such matters even educated persons find it\ndifficult to free themselves from the fetters of traditional modes of\nthought and speech. Men who would be ashamed to think of earth, air,\nfire, and water as elements, because they were so held a century ago\nand are now so styled in the language of the market-place, will often\nsee no middle course between rejecting altogether evidence of the kind\nhere dealt with, and accepting the existence of \"ghosts.\" But those\nwho have followed the argument of the preceding chapters will see, if\nthe possibility of thought-transference is granted, that the narratives\nnow to be presented fall naturally into place as illustrating one of\nits modes of manifestation. That A. by taking thought should cause an\nimage of himself to appear to B. need provoke no more surprise than\nthat by the same means he should cause B. to see No. 27, or the Queen\nof Hearts. No one demands a spiritual entity corresponding to the\nQueen of Hearts, why then should any one believe in the other case\nthat A.'s spirit had left its fleshly tabernacle to interview B.? The\nhallucinatory figure induced post-hypnotically in certain subjects\npresents an even closer parallel. It is recognised by all in such a\ncase that the figure seen is a _thought_ fashioned by the subject's\nmind, with no more substance than any other thought. It is only the\ninfluence of an unrecognised animism which leads us to demand such a\nsubstantial basis when the figure seen represents a dying man. The\nimpulse which led to the projection of the hallucination was in the one\ncase conveyed by word of mouth, in the other by some process as yet\nnot understood. But the mystery lies in the process rather than in the\nresult.\n\nThe present chapter, then, will contain instances of the action of\nthought-transference in which the transmitted idea was translated\nin the percipient's mind, not, as in most of the cases described in\nprevious chapters, into a simple feeling, or sensation, or dream,\nbut into a hallucination representing the human figure. Readers of\n_Phantasms of the Living_ will remember the accounts there given (vol.\ni. pp. 104-109) of some experiments made by a friend of ours, Mr. S.\nH. B. On several occasions Mr. B. succeeded by an effort of will in\ncausing a phantom of himself to appear to acquaintances who were not\naware of his intention to try the experiment. On one occasion the\nfigure was seen by two persons simultaneously. As at that time results\nof the kind were almost unprecedented, we felt, notwithstanding our\nfull confidence in Mr. B., some reluctance in publishing an account\nof his experiments, lest isolated marvels of the kind might prejudice\nour whole case. But fortunately, while _Phantasms of the Living_ was\nactually passing through the press, we received from an independent\nsource an account of successful experiments of the same kind (see\nbelow, case 63), and within a few weeks of its publication a friend of\nthe present writer was induced by a perusal of Mr. B.'s narrative to\nmake on his own account a similar trial, which completely succeeded.\nThis gentleman wrote to me on 16th November 1886 as follows:--\n\n\nNo. 61.--From the REV. CLARENCE GODFREY.\n\n \"I was so impressed by the account on p. 105 that I determined to\n put the matter to an experiment.\n\n \"Retiring at 10.45 [on the 15th November 1886] I determined to\n appear, if possible, to a friend, and accordingly I set myself\n to work with all the volitional and determinative energy which I\n possess, to stand at the foot of her bed. I need not say that I\n never dropped the slightest hint beforehand as to my intention,\n such as could mar the experiment, nor had I mentioned the subject\n to her. As the 'agent' I may describe my own experiences.\n\n \"Undoubtedly the imaginative faculty was brought extensively into\n play, as well as the volitional, for I endeavoured to _translate\n myself_, spiritually, into her room, and to attract her attention,\n as it were, while standing there. My effort was sustained for\n perhaps eight minutes, after which I felt tired, and was soon\n asleep.\n\n \"The next thing I was conscious of was meeting the lady next\n morning (_i.e._, in a dream, I suppose?) and asking her at once\n if she had seen me last night. The reply came, 'Yes.' 'How?' I\n inquired. Then in words strangely clear and low, like a well\n audible whisper, came the answer, 'I was sitting beside you.'\n These words, so clear, awoke me instantly, and I felt I must have\n been dreaming; but on reflection I remembered what I had been\n 'willing' before I fell asleep, and it struck me, 'This must be a\n _reflex_ action from the percipient.' My watch showed 3.40 A.M.\n The following is what I wrote immediately in pencil, standing\n in my night-dress:--'As I reflected upon those clear words, they\n struck me as being quite _intuitive_, I mean _subjective_, and to\n have proceeded _from within, as my own conviction_, rather than a\n communication from any one else. And yet I can't remember her face\n at all, as one can after a vivid dream!'\n\n \"But the words were uttered in a clear, quick tone, which was most\n remarkable, and awoke me at once.\n\n \"My friend in the note with which she sent me the enclosed account\n of _her own_ experience, says:--'I remember the man put all the\n lamps out soon after I came upstairs, and that is only done about a\n quarter to four.'\"\n\nMr. Godfrey received from the percipient on the 16th November an\naccount of her side of the experience, and at his request she wrote it\ndown as follows:--\n\n \"Yesterday--viz., the morning of November 16th, 1886--about\n half-past three o'clock, I woke up with a start and an idea\n that some one had come into the room. I heard a curious sound,\n but fancied it might be the birds in the ivy outside. Next I\n experienced a strange restless longing to leave the room and go\n downstairs. This feeling became so overpowering that at last I rose\n and lit a candle, and went down, thinking if I could get some soda\n water it might have a quieting effect. On returning to my room I\n saw Mr. Godfrey standing under the large window on the staircase.\n He was dressed in his usual style, and with an expression on his\n face that I have noticed when he has been looking very earnestly at\n anything. He stood there, and I held up the candle and gazed at him\n for three or four seconds in utter amazement, and then, as I passed\n up the staircase, he disappeared. The impression left on my mind\n was so vivid that I fully intended waking a friend who occupied the\n same room as myself, but remembering that I should only be laughed\n at as romantic and imaginative, refrained from doing so.\n\n \"I was not frightened at the appearance of Mr. Godfrey, but felt\n much excited, and could not sleep afterwards.\"\n\nOn the 21st of the same month I heard a full account of the incident\ngiven above from Mr. Godfrey, and on the day following from Mrs. ----.\nMrs. ---- told me that the figure appeared quite distinct and life-like\nat first, though she could not remember to have noticed more than the\nupper part of the body. As she looked it grew more and more shadowy,\nand finally faded away. Mrs. ----, it should be added, told me that\nshe had previously seen two phantasmal figures, representing a parent\nwhom she had recently lost.[110]\n\nMr. Godfrey at our request made two other trials, without, of course,\nletting Mrs. ---- know his intention. The first of these attempts was\nwithout result, owing perhaps to the date chosen, as he was aware at\nthe time, being unsuitable. But a trial made on the 7th December 1886\nsucceeded completely. Mrs. ----, writing on December 8th, states that\nshe was awakened by hearing a voice cry, \"Wake,\" and by feeling a hand\nrest on the left side of her head. She then saw stooping over her a\nfigure which she recognised as Mr. Godfrey's.\n\nIn this last case the dress of the figure does not seem to have been\nseen distinctly. But in the apparition of the 16th November, it will\nbe observed that the dress was that ordinarily worn in the daytime\nby Mr. Godfrey, and that in which the percipient would be accustomed\nto see him, _not_ the dress which he was actually wearing at the\ntime. If the apparition is in truth nothing more than an expression\nof the percipient's thought this is what we should expect to find,\nand as a matter of fact in the majority of well evidenced narratives\nof telepathic hallucination this is what we actually do find. The\ndress and surroundings of the phantasm represent, not the dress and\nsurroundings of the agent at the moment, but those with which the\npercipient is familiar. If other proof were wanting, this fact would in\nitself seem a sufficient argument that we have to deal, not with ghosts\nbut with hallucinations. It is to be regretted, however, that most\nrecent experimenters in this direction have succeeded only in producing\napparitions of themselves. But a crucial experiment of the kind desired\nis to be found in an account published in 1822 by H. M. Wesermann,\nGovernment Assessor and Chief Inspector of Roads at D\u00fcsseldorf. He\nrecords five successful trials with different percipients, of which the\nfifth seems worth quoting in full.[111]\n\n\nNo. 62.--From H. M. WESERMANN.\n\n \"A lady, who had been dead five years, was to appear to Lieutenant\n ----n in a dream at 10.30 P.M. and incite him to good deeds. At\n half-past ten, contrary to expectation, Herr ----n had not gone\n to bed, but was discussing the French campaign with his friend\n Lieutenant S---- in the ante-room. Suddenly the door of the room\n opened, the lady entered dressed in white, with a black kerchief\n and uncovered head, greeted S---- with her hand three times in a\n friendly manner; then turned to ----n, nodded to him, and returned\n again through the doorway.\n\n \"As this story, related to me by Lieutenant ----n, seemed to be too\n remarkable from a psychological point of view for the truth of it\n not to be duly established, I wrote to Lieutenant S----, who was\n living six[112] miles away, and asked him to give me his account of\n it. He sent me the following reply:--\n\n \"'... On the 13th of March, 1817, Herr ----n came to pay me a visit\n at my lodgings about a league from A----. He stayed the night with\n me. After supper, and when we were both undressed, I was sitting on\n my bed and Herr ----n was standing by the door of the next room on\n the point also of going to bed. This was about half-past ten. We\n were speaking partly about indifferent subjects and partly about\n the events of the French campaign. Suddenly the door out of the\n kitchen opened without a sound, and a lady entered, very pale,\n taller than Herr ----n, about five feet four inches in height,\n strong and broad of figure, dressed in white, but with a large\n black kerchief which reached to below the waist. She entered with\n bare head, greeted me with the hand three times in complimentary\n fashion, turned round to the left towards Herr ----n, and waved her\n hand to him three times; after which the figure quietly, and again\n without any creaking of the door, went out. We followed at once\n in order to discover whether there were any deception, but found\n nothing. The strangest thing was this, that our night-watch of two\n men whom I had shortly before found on the watch were now asleep,\n though at my first call they were on the alert, and that the door\n of the room, which always opens with a good deal of noise, did not\n make the slightest sound when opened by the figure.\n\n \"'S.\n\n \"'D----n, January 11th, 1818.'\n\n \"From this story (Wesermann continues) the following conclusions\n may be drawn:--\n\n \"(1) That waking persons, as well as sleeping, are capable of\n perceiving the ideas [_Gedankenbilder_] of distant friends through\n the inner sense as dream images. For not only the opening and\n shutting of the door, but the figure itself--which, moreover,\n exactly resembled that of the dead lady--was incontestably only a\n dream in the waking state, since the door would have creaked as\n usual had the figure really opened and shut it.\n\n \"(2) That many apparitions and supposed effects of witchcraft were\n very probably produced in the same way.\n\n \"(3) That clairvoyants are not mistaken when they state that a\n stream of light proceeds from the magnetiser to the distant friend,\n which visibly presents the scene thought of, if the magnetiser\n thinks of it strongly and without distraction.\"\n\nMore philosophic or more successful than recent investigators,\nWesermann, it will be seen, varied the form of his experiment. In the\nfirst he caused his own figure to appear, but in each of the subsequent\ntrials he chose a fresh image, meeting on each occasion with equal\nsuccess. It should be observed, however, that though Wesermann seems\nto have been a careful as well as a philosophic investigator, he\nhas omitted to record how often he made trials of this kind without\nproducing any result, and it cannot fairly be assumed that there were\nno failures. But in comparing such cases as those here recorded with\nthe experiments at close quarters described in Chapters II., III., and\nIV., it should be remembered that a failure which consists merely, as\nin Mr. Godfrey's second trial, in the absence of any unusual impression\non the part of the percipient, detracts far less from the value of\noccasional success than failures attested by the production of wrong\nimpressions; and further, that a sensory hallucination being a much\nrarer phenomenon than an idea, the improbability of chance-coincidence\nbetween a hallucination and the attempt (unknown to the percipient) to\nproduce it is greater in the same proportion.\n\nLater experience has not confirmed Wesermann's third inference, as to\nthe stream of light proceeding from the agent; there are no grounds\nfor regarding such an appearance as other than subjective, due to the\npercipient's preconceived ideas of what he ought to see. But another\nfeature in the narrative is more significant. One is led to infer both\nfrom Herr S.'s description and from Wesermann's remarks in (1) that\nthe figure seen resembled a deceased lady who was not known to either\nof the percipients. If this interpretation is correct, the figure seen\ncannot have been subjective in the same sense as the hallucinations\ndescribed in Chapter IX. and Mr. Godfrey's apparition may be supposed\nto have been. The latter were, _ex hypothesi_, _autoplastic_--_i.e._,\nthey were hallucinations built up in the percipient's own mind on\na nucleus supplied from without. But what Herren S. and ----n saw\nwas a _heteroplastic_ image, a picture like that of a diagram or a\ncard transferred ready-made from the agent's mind. We should not of\ncourse be justified, on the evidence of a single narrative of somewhat\ndoubtful import, in concluding that such an origin for a hallucination\nis possible. But there are a few narratives to be cited later (Chapter\nXIII.) which also suggest such an interpretation.\n\nIn Mr. Godfrey's trials, as also in those made by Mr. S. H. B., the\nagent was asleep at the time of the experiment.[113] In the two cases\nwhich follow the agent was in a hypnotic trance. In the first instance,\nit will be seen, there appears to have been a reciprocal effect,\nthe agent himself becoming aware at the time of the percipient's\nsurroundings, and of the effect produced on her by his influence. The\naccount was sent to us in January 1886.\n\n\nNo. 63.--From MR. H. P. SPARKS.\n\nAfter describing various hypnotic experiments on a fellow-student, Mr.\nA. H. W. Cleave, Mr. Sparks continues:--\n\n \"Last Friday evening (January 15th, 1886) he expressed his wish to\n see a young lady living in Wandsworth, and he also said he would\n try to make himself seen by her. I accordingly mesmerised him, and\n continued the long passes for about 20 minutes, concentrating my\n will on his idea. When he came round (I brought him round by just\n touching his hand and willing him, after 1 hour and 20 minutes'\n trance) he said he had seen her in the dining-room, and that after\n a time she grew restless, and then suddenly looked straight at him\n and then covered her eyes with her hands. Just after this he came\n round. Last Monday evening (January 18th, 1886) we did the same\n thing, and this time he said he thought he had frightened her, as\n after she had looked at him for a few minutes she fell back in her\n chair in a sort of faint. Her little brother was in the room at\n the time. Of course, after this we expected a letter if the vision\n was real; and on Wednesday morning he received a letter from this\n young lady asking whether anything had happened to him, as on\n Friday evening she was startled by seeing him standing at the door\n of the room. After a minute he disappeared, and she thought that it\n might have been fancy; but on the Monday evening she was still more\n startled by seeing him again, and this time much clearer, and it so\n frightened her that she nearly fainted.\n\n \"This account I send you is perfectly true, I will vouch, for I\n have two independent witnesses who were in the dormitory at the\n time when he was mesmerised, and when he came round. My patient's\n name is Arthur H. W. Cleave, and his age is 18 years. A. C. Darley\n and A. S. Thurgood, fellow-students, are the two witnesses I\n mentioned.\n\n \"H. PERCY SPARKS.\"\n\nMr. Cleave writes, on March 15th, 1886:--\n\n \"H.M.S. _Marlborough_, PORTSMOUTH.\n\n \"Sparks and myself have, for the past eighteen months, been in the\n habit of holding mesmeric s\u00e9ances in our dormitories. For the first\n month or two we got no very satisfactory results, but after that we\n succeeded in sending one another to sleep. I could never get Sparks\n further than the sleeping state, but he could make me do anything\n he liked whilst I was under the influence; so I gave up trying\n to send him off, and all our efforts were made towards my being\n mesmerised. After a short time we got on so well that Sparks had\n three or four other fellows in the dormitory to witness what I did.\n I was quite insensible to all pain, as the fellows have repeatedly\n pinched my hands and legs without my feeling it. About six months\n ago I tried my power of will, in order, while under the influence,\n to see persons to whom I was strongly attached. For some time I\n was entirely unsuccessful, although I once thought that I saw my\n brother (who is in Australia), but had no opportunity of verifying\n the vision.\n\n \"A short time ago I tried to see a young lady whom I know very\n well, and was perfectly surprised at my success. I could see her as\n plainly as I can see now, but I could not make myself seen by her,\n although I had often tried to. After I had done this several times\n I determined to try and make myself seen by her, and told Sparks\n of my idea, which he approved. Well, we tried this for five nights\n running without any more success. We then suspended our endeavours\n for a night or two, as I was rather over-exerted by the continued\n efforts and got severe headaches. We then tried again (on, I\n think it was, a Friday, but am not certain), and were, I thought,\n successful; but as the young lady did not write to me about it, I\n thought I must have been mistaken, so I told Sparks that we had\n better give up trying. But he begged me to try once more, which\n we did on the following Monday, when we were successful to such\n an extent that I felt rather alarmed. (I must tell you that I am\n in the habit of writing to the young lady every Sunday, but I did\n not write that week, in order to make her think about me.) This\n took place between 9.30 P.M. and 10 P.M. Monday night, and on the\n following Wednesday morning I got the letter which I have enclosed.\n I, of course, then knew I had been successful. I went home about a\n fortnight after this, when I saw the young lady, who seemed very\n frightened in spite of my explanations, and begged me never to try\n it again, and I promised her that I would not.\"\n\nThe two witnesses of the experiment last described write as follows:--\n\n \"I have seen Mr. Cleave's account of his mesmeric experiment, and\n can fully vouch for the truth thereof.\n\n \"A. C. DARLEY.\"\n\n \"I have read Mr. Cleave's statement, and can vouch for the truth of\n it, as I was present when he was mesmerised and heard his statement\n after he revived.\n\n \"A. E. S. THURGOOD.\"\n\nThe following is a copy, made by Mr. Gurney, of the letter in which the\nyoung lady, Miss A----, described her side of the affair. The envelope\nbore the postmarks, \"Wandsworth, Jan. 19, 1886,\" \"Portsmouth, Jan. 20,\n1886,\" and the address, \"Mr. A. H. W. Cleave, H.M.S. _Marlborough_,\nPortsmouth.\"\n\n \"WANDSWORTH, _Tuesday morning_.\n\n \"DEAR ARTHUR,--Has anything happened to you? Please write and let\n me know at once, for I have been so frightened.\n\n \"Last Tuesday evening I was sitting in the dining [room] reading,\n when I happened to look up, and could have declared I saw you\n standing at the door looking at me. I put my handkerchief to my\n eyes, and when I looked again you were gone. I thought it must have\n been only my fancy, but last night (Monday), while I was at supper,\n I saw you again, just as before, and was so frightened that I\n nearly fainted. Luckily only my brother was there, or it would have\n attracted attention. Now do write at once and tell me how you are.\n I really cannot write any more now.\"\n\nIt will be seen that Miss A---- fixes the date of her first\nhallucination on _Tuesday_, whereas Mr. Sparks and Mr. Cleave speak of\nit as _Friday_. Mr. Gurney, in conversation with the experimenters,\nwas unable to fix the actual date with any certainty, but there can\nbe little doubt that if Tuesday was the day, it fell within the five\ndays on which Mr. Cleave attempted to see Miss A----. Of the second\ncoincidence there can be no doubt.\n\nThe next case is recorded by Mr. F. W. H. Myers (_Journal S.P.R._,\nMarch 1891), who writes:--\n\n\nNo. 64.\n\n \"In 1888 a gentleman, whom I will call Mr. A., who has occupied a\n high public position in India, and whom I have known a long time,\n informed me verbally that he had had a remarkable experience. He\n awoke one morning, in India, very early, and in the dawning light\n saw a lady, whom I will call Mrs. B., standing at the foot of his\n bed. At the same time he received an impression that she needed\n him. This was his sole experience of a hallucination; and it so\n much impressed him that he wrote to the lady, who was in England at\n the time, and mentioned the circumstance. He afterwards heard from\n her that she had been in a trance-condition at the time, and had\n endeavoured to appear to him by way of an experiment.\n\n \"Mr. A. did not give me the lady's name, supposing that she did not\n desire the incident to be spoken of; nor did he find an opportunity\n of himself inquiring as to her willingness to mention the matter.\"\n\nSubsequently, on July 13th, 1890, the agent, Mrs. B., wrote of her own\naccord to Mr. Myers. Mrs. B. began by stating that she had submitted\nherself to be experimented upon by a lady friend, with the view of\nacquiring clairvoyant faculties. She then described how in the course\nof one experiment in 1886 she lost consciousness of outward things, and\nsaw the figure of a tall woman, whom she recognised as a friend of her\nmother's, standing by her. Then she goes on:--\n\n \"I find myself seriously debating within myself what I should do to\n prove to myself, and for my own satisfaction, if I am indeed the\n victim of hallucination or not. I decided in a flash on a man whom\n I knew to be possessed of the most work-a-day world common-sense;\n his views and mine regarding most things were at the antipodes,\n very unreceptive, who would be entirely out of sympathy with me in\n my present experiment and experiences, at which I knew he would\n only laugh, while regarding me as a simple tool in tricky hands.\n Such a man was, I decided, the most satisfactory for my trial. The\n grey lady here impressed me with a desire to will; in her anxiety\n she appeared to move towards me. I felt her will one with mine,\n and I willed with a concentrated strength of mind and body, which\n finally prostrated me, thus: I will that [Mr. A.] may feel I am\n near him and want his help; and that, without any suggestion from\n me, he write to tell me I have influenced him to-night.\n\n \"The grey lady disappeared. I was seated in the chair, weary, but\n feeling naturally, and back in common-place life. We put down the\n date and the appearance of the grey lady, and I spoke to none of\n what had happened. Some weeks passed, when I received a letter from\n [Mr. A.], asking how had I been employed on a certain July evening\n at such and such an hour, mentioning to what hour it would answer\n in London--day, date, and hour were those on which I had made my\n proof trial--saying that he was asleep, and had dreamed something\n he would tell me, but that he awoke from the dream feeling I wanted\n something of him, and asking me to let him know if at the time he\n so carefully mentioned I had been doing anything which had any\n reference to him. I then, and then only, told him what I have here\n related.\"\n\nUnfortunately Mr. A., on being again appealed to, refused to write\nan account of his own experience, on the ground that his memory for\ndetails might by lapse of time have become untrustworthy. The case is\ntherefore defective, not merely by the length of time which passed\nbetween the incident and the agent's record of it, but by the absence\nof any direct testimony from the percipient. It will be seen that Mrs.\nB. writes of Mr. A.'s impression as a _dream_. It seems clear, however,\nthat Mr. A. did not himself regard his experience as a dream.\n\nAn interesting account is given by Miss Edith Maughan (_Journal\nS.P.R._) of a similar experiment made by her in the summer of 1888.\nShe was reading in bed when the idea occurred to her of \"willing\" to\nappear to her friend, Miss Ethel Thompson, who occupied the adjoining\nroom. After concentrating her attention strongly for a few minutes she\n\"felt dizzy and only half-conscious.\" On recovering full consciousness\nshe heard Miss Thompson's voice speaking in the next room. The time was\nabout 2 A.M. As a matter of fact, Miss Thompson, who was fully awake,\nwas disturbed between 2 and 3 A.M. by seeing at the bedside the figure\nof Miss Maughan, which disappeared instantly on a light being struck.\nIt is not perhaps possible under the circumstances, in view of Miss\nMaughan's own statement that she was only semi-conscious during part of\nthe experiment, absolutely to exclude the hypothesis that the figure\nseen was that of Miss Maughan in some state analogous to somnambulism,\nand the case is not therefore given in full; but it is important to\nnote that both ladies--and we have reason to know that they are good\nobservers--are convinced that the figure seen was not that of Miss\nMaughan in the flesh, and the rapidity of the disappearance is a\nfurther argument against such a supposition.\n\nIn the cases so far dealt with the agent, when his state is recorded,\nwas asleep or entranced at the time of the experiment, whilst the\npercipient appears as a rule to have been awake. In the cases which\nfollow the agent was awake, but the percipient, in two of the cases--if\nnot also in the third--seems to have seen the hallucinatory figure\nin the borderland state on awaking from sleep. In two of the cases\nthe agent, no doubt intentionally, chose a time when he had reason\nto believe that the percipient would be asleep; in the third case,\nwhilst the experiments at night failed, success was obtained when the\npercipient had fallen asleep unexpectedly in the daytime. In view\nof the absence of any well-attested cases in which both agent and\npercipient are shown to have been fully awake immediately before and at\nthe time of the experiment,--in case 62 (Wesermann) the state of the\nagent, and in case 66 (Wiltse) that of the percipient, is not clearly\nshown,--it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the condition of\nsleep or trance in one or both parties to the experiment is favourable\nto transference of this kind. That sleep, or rather the borderland\nwhich lies on either side of sleep, is peculiarly favourable to the\nproduction in the _percipient_, not only of hallucinations in general,\nbut of telepathic hallucinations in particular, has already been\nshown. But the instances cited in the present chapter would seem to\nindicate that in the agent also sleep and trance (or possibly a trance\nself-induced in sleep or in waking) may facilitate such transmissions.\n\n\nNo. 65.--From DR. VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING.\n\nWe received the following case from Baron von Schrenck-Notzing, some\nof whose experiments have been already quoted (No. 9, p. 54). Dr. von\nSchrenck-Notzing first gave an account of the incident verbally to\nProfessor Sidgwick at Munich, and subsequently, at his request, sent\nin June 1888 the following written narrative:--\n\n \"In the winter of 1886-87, I think it was in the month of February,\n as I was going along the Barerstrasse one evening at half-past 11,\n it occurred to me to make an attempt at influencing at a distance,\n through mental concentration. As I had had, for some time, the\n honour of being acquainted with the family of Herr ----, and thus\n had had the opportunity of learning that his daughter, Fr\u00e4ulein\n ----, was sensitive to psychical influences, I decided to try to\n influence her, especially as the family lived at the corner of the\n Barerstrasse and Karlstrasse. The windows of the dwelling were dark\n as I passed by, from which I concluded that the ladies had already\n gone to rest. I then stationed myself by the wall of the houses on\n the opposite side of the road, and for about five minutes firmly\n concentrated my thoughts on the following desire:--Fr\u00e4ulein ----\n shall wake and think of me. Then I went home. The next day when I\n met Fr\u00e4ulein ----'s friend on the ice, I learned from her (they\n shared a bedroom between them) that something strange had happened\n to the ladies during the preceding night. I remarked thereupon\n to Fr\u00e4ulein Prieger (such was the friend's name) that the time\n when the occurrence took place was between half-past 11 and 12;\n whereat she was greatly astonished. Then I obtained from the lady\n an account of the circumstance, as she herself has written it out\n on the accompanying sheet of paper. For me the success of this\n experiment was a proof that under certain circumstances one person\n can influence another at a distance.\n\n \"ALBERT FREIHERR VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING.\"\n\nThe percipient, Miss ----, writes on May 11th, 1888:--\n\n \"There is not much to tell concerning the incident of which you\n ask me to give an account. It happened thus:--Baron Schrenck was\n returning home one night in March 1887 (or April, I am not sure\n as to the date), about 11.30, and stood for some time outside my\n bedroom window, which looked onto the street. I was in bed at the\n time, lying with closed eyes, nearly asleep. It seemed to me as if\n the part of the room where my bed was had become suddenly light,\n and I felt compelled to open my eyes, seeing at the same time, as\n it appeared to me, the face of Baron Schrenck. It was gone again\n as quick as lightning. The next day I told my friend Fr\u00e4ulein\n Prieger of this occurrence; she went skating that same day, and\n met Baron Schrenck on the ice. They had scarcely conversed\n together five minutes before he asked Fr\u00e4ulein Prieger if I had\n seen anything last night. Fr\u00e4ulein Prieger repeated what I had told\n her, whereupon Baron Schrenck said that, at the time of my seeing\n him, he was standing outside my window, trying hard to impress his\n presence upon me. This never occurred again, and I believe Baron\n Schrenck did not have occasion to repeat the experiment.\"\n\nIn a further letter Miss ---- adds (1) that the blinds of her room were\ndrawn down, (2) that she has experienced no other hallucination of any\nkind.\n\nFr\u00e4ulein Prieger, whose account was enclosed in Dr. von\nSchrenck-Notzing's letter of June 1888, writes:--\n\n \"The winter before last, shortly after Christmas, I was suddenly\n awakened in the night, between 11 and 12 o'clock, by my friend\n ----, who asked me in an excited manner if I _also_ saw Baron\n von Schrenck, who was close by her bed. On my objecting that she\n had been dreaming, and should now quietly go to sleep again, she\n repeated that she had been completely awake, and had seen Baron von\n Schrenck so close to her that she could have caught hold of his\n beard. By degrees she quieted herself, and we both went to sleep.\n\n \"The following day, on my way home from the ice, I told Baron von\n Schrenck of this exciting nocturnal scene, and noticed to my not\n slight astonishment that he seemed greatly rejoiced, as though over\n a successful experiment which had received its completion in what I\n communicated to him.\n\n \"LINA PRIEGER.\n \"Gubelsbergerstrasse, 15 I.\"\n\nIt is much to be regretted that none of the persons concerned thought\nit worth while to write down an account of the incident at the time. It\nwill be observed that even in the comparatively short interval--little\nmore than a year--which elapsed before this was done, one slight\ndiscrepancy, as to the time at which Fr\u00e4ulein Prieger was told of the\nimpression, has crept into the narrative. But it seems clear that\nMiss ---- told her experience before Fr\u00e4ulein Prieger met Baron von\nSchrenck-Notzing.\n\nIn the next two cases also the result here recorded is one of many\nsuccessful experiments in thought-transference made by the agent (see\nChapter XV.).\n\n\nNo. 66.--From DR. WILTSE, Skiddy, Kansas, U.S.A.\n\n \"_March_ 16_th_, 1891.\n\n \"Some weeks ago several persons were passing the evening at my\n house, and two children, a little girl of eight years and a boy\n of six years, whose mother is stopping with us, had been put to\n bed in an adjoining room, the door between the rooms being closed.\n The company were engaged in games that did not interest me, and I\n took a seat some five feet from the bedroom door and began trying\n to make the boy see my form in the room at his bedside, he being\n on the front side of the bed. I knew the children were awake, as I\n could hear them laughing. After some ten or fifteen minutes, the\n boy suddenly screamed as if frightened, and, hurrying in there,\n I found the little fellow buried up in the bedclothes and badly\n frightened, but he seemed ashamed of his fright and would not tell\n me what was the matter.\n\n \"I kept the matter of my having tried an experiment a thorough\n secret, and after some two weeks it came out through the little\n girl that Charlie thought he saw a \"great big tiger standing by\n his bed looking at him, and he could see Uncle Hime (myself) in\n the tiger's eyes.\" What was the tiger? I had not thought of any\n form but my own. The child lives in Cleveland, Ohio, and has seen\n the collections in Zoological Gardens, but has not been taught\n the different colours. I have just now shown him the plates in\n Wood's _Natural History_, and he pointed out a lion as the animal\n he saw, but as the plates are not coloured, they are little good\n for the purpose; but as I began at the back of the book and took\n through all sorts first, and the lion was the first and only animal\n designated by him as the one he had seen in the room, I conclude\n he was near enough to the classification for our purpose. No one\n but myself knew of my experiment until the children had told their\n story.\n\n \"A. S. WILTSE.\"\n\nDr. Wiltse writes later:--\n\n \"SKIDDY, MORRIS CO., KANSAS,\n _March_ 29_th_, 1891.\n\n \"I tried one more experiment of the same kind with the little boy,\n but failed, but I was conscious of wavering in mind during the\n whole course of the experiment, and besides this there were other\n unfavourable conditions. The child's mother was absent for the\n evening and the children with my own boy (aged fifteen) were making\n Rome howl in the way of untrammelled fun.\"\n\nMrs. Wiltse and Dr. Wiltse's son write as follows:--\n\n \"SKIDDY, KANSAS,\n _March_ 28_th_, 1891.\n\n \"I was present when Josie Skene told papa what her brother Charlie\n was scared about.\n\n \"She said that Charlie throwed the cover over his head and told her\n that he saw a tiger, and Uncle Hime, as he called papa, was in the\n tiger's eyes.\n\n \"JASON WILTSE.\"\n\n \"I certify that the above statement is substantially correct, as I\n also heard the little girl relate it.\n\n \"MRS. HAIDEE WILTSE.\"\n\nMrs. Charles Skene, the mother of the little boy, writes:--\n\n \"153 PLATT STREET [CLEVELAND, OHIO],\n _April_ 9_th_, 1891.\n\n \"Your letter dated the 6th came to hand to-day. I was on a visit\n to the Dr. and his family, and one evening he said he would try an\n experiment on my little boy; it was about seven o'clock and they\n had just been put to bed. The Dr. wanted to make him see him by his\n bedside, and him in the other room, and he did; he saw him in the\n form of a tiger and he also had tigers in his eyes. He commenced to\n shout, and said he was frightened, but did not say any more, he was\n so frightened. This is my daughter's statement as far as she can\n recollect.\n\n \"If there are any more questions you would like me to answer I will\n gladly do so. I was not at home the night this happened.\n\n \"MRS. CHAS. SKENE.\"\n\nLater she adds:--\n\n \"_April_ 27_th_, 1891.\n\n \"Your letter of the 17th came to hand. I do not know the date, but\n it was about the middle of February, on a Wednesday evening. My\n little boy is six years old; he remembers it well, and often talks\n of it.\"\n\nMrs. Skene added, in answer to a question, that the boy did not know\nthat the experiment was being tried on him. It should be added that Mr.\nRasero, who was present, wrote, on the 30th October 1891, to confirm\nDr. Wiltse's statement that nothing was said beforehand about trying an\nexperiment of any kind.\n\nThe tiger in this experiment appears to have been a confused nightmare\neffect produced by the telepathic impression on the mind of the child\npercipient. In the next case, it will be seen, the percept appears to\nhave been unusually clear and distinct.\n\n\nNo. 67.--From JOSEPH KIRK.[114]\n\nMr. Kirk has made several attempts to produce a hallucination of\nhimself. Writing to us on the 7th July 1890, he stated that without\nthe knowledge of his friend and neighbour, Miss G., he tried each\nnight, from the 10th to the 20th of June, and once on the 11th in the\nafternoon, to induce her to see a hallucination of himself. From casual\nconversation, however, with Miss G. he gathered that no effect had been\nproduced. But on June 23rd Mr. Kirk learned that the trial made on\nJune 11th, the day and hour of which had been noted at the time, had\ncompletely succeeded. He thus describes the occasion:--\n\n \"2 RIPON VILLAS, PLUMSTEAD.\n\n \"... I had been rather closely engaged on some auditing work,\n which had tired me, and as near as I can remember the time was\n between 3.30 and 4 P.M. that I laid down my pencil, stretched\n myself, and in the act of doing the latter I was seized with the\n impulse to make a trial on Miss G. I did not, of course, know\n where she was at the moment, but, with a flash, as it were, I\n transferred myself to her bedroom. I cannot say why I thought of\n that spot, unless it was that I did so because my first experiment\n had been made there--_i.e._, on the previous night, the 10th June.\n As it happened, it was what I must call a 'lucky shot,' for I\n caught her at the moment she was lightly sleeping in her chair--a\n condition which seems to be peculiarly favourable to receiving and\n externalising telepathic messages.\n\n \"The figure seen by Miss G. was clothed in a suit I was at the\n moment wearing, and was _bareheaded_, the latter as would be the\n case, of course, in an office. This suit is of a dark reddish-brown\n _check_ stuff, and it was an unusual circumstance for me to have\n had on the _coat_ at the time, as I wear, as a rule, an office\n coat of _light_ material. But this office coat I had, a day or so\n before, sent to a tailor to be repaired, and I had, therefore, to\n keep on that belonging to the dark suit.\n\n \"I tested the reality of the vision by this dark suit. I asked,\n 'How was I dressed?' (not at all a leading question). The reply\n of Miss G. was, touching the sleeve of the coat I was then wearing\n (of a _light_ suit), 'Not this coat, but that dark suit you wear\n sometimes. I even saw clearly the _small check_ pattern of it;\n and I saw your features as plainly as though you had been bodily\n present. I _could not_ have seen you more distinctly.'\"\n\nMiss G.'s account is:--\n\n \"_June_ 28_th_, 1890.\n\n \"A peculiar occurrence happened to me on the Wednesday of the\n week before last. In the afternoon (being tired by a morning\n walk), while sitting in an easy-chair near the window of my own\n room, I fell asleep. At any time I happen to sleep during the day\n (which is but seldom) I invariably awake with tired, uncomfortable\n sensations, which take some little time to pass off; but that\n afternoon, on the contrary, I was suddenly quite wide awake,\n seeing Mr. Kirk standing near my chair, dressed in a dark brown\n coat, which I had frequently seen him wear. His back was towards\n the window, his right hand towards me; he passed across the room\n towards the door, which is opposite the window, the space between\n being 15 feet, the furniture so arranged as to leave just that\n centre clear; but when he got about 4 feet from the door, which was\n closed, he disappeared.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"I feel sure I had not been dreaming of him, and cannot remember\n that anything had happened to cause me even to think of him that\n afternoon before falling asleep.\"\n\nMr. Kirk writes later:--\n\n \"I have only succeeded once in making myself visible to Miss G.\n since the occasion I have already reported, and that had the\n singularity of being only my features--my face in _miniature_, that\n is, about _three inches_ in diameter.\"\n\nIn a letter dated January 19th, 1891, Mr. Kirk says as to this last\nappearance:--\n\n \"Miss G. did not record this at the time, as she attached no\n importance to it, but I noted the date (July 23rd) on my office\n blotting-pad, as it was at the office I was thinking of her. I\n say 'thinking,' because I was doing so in connection with another\n subject, and with no purpose of making an experiment. I had a\n headache, and was resting my head on my left hand. Suddenly it\n occurred to me that my thinking about her might probably influence\n her in some way, and I made the note I have mentioned.\"\n\nMr. Kirk enclosed in his statement to us the piece of blotting-paper on\nwhich the note of the second successful experiment had been made. The\nfact that the hallucination in the first case included a representation\nof the clothes actually worn by the agent at the time may have been a\nmere coincidence. But the case should be borne in mind in considering\nthe possibility of heteroplastic hallucination.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 110: These details are taken from notes made by the writer\nimmediately after the interview.]\n\n[Footnote 111: _Der Magnetismus und die allgemeine Weltsprache._ A\nbrief account of the five trials, quoted from the _Archiv f\u00fcr den\nthierischen Magnetismus_, vol. vi. pp. 136-139, will be found in\n_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 101, 102. In the other cases the\nimpression was produced in a _dream_. The distance varied from 1/8 of a\nmile to 9 miles in the case quoted in the text.]\n\n[Footnote 112: In Wesermann's book, as also in the account given in\nthe _Archiv_, the account is headed \"Fifth experiment at a distance of\n_nine_ miles.\"]\n\n[Footnote 113: Wesermann unfortunately does not record his own state at\nthe time of the experiments.]\n\n[Footnote 114: See Nos. 37, 38, 39, Chapter V.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSPONTANEOUS TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.\n\n\nIn the last chapter we gave illustrations of telepathic hallucinations\ninduced by an act of voluntary concentration on the part of the agent.\nThe hallucinatory effects now to be described were produced without\ndesign, and in some cases, it would appear, without the conscious\ndirection of the agent's thoughts to the person affected. They purport,\nin fact, to have been the spontaneous outcome of some emotional stress\non the part of the person whom the hallucination represented.\n\n\n_Auditory Hallucinations._\n\nWe will begin by quoting two examples of auditory hallucination.\n\n\nNo. 68.--From MISS C. CLARK.\n\n \"1889.\n\n \"I heard some one sobbing one evening last August (1888) about 10\n P.M. It was in the house in Dunbar, Scotland, as I was preparing\n to go to bed. Feeling convinced that it was my youngest sister, I\n advised another sister not to go into the next room, whence the\n sounds seemed to proceed. After waiting with me a few minutes this\n sister went into the dining-room, and returned to me saying that\n our youngest sister was in the dining-room, and not crying at all.\n Then I at once thought there must be something the matter with\n my greatest friend, a girl of twenty-four, then in Lincolnshire.\n I wrote to her next day, asking her if, and at what hour on the\n previous night, she had been crying. In her next letter she said,\n 'Yes, she was suffering great pain with toothache just at the\n time, and was unable to restrain a few sobs.' ... This has been the\n only similar experience I have had.\"\n\nI have seen the letter referred to, together with three others,\nextracts from which are given below. It will be seen that Miss Clark\nwas mistaken in supposing that she wrote _next day_. The letter was\nactually begun three days after--on the Wednesday--and completed on\nthe subsequent day, after the receipt of Miss Maughan's letter written\non the Tuesday evening. In view, however, of the fact that Miss Clark\nwrote of her impression before the receipt of her friend's letter, the\nmistake seems not material.\n\n From MISS CLARK.\n\n \"DUNBAR,\n \"Wednesday, _August_ 22_nd_, 1888, 9 P.M.\n\n \"Were you crying on Sunday night near eleven o'clock? Because I\n _distinctly_ heard some one crying, and supposed it was H. in the\n next room, but she was not there at all.\n\n \"Then I thought it must be something 'occult,' and that it might be\n you, and I felt so horrid.\"\n\n \"Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 1888, 4.45 P.M.\n\n \"Thank you very much for your letter just come. I am so sorry your\n face was sore. Did it make you cry on Sunday night?\"\n\n\nFrom MISS MAUGHAN.\n\n(The cover of this letter has been preserved, and bears the postmark,\n\"Spilsby, Aug. 22nd, 1888.\")\n\n \"Tuesday Evening, _Aug._ 21_st_, 1888.\n\n \"On Sunday we went to see Wroxham Broad. We had an immense amount\n of walking to do altogether, and I think I got a little cold in my\n face in the morning, and all night I suffered with it, and my face\n is swelled still.\"\n\nIn a second letter Miss Maughan writes:--\n\n \"Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 11 P.M.\n\n \"I am putting poultices on my gums. I have never had such a\n huge swelling before, and it _won't_ go down. It is so horribly\n uncomfortable.\"\n\n \"Saturday Afternoon.\n\n \"Thanks for letter. Yes, I was crying on Sunday night; only on\n account of the pain. It was awful, but I only cried quietly, as\n Edith was asleep....\"\n\nFrom MISS CLARK.\n\n \"Monday, _August_ 27_th_, 1888, 10.30 A.M.\n\n \"Thanks for your letter. I am sorry it was you crying. You don't\n seem at all struck. I was very much so. It was a subdued sort\n (_sic_) I heard, and thought H. was trying not to let it be heard.\n I shall always be afraid now of hearing things.\"\n\nThe sound here was of an inarticulate kind, nor was it immediately\nreferred to the actual agent, and both these facts must be held to\ndetract from the evidential value of the coincidence. In the next case,\nhowever, the voice, it will be seen, was at once recognised. The voice\nin this case awoke the percipient, and the impression should therefore\nbe classed as a hallucination rather than as a dream, but it was of\nthe \"borderland\" type. The uneasiness caused to the percipient, as\nattested by the letter and telegram sent, is sufficient proof that the\nimpression was of a kind unusual in his experience.\n\n\nNo. 69.--From MR. WILLIAM TUDOR.\n\n \"AUBURNDALE, MASS., _July_ 11_th_, 1890.\n\n \"Your favour[115] of the 30th ult., addressed to Mrs. Tudor, I will\n answer, as the incident more directly concerned me.\n\n \"Late in the evening of Monday, March 17th, near midnight, my\n nephew, Frederic Tudor, Jun., fell in front of an electric car\n going to Cambridge, was dragged some distance and so badly injured\n that for a time his life was in doubt, though he recovered with the\n loss of a foot. My wife heard of the accident on Tuesday afternoon\n and was much distressed all the night of Tuesday, and quite\n restless and wakeful.\n\n \"At this time I was in Gainesville, Florida, having important\n business there in connection with land purchases. On the night of\n Tuesday I went to bed rather early in a calm state of mind. I\n slept soundly, as I usually do. About midnight, as I should judge,\n I heard my wife call my name quite distinctly and waked instantly\n broad awake. I sat up in bed, but soon remembering where I was,\n fell asleep again and waked no more until morning. The next day\n the incident of the night made me quite uneasy, also during the\n following day, and as I was obliged to leave on the afternoon of\n Friday for a rough journey in the country I telegraphed to my wife\n to know what was the matter. I usually receive a letter from home\n every day, and on these days no letter arrived, which added to\n my uneasiness. No answer was received to my first telegram, for\n the very good reason that it was never delivered. I was obliged\n to start, however, in the afternoon of this day, Friday the 21st,\n and in the morning of the 22nd, from a small town called New\n Branford, sent another telegram, of which the following is the\n substance:--'Shall be gone three days; what has happened? Answer\n Branford.' I had a strong impression that something serious had\n occurred, that my wife was possibly ill, or some of the children\n were ill, or that some accident or death had occurred to a near\n relation, not however involving my immediate family. The following\n extracts from my letters will illustrate this feeling:--\n\n \"Letter of March 19th:\n\n \"'I thought you called me last night. I waked up and was much\n worried; I hope you are not ill.'\n\n \"Letter of March 22nd, from New Branford:\n\n \"'No answer comes to my telegram, although I left word to have\n it forwarded here. Surely some one would telegraph if you were\n ill. Surely you would let me know if anything had happened. I\n do not _feel_ that anything serious has happened, and yet I\n cannot understand such a combination of circumstances. I have\n no confidence in these telegraph people, and daresay you never\n received my message.'\n\n \"Letter of March 24th, from Gainesville, after telegram giving\n account of accident was finally received:\n\n \"'I had a feeling that something was wrong but that you were all\n right.'\n\n \"Such I give as the substance of the facts in this case, which I\n trust may be interesting to the Society.\n\n \"WILLIAM TUDOR.\"\n\nMrs. W. Tudor writes:--\n\n \"AUBURNDALE, _July_ 29_th_, 1890.\n\n \"My nephew's accident occurred on Monday night. Being out of town\n I heard of it on Tuesday afternoon. I immediately went to Boston\n and returned the same evening about nine o'clock, feeling greatly\n distressed. I wrote a letter to my husband after my return\n describing the accident and retired to bed rather late and passed\n a restless night. The telegram received from my husband rather\n surprised me, as he is not usually anxious when away from home. I\n believe this is all I know connected with this incident.\n\n ELIZABETH TUDOR.\"\n\nAn account of a similar experience was sent to us in 1889 by the late\nSir John Drummond Hay, K.C.B. He wrote that about 1 A.M. on some day\nin February 1879 he heard distinctly the voice of his daughter-in-law\nsaying, \"Oh, I wish papa only knew that Robert was ill.\" Sir John awoke\nLady Drummond Hay to tell her what he had heard, and made a note of the\nincident in his diary. It was shortly ascertained that Mr. R. D. Hay\nhad been taken seriously ill on that night, and that Mrs. Hay had used\nthe words heard. Sir John's account is confirmed by Lady Hay and Mrs.\nR. D. Hay.\n\n\n_Visual Hallucinations._\n\nThe comparative frequency of auditory hallucinations, and especially\nthe ease with which auditory illusions can be built up on a basis of\nreal sound, render coincidences of the kind, even the best attested, of\nless service to support, however valuable as illustrating, the theory\nof telepathy. Visual hallucinations, however, present us with a much\nrarer type of impression, and one in which explanation by illusion\nis comparatively seldom possible. Telepathic hallucinations, like\nordinary non-coincidental hallucinations, may assume various forms, and\ninstances of grotesque and partially developed visual impressions are\nnot wanting. Thus we have a case in which the face of a dying relative\nwas recognised in the middle of a large ball of light like a firework\n(_Journal_, October 1891); and Mr. Sherer, of Amble, Northumberland,\ntells us that he saw reflected in a ship's compass the face of a young\nlady to whom he was engaged, at about the time of her death. In the\nfollowing case the hallucination, though still far from complete,\nappears to have been more realistic and more fully developed.\n\n\nNo. 70.--From COUNTESS EUGENIE KAPNIST.\n\n [Writing on June 24th, 1891, the percipient explains that in\n February 1889 she and her sister made the acquaintance at Talta of\n a Mr. P., who was at that time in an advanced stage of consumption.\n On one occasion, in the course of conversation, Mr. P. promised\n Countess Ina Kapnist, in the presence of the narrator, that should\n he die before her he would endeavour to appear to her. The Countess\n and her sister met Mr. P. occasionally after this conversation, and\n frequently saw him walking about in a nut-brown overcoat, which\n caused them some amusement. They left Talta, however, in May 1889,\n and in the course of a few months had completely forgotten Mr. P.\n and his wife, whom they regarded merely in the light of ordinary\n acquaintances. On the 12th March 1890 the two ladies, on their way\n home from the theatre, drove to the railway station with a friend\n who was to return at 1 A.M. to Tsarsko\u00e9.]\n\n \"On leaving the station,\" the Countess writes, \"our servant went\n on before to find the carriage, so that on reaching the steps we\n found it had driven up and was waiting for us. My sister was the\n first to take her seat; I kept her waiting, as I descended the\n steps more slowly; the servant held the door of the landau open.\n With one foot on the step I suddenly stood still, arrested in the\n act of entering the carriage, and stunned with surprise. It was\n dark inside the carriage, and nevertheless, facing my sister and\n looking at her, I saw in a faint grey light which seemed unnatural,\n and which was clearest at the point on which my eyes were fixed, a\n face in profile, not so much vague as soft and transparent. This\n vision only lasted an instant, during which, however, my eyes noted\n the smallest details of the face, which seemed familiar to me;\n the rather sharp features, the hair parted a little on one side,\n the prominent nose, the sharp chin with its sparse, light brown\n beard. What strikes me when I think of it now is the fact that I\n could distinguish the different colours, though the greyish light\n which scarcely revealed the stranger would have been insufficient\n to enable me to distinguish them in ordinary circumstances. He\n had no hat, but wore a top-coat, such as is worn in the South, in\n colour a rather light nut-brown. His whole person had an air of\n great weariness and emaciation. The servant, much surprised that\n I did not enter the carriage but remained petrified on the step,\n thought I had trodden on my gown, and helped me to seat myself,\n while I asked my sister, as I took my place beside her, if it was\n really our carriage, so much was I confused and stupefied by seeing\n a stranger seated opposite her. It had not occurred to me that\n if a real person had been sitting there, neither my sister nor\n the footman would have remained so quietly face to face with him.\n When I was seated I no longer saw anything, and I asked my sister,\n 'Did you see nothing opposite you?' 'Nothing whatever, and what\n possessed you to ask as you got in if it was really our carriage?'\n she answered laughing. Then I told her what I have related above,\n describing my vision minutely. 'That familiar face,' said she, 'the\n hair parted at the side, the nut-brown coat, where have we seen\n it? Certainly nothing here answers to your description,' and we\n racked our brains without finding any clue. After we got home we\n related the incident to our mother; my description made her also\n remember vaguely a similar face. The next evening (March 12th) a\n young man of our acquaintance, Mr. Solovovo, came to see us. I told\n him also what had just occurred. We discussed it at some length,\n but fruitlessly. I still could not find the right name for the\n man of my vision, though I remembered quite well having seen a\n face exactly similar among my numerous acquaintances, but when and\n where? I could remember nothing, with my bad memory, which often\n fails me in this fashion. Some days later we were calling on Mr.\n Solovovo's grandmother. 'Do you know,' she said, 'what sad news I\n have just received from Talta? Mr. P. has just died, but I have\n heard no details.' My sister and I looked at each other. At the\n mention of this name the pointed face and the nut-brown top-coat\n found their possessor. My sister recognised him at the same time as\n myself, thanks to my minute description. When Mr. Solovovo entered\n I begged him to find the exact date of the death in the newspapers.\n The date of the death was given as the 14th of March, that is to\n say two days after my vision. I wrote to Talta for information, and\n learned that Mr. P. was confined to bed from the 24th November, and\n that from that time he was in a very feeble state, but sleep never\n left him. He slept so long and so profoundly, even during the last\n night of his life, that hopes were entertained of his improvement.\n\n \"We were much astonished that it was I who saw Mr. P., although\n he had promised to appear to my sister; but here I ought to add\n that before the occurrence mentioned above I had been clairvoyante\n a certain number of times; but this vision is certainly the one\n in which I distinguished details most clearly, even down to the\n colours of the face and dress.\n\n \"COMTESSE EUGENIE KAPNIST.\n COMTESSE INA KAPNIST.\"\n\nThe second signature is that of the sister who was present at the time.\nThe account above given, it should be explained, is a translation from\nthe original French.\n\nOur friend, Mr. Petrovo-Solovovo, through whom we obtained the account,\nwrites:--\n\n \"I have much pleasure in certifying that the fact of Countess\n Kapnist's vision was mentioned, among others, to myself before the\n news of Mr. P.'s death came to St. Petersburg. I well remember\n seeing an announcement of his demise in the papers.\"\n\nThe narrative presents several points of interest. The deferred\nrecognition is by no means without parallel (see case 68 and cases 26,\n191, etc., in _Phantasms_), but in this case the interval which elapsed\nbefore the identification of the phantasm was unusually prolonged.\nOf course the fact that the vision was not identified beforehand is\nan element of weakness in the case, but as the deep impression left\non the percipient by her vision seems well established, we have some\nwarrant for assuming that the details have been accurately remembered.\nAnd if we may accept these details the case throws light upon the\ngenesis of such hallucinations. That a dying man, whilst failing to\nimpress the idea of his own personality upon the mind of a distant\nacquaintance, should succeed in calling up the image--to himself of\nquite secondary importance--of the clothes which he habitually wore,\nwould seem at first sight a paradox. But the difficulty disappears if\nwe recognise that the telepathic impression in such cases is probably\nreceived and the hallucination elaborated by a subconscious stratum\nof the intelligence, and that the picture is in due time flashed up\nthence fully formed to the ordinary consciousness. The image of the\nclothes worn by the agent, trivial and unessential to himself, would\nnot improbably bulk more largely in the conception formed of him by\nan acquaintance, and might even find an echo in the percipient's\nconsciousness when the image of the man himself had been obliterated\nby more recent memories. It is possible that the arrested development\nof the hallucination may have some connection with the imperfect\nrecognition.\n\nIn the following case also the hallucination, though recognised,\nappears to have fallen short of complete embodiment.\n\n\nNo. 71.--From MISS L. CALDECOTT.\n\n \"_February_ 11_th_, 1890.\n\n \"A sensation of faint glowing light in the darkest corner of the\n room made me first look in that direction (which happened to be\n next the door), and I then became aware of some one standing\n there, holding her hands outstretched as if in appeal. My first\n impression was that it was my sister, and I said, 'What's the\n matter?' but instantly saw who it was--a friend, who was at that\n time in Scotland. I felt completely riveted, but though my heart\n and pulses were beating unnaturally fast, neither much frightened\n nor surprised, only with a sort of impulse to get up and go after\n the figure, which I could not move to do. The form seemed to melt\n away into the soft glow, which then also died out. It was about\n half-past ten at night. I was at my home in ----. The date I am\n unable to fix nearer than that it was either August or September\n 1887.\n\n \"I was perfectly well. I was reading Carlyle's _Sartor Resartus_\n at the time. I was in no trouble or anxiety of any kind. Age about\n twenty-six.\n\n \"I had not seen my friend for about a year. I wrote to her the day\n after this happened, but, before my letter reached her, received\n one in which she told me of a great family trouble that was causing\n her much suffering, and saying that she had been longing for me to\n help her. Another letter in answer to mine then told me that her\n previous letter was written about 10.30 on the night I saw her, and\n that she had been wishing for my presence then most intensely. My\n friend died very shortly afterwards.\n\n \"No other persons were present at the time.\"\n\nOne of the agent's letters, written in reply to a letter from Miss\nCaldecott describing the apparition, has fortunately been preserved.\nThe letter is dated August 16th, 1888. The following extracts were\nwritten down by Mrs. Sidgwick from Miss Caldecott's dictation:--\n\n \"'Your account is very strange, and I cannot quite make up my mind\n what to think of it. If it had not been that on that very Tuesday\n night I really was thinking of you very much, and wishing from the\n bottom of my heart that I could get at you, I should be inclined\n to say that your apparition was entirely subjective, and that you\n imagined you saw me. But if there is any connection between mind\n and mind, why should it not be so, and that it really was because\n I was wishing so hard I could be with you. You know that was the\n night I got back. I unpacked some of my things, and then began to\n write to you. It was then somewhere between eleven and twelve.\n At all events, I remember it struck twelve some time after I got\n into bed.... Tell me anything you can of my general appearance,\n and so forth. If you saw me as I was at the time it seems fairly\n conclusive it was my thinking of you caused you to see me, and not\n indigestion on your part, and entirely independent of me.'\"\n\nIn conversation Mrs. Sidgwick learnt that the face and hands of the\nfigure were seen most clearly. The hands appeared as if held out, palms\nupward. The dress was \"rather indefinite. She looked as Miss Caldecott\nwas accustomed to see her, but Miss Caldecott did not notice the dress\nparticularly, and did not see the figure clearly at all below the\nknees.\" Miss Caldecott has had a visual hallucination on two other\noccasions, when she was in bed recovering from an illness. At the\ntime of the vision above described she was in perfect health. It will\nbe observed that the phantasm developed gradually, the percipient's\nattention having been first arrested by noticing the glow in the corner\nof the room. (Compare No. 84, Chapter XII., and the cases given in\n_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i., chap. xii.) It will be seen that\nthe percipient's recollection was at fault, both as to the date and\nthe hour of the incident. But a discrepancy of this kind cannot be\nregarded as serious. Persons whose lives are not marked off--_e.g._, by\nchanges of residence or occupation--into distinct periods, frequently\nexperience a difficulty in assigning to the right year even an event\nof importance. But in this case the incident in itself was trivial,\nand there was no landmark by which to determine its relation, in\npoint of time, to external events. A mistake in the date under such\ncircumstances can scarcely be held to reflect upon the narrator's\ngeneral accuracy.\n\nIn the next case also the apparition was preceded and accompanied by\na luminous effect. In this instance, however, the percipient appears\nto have been in bed, and the hallucination should be classed as a\n\"borderland\" case. It will be seen that the apparition preceded the\nactual death by several hours, but apparently coincided with a period\nof severe illness.\n\n\nNo. 72.--From DR. CARAT.[116]\n\n \"25-bis RUE VICTOR-HUGO, MALAKOFF,\n PARIS, _July_ 20_th_, 1891.\n\n \"My mother, from the time she was twenty-five years old, had\n suffered from an affection of the lungs, but she had kept her\n health, although she had gone through many troubles. There was\n nothing to indicate what happened on the 11th June 1877--she\n succumbed in a few hours to an attack of inflammation of the lungs;\n indeed, I had two days before that date received a letter from her\n in which she showed no anxiety about her health.\n\n \"On the night of the 10th June 1877 I had what might be called a\n telepathic hallucination. I cannot state the hour with absolute\n precision, but it was between ten o'clock and midnight. About that\n time, 'between sleeping and waking,' I saw the end of my room\n lighted up, the darkness was illuminated by a silvery light (it is\n the only word I can think of), and I saw my mother gazing fixedly\n at me, with a sort of troubled expression. After a few seconds it\n all disappeared.\n\n \"Next day one of my friends--M. Laroche, now sub-director of\n the _Conservateur_ Co., 18 Rue Lafayette--was breakfasting with\n me. I told him about my experience, and he too regarded it as a\n hallucination. At parting I said to him, 'Remember, Laroche, if\n anything happens, that I have told you this to-day.'\n\n \"Next day I received news of my mother's death.\n\n \"I have never on any other occasion experienced a hallucination, or\n anything approaching to it.\"\n\n From M. LAROCHE.\n [TO PROFESSOR RICHET.]\n\n \"SIR,--After an absence from home I have just returned and found\n awaiting me the letter which you did me the honour to write on the\n 7th inst., on the subject of a vision which my friend Dr. Carat had\n on the eve of his mother's death, at a time when he believed her\n to be in good health at Dunkirk. The circumstance was told me by\n Dr. Carat immediately after it occurred. You can make any use of my\n testimony you think fit.\n\n \"LAROCHE.\"\n\nFrom the last case we pass, by an easy transition, to those completely\nexternalised apparitions which cheat the senses by the life-like\npresentment of a human figure.\n\n\nNo. 73.--From MISS BERTA HURLY, Waterbeach Vicarage, Cambridge.\n\n \"_February_ 1890.\n\n \"In the spring and summer of 1886 I often visited a poor woman\n called Evans, who lived in our parish, Caynham. She was very ill\n with a painful disease, and it was, as she said, a great pleasure\n when I went to see her; and I frequently sat with her and read\n to her. Towards the middle of October she was evidently growing\n weaker, but there seemed no immediate danger. I had not called\n on her for several days, and one evening I was standing in the\n dining-room after dinner with the rest of the family, when I saw\n the figure of a woman dressed like Mrs. Evans, in large apron and\n muslin cap, pass across the room from one door to the other, where\n she disappeared. I said, 'Who is that?' My mother said, 'What do\n you mean?' and I said, 'That woman who has just come in and walked\n over to the other door.' They all laughed at me, and said I was\n dreaming, but I felt sure it was Mrs. Evans, and next morning we\n heard she was dead.\n\n \"BERTA HURLY.\"\n\nMiss Hurly's mother writes:--\n\n \"On referring to my diary for the month of October 1886, I find the\n following entry:--'19th. Berta startled us all after dinner, about\n 8.30 last evening, by saying she saw the figure of a woman pass\n across the dining-room, and that it was Mrs. Evans. This morning we\n hear the poor woman is dead.' On inquiring at the cottage we found\n she had become wandering in her mind, and at times unconscious,\n about the time she appeared to Berta, and died towards the morning.\n\n \"ANNIE ROSS.\n \"_February_ 25_th_, 1890.\"\n\nIn this case the apparition, it will have been observed, was mistaken\nfor a real person. We should not be justified, however, in concluding\nthat the sensory effect produced was comparable in intensity to that\nwhich would have been caused had a real figure walked across the room.\nPerception is so largely a psychical process that it is difficult in\nany particular case to assign a definite value to the sensory element.\nAnd in a case of this kind, where, as appears to be generally the case\nwith telepathic hallucinations, the vision is of brief duration, the\ndifficulty is, of course, increased.\n\nThe hallucination in this, as in the previous case, occurred some\nhours before the death, and the evidential value of the coincidence is\nso far lessened. But it is perhaps worth while pointing out that we\nhave no warrant in theory for concluding that in a case of death after\nprolonged illness the actual moment of dissolution is more favourable\nfor the initiation of a telepathic impulse than any moment in the\nhours or days of illness preceding death; nor, if due allowance be\nmade for the tendency to exaggerate the closeness of coincidence, is\nit clear that there is sufficient evidence at present to support any\nsuch conclusion. On the other hand, in cases of accident or momentary\nillness, we have more than one case where the impression is shown, on\ngood evidence, to have occurred within, at most, an hour of death.[117]\nIn the narrative which follows, the vision, it will be seen, took place\nsome days before the actual death, during the crisis of a serious\nillness, of which the percipient was not at the time aware.\n\n\nNo. 74.--From MRS. MCALPINE, Garscadden, Bearsden, Glasgow.\n\nThe following account was enclosed in a letter, dated April 12th, 1892.\nWe had previously received a somewhat briefer account, dated May 7th,\n1891, which agrees in all essential particulars with the one printed\nbelow:--\n\n \"On the 25th March 1891 my husband and I were staying at Furness\n Abbey Hotel, Barrow-in-Furness, with a friend of ours, the late Mr.\n A. D. Bryce Douglas, of Seafield Tower, Ardrossan. He was managing\n director of the 'Naval Construction Armament Company,' and had\n resided at Furness Abbey Hotel for some eighteen months or more. He\n had invited us, along with a number of other friends, to the launch\n of the _Empress of China_. We breakfasted with Mr. Bryce Douglas on\n the day of the launch, the 25th, and afterwards saw the launch, had\n luncheon at the shipyard, and returned to the hotel. He appeared\n to be in his usual health and spirits (he was a powerfully-built\n man, and justly proud of his fine constitution). The following\n day (Thursday) he left with a party of gentlemen, to sail from\n Liverpool to Ardrossan, on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_\n (another large steamer which had been built at his yard).\n\n \"We remained on at the hotel for some days with our son Bob, aged\n twenty-three, who was staying there, superintending work which Mr.\n McAlpine was carrying on at Barrow.\n\n \"On the Monday night, the 30th, I went upstairs after dinner. On\n my way down again I saw Mr. Bryce Douglas standing in the doorway\n of his sitting-room. I saw him quite distinctly. He looked at me\n with a sad expression. He was wearing a cap which I had never seen\n him wear. I walked on and left him standing there. It was then\n about ten minutes to eight. I told my husband and Bob. We all felt\n alarmed, and we immediately sent the following telegram, 'How\n is Mr. Bryce Douglas?' to Miss Caldwell, his sister-in-law, who\n kept house for him at Seafield. It was too late for a reply that\n night. On Tuesday morning we received a wire from her; it ran thus:\n 'Mr. Bryce Douglas dangerously ill.' That telegram was the first\n intimation of his illness which reached Barrow. As will be seen in\n the account of his illness and death in the _Barrow News_, he died\n on the following Sunday, and we afterwards ascertained from Miss\n Caldwell that he was unconscious on Monday evening, at the time I\n saw him.\n\n \"My husband and son can corroborate this, and I have also letters\n which bear out my statements.\"\n\nMrs. McAlpine enclosed a copy of the _Barrow News_ for April 11th,\n1891, containing a memoir of Mr. Bryce Douglas, and a full account\nof his last illness and death. It appears from this account that he\nleft Barrow on Thursday, March 26th, to join the steamer _Empress of\nJapan_. He was noticed by his friends to be far from well on Wednesday,\nthe previous day, on the occasion of the launch of the _Empress of\nChina_, and was advised to go home. He did not do so, however, until\nthe Sunday, when he was put ashore at Ardrossan, and walked home to\nSeafield--a distance of nearly two miles. His medical man was sent for\nthe same day, and the case was considered serious from the first, and\non the following Thursday the doctors pronounced it hopeless. He died\non April 5th, at about 5 A.M.\n\nFrom the evidence which follows it seems clear that if any anxiety\nas to his health was felt before he left Barrow, as suggested in the\nnewspaper report, Mrs. McAlpine knew nothing of it.\n\nMr. Myers writes:--\n\n \"I discussed the incident connected with the death of Mr. Bryce\n Douglas with Mr. and Mrs. McAlpine and Mr. McAlpine, Jun., on\n February 24th, 1892. I believe that their evidence has been very\n carefully given. Mr. McAlpine knew Mr. Bryce Douglas intimately.\n Mr. Bryce Douglas was a robust and vigorous man, and disliked\n ever to be supposed to be ill. Mr. McAlpine therefore felt great\n unwillingness to telegraph to him about his health, but from his\n previous knowledge of phenomena occurring to Mrs. McAlpine, he felt\n sure that her vision must be in some sense veridical.\"\n\nMrs. McAlpine's husband and his son corroborate as follows:--\n\n \"_April_ 1892.\n\n \"I was at Barrow on the 25th of March of last year (1891), and\n distinctly remember the incident of the following Monday night. I\n can bear testimony to the statements made by my wife and son.\n\n \"ROBERT MCALPINE.\"\n\n \"GARSCADDEN HOUSE, _April_ 4_th_, 1892.\n\n \"I was living for several months in the Furness Abbey Hotel, at\n Barrow-in-Furness, and I remember father and mother coming for\n a few days in order to see the launch of the _Empress of China_\n on the 25th of March 1891, and on the following day (Thursday)\n Mr. Bryce Douglas (who was then in his usual health) left with a\n party of friends on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_. I\n also distinctly remember that the following Monday night (30th) my\n father and I were sitting at the drawing-room fire after dinner,\n and mother came in looking very pale and startled, and said she\n had been upstairs and had seen Mr. Bryce Douglas standing at the\n door of his sitting-room (he had used this sitting-room for nearly\n two years). Both my father and I felt anxious, and after some\n discussion we sent a telegram to Mr. Bryce Douglas's residence at\n Ardrossan asking how he was, and the following morning had the\n reply, 'Keeping better, but not out of danger,' or words to that\n effect. I can assert positively that no one in Barrow knew of his\n illness until after the receipt of that telegram.\n\n \"ROBERT MCALPINE, JUN.\"\n\nLetters corroborating the above account have also been received from\nMiss Caldwell, sister-in-law to Mr. Bryce Douglas, to whom the telegram\nwas sent, and who writes: \"I was very much surprised at receiving it;\"\nfrom Mrs. Scarlett, the wife of the proprietor of the Furness Abbey\nHotel, and from Miss Charlton, of Barrow-in-Furness, both of whom were\ncognisant of the circumstances at the time.[118]\n\nMrs. McAlpine has had several other apparently telepathic experiences,\none of them a vision coinciding with the death of the infant child of\nher brother.\n\nIn the next case the vision occurred about two hours after the actual\ndeath.\n\n\nNo. 75.--From MISS MABEL GORE BOOTH.\n\n \"LISSADELL, SLIGO, _February_ 1891.\n\n \"On the 10th of April 1889, at about half-past nine o'clock A.M.,\n my youngest brother and I were going down a short flight of stairs\n leading to the kitchen, to fetch food for my chickens, as usual. We\n were about half-way down, my brother a few steps in advance of me,\n when he suddenly said, 'Why, there's John Blaney; I didn't know he\n was in the house!' John Blaney was a boy who lived not far from us,\n and he had been employed in the house as hall-boy not long before.\n I said that I was sure it was not he (for I knew he had left some\n months previously on account of ill-health), and looked down into\n the passage, but saw no one. The passage was a long one, with a\n rather sharp turn in it, so we ran quickly down the last few steps\n and looked round the corner, but nobody was there, and the only\n door he could have gone through was shut. As we went upstairs my\n brother said, 'How pale and ill John looked, and why did he stare\n so?' I asked what he was doing. My brother answered that he had his\n sleeves turned up, and was wearing a large green apron, such as\n the footmen always wear at their work. An hour or two afterwards\n I asked my maid how long John Blaney had been back in the house?\n She seemed much surprised, and said, 'Didn't you hear, miss, that\n he died this morning?' On inquiry we found he had died about two\n hours before my brother saw him. My mother did not wish that my\n brother should be told this, but he heard of it somehow, and at\n once declared that he must have seen his ghost.\n\n \"MABEL OLIVE GORE BOOTH.\"\n\nThe percipient's independent account is as follows:--\n\n \"_March_ 1891.\n\n \"We were going downstairs to get food for Mabel's fowl, when I saw\n John Blaney walking round the corner. I said to Mabel, 'That's John\n Blaney!' but she could not see him. When we came up afterwards we\n found he was dead. He seemed to me to look rather ill. He looked\n yellow; his eyes looked hollow, and he had a green apron on.\n\n \"MORDAUNT GORE BOOTH.\"\n\nWe have received the following confirmation of the date of death:--\n\n \"I certify from the parish register of deaths that John Blaney\n (Dunfore) was interred on the 12th day of April 1889, having died\n on the 10th day of April 1889.\n\n \"P. J. SHEMAGHS, C.C.\n \"The Presbytery, Ballingal, Sligo,\n \"10_th_ February_ 1891.\"\n\nMr. Myers originally received an account of the incident _viva voce_\nfrom Lady Gore Booth, and subsequently at his request the percipient\nand his sister, aged at the time ten and fifteen respectively, wrote\nthe accounts given above.\n\nLady Gore Booth writes:--\n\n \"_May_ 31_st_, 1890.\n\n \"When my little boy came upstairs and told us he had seen John\n Blaney, we thought nothing of it till some hours after, when we\n heard that he was dead. Then, for fear of frightening the children,\n I avoided any allusion to what he had told us, and asked every one\n else to do the same. Probably by now he has forgotten all about\n it, but it certainly was very remarkable, especially as only one\n child saw him, and they were standing together. The place where\n he seems to have appeared was in the passage outside the pantry\n door, where John Blaney's work always took him. My boy is a very\n matter-of-fact sort of boy, and I never heard of his having any\n other hallucination.\"\n\nThe interval in this case between the death and the vision may probably\nbe explained as due to the telepathic influence received from the\ndying boy having remained latent in the percipient's mind, awaiting\na favourable opportunity for emerging to consciousness. But it seems\npossible that the message may have come, not from the dying boy, but\nfrom some member of the household who was aware of the death. It is to\nbe noted that Miss Gore Booth did not share her brother's experience.\n\n\n_Hallucinations Affecting Two Senses._\n\nSo far we have dealt with hallucinations of one sense only. In the next\ntwo cases, it will be seen, both sight and hearing appear to have been\naffected.\n\n\nNo. 76.--From the REV. MATTHEW FROST.\n\n \"BOWERS GIFFORD, ESSEX, _January_ 30_th_, 1891.\n\n \"The first Thursday in April 1881, while sitting at tea with my\n back to the window and talking with my wife in the usual way, I\n plainly heard a rap at the window, and looking round I said to\n my wife, 'Why, there's my grandmother,' and went to the door,\n but could not see any one; and still feeling sure it was my\n grandmother, and knowing, though eighty-three years of age, she was\n very active and fond of a joke, I went round the house, but could\n not see any one. My wife did not hear it. On the following Saturday\n I had news my grandmother died in Yorkshire about half-an-hour\n before the time I heard the rapping. The last time I saw her alive\n I promised, if well, I would attend her funeral; that [was] some\n two years before. I was in good health [and] had no trouble, [age]\n twenty-six years. I did not know that my grandmother was ill.\"\n\nMrs. Frost writes:--\n\n \"_January_ 30_th_, 1891.\n\n \"I beg to certify that I perfectly remember all the circumstances\n my husband has named, but I heard and saw nothing myself.\"\n\nThe house (seen by Mrs. Sidgwick) in which Mr. Frost was living when\nthe event occurred stands some way back from the road in a garden, and\nthe door into the garden opens out of the sitting-room, so that he must\nhave got to the door much too quickly, if he went at once, for any one\nto have got away unseen by him.\n\nProfessor Sidgwick called on Mr. Frost in June 1892, and learned from\nhim that he had last seen his grandmother in 1878, on which occasion\nshe had promised, if possible, to appear to him at her death. On first\nseeing the figure Mr. Frost thought that his grandmother had actually\ncome in the flesh to surprise him. It was full daylight, and had there\nbeen a real knock and a real presence Mrs. Frost must have both heard\nand seen. Mr. Frost had no cause for anxiety about his grandmother, and\nhas had no other experience of this kind. News of the death came by\nletter, and Mrs. Frost remembers the letter, and that she noticed the\ncoincidence at the time.\n\nIn the next case the order of perception is reversed; the visual\npreceded the auditory image. The narrative was procured for us by M.\nAksakof, of 6 Nevsky Prospect, St. Petersburg, who also translated the\noriginal Russian into French, from which we have translated it into\nEnglish.\n\n\nNo. 77.--From M. A----.\n\n \"It was at Milan, on the 10th (22nd) of October 1888. I was staying\n at the Hotel Ancora. After dinner, at about seven o'clock, I was\n seated on the sofa, reading a newspaper. My wife was resting in the\n same room on a couch, behind a curtain. The room was lighted by a\n lamp upon the table near which I was sitting reading. Suddenly I\n saw against the background of the door, which was opposite me, my\n father's face. He wore as usual a black surtout, and was deadly\n pale. At that moment I heard quite close to my ear a voice which\n said to me, 'A telegram is coming to say your father is dead.'\n All this only took a few seconds. I started up and rushed towards\n my wife, but not to startle her I said nothing to her about it.\n To explain my sudden movement I exclaimed 'Look, do you not see\n that the kettle is boiling over!'... On the evening of the same\n day, about eleven o'clock, we were taking tea in the company of\n several other people, among whom were Madame Y., her daughter E.\n Y., formerly an actress at the Court Theatre, and Mademoiselle M.,\n who is now living in Florence. All at once there was a knock at the\n door, and the _concierge_ presented a telegram. Pale with emotion I\n immediately exclaimed, 'I know my father is dead; I have seen....'\n The telegram contained these words, 'Papa dead suddenly.--Olga.' It\n was a telegram from my sister living at St. Petersburg. I learned\n later that my father had committed suicide on the morning of the\n same day.\n\n \"(Signed) E. A.\"\n\nMadame A. writes:--\n\n \"I was present at the time, and I testify to the accuracy of the\n account.\"\n\nM. Aksakof wrote to us that he had seen the original telegram, which\nran--\n\n \"Ricevuto il 22,[1] 1888. Milano, Petersbourg, data 22,[119] ore e\n minute, 8.40. 'Papa mort subitement.--Olga.'\"\n\nAnother case, in which the senses affected were those of touch and\nhearing, has been given to us by Mr. Malleson. In 1874 or 1875 he went\nfor a short sea voyage, taking with him his young son. On the night of\nhis departure, while in a dreamy, half-conscious state, he imagined\nthat his son had fallen overboard, and that he himself was bringing\nthe sad news to his wife. On his return home he learned that on that\nnight Mrs. Malleson had been awakened by feeling some one leaning over\nher. She put out her arm and, as she thought, touched her husband's\ncoat. She had no doubt that it was her husband's bodily presence,\nspoke to him, and heard him answer, \"Yes, I have come back.\" But on\nher continuing, \"Where is Eddy?\" she received no reply, and felt much\nalarmed. There are several instances recorded of tactile hallucinations\naccompanying visual and auditory phantasms.[120]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 115: Mr. Tudor wrote to Dr. Hodgson in answer to a letter\nreceived from him.]\n\n[Footnote 116: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, July-August 1893, pp.\n196, 197.]\n\n[Footnote 117: See, for instance, _Phantasms of the Living_, cases 28,\n79, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 118: These letters will be found in full in the account of\nthe case published in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part xxvi.]\n\n[Footnote 119: M. Aksakof explains that the name of the month (October)\nwas omitted, through a mistake on the part of the telegraph clerk.]\n\n[Footnote 120: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 434-445; vol. ii.\np. 134, etc.; and _Proc. S.P.R._, etc.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCOLLECTIVE HALLUCINATIONS.\n\n\nWe have now to discuss that numerous class of cases in which the\nphantasm was perceived by two or more persons. The difficulties of\ninterpretation which such cases present are enhanced for us by the\nvarious defects to which the evidence is here peculiarly liable. Many\nso-called cases of collective apparition, especially when the figure\nis seen out-of-doors, were probably real men and women.[121] In others\nwe have to deal with a collective illusion, a quasi-hallucinatory\nsuperstructure built up by each witness, aided by hints from the\nothers, on a common sensory basis. Such, for instance, appears to us\nthe most probable interpretation of the following singular case.\n\nFrom MRS. ALDERSON.\n\n \"My son and I were staying in the town of Bonchurch (Isle of Wight)\n last Easter vacation (1886). Our lodgings were close to the sea,\n and the garden of our house abutted on the beach, and there were\n no trees or bushes in it high enough to intercept our view. The\n evening of Easter Sunday was so fine that when Miss Jowett (the\n landlady's daughter) brought in the lamp, I begged her not to pull\n down the blinds, and lay on the sofa looking out at the sea, while\n my son was reading at the table. Owing to a letter I had just\n received from my sister at home, stating that one of the servants\n had again seen 'the old lady,' my thoughts had been directed\n towards ghosts and such things. But I was not a little astonished\n when, on presently looking out of the window, I saw the figure\n of a woman standing at the edge of the verandah. She appeared to\n be a broad woman, and not tall (Mrs. A. is tall), and to wear an\n old-fashioned bonnet, and white gloves on her closed hands. As it\n was dark the figure was only outlined against the sky, and I could\n not distinguish any other details. It was, however, opaque, and\n not in any way transparent, just as if it had been a real person.\n I looked at it for some time, and then looked away. When, after a\n time, I looked again, the woman's hands had disappeared behind what\n appeared to be a white marble cross, with a little bit of the top\n broken off, and with a railing on one side of the woman and the\n cross, such as one sometimes sees in graveyards.\n\n \"After looking at this apparition, which remained motionless, for\n some time, about twenty minutes, perhaps, I asked my son [then an\n undergraduate at B.N.C.] to come and to look out of the window, and\n tell me what he saw. He exclaimed, 'What an uncanny sight!' and\n described the woman and the cross exactly as I saw it. I then rang\n the bell, and when Miss J. answered it, I asked her also to look\n out of the window and tell me what she saw, and she also described\n the woman and the cross, just as they appeared to my son and\n myself. Some one suggested that it might be a reflection of some\n sort, and we all looked about the room to see whether there was\n anything in it that could cause such a reflection, but came to the\n conclusion that there was nothing to account for it.\"\n\nMr. Alderson writes:--\n\n \"Staying at B. (Isle of Wight) during the Easter vacation of 1886,\n I remember distinctly seeing an apparition in the form of a woman\n with her hands clasped on the top of a cross. The cross looked old\n and worn, as one sees in churchyards. My mother drew my attention\n to the figure, and after we had watched it for some time we rang\n the bell and asked the servant if she saw the figure. She said she\n did. I then went out to the verandah (where the figure was), and\n immediately it vanished.\n\n \"E. H. ALDERSON.\"\n\nAcorresponding account of the incident has been received from Miss\nJowett, the landlady's daughter. We owe the accounts of the incident\nto Mr. F. Schiller, who investigated the matter for the Oxford\nPhasmatological Society.\n\nThe persistency of the vision in this case is a feature very rarely\nfound in cases of undoubted hallucination, and the fact that it was\nonly seen through glass suggests that the whole appearance was due\nto a reflection of some kind, although it must be admitted that this\nexplanation, which was considered and rejected by the percipients at\nthe time, cannot be accommodated to the facts without difficulty.\n\nIn the epidemics of religious hallucination so common in the Middle\nAges, and still occurring from time to time in Catholic countries,\nit would appear that as a rule there is no objective basis for the\nperception. When, as at Knock, in Ireland, a few years ago, the figure\nof the Virgin or a Saint is said to have been seen by a large number\nof persons simultaneously, it seems probable that in those who really\nsaw the figure the hallucination was due to repeated verbal suggestions\nacting on minds which, under the influence of strong emotion, were\ntemporarily in a state analogous to that of trance. The nearest analogy\nto such cases is no doubt to be found in hypnotism. A collective\nhallucination can be imposed upon a whole roomful of hypnotised persons\nby the mere command of the operator. But not the most explicit verbal\nsuggestion--_si vera est fabula_--could make the courtiers in the\nfairy tale see the king's clothes; and there is no evidence that with\nnormal persons in full possession of their ordinary faculties any\nhints derivable from look, word, or gesture could suffice to originate\nan instantaneous hallucination. Still, the possibility of such an\nexplanation under certain conditions should perhaps be kept in view.\n(See later, Chapter XVI.)\n\nA possible explanation of a different kind has been already\nillustrated by the story quoted on page 153, where it was shown that\na solitary hallucination had grown in the course of five-and-twenty\nyears into a collective vision. The narrator in this case was a child\nat the time of the alleged experience. Children and uneducated persons\ngenerally, who are not prone to analyse their own sensations, seem\nliable after a certain interval to mistake the image called up by\nanother's recital for an actual experience of their own; and this is\nespecially likely to occur when the auditor was present at the time of\nthe experience or familiar with the scene of the occurrence. Indeed,\nmost persons who visualise with moderate facility are probably liable\nto this form of mistake on a small scale. I had about five years\nsince an example of this in my own case. A friend had described to me\nminutely some simple apparatus of his own invention. About a year later\nhe brought the apparatus to London and offered to show it to me. I\nreplied that I had already seen it; but on being confronted with it I\nfound the proportions and general appearance of the actual object quite\nunlike my mental image of it. I had in fact never seen the object,\nbut the image which I had mentally constructed to enable me to follow\nmy friend's description a year before remained so vivid as to lead\nme to believe that it was founded on actual sensation. But a sensory\nhallucination is too striking and unusual an experience to be readily\nfeigned, and it is very improbable that the memory of educated persons,\nat any rate, would be untrustworthy as regards their recent experiences\nof the kind. As already explained, the accounts of this and other forms\nof telepathic affection included in this book have in almost all cases\nbeen written down within ten years of the event.\n\nWhen the fullest allowance has been made for all possible explanations\nwe find a considerable number of cases remaining of which no other\naccount can be given than that they are apparitions, due to no\nascertained cause, which are perceived by two or more persons\nsimultaneously. That the collective perception proves the objective,\nor--to use a less ambiguous word--the _material_ existence of the thing\nperceived, is probably held now by few persons outside the ranks of\nprofessed mystics. Apart from the theoretical difficulties of such a\nhypothesis--difficulties which have by no means been surmounted by the\ninvocation of fixed ether, intercalary vortex rings, space of four\ndimensions, and other subtler forms of the theory evolved in recent\ntimes,--it is to be noted that no facts of any significance have been\nadduced to support it. There is at present no trustworthy evidence that\nan apparition has ever been weighed or photographed,[122] or submitted\nto spectroscopic or chemical analysis. But, indeed, the theory betrays\nits own origin in a prescientific age; and without formal destruction\nby argument it has shared in the euthanasia which has overtaken many\nother pious opinions found inadequate to the facts. The phenomena which\nit professes to explain are paralleled in all their essential features\nby other phenomena, for which even its supporters would hardly be\nrash enough to claim substantial reality; and as the phantasms now to\nbe discussed bear in all points a close resemblance to those already\ndescribed as occurring to solitary percipients, probably no one who\naccepts the one class of appearances as hallucinatory will hesitate to\naccept the other.\n\nBut when the hallucinatory character of collectively-perceived,\nor, as they may be styled for brevity, \"collective\" phantasms is\nrecognised, there are difficulties of interpretation to be dealt\nwith. On the telepathic hypothesis there are two modes in which a\ncollective hallucination may be conceived to originate: (_a_) it may\nbe communicated direct from a third person to each of the percipients;\nor (_b_) it may be communicated by telepathic infection from one\npercipient to another. The first explanation involves in most cases,\nas Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp.\n171, 172), serious theoretical difficulties. For on the view to which\nwe are led by a review of all the evidence, a telepathic hallucination,\nlike any other, is, as a rule, the work of the percipient's mind, and\nis not transferred ready made from the agent. As such it is frequently\nof slow growth, and there are grounds for believing that it is\nsometimes not externalised for the percipient's senses until some hours\nafter the receipt of the original telepathic impulse. We should hardly\nexpect, therefore, to find two percipients independently developing\nsimilar hallucinations, and at the same moment. But in most of the\ncases of collective hallucination hitherto reported, the hallucinations\nhave been, so far as could be ascertained, similar and simultaneous,\nso as indeed to suggest a real figure rather than a hallucination.\nMoreover, in well-attested recent narratives it rarely happens that\na connection between the hallucination and any unusual state of the\nperson represented is clearly established; whilst in many, perhaps\nmost cases, the hallucination has not been recognised as resembling\nany person known to either percipient, and has in some instances been\npurely grotesque. In most cases, therefore, it seems easier to believe\nthat we have to deal with a contagious hallucination, which, whether\ninitiated by a telepathic impulse, or purely subjective in its origin,\nhas been transferred telepathically from the original percipient to\nothers in his company at the time. In some cases, indeed, it is no\ndoubt permissible, as suggested by Mr. Gurney, to conjecture that the\nminds of all the percipients may have been directly influenced by the\nagent, and that subsequently an overflow from the mind of one of the\npercipients may have served to reinforce the original impulse, and\ndetermine the exact moment of the explosion in his co-percipients, just\nas the current regulates the exact hour of striking in electrically\nsynchronised clocks. Or again, the mind of each percipient may\nreact upon the others. There are, however, a few cases where the\npercipients appear to have had experiences relating to the same event\nneither precisely similar nor simultaneous, which seem to require\nthe hypothesis of an impulse in each case directly derived from the\nperson represented. Some cases of the kind are given in _Phantasms of\nthe Living_ (vol. i. p. 362; vol. ii. 173-183), and others will be\ncited in the latter part of this chapter. It will be more convenient,\nhowever, to begin by giving examples of the ordinary type of collective\nhallucination.\n\n\n_Collective Auditory Hallucinations._\n\nNo. 78.--From MR. C. H. CARY.\n\n \"SECRETARY'S OFFICE, GENERAL POST OFFICE,\n 29_th March_ 1892.\n\n \"At Bow, London, on the 8th March 1875, at about 8.30 P.M., I\n heard a voice say, 'Joseph, Joseph.' I was talking with my father\n and cousin (Joseph Cary) about the battle of Balaclava. I was in\n good health, etc. My age was nearly thirteen. All three of us\n heard the voice, which we suppose to have been that of Joseph's\n grandmother.\"[123]\n\nIn conversation, Mr. Cary explained to me that the voice was not\nrecognised by any of those who heard it. It was indeed at first\nmistaken for the voice of Mrs. Cary (Mr. C. H. Cary's mother), who was\nat the time in an adjoining room, but who had not spoken. A telegram\nannouncing the grandmother's death was received on the day following,\nand Mr. Joseph Cary then said that the voice must have been that of his\ngrandmother. Mr. C. H. Cary had never seen this lady.\n\nMr. R. H. Cary writes from 49 Gladsmuir Road, London, N.:--\n\n \"_March_ 31_st_, 1892.\n\n \"With reference to your inquiry concerning the voice which was\n heard at the time of the late Mrs. Victor's death, I am able to\n state that my son, my nephew, and myself were sitting together,\n and we all heard it distinctly. This occurred about fourteen years\n ago. The account given by my son exactly coincides with my own\n recollection.\n\n \"R. H. CARY.\"\n\nWe have ascertained from the Registrar-General that Mary Victor, widow\nof Thomas Victor, farmer, died at Linwood, Paul, Penzance, on March\n8th, 1875, from bronchitis.\n\nMr. C. H. Cary adds that though Mrs. Victor was known to be ill,\nher death was not thought to be imminent. He has himself had other\nauditory hallucinations--viz., the hearing of footsteps on two or three\noccasions at about the time of the death of a relation.\n\nIn the next case the voice heard did not correspond with any external\nevent. It was, as it were, \"the after-image\" of a voice once familiar\nin the house.\n\n\nNo. 79.--From MISS ANNIE NEWBOLD.\n\n \"_May_ 7_th_, 1892.\n\n \"Florence N., a little child of under four years old, to whom I\n was very much attached, died on May 23rd, 1889. She lived in the\n house where I have my studio, and during the daytime was invariably\n with me. There were no other children in the house, and she was\n a general pet. I was ill for some time after her death, and one\n morning in July 1889 I went to see Mrs. N. We were sitting talking\n in her room on the ground-floor when I suddenly heard the child's\n voice distinctly call 'Miss Boo' (her name for me). I was about\n to answer, when I remembered that it could be no living voice and\n so continued my sentence, thinking that I would say nothing about\n the occurrence to her mother. At that moment Mrs. N. turned to me\n and said, 'Miss Newbold, did you hear that?' 'Yes,' I replied,\n 'what was it?' And she said, 'My little child, and she called\n \"Miss Boo.\"' We both noticed that the sound came from below, as\n if she were standing in the kitchen doorway underneath the room\n in which we were sitting. There was no possibility of its being\n another child, as there was not one in the house. The upper floors\n were empty, too, at the time. I can vouch for the accuracy of this\n account.\n\n \"ANNIE NEWBOLD.\"\n\nMrs. N. writes:--\n\n \"Miss Newbold came to see me one morning in July 1889, about two\n months after my only child's death. We were in my room talking when\n I distinctly heard my little girl's voice call 'Miss Boo.' I asked\n Miss Newbold if she had heard anything and she said 'Yes. What was\n it?' I replied, 'My little child, and she said \"Miss Boo.\"'\n\n \"LIZZIE N.\"\n\nIn answer to questions, Miss Newbold writes:--\n\n \"1. Mrs. N. never heard her little girl's voice on any other\n occasion.\n\n \"2. We were not talking about the little girl at the time, nor upon\n any subject connected with her. I, however, had a box of roses on\n my knee, which I was mechanically sorting, and putting all the\n white ones on one side to send to the little child's grave.\n\n \"3. Mrs. N. has never heard any other voices, either before or\n since. Neither have I; but I have three or four times in my\n life been conscious of a presence without being able to explain\n definitely what it was I felt. I have never seen anything.\"[124]\n\n\n_Collective Visual Hallucinations._\n\nPassing to visual phantasms, we will begin by citing a case in which\nthere can be little doubt that the hallucination was purely subjective;\na better case for illustrating the hypothesis of the infectious\ncharacter of casual hallucination could hardly be found. It is to be\nnoted indeed that the second percipient saw the apparition on the first\noccasion only after a distinct _verbal_ suggestion, but, as already\nstated, there is no evidence that a single verbal suggestion can\nproduce a hallucination in a healthy person in full possession of his\nnormal faculties.\n\n\nNo. 80.--From MRS. GREIFFENBERG and MRS. ERNI-GREIFFENBERG.\n\nMr. F. C. S. Schiller, through whom the account was obtained, tells\nus that he heard the story in October 1890 from the two percipients.\nThe following account was put together by him from an account (which\nhe also sent us) written by Mrs. Erni-Greiffenberg, and various\nconversations which he had with both ladies on the subject. He\nafterwards obtained their signatures to it. Neither of them has had any\nother hallucinatory experience.\n\n \"_December_ 14_th_, 1890.\n\n \"In the beginning of the summer of 1884 we were sitting at dinner\n at home as usual, in the middle of the day. In the midst of the\n conversation I noticed my mother suddenly looking down at something\n beneath the table. I inquired whether she had dropped anything, and\n received the answer, 'No, but I wonder how that cat can have got\n into the room?' Looking underneath the table, I was surprised to\n see a large white Angora cat beside my mother's chair. We both got\n up, and I opened the door to let the cat out. She marched round the\n table, went noiselessly out of the door, and when about half-way\n down the passage turned round and faced us. For a short time she\n regularly stared at us with her green eyes, then she dissolved\n away, like a mist, under our eyes.\n\n \"Even apart from the mode of her disappearance, we felt convinced\n that the cat could not have been a real one, as we neither had one\n of our own, nor knew of any that would answer to the description\n in the place, and so this appearance made an unpleasant impression\n upon us.\n\n \"This impression was, however, greatly enhanced by what happened\n in the following year, 1885, when we were staying in Leipzig with\n my married sister (the daughter of Mrs. Greiffenberg). We had come\n home one afternoon from a walk, when, on opening the door of the\n flat, we were met in the hall by the same white cat. It proceeded\n down the passage in front of us, and looked at us with the same\n melancholy gaze. When it got to the door of the cellar (which was\n locked), it again dissolved into nothing.\n\n \"On this occasion also it was first seen by my mother, and we\n were both impressed by the uncanny and gruesome character of the\n appearance. In this case, also, the cat could not have been a real\n one, as there was no such cat in the neighbourhood.\"\n\nA very striking example of a collective hallucination, apparently of\nthe same type, was given to us by Mrs. Ward. She and her husband,\nthe late E. M. Ward, R.A., in 1851 saw in their bedroom two small\npear-shaped lights which, when touched, broke into small luminous\nfragments. (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. p. 193.) We have also a\ncase in which our informant, when a girl of fifteen, with another girl,\nsaw in the middle of the room, at a dancing class, a hallucinatory\nchair. Yet another case is recorded by Miss Foy, a careful observer,\nwho had been troubled for some time with a hallucinatory skeleton, the\nsubjective character of which she fully recognised. On one occasion\nwhen in hospital the hallucination recurred, and appears to have been\nseen also by the patient in the adjoining bed, to whom no hint of any\nkind had been given. In both these cases, however, the evidence depends\nupon a single memory. We have another case in which a singular luminous\nbody--apparently a hallucination of a rudimentary kind--was perceived\nby two witnesses coincidently with the death of a near relative of one\nof them. The Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick, from whom I originally received\nthe account _viva voce_, was walking with a friend across a moor in\nSutherlandshire\n\n \"when there suddenly arose, to all appearance out of the road\n between our feet as we walked, a ball of fire, about the size of\n an 18lb. cannon ball. It was of an orange-red colour, and there\n seemed to be a kind of rotatory motion in it, not unlike a firework\n of some description.... It seemed to move forward with us, at a\n distance of not more than 6 inches in front, and at the same time\n rose pretty swiftly breast high ... and then disappeared and left\n no trace.\"\n\nMr. Goodrick adds that a light rain was falling; but there was no\nthunderstorm.\n\nFrom uneducated witnesses such an account no doubt would have but\nlittle value. A will-o'-the-wisp in an adjoining marsh, or even a\nflash of lightning, might in such a case form a sufficient basis for\nthe story. And even assuming that the account here given accurately\ndescribes what was seen, it is difficult to feel certain that the\nappearance was hallucinatory. But if it were of a physical nature, it\nis certainly not easy to conjecture what it could have been, and the\ncoincidence with the death is an additional argument for regarding the\nphenomenon as hallucinatory.\n\nIn the next case the phantasm seems to belong to a not unusual type\nof subjective hallucinations, the \"after-image\" of a familiar figure.\nThere are no grounds for ascribing the apparition to any \"agency\"\non the part of the person whose image was seen. If the incident is\ncorrectly described, the _prima facie_ explanation is that a casual\nhallucination was communicated by telepathic suggestion to a second\nperson in the company of the original percipient. At our request the\ntwo accounts which follow were written independently.\n\n\nNo. 81.--From MRS. MILMAN.\n\n \"17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,\n _March_ 20_th_, 1888.\n\n \"About three years ago I was coming out of the dining-room one\n day, after lunch, with my sister. My mother had, as I supposed,\n preceded us upstairs, as usual. The library door, which faces\n the dining-room, stood wide open, and looking through it as I\n crossed the hall, I saw my mother in the library, seated at the\n writing-table, and apparently writing. Instead, therefore, of going\n upstairs, as I had intended, I went to the library door, wishing to\n speak to her, but when I looked in the room was empty.\n\n \"At the same moment, my sister, who had also been going towards\n the stairs in the first instance, changed her direction, and,\n crossing the hall, came up to the library door behind me. She then\n exclaimed, 'Why, I thought I saw mamma in the library, at the\n writing-table.' On comparing notes, we found that we had both seen\n her seated at the writing-table, and bending over it as if writing.\n My mother was never in the habit of writing in the library.\n\n \"I recollect her dress perfectly, as the impression was quite\n distinct and vivid. She had on a black cloak, and bonnet with a\n yellow bird in it, which she generally wore.\n\n \"It is the only time anything of the kind has happened to me.\n\n \"M. J. MILMAN.\"\n\n\nFrom MISS CAMPBELL.\n\n \"17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,\n _March_ 21_st_, 1888.\n\n \"My sister and mother and myself, after returning from our morning\n drive, came into the dining-room without removing our things, and\n had luncheon as usual, during which my sister and I laughed and\n cracked jokes in the gayest of spirits. After a time my mother rose\n and left the room, but we remained on for a few minutes. Finally\n we both got up and went into the passage, and I was about to go\n upstairs and take off my things when I saw my sister turn into my\n father's study (which was directly opposite the dining-room), with\n the evident intention, as I supposed, of speaking to my mother,\n whom I distinctly noticed seated at my father's desk in her cloak\n and bonnet, busily absorbed in writing. The door of the study was\n wide open at the time. I turned round and followed her to the\n door, when, to my surprise, my mother had completely disappeared,\n and I noticed my sister turned away too, and left the room as if\n puzzled. I asked her, with some curiosity, what she went into the\n room for? She replied that she fancied she saw my mother bending\n over the desk writing, and went in to speak to her. Feeling very\n much startled and alarmed, we went upstairs to see after her, and\n found her in her bedroom, where she went immediately on leaving the\n dining-room, and had been all the time.\n\n \"E. J. CAMPBELL.\"\n\nIn the next case the apparition was recognised by one of the\npercipients only, as resembling a relative who had been dead some\nyears. Neither percipient appears to have seen the face.\n\n\nNo. 82.--From MRS. J. C.\n\n \"_August_ 20_th_, 1893.\n\n \"Seven years ago my husband and I had the following curious\n experience:--\n\n \"In the middle of the night I awoke with the feeling that some one\n was near me, and at once saw a figure moving from the side of my\n bed towards the wardrobe where I kept jewellery. My supposition\n was that it was a burglar, and I refrained from waking my husband\n (whose bed was two feet from mine), as I thought the burglar would\n be armed, and I knew my husband would certainly attack him and be\n at his mercy. I therefore lay perfectly still.\n\n \"The apparition having passed the foot of my bed, then came\n opposite my husband's, when, to my astonishment, I saw my husband\n sit up in bed gazing at the figure. In a moment or two he lay down\n again, and the figure apparently passed to the door.\n\n \"We neither of us spoke one word that night.\n\n \"In the morning I asked my husband to look if the doors were locked\n (of which there are three in the room). They were all secure. I\n also examined the beds to see if they by any possibility could have\n touched, and so I unconsciously have awakened him, but they were\n quite separate. I then asked if he remembered anything happening in\n the night, and he replied, 'Yes, a strange thing: I thought I saw\n my father go out of that door.' Not till then did I tell him that I\n thought the figure was a burglar, and how frightened I had been at\n the thought of his struggling with an armed man, and had therefore\n remained silent.\n\n \"The gas was burning, and I could see quite across the room.\"\n\nI received a full account of the incident orally from Mrs. C. on the\n20th August 1893. She told me that she never saw the face of the\nfigure, and could not see, or cannot now recollect, the dress. She had\nno doubt at the time that it was a burglar. Mrs. C. has had no other\nhallucination of any kind.\n\nMr. C. writes on the 21st August 1893:--\n\n \"I have read my wife's account, and endorse it.\n\n \"To my recollection I was not dreaming previously to sitting up in\n bed, when I believed I saw my father going towards the door. My\n mind had not been specially active about his affairs at that time,\n although I was rather anxious about some matters of business.\n\n \"The figure I supposed to be my father (and I had no thought it was\n any one else) moved noiselessly across the room and disappeared\n through the doorway. I should have treated it as a dream only,\n if my wife had not recalled my attention to it in the morning by\n asking me if I remembered sitting up in bed.\n\n \"Although I am certain my eyes were open at the time of the\n apparition, I did not see the face, but recognised the figure as\n that of my father by the general appearance as I remembered him.\n\n \"I have had no other similar waking experience, but have previously\n seen my father distinctly in a dream after his decease.\"\n\nMr. C. told me that he was positive the figure could not have been\nthat of a real man: the doors were found locked on the inside in the\nmorning. Moreover, his recognition of the figure, though he could not\nsee the face, was unmistakable.\n\nWe have many similar accounts of collective phantasms which appear\nto have differed from subjective hallucinations of the ordinary type\nin no other particular than the fact of their occurrence to two\npersons simultaneously. Thus, to quote a few instances, Mrs. Willett,\nof Bedales, Lindfield, Sussex, sent us an extract from her diary\ndescribing a figure seen by her daughter and a visitor,--a fair-haired\nchild running along a gallery. The account is confirmed by the visitor,\nMiss S. From Mrs. and Miss Goodhall we have an account of a tall figure\nseen by them when driving in a country lane. Miss C---- and two of her\nsisters saw in a bedroom in a London house the figure of a young man of\nmiddle height wearing a peaked cap and dark clothes. Mrs. Y. and her\nniece saw the figure of a child in a long grey dressing-gown running\ndown a lighted staircase. In this last case the figure was mistaken\nfor Mrs. Y.'s daughter, but in the other cases the phantasm bore no\nresemblance to any one with whom the percipients were acquainted. In\nno instance does it seem possible except by violently straining the\nprobabilities to suppose the figure seen to have been that of a human\nbeing.\n\nIn the next case the phantasm, which was recognised, occurred within a\nshort time of the death of the person represented. The narrator is a\ndecorator and house-painter, of Uniontown, Kentucky, U.S.A.\n\n\nNo. 83.--From MR. S. S. FALKINBURG.\n\n \"_September_ 12_th_, 1884.\n\n \"The following circumstance is impressed upon my mind in a manner\n which will preclude its ever being forgotten by me or the members\n of my family interested. My little son Arthur, who was then five\n years old, and the pet of his grandpapa, was playing on the floor,\n when I entered the house a quarter to seven o'clock, Friday\n evening, July 11th, 1879. I was very tired, having been receiving\n and paying for staves all day, and it being an exceedingly sultry\n evening, I lay down by Artie on the carpet, and entered into\n conversation with my wife--not, however, in regard to my parents.\n Artie, as usually was the case, came and lay down with his little\n head upon my left arm, when all at once he exclaimed, 'Papa! papa!\n Grandpa!' I cast my eyes towards the ceiling, or opened my eyes,\n I am not sure which, when, between me and the joists (it was an\n old-fashioned log-cabin), I saw the face of my father as plainly\n as ever I saw him in my life. He appeared to me to be very pale,\n and looked _sad_, as I had seen him upon my last visit to him three\n months previous. I immediately spoke to my wife, who was sitting\n within a few feet of me, and said, 'Clara, there is something wrong\n at home; father is either dead or very sick.' She tried to persuade\n me that it was my imagination, but I could not help feeling that\n something was wrong. Being very tired, we soon after retired, and\n about ten o'clock Artie woke me up repeating, 'Papa, grandpa is\n here.' I looked, and believe, if I remember right, got up, at any\n rate to get the child warm, as he complained of coldness, and it\n was very sultry weather. Next morning I expressed my determination\n to go at once to Indianapolis. My wife made light of it and\n over-persuaded me, and I did not go until Monday morning, and upon\n arriving at home (my father's), I found that he had been buried the\n day before, Sunday, July 13th.\n\n \"Now comes the mysterious part to me. After I had told my mother\n and brother of my vision, or whatever it may have been, they told\n me the following:--\n\n \"On the morning of the 11th July, the day of his death, he arose\n early and expressed himself as feeling unusually well, and ate a\n hearty breakfast. He took the Bible (he was a Methodist minister),\n and went and remained until near noon. He ate a hearty dinner,\n and went to the front gate, and, looking up and down the street,\n remarked that he could not, or at least would not be disappointed,\n some one was surely coming. During the afternoon and evening\n he seemed restless, and went to the gate, looking down street,\n frequently. At last, about time for supper, he mentioned my name,\n and expressed his conviction that God, in His own good time, would\n answer his prayers in my behalf, I being at that time very wild.\n Mother going into the kitchen to prepare supper, he followed\n her and continued talking to her about myself and family, and\n especially Arthur, my son. Supper being over, he moved his chair\n near the door, and was conversing about me at the time he died. The\n last words were about me, and were spoken, by mother's clock, 14\n minutes of 7. He did not fall, but just quit talking and was dead.\n\n \"In answer to my inquiries, my son Arthur says he remembers the\n circumstances, and the impression he received upon that occasion is\n ineffaceable.\n\n \"SAMUEL S. FALKINBURG.\"\n\nWe have procured a certificate of death from the Indianapolis Board of\nHealth, which confirms the date given.\n\nMrs. Falkinburg writes to us, on September 12, 1884:--\n\n \"In answer to your request, I will say that I cheerfully give my\n recollection of the circumstance to which you refer.\n\n \"We were living in Brown County, Indiana, fifty miles south\n of Indianapolis, in the summer of 1879. My husband (Mr. S. S.\n Falkinburg) was in the employ of one John Ayers, buying staves.\n\n \"On the evening of July 11th, about 6.30 o'clock, he came into the\n room where I was sitting, and lay down on the carpet with my little\n boy Arthur, complaining of being very tired and warm. Entering\n into conversation on some unimportant matter, Arthur went to him\n and lay down by his side. In a few moments my notice was attracted\n by hearing Arthur exclaim: 'Oh, papa, grandpa, grandpa, papa,' at\n the same time pointing with his little hand toward the ceiling.\n I looked in the direction he was pointing, but saw nothing. My\n husband, however, said: 'Clara, there is something wrong at home;\n father is either dead or very sick.' I tried to laugh him out of\n what I thought an idle fancy; but he insisted that he saw the face\n of his father looking at him from near the ceiling, and Arthur\n said, 'Grandpa was come, for he saw him.' That night we were\n awakened by Artie again calling his papa to see 'grandpa.'\n\n \"A short time after my husband started (Monday) to go to\n Indianapolis, I received a letter calling him to the burial of his\n father; and some time after, in conversation with his mother, it\n transpired that the time he and Artie saw the vision was within two\n or three minutes of the time his father died.\n\n \"CLARA T. FALKINBURG.\"\n\nAsked whether this was his sole experience of a visual hallucination,\nMr. Falkinburg replied that it was. Occasionally, however, since that\ntime, he has had auditory impressions suggestive of his father's\npresence.\n\nHere again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems\nmore probable that Mr. Falkinburg's hallucination was telepathically\noriginated, than that the casual remark of a child of five could\nproduce an effect hitherto observed only as the result of hypnotic\ninfluence or some other equally potent disturbing cause.\n\nIn the following case, which again comes to us from the United\nStates, the vision was of a more complicated kind, and part only of\nthe original percipient's experience was shared. The occurrence of the\napparition within a few hours of the death of a person to whom it bore\nsome resemblance seems to be established; but in estimating the value\nof the coincidence, it should be borne in mind that the phantasm was\nnot at the time referred to the deceased, and that there are numerous\nchances of the coincidence of an unrecognised hallucination with a\ndeath amongst a doctor's circle of acquaintance.\n\n\nNo. 84.--From DR. W. O. S.,\n\nwho wrote to Dr. Hodgson from Albany, New York, on the 10th September\n1888, enclosing the following account:--\n\n \"I am a physician, have been in practice about eleven years; am in\n excellent health, do not use intoxicants, tobacco, drugs, or strong\n tea or coffee. Am not subject (in the least) to dreams, and have\n never been a believer in apparitions, etc.\n\n \"On Monday last, September 3rd, 1888, I went to bed about 11 P.M.,\n after my day's work. Had supper, a light one, about 7 P.M.; made\n calls after supper.\n\n \"My bedroom is on the second floor of a city block house, and I\n kept all my doors locked except the one leading to my wife's room,\n next to mine, opening into mine by a wide sliding door, always\n left wide open at night. The diagram opposite will illustrate the\n relation of the rooms.\n\n \"I occupy room 1 and my wife room 2. Her room has but one window,\n and a door opening only into my room. My room has three doors (all\n bolted at night) and one window. Both windows in our rooms have\n heavy green shades, which are drawn nearly to the bottom of the\n window at night, shutting out early daylight. No artificial lights\n command the windows, and the moonlight very seldom.\n\n \"I undressed and went to bed about 11, and soon was asleep. In\n the neighbourhood of 4 A.M. I was awakened by a strong light in\n my face. I awoke and thought I saw my wife standing at Fig. 3, as\n she was to rise at 5.30 to take an early train. The light was so\n bright and pervading that I spoke, but got no answer. As I spoke,\n the figure retreated to Fig. 4, and as gradually faded to a spot at\n Fig. 5. The noiseless shifting of the light made me think it was a\n servant in the hall and the light was thrown through the keyhole as\n she moved. That could not be, as some clothing covered the keyhole.\n I then thought a burglar must be in the room, as the light settled\n near a large safe in my room. Thereupon I called loudly to my wife,\n and sprang to light a light. As I called her name she suddenly\n awoke, and called out, 'What is that bright light in your room?' I\n lit the gas and searched (there had been no light in either room).\n Everything was undisturbed.\n\n \"My wife left on the early train. I attended to my work as usual.\n At noon, when I reached home, the servant who answers the door\n informed me that a man had been to my office to see about a\n certificate for a young lady who had died suddenly early that\n morning from a hemorrhage from the lungs. She died about one\n o'clock--the figure I saw about four o'clock.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n There was but little resemblance between the two, as far as I\n noticed, except height and figure. The faces were not unlike,\n except that the apparition seemed considerably older. I had seen\n the young lady the evening before, but, although much interested\n in the case, did not consider it immediately serious. She had been\n in excellent health up to within two days of her death. At first\n she spit a little blood, from a strain. When she was taken with the\n severe hemorrhage, and choked to death, she called for help and for\n me.\n\n \"This is the first experience of the kind I have ever had, or\n personally have known about. It was very clear--the figure or\n apparition--at first, but rapidly faded. My wife remarked the light\n before I had spoken anything except her name. When I awake I am\n wide awake in an instant, as I am accustomed to answer a telephone\n in the hall and my office-bell at night.\"\n\nFrom MRS. W. O. S.\n\n \"ALBANY, _September_ 27_th_, 1888.\n\n \"On the morning of September 4 I was suddenly awakened out of a\n sound sleep by my husband's calling to me from an adjoining room.\n Before I answered him I was struck with the fact that although the\n green shade to his window was drawn down, his room seemed flooded\n by a soft yellow light, while my chamber, with the window on same\n side as his, and with the shade drawn up, was dark. The first thing\n I said was, 'What is that light?' He replied he didn't know. I then\n got up and went into his room, which was still quite light. The\n light faded away in a moment or two. The shade was down all the\n time. When I went back to my room I saw that it was a few moments\n after four.\"\n\nIn answer to further questions, Mrs. W. O. S. adds:--\n\n \"_October_ 16_th_, 1888.\n\n \"In regard to the light in my husband's room, it seemed to me to be\n perhaps more in the corner between his window and my door, although\n it was faintly distributed through the room. When I first saw the\n light (lying in bed) it was brilliant, but I only commanded a view\n of the corner of his room, between his window and my door. When\n I reached the door the light had begun to fade, though it seemed\n brighter in the doorway where I stood than elsewhere. My husband\n seemed greatly perplexed, and said, 'How strange! I thought surely\n there was a woman in my room.' I said, 'Did you think it was I?' He\n said, 'At first, of course, I thought so, but when I rubbed my eyes\n I saw it was not. It looked some like Mrs. B----' (another patient\n of his,--not the girl who died that night). He, moreover, said that\n the figure never seemed to look directly at him, but towards the\n wall beyond his bed; and that the figure seemed clothed in white,\n or something very light. That was all he said, except that later,\n when he knew the girl was dead, and I asked him if the figure\n at all resembled her, he said, 'Yes, it did look like her, only\n older.'\"[125]\n\nSo far the instances quoted belong to what may be called the normal\ntype of collective hallucination. In the last case, indeed, one\npercipient saw less than the other, but that may have been due merely\nto the fact that she awoke later. In the three cases which follow the\nimpressions produced upon the percipients were diverse, and there is\nno evidence that they were simultaneous. In the first of the three\ncases, indeed, the circumstances strongly suggest that the mind of one\npercipient was influenced by the other. But in the last case, where the\npercipients were far apart, and their impressions markedly different,\nit seems reasonable to conjecture--their interest in the agent being\nequal--that the results produced were in each case directly referable\nto the dying man.\n\nThe narrative which follows was originally printed in July 1883, in\nan account written by the Warden, entitled \"The Orphanage and Home,\nAberlour, Craigellachie.\" It will be observed that the account, though\nwritten in the third person, is actually first hand.\n\n\nNo. 85.--From the REV. C. H. JUPP, Warden.\n\n \"In 1875 a man died leaving a widow and six orphan children.\n The three eldest were admitted into the Orphanage. Three years\n afterwards the widow died, and friends succeeded in getting funds\n to send the rest here, the youngest being about four years of age.\n [Late one evening, about six months after the admission of the\n younger children, some visitors arrived unexpectedly; and] the\n Warden agreed to take a bed in the little ones' dormitory, which\n contained ten beds, nine occupied.\n\n \"In the morning, at breakfast, the Warden made the following\n statement:--'As near as I can tell I fell asleep about eleven\n o'clock, and slept very soundly for some time. I suddenly woke\n without any apparent reason, and felt an impulse to turn round, my\n face being towards the wall, from the children. Before turning, I\n looked up and saw a soft light in the room. The gas was burning\n low in the hall, and the dormitory door being open, I thought it\n probable that the light came from that source. It was soon evident,\n however, that such was not the case. I turned round, and then a\n wonderful vision met my gaze. Over the second bed from mine, and\n on the same side of the room, there was floating a small cloud of\n light, forming a halo of the brightness of the moon on an ordinary\n moonlight night.\n\n \"'I sat upright in bed, looking at this strange appearance, took\n up my watch and found the hands pointing to five minutes to one.\n Everything was quiet, and all the children sleeping soundly. In the\n bed, over which the light seemed to float, slept the youngest of\n the six children mentioned above.\n\n \"'I asked myself, \"Am I dreaming?\" No! I was wide awake. I was\n seized with a strong impulse to rise and touch the substance, or\n whatever it might be (for it was about five feet high), and was\n getting up when something seemed to hold me back. I am certain\n I heard nothing, yet I _felt_ and perfectly understood the\n words--\"No, lie down it won't hurt you.\" I _at once_ did what I\n _felt_ I was told to do. I fell asleep shortly afterwards and rose\n at half-past five, that being my usual time.\n\n \"'At six o'clock I began dressing the children, beginning at the\n bed furthest from the one in which I slept. Presently I came to the\n bed over which I had seen the light hovering. I took the little\n boy out, placed him on my knee, and put on some of his clothes. The\n child had been talking with the others; suddenly he was silent. And\n then, looking me hard in the face with an extraordinary expression,\n he said, \"Oh, Mr. Jupp, my mother came to me last night. Did you\n see her?\" For a moment I could not answer the child. I then thought\n it better to pass it off, and said, \"Come, we must make haste, or\n we shall be late for breakfast.\"'\n\n \"The child never afterwards referred to the matter, we are told,\n nor has it since ever been mentioned to him. The Warden says it is\n a mystery to him; he simply states the fact and there leaves the\n matter, being perfectly satisfied that he was mistaken in no one\n particular.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries, the Rev. C. Jupp writes to us:--\n\n \"THE ORPHANAGE AND CONVALESCENT HOME,\n ABERLOUR, CRAIGELLACHIE,\n _November_ 13_th_, 1883.\n\n \"I fear anything the little boy might now say would be unreliable,\n or I would at once question him. Although the matter was fully\n discussed at the time, it was never mentioned in the hearing of\n the child; and yet when, at the request of friends, the account\n was published in our little magazine, and the child read it, his\n countenance changed, and looking up, he said, 'Mr. Jupp, that\n is me.' I said, 'Yes, that is what we saw.' He said, 'Yes,' and\n then seemed to fall into deep thought, evidently with pleasant\n remembrances, for he smiled so sweetly to himself, and seemed to\n forget I was present.\n\n \"I much regret now that I did not learn something from the child at\n the time.\n\n \"CHAS. JUPP.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries, Mr. Jupp says that he has never had any other\nhallucination of the senses; and adds:--\n\n \"My wife was the only person of _adult age_ to whom I mentioned\n the circumstance at the time. Shortly after, I mentioned it to our\n Bishop and Primus.\"\n\nMrs. Jupp writes, from the Orphanage, on June 23, 1886:--\n\n \"This is to certify that the account of the light seen by the\n Warden of this establishment is correct, and was mentioned to me at\n the time\"--_i.e._, next morning.\n\nIt is to be regretted that it is not now possible to ascertain\nwhether the child's experience were of the nature of a dream or a\nborderland hallucination. But the ambiguity does not affect either the\ninterpretation or the significance of the incident.\n\nIn the next case the two apparitions were not only different, but were\nseen in different rooms. The time in each case appears to have been\nwithin an hour of midnight. It will be noticed that each percipient is\ndoubtful whether to class her experience as a dream or a waking vision.\nIf dreams, they were certainly of an unusual type, since they included\nin each case an impression of the room in which they occurred.\n\n\nNo. 86.--From SISTER MARTHA.\n\nAccount, signed by herself, which Sister Martha (Sister of the Order of\nSaint Charles) gave to M. Ch. Richet at Mirecourt--\n\n \"On Friday, 6th March 1891, I was called to nurse M. Bastien. At\n night, when I had been dozing for about five minutes, I had the\n following dream--if I may call it a dream; I think I was sleeping.\n A light, a sound came from the fireplace, and a woman stepped\n out whose appearance I did not recognise, but who had a voice\n like Madame Bastien's. I saw her as distinctly as I see you. She\n approached the bed where C\u00e9cile was sleeping, and taking her hand,\n said, 'How sweet C\u00e9cile is!' I followed her--in my dream, crossing\n myself as I went. She opened the door and vanished.\n\n \"I cannot say the exact hour, but it was early in the night,\n between 11 P.M. and 1 A.M.--I do not know exactly, for I had not\n a watch. I awoke immediately after this dream. I did not waken\n C\u00e9cile, for I did not want to say anything to her about it, but as\n the dream impressed me very much, I told it to her the following\n morning when I awoke. I can give no further details about the dream\n except that the lady carried a candle and had coloured spots on her\n garments.\n\n \"I have never had a similar dream except once, when I thought I saw\n my dead mother and heard her say, 'You do not remember me in your\n prayers.'\"\n\nMadame Houdaille writes:--\n\n \"MIRECOURT, 20_th March_, 1891.\n\n \"During my father's illness the Sister kept watch on the first\n floor, and my brother and I passed the evening on the ground floor.\n About ten o'clock I left my brother and went upstairs to bed.\n Between eleven o'clock and midnight (I do not know whether I was\n waking or sleeping, probably between the two) I perceived, near\n my bed, a white shadow like a phantom, which I had not time to\n recognise. I gave a loud cry of terror which startled my brother,\n who was just going up to bed. He hastened to my room, and found me\n gazing wildly around. The rest of the night passed quietly.\n\n \"Next morning C\u00e9cile told me about the Sister's dream.\n\n \"She, C\u00e9cile, had seen or heard nothing. I was almost angry with\n her and her tale, and treated it as a silly dream, so terrified\n was I at the occurrence of the two apparitions the same night, and\n probably at the same hour. C\u00e9cile and the Sister knew nothing of\n my dream. I did not tell it to the Sister till two days after M.\n Richet and Octave[126] had visited the hospital.\"[127]\n\nIn the next case, as already said, the two percipients were many miles\napart. The impression in the first narrative should probably be classed\nas a dream; in the second as an auditory hallucination.\n\n\nNo. 87.--From SIR LAWRENCE JONES.\n\n \"CRANMER HALL, FAKENHAM, NORFOLK,\n _April_ 26_th_, 1893.\n\n \"On August 20th, 1884, I was staying at my father-in-law's house\n at Bury St. Edmunds. I had left my father in perfectly good health\n about a fortnight before. He was at home at this address. About\n August 18th I had had a letter from my mother saying that my father\n was not quite well, and that the doctor had seen him and made very\n light of the matter, attributing his indisposition to the extreme\n heat of the weather.\n\n \"I was not in any way anxious on my father's account, as he was\n rather subject to slight bilious attacks.\n\n \"I should add, though, that I had been spending that day, August\n 20th, at Cambridge, and should have stayed the night there had\n not a sort of vague presentiment haunted me that possibly there\n would be a letter from home the next morning. My wife, too, had\n a similar feeling that if I stayed the night at Cambridge I might\n regret it. In consequence of this feeling I returned to Bury,\n and that night woke up suddenly to find myself streaming with\n perspiration and calling out: 'Something dreadful is happening; I\n don't know what.' The impression of horror remained some time, but\n at last I fell asleep till the morning.\n\n \"My father, Sir Willoughby Jones, died very suddenly of heart\n disease about 1 A.M. on August 21st. He was not in his room at the\n moment, but was carried back to his room and restoratives applied,\n but in vain.\n\n \"My brother Herbert and I were the only two of the family absent\n from home at the time. The thoughts of those present (my mother,\n brother, and three sisters) no doubt turned most anxiously towards\n us, and it is to a telepathic impression from them in their anxiety\n and sorrow that I attribute the intimations we received.\n\n \"LAWRENCE J. JONES.\"\n\nLady Jones writes:--\n\n \"I have a vivid remembrance of the occurrence related above by my\n husband. I was sound asleep when he awoke, and seizing me by [the]\n wrist, exclaimed: 'Such a dreadful thing is happening,' and I had\n much difficulty in persuading him that there was nothing wrong.\n\n \"He went to sleep again, but was much relieved in the morning\n by finding a long letter from Sir Willoughby, posted the day\n before, and written in good spirits. Having read this and gone to\n his dressing-room, however, he soon returned with the telegram\n summoning him home at once, and said as he came in: 'My impression\n in the night was only too true.'\n\n \"EVELYN M. JONES.\"\n\nMr. Herbert Jones, the other percipient, describes his experience as\nfollows:--\n\n \"KNEBWORTH RECTORY, STEVENAGE.\n \"_Recollections of August_ 20_th_, 1884.\n\n \"I had spent the day at Harpenden, and returned home about 8 P.M.,\n and went to bed about 10.30.\n\n \"I woke at 12 o'clock, hearing my name called twice, as I\n fancied. I lit my candle, and, seeing nothing, concluded it was a\n dream--looked at my watch, and went to sleep again.\n\n \"I woke again and heard people carrying something downstairs from\n the upper storey, just outside my room. I lit my candle, got out of\n bed, and waited till the men were outside my door. They seemed to\n be carrying something heavy, and came down step by step.\n\n \"I opened my door, and it was pitch dark. I was puzzled and\n dumbfounded. I went into my sitting-room and into the hall, but\n everything was dark and quiet. I went back to bed convinced I had\n been the sport of another nightmare. It was about 2 A.M. by my\n watch. At breakfast next morning on my plate was a telegram telling\n me to come home.\n\n \"This whole story may be nothing, but it was odd that I should have\n twice got up in one night, and that during that night and those\n hours my father was dying.\n\n \"H. E. JONES.\n \"_April_ 4_th_, 1893.\"\n\nSir Lawrence Jones adds:--\n\n \"My brother was then a curate in London, living at 32 Palace\n Street, Westminster, where the above experience took place.\n\n \"L. J. J.\"\n\nA case somewhat resembling this last is recorded by Professor Richet\n(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 163, 164). On the night of the 14-15th\nNovember 1887, when his physiological laboratory in Paris was burnt,\ntwo of his intimate friends, M. Ferrari and M. H\u00e9ricourt, dreamt of\nfire; and on the evening of the 15th Madame B. (the hypnotic subject\nreferred to in Chapter V.) was hypnotised by M. Gibert at Havre and\n\"sent on a journey\" [_i.e._, in imagination] to Paris to visit,\namongst others, M. Richet. Shortly afterwards she awoke herself by\ncrying out in great distress, \"It is burning.\" Unfortunately, those\npresent contented themselves with calming her excitement, and did not\nat the time inquire into the nature of her impression. But the triple\ncoincidence is certainly remarkable.\n\nA case which may perhaps be referred to the same category is recorded\nby the Rev. A. T. Fryer in the _Journal_ of the S.P.R. for June 1890.\nMr. C. Williams died at Plaxtol, Sevenoaks, on Sunday, April 28th,\n1889, having been confined to his bed with pleuro-pneumonia since the\npreceding Tuesday. On Friday the 26th his figure was seen in the street\nby Mr. Hind at about 10.40 A.M., and on the day following at about 1\nP.M. by two ladies, Miss Dalison and Miss Sinclair, simultaneously.\nNone of the percipients were aware of Mr. Williams' illness. It was\nimpossible that the figure seen could have been the real man, and, as\nMr. Fryer shows that a mistake of identity was under the circumstances\nextremely improbable, it seems not unlikely that we have here to deal\nwith a case of two telepathic hallucinations originated independently\nand at a considerable interval by the same agent.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 121: Thus we have a case, regarded by the narrator as\nhallucinatory, in which three persons saw a figure ascending the\nstaircase of a country rectory. The occurrence took place shortly after\nthe return of the family from church, and the figure was supposed to be\nthat of the rector, until it was ascertained that he was at the time\nin another part of the house. As, however, it was dark and the head of\nthe figure could not be seen, the identification could hardly have been\ncomplete, and as no search was made in the upper part of the house, it\nseems possible that the figure was that of some person who had gained\nentrance to the house during the absence of the family at church.]\n\n[Footnote 122: See the article on Spirit Photographs by Mrs. Henry\nSidgwick, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 268-289.]\n\n[Footnote 123: This account was originally written in answer to a\nseries of questions on a \"census\" form. A few connecting words have\nbeen inserted in order to make it read consecutively.]\n\n[Footnote 124: With this may be compared an incident recorded by\nWilliam Bell Scott (_Autobiographical Notes_, vol. ii. pp. 117, 118).\nThe account is perhaps worth quoting, though the length of time which\nhas elapsed, and the fact that it rests upon a single memory, leave to\nthe narrative little value other than that derived from its literary\nassociations. It should be added, however, that Mr. Scott's claim to a\nrational scepticism in these matters appears to be borne out by other\npassages in the book.\n\n\"I have so repeatedly expressed my unbelief in all the vulgar or\npopular forms of supernaturalism (says Mr. Scott), that I feel a little\nhesitation in recording a circumstance resembling that class of things\nwhich began the very evening after his [i.e., Rossetti's] departure.\nI could now get a little peace to revise my _D\u00fcrer Journal_, and my\nGerman friend Mr. Reid, who had given me an hour, stayed to dinner.\nRossetti's habit, when composing or even correcting for the press, was\nto retire after dinner to the room above, the drawing-room of the old\nhouse, to read aloud to himself, when by himself. This he did in a\nvoice so loud that we in the dining-room beneath could almost hear his\nwords. Well, as we were sitting after dinner, when he must have been\napproaching London in the train, what could it be we heard? The usual\nvoice reading to itself in the usual place over our heads! I looked at\nA. B.; she was listening intently till she could bear it no longer,\nand left the room. Our learned priest found me, I fancy, to be rather\n_distrait_, so he rose, saying it was about his time, and besides, he\ncontinued, 'I hear Miss Boyd has some friend in the drawing-room, so\nI won't go up. Give her my good-bye and respects.' I joined her at\nonce, but of course we heard nothing in the room itself. Such is the\ncircumstance as it took place. Mr. Reid, who knew nothing of the habit\nof D. G. R., hearing the voice as well as we did, although it sounded\nto him like talking rather than reading, was a sure evidence we were\nnot deceiving ourselves. Next night it was the same, and so it went on\ntill I left. When we tried to approach it was not audible, or when the\ndoors of the drawing-room and its small ante-room communicating with\nthe staircase were left open, we could make nothing of it. It gradually\ntapered off when Miss Boyd was left by herself; by-and-by the whole\nestablishment was bolted and barred for the winter. Next season it had\nentirely ceased.\"]\n\n[Footnote 125: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 405-408. The reader may be\ninterested in comparing the ragged and possibly commonplace account\ngiven in the text with the following spirited version of the same\nincident quoted from the _Arena_, March 1892. The writer of the account\nstates that \"the story, as I tell it, was given me by the wife.\" But he\ndoes not, it will be observed, quote it as in Mrs. W. O. S.'s words.\nAfter describing how the doctor was awakened by a strong light in the\nroom and saw the figure of a woman, whom he at first mistook for his\nwife, the writer in the _Arena_ proceeds as follows:--\n\n\"By this time he was broad awake, and sat upright in bed staring at the\nfigure. He noticed that it was a woman in a white garment; and looking\nsharply, he recognised it, as he thought, as one of his patients who\nwas very ill. Then he realised that this could not be so, and that if\nany one was in the room, it must be an intruder who had no right to be\nthere. With the vague thought of a possible burglar thus disguised, he\nsprang out of bed and grasped his revolver, which he was accustomed\nto have near at hand. This brought him face to face with the figure,\nnot three feet away. He now saw every detail of dress, complexion, and\nfeature, and for the first time recognised the fact that it was not a\nbeing of flesh and blood. Then it was that, in quite an excited manner,\nhe called his wife, hoping that she would get there to see it also.\nBut the moment he called her name, the figure disappeared, leaving,\nhowever, the intense yellow light behind, and which they both observed\nfor five minutes by the watch before it faded out.\n\n\"The next day it was found that one of his patients, closely resembling\nthe figure he had seen, had died a few minutes before he saw his\nvision,--had died _calling for him_.\n\n\"It will be seen that this story, like the first one in this article,\n_is perfectly authentic in every particular. There is no question as to\nthe facts_.\"\n\nThat, no doubt, is how the thing ought to have happened. A revolver\nand a watch are essential to a properly upholstered ghost-story. There\nought to have been the dramatic confrontation of the living man with\nhis spectral visitant; there ought to have been the instant recognition\nand as instant disappearance. Above all, there ought to have been the\nexquisite adjustment in the times of vision and death.]\n\n[Footnote 126: M. Octave Houdaille.]\n\n[Footnote 127: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nSOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION.\n\n\nThe hallucinations so far dealt with belong to classes numerically\nstrong, and the narratives quoted could be paralleled over and over\nagain from our records by other narratives equally well attested. And\nthis fact furnishes in itself a strong presumption of the substantial\naccuracy of the accounts given. For as there is little in the kind\nof incident described--the bare occurrence of a hallucination\ncoincidentally with an external event or with another hallucination--to\nsuggest the work of the imagination, there is little warrant for\nascribing this consensus of testimony among the narratives to any other\ncause than a common foundation in fact. The episodes consist, indeed,\nof such simple elements as to leave small room for embellishment.\nMoreover, by those who accept the theory of telepathy an additional\nargument for the authenticity of these narratives may be found in the\nconsideration that in that theory they receive a simple and sufficient\nexplanation. But we meet occasionally with accounts of hallucinatory\nexperiences which do not fall readily under any of the comparatively\nsimple categories already discussed. The mere difficulty of explaining\nthe genesis of hallucinations of such aberrant types would not, in\nthe present stage of our knowledge, be an argument against their\nauthenticity. But it serves to rob them of the support which they\nmight otherwise have received from their affiliation with better\nknown forms of hallucination; whilst the recent first-hand evidence\nactually available is not sufficient in itself to substantiate\nthem. Whilst, therefore, such cases should be duly recorded and may\nlegitimately be discussed, it seems best to await the receipt of\nfurther evidence before a final judgment is passed upon them. But in\nsome instances there is a further reason why the question should at\nmost be held unproven. Some of the features which distinguish these\ncases from ordinary telepathic hallucinations, whilst occurring rarely\nin well-attested recent narratives, are to be found more commonly in\nremote, uncorroborated, and traditional stories. This circumstance is,\nof course, a strong argument against their genuineness, since it proves\nthat the imagination tends to create such features. But it is not a\nconclusive argument. The imagination may itself have been inspired in\nthe first instance by fact; it may have copied, not bettered, nature.\nThat the legendary epics of the older world have invented winged\ndragons is clearly not an argument that can weigh against positive\nevidence for the existence in a still more remote past of pterodactyls.\n\n\n_Reciprocal Cases._\n\nThese considerations apply with full force to the first of the\ndubious types here to be considered. In publishing seven first-hand\n\"reciprocal\" cases in 1886 (_Phantasms_, vol. ii. p. 167) Mr. Gurney\npointed out that the evidence then available was \"so small that the\ngenuineness of the type might fairly be called in question.\" Still,\nregarding it as probably genuine, he anticipated that we should\nultimately obtain more well-attested specimens of it. In the eight\nyears which have elapsed since Mr. Gurney wrote this anticipation has\nmet with only partial fulfilment. We have met with but two recent\nwell-attested cases which clearly fall under the same category as those\nalready given. One of these cases has already been quoted (No. 63),\nand was indeed included in the supplementary chapter of _Phantasms of\nthe Living_; the other is as follows:--\n\n\nNo. 88.--From the REV. C. L. EVANS.\n\n \"FORTON, GARSTANG.\n (_Received on the_ 18_th of September_ 1889.)\n\n \"Two years ago I had occasion to undergo a course of magnetism,\n under the treatment of Miss ----. I was under her treatment for six\n weeks, and derived considerable benefit from her treatment. A warm\n friendship sprang up between us, as she had wonderfully improved my\n sight. I went up to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, at the commencement of\n the October term, as my eyes were so much stronger. One afternoon,\n as I had just come in from the river, being rather tired, I sat\n down for a minute before I changed, when, to my great surprise, the\n door opened, and Miss ---- appeared to walk in.\n\n \"She was looking rather pale at the time, and looked intently\n at me for about a minute, then left the room as slowly as she\n had walked in. I was much alarmed, as I fancied that something\n must have happened to her, and I immediately sat down and wrote\n off two letters, one to Miss ----, asking if she was well, and\n another to my mother, telling her of the strange occurrence. The\n next day I had back the two replies. My mother said that on that\n very afternoon she had called on Miss ----, and naturally they\n had been discussing my case. She said that my description of Miss\n ----'s dress, etc., was perfectly accurate. I then read Miss ----'s\n note. She stated that my mother had called, and had left at about\n half-past four, she then had lain down for a few minutes, and was\n thinking and wishing to see me. She had a distinct impression that\n she saw me during this sleep, or trance, but when she awoke the\n impression was not very vivid. The time exactly coincided, and she\n said that my description of her was very accurate. At the time that\n she appeared to me I was not thinking in the least of her.\n\n \"CHARLES LLOYD EVANS.\"\n\nI called on Mr. Evans on the 20th April 1892, and had a long\nconversation with him. The following notes of my interview were made at\nthe time and written out a few days later:--\n\n \"The occurrence took place in November 1887. It would be about 4.15\n P.M. He was resting in his chair--in boating clothes--with the\n door ajar. Heard a knock or sound as of some one entering; turned\n round and saw Miss ---- come into the room and walk towards him.\n She was dressed in red bodice and dark silk skirt (a not unfamiliar\n dress), but with a silver filigree cross hanging from a chain round\n her neck which he had never seen before. Learnt afterwards that the\n cross had been given by General ---- only a few days before the\n incident.\n\n \"The figure looked him straight in the face, then seemed to fade\n away bit by bit.\n\n \"He was himself perfectly well and not a bit sleepy.\n\n \"He has had no other hallucinations. His age at the time was\n twenty.\"\n\nMr. Evans's mother writes:--\n\n \"_April_ 27_th_, 1892.\n\n \"In reply to the questions you asked me about the apparition\n of Miss ---- to my son, when at Oxford, I can fully verify his\n statement. He wrote to me the same afternoon, begging me to call\n upon Miss ---- and see if she was ill, detailing me the account\n of what he had seen, and also describing her dress minutely and\n the cross she was wearing. I called upon Miss ---- the following\n day, and read her my son's letter, giving the hour at which she\n had appeared to him. She told me that she had not been feeling\n well, and was lying down on the couch thinking, too, of my son,\n and that she went off into a sort of trance, and she saw him\n distinctly looking at her and he was very pale. This made a deep\n impression upon me, for I must own myself that I hardly believed\n it to be possible. However, Miss ---- told me that my son had at\n once written to her, fearing that she must be ill, and told her\n the circumstances under which she appeared to him. When I saw Miss\n ---- she was then wearing the same dress and filigree cross which\n Charlie had described to me in his letter, and which he had never\n seen her wearing before. I fear that I cannot now find my son's\n letter, but should I come across it I will forward it to you. Miss\n ----, however, can corroborate all that I have said.\n\n \"MARY E. EVANS.\"\n\nAfterwards I saw Miss ----. The following, notes of the interview were\nmade the same day:--\n\n \"_July_ 17_th_, 1892.\n\n \"Her account of the matter is that Mrs. Evans (percipient's mother)\n called on her on the afternoon of the vision and talked much about\n her son. After Mrs. Evans left--probably about 5.30 P.M.--Miss\n ----, as usual, lay down to sleep for a few minutes; woke about 6\n P.M. with the recollection of having seen Mr. C. L. Evans. Can\n recall no details of appearance--merely the recollection of having\n been in the same room with him.\n\n \"The next day she received a letter from Mr. C. L. Evans telling of\n his vision, and on the same day another visit from his mother.\n\n \"Miss ---- was wearing the dress and filigree cross described. The\n cross, as stated, had been given to her only a few days before.\n\n \"Miss ---- has kept Mr. Evans's letter.[128] She has had many\n visions and dreams in her life, but she cannot recall another\n relating to Mr. Evans.\n\n \"She is not sure of the time at which her vision or dream occurred.\n It may have been earlier than 6 P.M., her hours being very\n irregular.\n\n \"She had compared notes with Mr. Evans, and was under the\n impression that their experiences coincided. But I think that her\n first statement--6 P.M.--is probably correct. If so, her dream\n would have come one and a half to two hours after Mr. Evans's\n vision.\"\n\nIf the above account correctly describes what took place--and I know\nof no ground for doubting either the accuracy or the good faith of\nthe narrators--it seems clear either that Mr. Evans and Miss ----\nreciprocally affected each other, or that Mr. Evans, whilst impressing\nMiss ---- with the idea of his presence, was able himself to attain\nto a supernormal perception of her surroundings. For the latter\nexplanation, however, we have no support in analogy, and it seems less\nunwarrantable provisionally to regard this case and others like it as\nbeing reciprocally telepathic. It should, perhaps, be pointed out, as\nbearing upon the extreme rarity of cases of the kind, that there may\nbe instances of reciprocal affection of which, from the very nature\nof the case, we could not hope to obtain evidence. It is conceivable,\nfor instance, that in the ordinary case of an apparition at death,\nthe dying man may himself have been a percipient as well as an agent,\nsince circumstances rarely permit of his side of the experience\nbeing recorded. It is conceivable also that in cases of collective\nhallucination the effect may really be a reciprocal one, the two\npersons concerned simultaneously affecting and being affected by each\nother, until the force so generated explodes into hallucination. But in\nthe present state of our knowledge it would be premature to speculate\nfurther.\n\n\n_A Misinterpreted Message._\n\nThe next case also seems susceptible of more than one explanation. The\naccount which follows was written in 1890.\n\n\nNo. 89.--From MISS C. L. HAWKINS-DEMPSTER, 24 Portman Square, W.\n\n \"I ran downstairs and entered the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M.,\n believing I had kept my two sisters waiting for dinner. They had\n gone to dinner, the room was empty. Behind a long sofa I saw Mr.\n H. standing. He moved three steps nearer. I heard nothing. I was\n not at all afraid or surprised, only felt concern as [to] what he\n wanted, as he was in South America. I learnt next morning that at\n that moment his mother was breathing her last. I went and arranged\n her for burial, my picture still hanging above the bed, between the\n portraits of her two absent sons.\n\n \"I was in the habit of hearing often from [Mr. H.], and was not at\n that moment anxious about Mrs. H.'s health, though she was aged.\n I had had twenty-five days before the grief of losing an only\n brother. No other persons were present at the time.\"[129]\n\nIn answer to further inquiries, we learnt from Miss Hawkins-Dempster\nthat the above incident occurred on New Year's Eve, 1876-77; the room\nwas lighted by \"one bright lamp and a fire,\" and the figure did not\nseem to go away, she merely \"ceased to see it.\" She used to see Mrs. H.\noften, and was in no anxiety as to her health at the time. Mrs. H. was\nvery old, but not definitely ill. Miss Hawkins-Dempster corrected her\nfirst statement as to the exactness of the coincidence by informing\nus that Mrs. H. died in the morning of the same day on which the\napparition was seen.\n\nMiss Hawkins-Dempster mentioned what she had seen to her sister, who\nthus corroborates:--\n\n \"_July_ 15_th_, 1892.\n\n \"I heard of my sister Miss C. L. Hawkins-Dempster's vision of Mr.\n H. in the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M. on New Year's Eve, 1876-77,\n immediately after it happened, and before hearing that Mrs. H. died\n the same day, the news of which reached us later that evening.\n\n \"H. H. DEMPSTER.\"\n\nWe have verified the date of death at Somerset House.\n\nMiss Hawkins-Dempster has had one other experience--an apparition seen\nalso by her sister and their governess. They were children at the time,\naged about fourteen and twelve respectively.\n\nMr. Myers had an interview with the Misses Hawkins-Dempster on July\n16th, 1892, and writes as follows the next day:--\n\n \"Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster's veridical experience is well remembered\n by both sisters. The decedent was a very old lady, who was on very\n intimate terms with them, and had special reasons for thinking of\n Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster in connection with the son whose figure\n appeared. He was at the other side of the world, and most certainly\n had not heard of his mother's death at the time.\n\n \"The figure was absolutely life-like. Miss Hawkins-Dempster noticed\n the slight cast of the eye and the delicate hands. The figure\n rested one hand on the back of a chair and held the other out. Miss\n Hawkins-Dempster called out, 'What can I do for you?' forgetting\n for the moment the impossibility that it could be the real man.\n Then she simply ceased to see the figure.\n\n \"She was in good health at the time, and her thoughts were occupied\n with business matters.\"\n\nWe have a parallel case amongst our records. Miss V. saw in church\nthe hallucinatory figure of an acquaintance looking at her, and\nsubsequently learned that he was at the time at the deathbed of his\nmother. A few other cases are given in _Phantasms of the Living_. I\nshould be disposed to explain these narratives as instances of the\nmisinterpretation of a telepathic message. I should conjecture, that\nis, that the impulse received from the dying woman, instead of giving\nrise, as in an ordinary case, to a hallucination of herself, called up\nin the percipient's mind, whether through the operation of associated\nideas or from some other cause, the image of a near relative. Indeed,\nseeing how potent is the influence of associated ideas, it is perhaps\na matter for wonder that such miscarriages do not more often occur. It\nshould be stated that, beyond their rarity, there is no special reason\nto mistrust stories of this type. Their distinguishing feature is not\napparently of a kind which appeals readily to the imagination. Indeed,\nby most persons the want of precise correspondence would probably be\nregarded as a serious blemish in the story. Certainly cases of the kind\noccur rarely, if at all, among second-hand and traditional narratives.\n\n\n_Heteroplastic Hallucinations._\n\nBut another possible explanation of the incident suggests itself. It\nhas already been conjectured that in some cases of hallucination or\nother impression, the percipient's vision may have originated not\nin the mind of the person primarily concerned, but in that of some\nbystander.[130] Conversely, the image seen in the narrative just cited\nmay have been flashed directly from the dying woman's mind. In the case\nwhich follows a picture of the past preserved in the memory of one of\ntwo friends appears to have been spontaneously transferred to the mind\nof the other.\n\nThe case was sent to Dr. Hodgson on the 18th May 1888, and was\npublished in the _Arena_ for February 1889.\n\n\nNo. 90.--From MRS. G----.\n\n \"... For nearly two weeks I have had a lady friend visiting us from\n Chicago, and last Sunday we tried the cards and in every instance I\n told the colour and kind; but only two or three times was enabled\n to give the exact number....\n\n \"I must write you of something that occurred last night. After\n this lady, whom I have mentioned above, had retired, and almost\n immediately after we had extinguished the light, there suddenly\n appeared before me a beautiful lawn and coming toward me a chubby,\n yellow-haired little boy, and by his side a brown dog which closely\n resembled a fox. The dog had on a brass collar and the child's\n hand was under the collar just as if he was leading or pulling the\n dog. The vision was like a flash, came and went in an instant. I\n immediately told my friend, and she said, 'Do you know where there\n are any matches?' and began to hurriedly clamber out of bed. I\n struck a light, she plunged into her trunk, brought out a book, and\n pasted in the front was a picture of her little boy and his dog.\n They were not in the same position that I saw them, but the dog\n looked exceedingly familiar. Her little boy passed into the beyond\n about four years ago....\"\n\nMrs. F. corroborates as follows:--\n\n \"_May_ 18_th_, 1888.\n\n \"I wish to corroborate the statements of Mrs. N. G. relative to ...\n and her wonderful vision of my little boy, and my old home. Mrs.\n G. never saw the place, or the little child, and never even heard\n of the peculiar-looking dog, which was my little son's constant\n companion out of doors. She never saw the photograph, which was\n pasted in the back of my Bible and packed away.\n\n \"(Signed) I. F.\"\n\nIn this case, it will be noted, the vision was the direct sequel of\nsome partially successful experiments in thought-transference; and\nthe transferred impression fell short of actual hallucination. In the\nfollowing case there is no evidence of any special rapport between\nthe percipient and the person who, on this hypothesis, acted as the\nagent; and the percipient's impression took the form of a completely\nexternalised hallucination.\n\n\nNo. 91.--From FRANCES REDDELL.\n\n \"ANTONY, TORPOINT,\n _December_ 14_th_, 1882.\n\n \"Helen Alexander (maid to Lady Waldegrave) was lying here very\n ill with typhoid fever, and was attended by me. I was standing\n at the table by her bedside, pouring out her medicine, at about\n four o'clock in the morning of the 4th October 1880. I heard\n the call-bell ring (this had been heard twice before during the\n night in that same week), and was attracted by the door of the\n room opening, and by seeing a person entering the room whom I\n instantly felt to be the mother of the sick woman. She had a brass\n candlestick in her hand, a red shawl over her shoulders, and a\n flannel petticoat on which had a hole in the front. I looked at\n her as much as to say, 'I am glad you have come,' but the woman\n looked at me sternly, as much as to say, 'Why wasn't I sent for\n before?' I gave the medicine to Helen Alexander, and then turned\n round to speak to the vision, but no one was there. She had gone.\n She was a short, dark person, and very stout. At about six o'clock\n that morning Helen Alexander died. Two days after, her parents and\n a sister came to Antony, and arrived between one and two o'clock\n in the morning; I and another maid let them in, and it gave me a\n great turn when I saw the living likeness of the vision I had seen\n two nights before. I told the sister about the vision, and she said\n that the description of the dress exactly answered to her mother's,\n and that they had brass candlesticks at home exactly like the one\n described. There was not the slightest resemblance between the\n mother and daughter.\n\n \"FRANCES REDDELL.\n\nFrances Reddell fortunately described her vision to her mistress, Mrs.\nPole-Carew, of Antony, Torpoint, Devonport, within a few hours of its\noccurrence, and before her encounter with the original. Mrs. Pole-Carew\nwrites as follows:--\n\n \"31_st December_ 1883.\n\n \"In October 1880, Lord and Lady Waldegrave came with their Scotch\n maid, Helen Alexander, to stay with us. [The account then describes\n how Helen was discovered to have caught typhoid fever, and pending\n the arrival of a regular nurse, was nursed for several days by\n Frances Reddell. On the Sunday week, Mrs. Pole-Carew continues],\n I allowed Reddell to sit up with Helen again that night, to give\n her the medicine and food, which were to be taken constantly. At\n about 4.30 that night, or rather Monday morning, Reddell looked\n at her watch, poured out the medicine, and was bending over the\n bed to give it to Helen when the call-bell in the passage rang.\n She said to herself, 'There's that tiresome bell with the wire\n caught again.' (It seems it did occasionally ring of itself in\n this manner.) At that moment, however, she heard the door open,\n and looking round, saw a very stout old woman walk in. She was\n dressed in a nightgown and red flannel petticoat, and carried an\n old-fashioned brass candlestick in her hand. The petticoat had a\n hole rubbed in it. She walked into the room and appeared to be\n going towards the dressing-table to put her candle down. She was a\n perfect stranger to Reddell, who, however, merely thought, 'This\n is her mother come to see after her,' and she felt quite glad it\n was so, accepting the idea without reasoning upon it, as one would\n in a dream. She thought the mother looked annoyed, possibly at not\n having been sent for before. She then gave Helen the medicine, and\n turning round, found that the apparition had disappeared, and that\n the door was shut. A great change, meanwhile, had taken place in\n Helen, and Reddell fetched me, who sent off for the doctor, and\n meanwhile applied hot poultices, etc., but Helen died a little\n before the doctor came. She was quite conscious up to about\n half-an-hour before she died, when she seemed to be going to sleep.\n\n \"During the early days of her illness Helen had written to a\n sister, mentioning her being unwell, but making nothing of it, and\n as she never mentioned any one but this sister, it was supposed by\n the household, to whom she was a perfect stranger, that she had no\n other relation alive. Reddell was always offering to write for her,\n but she always declined, saying there was no need, she would write\n herself in a day or two. No one at home, therefore, knew anything\n of her being so ill, and it is, therefore, remarkable that her\n mother, a far from nervous person, should have said that evening\n going up to bed, 'I am sure Helen is very ill.'\n\n \"Reddell told me and my daughter of the apparition, about an hour\n after Helen's death, prefacing with, 'I am not superstitious\n or nervous, and I wasn't the least frightened, but her mother\n came last night,' and she then told the story, giving a careful\n description of the figure she had seen. The relations were asked\n to come to the funeral, and the father, mother, and sister came,\n and in the mother Reddell recognised the apparition, as I did\n also, for Reddell's description had been most accurate, even to\n the expression, which she had ascribed to annoyance, but which\n was due to deafness. It was judged best not to speak about it to\n the mother, but Reddell told the sister, who said the description\n of the figure corresponded exactly with the probable appearance\n of her mother if roused in the night; that they had exactly such\n a candlestick at home, and that there was a hole in her mother's\n petticoat produced by the way she always wore it. It seems curious\n that neither Helen nor her mother appeared to be aware of the\n visit. Neither of them, at any rate, ever spoke of having seen the\n other, nor even of having dreamt of having done so.\n\n \"F. A. POLE-CAREW.\"\n\n [Frances Reddell states that she has never had any hallucination,\n or any odd experience of any kind, except on this one occasion.\n The Hon. Mrs. Lyttelton, of Selwyn College, Cambridge, who knows\n her, tells us that \"she appears to be a most matter-of-fact person,\n and was apparently most impressed by the fact that she saw a hole\n in the mother's flannel petticoat, made by the busk of her stays,\n reproduced in the apparition.\"]\n\nThe simplest explanation of this incident, and that which involves\nthe least departure from known forms of telepathy, is that the figure\nseen by Frances Reddell was due to thought-transference from the mind\nof the dying girl. And this explanation has some direct evidence in\nits favour. There is, of course, abundant proof of the transference\nfrom agent to percipient of a real or imaginary scene. (See the cases\ndescribed in Chapters II., III., XIV., and XV.) But in these cases\nthe percipient's impressions appear rarely to have risen to the level\nof hallucination, and in the absence of direct evidence it would not\nperhaps have been safe to assume that a detailed impression, such\nas a scene or a human figure, transferred from another mind, would\nbe capable of taking complete sensory embodiment in the mind of the\npercipient. The frequency, however, of collective hallucinations of\nan apparently casual character seems to require such an assumption\n(see _ante_, p. 273). Moreover, a case has been recorded (_Proc.\nS.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 434, 435) in which a hypnotically induced\nhallucination appears to have been reproduced in another hypnotised\nsubject by telepathic suggestion from the original percipient. In the\nexperiments recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (pp. 368, 369) the ideas mentally\nsuggested by him appear in some cases to have assumed a hallucinatory\nform in the subject; and, finally, Wesermann (Chapter X., p. 233),\nin his fifth experiment succeeded in calling up a recognisable\nhallucination of a lady personally unknown to the percipients. We have,\ntherefore, experimental parallels for our suggested interpretation\nof Frances Reddell's experience; and when once the possibility of\nthought-transference in this form is recognised, many so-called\n\"ghosts\" or phantasms of the dead find a simple and satisfactory\nexplanation. The following case may be instanced:--\n\n\nNo. 92.--From MR. JOHN E. HUSBANDS, Melbourne House, Town Hall Square,\nGrimsby.\n\n \"_September_ 15_th_, 1886.\n\n \"The facts are simply these. I was sleeping in a hotel in Madeira\n in January 1885. It was a bright moonlight night. The windows\n were open and the blinds up. I felt some one was in my room. On\n opening my eyes, I saw a young fellow about twenty-five, dressed\n in flannels, standing at the side of my bed and pointing with the\n first finger of his right hand to the place I was lying in. I\n lay for some seconds to convince myself of some one being really\n there. I then sat up and looked at him. I saw his features so\n plainly that I recognised them in a photograph which was shown me\n some days after. I asked him what he wanted; he did not speak, but\n his eyes and hand seemed to tell me I was in his place. As he did\n not answer, I struck out at him with my fist as I sat up, but did\n not reach him, and as I was going to spring out of bed he slowly\n vanished through the door, which was shut, keeping his eyes upon me\n all the time.\n\n \"Upon inquiry I found that the young fellow who appeared to me died\n in that room I was occupying.\n\n \"If I can tell you anything more I shall be glad to, if it\n interests you.\n\n \"JOHN E. HUSBANDS.\"\n\nThe following letters are from Miss Falkner, of Church Terrace,\nWisbech, who was resident at the hotel when the above incident\nhappened:--\n\n \"_October_ 8_th_, 1886.\n\n \"The figure that Mr. Husbands saw while in Madeira was that of a\n young fellow who died unexpectedly months previously, in the room\n which Mr. Husbands was occupying. Curiously enough, Mr. H. had\n never heard of him or his death. He told me the story the morning\n after he had seen the figure, and I recognised the young fellow\n from the description. It impressed me very much, but I did not\n mention it to him or any one. I loitered about until I heard Mr.\n Husbands tell the same tale to my brother; we left Mr. H. and said\n simultaneously, 'He has seen Mr. D.'\n\n \"No more was said on the subject for days; then I abruptly showed\n the photograph.\n\n \"Mr. Husbands said at once, 'This is the young fellow who appeared\n to me the other night, but he was dressed differently'--describing\n a dress he often wore--'cricket suit (or tennis) fastened at the\n neck with sailor knot.' I must say that Mr. Husbands is a most\n practical man, and the very last one would expect 'a spirit' to\n visit.\n\n \"K. FALKNER.\"\n\n \"_October_ 20_th_, 1886.\n\n \"I enclose you photograph and an extract from my sister-in-law's\n letter, which I received this morning, as it will verify my\n statement. Mr. Husbands saw the figure either the 3rd or 4th of\n February 1885.\n\n \"The people who had occupied the rooms had never told us if they\n had seen anything, so we may conclude they had not.\n\n \"K. FALKNER.\"\n\nThe following is Miss Falkner's copy of the passage in the letter:--\n\n \"You will see at back of Mr. du F----'s photo the date of his\n decease [January 29th, 1884]; and if you recollect 'the Motta\n Marques' had his rooms from the February till the May or June of\n 1884, then Major Money at the commencement of 1885 season. Mr.\n Husbands had to take the room on February 2nd, 1885, as his was\n wanted.\n\n \"I am clear on all this, and remember his telling me the incident\n when he came to see my baby.\"\n\nAt a personal interview Mr. Gurney learnt that Mr. Husbands had never\nhad any other hallucination of the senses. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p.\n416.)\n\nIt is, of course, conceivable that before his experience Mr.\nHusbands may have heard of the death of Mr. D. and have forgotten\nthe circumstance. But this supposition will hardly account for the\nrecognition of the photograph. In any case, however, there can be no\njustification for invoking other than terrestrial agencies to explain\nthe vision. Until such agencies are proved inadequate to account for\nthe facts a narrative of this kind can scarcely be held to raise a\npresumption, much less to afford a proof, of the action of the dead.\nMiss Falkner and her brother had known the dead man; no fact about him\nwas communicated which was not within their knowledge; and there is\nnothing to negative the supposition that some echo of their thoughts or\ndreams may have given rise to the vision. A very similar case is quoted\nin the same volume (_Proc_., vol. v. p. 418). Mr. D. M. Tyre, of St.\nAndrews Road, Pollokshields, Glasgow, stayed for some time in a lonely\nhouse in Dumbartonshire. On several occasions during their occupancy\nof the house Miss L. Tyre saw the figure of an old woman lying on the\nbed in the kitchen. The figure lay with the face turned to the wall,\nand the legs drawn up as if from cold. On her head was a \"sow-backed\nmutch,\" _i.e._, a white frilled cap of a peculiar shape common in the\nHighlands. The others who were present did not see the figure. It was\nsubsequently ascertained from a neighbour that the description given\ncorrectly represented the dress and attitude of a former occupant\nof the house, who had died there some years before under painful\ncircumstances. M. Richet (_Proc._, vol. v. p. 148) gives an account\nof some spiritualist s\u00e9ances at which the promise was given that his\ngrandfather, M. Charles Renouard, would appear. A figure resembling M.\nCharles Renouard was actually seen some days later, not by any of those\npresent at the s\u00e9ance, but by an English lady staying in the house, who\nwas believed to know nothing of the expected apparition.\n\nA similar explanation may perhaps apply to the following account, which\nwas communicated verbally to Mr. Myers on the 12th October 1888 by the\npercipient, Mr. J., a gentleman well known in the scientific world. Mr.\nMyers explains that the account which follows was written out by him\nfrom his notes of the conversation, and was subsequently revised and\ncorrected by Mr. J. himself.\n\n\nNo. 93.--From MR. J.\n\n \"In 1880 I succeeded a Mr. Q. as librarian of the X. Library. I\n had never seen Mr. Q., nor any photograph or likeness of him,\n when the following incidents occurred. I may, of course, have\n heard the library assistants describe his appearance, though I\n have no recollection of this. I was sitting alone in the library\n one evening late in March 1884, finishing some work after hours,\n when it suddenly occurred to me that I should miss the last train\n to H., where I was then living, if I did not make haste. It was\n then 10.55, and the last train left X. at 11.5. I gathered up some\n books in one hand, took the lamp in the other, and prepared to\n leave the librarian's room, which communicated by a passage with\n the main room of the library. As my lamp illumined this passage, I\n saw apparently at the further end of it a man's face. I instantly\n thought a thief had got into the library. This was by no means\n impossible, and the probability of it had occurred to me before. I\n turned back into my room, put down the books, and took a revolver\n from the safe, and, holding the lamp cautiously behind me, I made\n my way along the passage--which had a corner, behind which I\n thought my thief might be lying in wait--into the main room. Here I\n saw no one, but the room was large and encumbered with bookcases.\n I called out loudly to the intruder to show himself several times,\n more with the hope of attracting a passing policeman than of\n drawing the intruder. Then I saw a face looking round one of the\n bookcases. I say looking _round_, but it had an odd appearance as\n if the _body_ were _in_ the bookcase, as the face came so closely\n to the edge and I could see no body. The face was pallid and\n hairless, and the orbits of the eyes were very deep. I advanced\n towards it, and as I did so I saw an old man with high shoulders\n seem to _rotate_ out of the end of the bookcase, and with his back\n towards me and with a shuffling gait walk rather quickly from the\n bookcase to the door of a small lavatory, which opened from the\n library and had no other access. I heard no noise. I followed the\n man at once into the lavatory; and to my extreme surprise found no\n one there. I examined the window (about 14 in. x 12 in.), and found\n it closed and fastened. I opened it and looked out. It opened into\n a well, the bottom of which, 10 feet below, was a sky-light, and\n the top open to the sky some 20 feet above. It was in the middle\n of the building, and no one could have dropped into it without\n smashing the glass nor climbed out of it without a ladder--but\n no one was there. Nor had there been anything like time for a man\n to get out of the window, as I followed the intruder instantly.\n Completely mystified, I even looked into the little cupboard\n under the fixed basin. There was nowhere hiding for a child, and\n I confess I began to experience for the first time what novelists\n describe as an 'eerie' feeling.\n\n \"I left the library, and found I had missed my train.\n\n \"Next morning I mentioned what I had seen to a local clergyman,\n who, on hearing my description, said, 'Why, that's old Q.!'\n Soon after I saw a photograph (from a drawing) of Q., and the\n resemblance was certainly striking. Q. had lost all his hair,\n eyebrows and all, from (I believe) a gunpowder accident. His walk\n was a peculiar, rapid, high-shouldered shuffle.\n\n \"Later inquiry proved he had died at about the time of year at\n which I saw the figure.\" (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 57.)\n\nMr. J. states that he has seen but one other hallucination, a figure\nrepresenting his mother, which appeared to him at the time of the birth\nof one of his sisters.\n\nA hallucination of another kind was seen independently in the same\nlibrary by Mr. R., the principal assistant, and a clerk, Mr. P. Mr. R.\nwrites in 1889:--\n\n \"A few years ago I was engaged in a large building in the ----, and\n during the busy times was often there till late in the evening. On\n one particular night I was at work along with a junior clerk till\n about 11 P.M., in the room marked A on the annexed sketch. All the\n lights in the place had been out for hours except those in the room\n which we occupied. Before leaving, we turned out the gas. We then\n looked into the fireplace, but not a spark was to be seen. The\n night was very dark, but being thoroughly accustomed to the place\n we carried no light. On reaching the bottom of the staircase (B),\n I happened to look up; when, to my surprise, the room which we had\n just left appeared to be lighted. I turned to my companion and\n pointed out the light, and sent him back to see what was wrong. He\n went at once and I stood looking through the open door, but I was\n not a little astonished to see that as soon as he got within a few\n yards of the room the light went out quite suddenly. My companion,\n from the position he was in at the moment, could not see the light\n go out, but on his reaching the door everything was in total\n darkness. He entered, however, and when he returned, reported that\n both gas and fire were completely out. The light in the daytime was\n got by means of a glass roof, there being no windows on the sides\n of the room, and the night in question was so dark that the moon\n shining through the roof was out of the question. Although I have\n often been in the same room till long after dark, both before and\n since, I have never seen anything unusual at any other time.\"\n\nMr. P. endorses this:--\n\n \"I confirm the foregoing statement.\"\n\nIn subsequent letters Mr. R. says:--\n\n \"The bare facts are as stated, being neither more nor less than\n what took place. I have never on any other occasion had any\n hallucination of the senses, and I think you will find the same to\n be the case with Mr. P.\"\n\nThis incident took place after Mr. J.'s vision, but Mr. J. had\nmentioned his own experience only to his wife and one other friend, and\nno hint of it appears to have reached the assistants in the library, so\nthat the two visions would appear to have been independent.\n\nTo extend the theory of thought-transference from living minds to cover\na case such as that just quoted may seem to some extravagant. But if\nthere is anything beyond chance in the occurrence--and it would be a\nvery remarkable coincidence that three persons should independently\nbe the subject of hallucination in the same house, and that one of\nthe hallucinations should resemble a former occupant of the house,\nunknown to the percipient--some explanation is required, and an\nexplanation which involves no novel or unproved agency is, _ceteris\nparibus_, to be preferred. As regards the apparently local character\nof the visitation, Mr. Gurney has suggested, with regard to some cases\nquoted in _Phantasms of the Living_ (vol. ii. pp. 267-269), where the\nlink between agent and percipient appears to have been of a local and\nnot of a personal character, that a similarity of immediate mental\ncontent between the percipient and agent may have been the condition\nof the telepathic action. In the ordinary case of an apparition,\n_e.g._, of a dying mother to her son, the condition of the appearance\nto that particular percipient rather than to the man in the street\nshould on this hypothesis be sought in the community of intellectual\nand emotional experiences which may be presumed to exist between near\nrelatives who have passed a large part of their lives in the same\nenvironment. In the cases now under consideration the substitute for\nsuch far-reaching community is to be found in the transitory occupation\nof both percipient and agent--the one in present sensation, the other\nin memory--with the same scene. Such partial community of perception,\nby a kind of extended association of ideas, tends under the hypothesis\ntowards more complete community, and the agent thus imports into the\nsensorium of the percipient the image of his own or some other's\npresence in the scene which forms part of the present content of both\nminds. On this view Mr. J. saw the figure of Mr. Q. in the library,\nbecause some friend of Mr. Q.'s was at that moment vividly picturing to\nhimself the late librarian in his old haunts.\n\nCases, such as the three last quoted, of the solitary appearance of a\nphantasmal figure, subsequently identified by description, photograph,\nor--as in Frances Reddell's case--actual encounter with the original,\nare rare; and experience shows how easy it may be for the somewhat\nvague image preserved in the memory to take on definite form and colour\nduring the process, occasionally prolonged, of \"recognition.\" The type\ncannot, therefore, be regarded as well established. As, however, such\nnarratives have in some instances been regarded as affording evidence\nof the action of disembodied spirits, it seemed well to suggest\nthat, if the facts are accepted, they are susceptible of another\ninterpretation.\n\n\n_Haunted Houses._\n\nBut there are numerous cases to which the hypothesis of telepathic\ninfection may be applied with perhaps less hesitation. The form which\nso-called \"ghost stories\" most commonly assume is the appearance\nof an unrecognised phantasmal figure. When the appearance is to\none person only, or when, in the intervals of its appearance to\nothers, the matter has been freely discussed amongst the members of\nthe household, and the details of the figure described, we should\nprobably be justified, on the analogy of hypnotic and epidemic\nreligious hallucinations, in regarding the original appearance as\npurely subjective and the later ones as due to verbal suggestion and\nexpectancy. But there are cases where, from the definite statements\nof the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances, it appears at all\nevents extremely improbable that any mention was made of the original\nhallucination. In such cases it seems permissible to conjecture\nthat the later apparitions, or some of them, may have been due to\ntelepathic suggestion from the original percipient, to whom his\nsolitary experience would naturally be a subject of frequent and vivid\nreflection.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI received the following account from the ladies concerned after a\npersonal interview with one of them on February 27th, 1889, in the\ncourse of which I examined the scene of the apparition, the landing\nof a moderate-sized London house. The landing, though narrow, is well\nlighted, and it seems impossible that the appearance could have been\na real person. The first experience, it will be seen, is a collective\nhallucination, of a type discussed in the preceding chapter.\n\n\nNo. 94.--From MRS. KNOTT.\n\n \"LONDON, S.W.,\n _March_ 5_th_, 1889.\n\n \"The incident I relate occurred at this address early in February\n 1889. I have lived in this house four years, and constantly _felt_\n another presence was in the drawing-room besides myself, but never\n _saw_ any form until last month. My cousin Mrs. R. and myself\n returned from a walk at 1.30 P.M. The front door was opened for\n us by my housekeeper, Mrs. E. I passed upstairs before my cousin,\n and on turning to my bedroom, the door of which is beside the\n drawing-room door [_i.e._, at right angles to it], I saw, as I\n thought, Mrs. E. go into the drawing-room. I put a parcel into my\n room and then followed her to give some order, and found the room\n empty! My cousin was going up the second flight of stairs to her\n room, and I called out, 'Did you open the drawing-room door as you\n passed?' 'No,' she replied, 'Mrs. E. has gone in.' Mrs. R. had seen\n the figure more distinctly than I; it seemed to pass her at the\n top of the stairs, and she thought, 'How quietly Mrs. E. moves! \"I\n inquired of Mrs. E. what she did after opening the door for us, and\n she said, 'Went to the kitchen to hasten luncheon, as you were in\n a hurry for it.' The day was bright, and there is nothing on the\n stairs that could cast a shadow. I quite hope some day I may see\n the face of the figure.\"\n\nFrom MRS. R., Malpas, Cheshire.\n\n \"_March_ 1_st_, 1889.\n\n \"In answer to your letter on the subject of the figure seen at\n C. Terrace, Mrs. K. and I had just come in at about half-past\n one o'clock. Mrs. E. (the housekeeper) had opened the door. We\n went upstairs, and on the first landing are two rooms, one the\n drawing-room, the other Mrs. K.'s bedroom. She went into her room\n while I stood a minute or two talking to her. Just as I turned\n to go up the next flight of stairs I thought I saw Mrs. E. pass\n me quickly and go into the drawing-room. Beyond seeing a slight\n figure in a dark dress I saw nothing more, for I did not look at\n it, but just saw it pass me. Before I got upstairs Mrs. K. called\n out, 'Did you leave the drawing-room door open?' I answered, 'I\n did not go in; I saw Mrs. E. go in.' Mrs. K. answered, 'There is\n nobody there.' We asked Mrs. E. if she had been up; she, on the\n contrary, had gone straight down. Also, as she said, she would\n not have passed me on the landing, but have waited until I had\n gone upstairs; and as it struck me _afterwards_, she could not\n have passed me on such a small landing without touching me, but I\n never noticed that at the time. I do not know if a thought ever\n embodies itself, but my idea was, and is, that as Mrs. E. ran\n downstairs her thought went up, wondering if the drawing-room fire\n was burning brightly. The figure I saw went into the room as if it\n had a purpose of some sort. I have never seen anything of the sort\n before.\"\n\nIn a later letter Mrs. R. adds:--\n\n \"_March_ 10_th_, 1889.\n\n \"I am afraid I cannot give any very definite reply to your\n questions.\n\n \"(1) 'Had I any idea of the house being haunted?' No; and I do not\n think it is supposed to be haunted. Mrs. K. has said that at times\n it has seemed to her as if there was some one else in the room\n beside herself, but I think that is a feeling that has come to most\n people some time or other.\n\n \"(2) 'Did we see it simultaneously?' That I cannot exactly say, but\n I should think yes, for we neither of us said anything until Mrs.\n K. called out to me to know if I had been in the drawing-room.\"\n\nIn commenting on the story in November 1889 (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.\np. 250), I wrote, \"Here we may almost see the story of a haunted house\nin the making. The essential elements are there. We have the visionary\nfigure seen by two persons at once, and the mysterious feeling of\nan alien presence in the room. It is quite possible that the latter\ncircumstance would have passed unrecorded, and even unnoticed, but\nfor the subsequent phantasm, through which it gained a retrospective\nimportance.\" My comments have met with unexpected justification. On\nApril 7th, 1893, Mrs. Knott again wrote to me as follows:--\n\n \"On Saturday, the 18th March, at 1.50 P.M., Mrs. H. and I were\n going upstairs to the drawing-room, she first, I following with\n some flowers, _not looking up_. I heard her say, 'Mrs. E., don't\n go down until you have seen my screen.' (Mrs. H. had just finished\n painting one.) I said, 'Mrs. E. isn't here.' Mrs. H. replied, 'Yes,\n she is in the drawing-room.' Then I heard her say, 'Where _has_ the\n woman gone?' for no one was visible in the room, and Mrs. H. said\n she _distinctly_ saw a figure go in, and felt sure it was Mrs. E.\n This is exactly the same impression that Mrs. R. and I had when we\n each saw the figure go into the drawing-room four years ago, in\n February, and it was about the same hour of the day.\"\n\nIn a later letter Mrs. Knott explains that Mrs. H. had heard of the\nearlier apparition on the same spot, but adds that the story \"most\ncertainly did not stay in her mind.\" We shall probably be justified in\nassuming, however, that Mrs. H.'s hallucinatory experience was due to a\nsubconscious reminiscence of her friend's ghost-story.\n\nIn the case which follows, however, there is strong evidence that the\nphantasms were seen independently by each percipient. The narrators\nare unwilling that their names or that of the house should appear.\nMr. Gurney, however, fully discussed the circumstances with them at a\npersonal interview.\n\n\nNo. 95.--From MRS. W.\n\n \"_February_ 19_th_, 1885.\n\n[Illustration: SKETCH PLAN OF THE GROUND-FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.\n\n=A= Piano. =B= First position of figure. =C= Second position of figure.\n=D= Garden door. =E= Baize door. =F= Front door and porch. =G= Front\ngate.]\n\n \"In June 1881 we went to live in a detached villa just out of the\n town of C----. Our household consisted of my husband and myself,\n my step-daughter, and two little boys, aged nine and six, and two\n female servants. The house was between ten and twenty years old.\n We had been there about three weeks, when, about 11 o'clock one\n morning, as I was playing the piano in the drawing-room, I had the\n following experience:--I was suddenly aware of a figure peeping\n round the corner of the folding-doors to my left; thinking it must\n be a visitor, I jumped up and went into the passage, but no one was\n there, and the hall door, which was half glass, was shut. I only\n saw the upper half of the figure, which was that of a tall man,\n with a very pale face and dark hair and moustache. The impression\n lasted only a second or two, but I saw the face so distinctly that\n to this day I should recognise it if I met it in a crowd. It had a\n sorrowful expression. It was impossible for any one to come into\n the house without being seen or heard. I was startled, but not the\n least frightened. I had heard no report whatever as to the house\n being haunted; and am certainly not given to superstitious fancies.\n I did not mention my experience to any one at the time, and formed\n no theory about it. In the following August, one evening about\n 8.30, I had occasion to go into the drawing-room to get something\n out of the cupboard, when, on turning round, I saw the same face\n in the bay-window, in front of the shutters, which were closed. I\n again saw only the upper part of the figure, which seemed to be in\n a somewhat crouching posture. The light on this occasion came from\n the hall and the dining-room, and did not shine directly on the\n window; but I was able perfectly to distinguish the face and the\n expression of the eyes. This time I _was_ frightened, and mentioned\n the matter to my husband the same evening. I then also told him of\n my first experience. On each of these occasions I was from 8 to 10\n feet distant from the figure.\n\n \"Later in the same month I was playing cricket in the garden with\n my little boys. From my position at the wickets I could see right\n into the house through an open door, down a passage, and through\n the hall as far as the front door. The kitchen door opened into the\n passage. I distinctly saw the same face peeping round at me out of\n the kitchen door. I again only saw the upper half of the figure.\n I threw down the bat and ran in. No one was in the kitchen. One\n servant was out, and I found that the other was up in her bedroom.\n I mentioned this incident at once to my husband, who also examined\n the kitchen without any result.\n\n \"A little later in the year, about 8 o'clock one evening, I was\n coming downstairs alone, when I heard a voice from the direction,\n apparently, of my little boys' bedroom, the door of which was open.\n It distinctly said, in a deep sorrowful tone, 'I can't find it.' I\n called out to my little boys, but they did not reply, and I have\n not the slightest doubt that they were asleep; they always called\n out if they heard me upstairs. My step-daughter, who was downstairs\n in the dining-room with the door open, also heard the voice, and\n thinking it was me calling, cried out, 'What are you looking for?'\n We were extremely puzzled. The voice could not by any possibility\n have belonged to any member of the household. The servants were in\n the kitchen, and my husband was out.\n\n \"A short time after I was again coming downstairs after dark in the\n evening when I felt a sharp slap on the back. It startled but did\n not hurt me. There was no one near me, and I ran downstairs and\n told my husband and my step-daughter.\n\n \"I have never in my life, on any other occasion, had any\n hallucination of sight, hearing, or touch.\"\n\nThe following is Miss W.'s account:--\n\n \"_February_ 19_th_, 1885.\n\n \"In July, 1881, I was sitting playing the piano in our house\n in C----, about 11.30 in the morning, when I saw the head and\n shoulders of a man peeping round the folding-doors, in just the\n same way as they had appeared to my mother, but I had not at that\n time heard of her experience. I jumped up, and advanced, thinking\n it was an acquaintance from a few yards off. This impression,\n however, only lasted for a second; the face disappeared, but\n recalling it, I perceived at once that it was certainly not that of\n the gentleman whom I had for a second thought of. The resemblance\n was only that they were both dark. The face was pale and\n melancholy, and the hair very dark. I at once went to Mrs. W. in\n the dining-room, and asked if any one had called. She said, 'No';\n and I then told her what I had seen. I then for the first time\n heard from her what _she_ had seen, and our descriptions completely\n agreed. We had even both noticed that the hair was parted in the\n middle, and that a good deal of shirt-front showed.\n\n \"A few weeks later, about 11 P.M., Mrs. W. and I were playing\n b\u00e9zique in the dining-room. Mr. W. was out, and the servants had\n gone to bed. The door of the room was open, and I was facing it.\n I suddenly had an impression that some one was looking at me, and\n I looked up. There was the same face, and the upper half of the\n figure, peeping round into the room from the hall. I said, 'There's\n the man again!' Mrs. W. rushed to the door, but there was no one in\n the hall or passage; the front door was locked, and the green baize\n door which communicated with the back part of the house was shut.\n The figure had been on the side of the dining-room door nearest\n to the front door, and could not have got to the green baize door\n without passing well in our sight. We were a good deal frightened,\n and we mentioned the occurrence to Mr. W. on his return. He went\n all over the house as usual before going to bed, and all windows\n were fastened, and everything in order.\n\n \"A few weeks after this, about 11.30 A.M., I was upstairs playing\n battledore and shuttlecock with my eldest brother in his bedroom.\n The door was open. Stepping back in the course of the game, I got\n out on to the landing; I looked sideways over my shoulder, in\n order to strike the shuttlecock, and suddenly saw the same face\n as before, and my brother called out at the same moment, 'There's\n a man on the landing.' I was startled myself, but to reassure the\n child I said there was no one--that he had made a mistake--and shut\n the door and went on with the game. I told my father and Mrs. W. of\n this as soon as I saw them.\n\n \"Later in the autumn I was sitting alone in the dining-room one\n evening, with the door open. Mrs. W. had been upstairs, and I heard\n her coming down. Suddenly I heard a deep, melancholy voice say, 'I\n can't find it.' I called out, 'What are you looking for?' At the\n same time the voice was not the least like Mrs. W.'s. She then came\n in and told me she had heard exactly the same thing. My father was\n out at the time, but we told him of the circumstance on his return.\n\n \"In September of 1882 I was for a week in the house with only\n the two children and the servants. It was about 7.30 on Sunday\n evening, and nearly dark. The others were all out in the garden. I\n was standing at the dining-room window, when I caught a glimpse of\n a tall man's figure slipping into the porch. I must have seen if\n anybody had approached the porch by the path from the front gate,\n and I should certainly have heard the latch of the gate, which\n used to make a considerable noise, and I should also have heard\n footsteps on the gravel-path. The figure appeared quite suddenly;\n it had on a tall hat. I was very much astonished, but ran to the\n door, thinking it might possibly be my father. No one was there; I\n went to the gate, and looked up and down the road. No one was in\n sight, and there was no possibility that anybody could have got so\n suddenly out of view.\n\n \"I have never at any other time in my life had any hallucination\n whatever, either of sight or hearing.\n\n \"I remember Mrs. W. telling me of her experience of the slap as\n soon as she came downstairs.\n\n \"I ought to add that at the time when we were negotiating about\n the house, the landlady of the lodgings where my father and I were\n staying told me that all the villas of the row in which our house\n was situated, ten in number, were haunted. I was with my father\n when I heard this. Mrs. W. was not with us. I am certain that the\n remark made no impression whatever on me, and that it did not even\n recur to my mind till I saw what I have described. I did not even\n mention the remark to Mrs. W.\"\n\nMrs. W. adds--\n\n \"I distinctly remember my step-daughter coming to me immediately\n after her first sight of the figure, and telling me about it.\n I then told her for the first time of my own experience (I had\n then only had one), and our descriptions completely tallied. I\n distinctly remember our agreeing about the parting of the hair\n in the middle, and about the amount of white shirt-front. We\n could neither of us remember whether his tie was white or black.\n We agreed that we should know the face if we ever met it. And\n subsequently, at an evening party, we both pitched on the same\n individual as more like our strange visitor than any one else we\n knew. The resemblance, however, was not extremely close.\n\n \"I distinctly remember, also, my step-daughter exclaiming, 'There's\n that man again!' when we were playing b\u00e9zique. I rushed at once\n into the hall and found the door closed as she has described.\n\n \"I also remember her telling me at once about what she had seen,\n and what her brother had exclaimed when they were playing at\n battledore and shuttlecock.\n\n \"She told me about what she had seen in the porch when Mr. W. and I\n returned from town on the next (Monday) morning.\"\n\nThe following is Surgeon-Major W.'s confirmation:--\n\n \"I was told of these various occurrences by my wife and daughter at\n the times which they have specified. I only heard from my wife of\n her _first_ experience after she had told me of her _second_. After\n she had seen the figure during the game of cricket, I went into the\n kitchen, but found everything as usual. On my return home, after my\n daughter's seeing the figure peeping round the dining-room door,\n I went all over the premises as my custom was, and found windows\n secured and everything in order.\n\n \"My wife and daughter are as unlikely as any one I know to suffer\n from causeless frights. They are completely free from nervousness,\n and though these experiences were startling and bewildering to\n them, they did not in the least worry themselves in consequence.\n\n \"It seems possible that the voice may have been that of one of the\n children talking in sleep, and the slap some effect of imagination,\n but it is not easy to account for the apparitions by any such known\n causes.\"\n\nIn this case it seems unlikely that Mrs. W., the original percipient,\nwas mistaken in supposing that she had not mentioned her first\nexperience, and that Miss W. was also mistaken in her statement that\nshe had not heard of what Mrs. W. had seen until after the apparition\nto herself. And it is still more unlikely that either lady would have\nallowed any hint of the matter to reach the ears of the children.\nWhilst, therefore, in the absence of contemporary notes, or of any\nidentification of the figure, the degree of resemblance between the\napparitions seen by the two ladies may have been exaggerated, we\nare still confronted with the problem that three persons living in\nthe same house are credibly reported to have seen independently the\nhallucinatory figure of a man, and that in the two instances in which\nthe apparitions were compared they were found to exhibit certain\nresemblances. That the first figure was a subjective hallucination, and\nthat the later apparitions were reproductions of that hallucination\nby means of telepathic suggestion, is a solution which is, at any\nrate, worthy of consideration. We have in our records many cases of\nthe kind, in which hallucinatory figures, in some cases presenting\nstrong resemblances, are alleged to have been seen by two or more\nindependent witnesses in the same house or locality. Thus we have\naccounts from Miss Kathleen Leigh Hunt, Miss Laurence, and Mr. Paul\nBird, of a woman's figure seen independently by each of them in 1881\n(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 106 _et seq._). In another case (_Proc.\nS.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 270 _et seq._) a doctor in a provincial town,\nhis two daughters, and a young lady visitor saw the figure of a young\nchild. In other cases different hallucinatory figures have been seen\nindependently by successive occupants of the same house, the later\npercipients appearing not to have heard of the earlier apparitions.\nThus we have accounts of figures seen during the period from 1861 to\n1875 by three different families in an old Elizabethan manor-house\n(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 118); and in a quite modern house in the\nSouth of England various phantasmal figures were seen between 1882 and\n1888 by two successive sets of occupants. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.\n256 _et seq._[131])\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 128: She was, however, unable to find it.]\n\n[Footnote 129: It should be explained that this account was written\non a \"census\" form, in the limited space provided for answers to our\nprinted questions.]\n\n[Footnote 130: See, for instance, Nos. 47, 75, 87, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 131: Those desiring to study further the evidence on\nthis subject are referred to the paper on \"Phantasms of the Dead,\"\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii., by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, and the papers on\n\"Recognised Apparitions occurring after Death,\" and on \"Phantasms\nof the Dead,\" by Messrs. Gurney, Myers, and the present writer\nrespectively, in Proc. v. and vi., and the \"Record of a Haunted House,\"\nin Proc. viii. Many cases of the kind are also printed in the monthly\njournal of the Society; and there are one or two striking cases in the\n_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nON CLAIRVOYANCE IN TRANCE.\n\n\nThe word \"clairvoyance\" was used by the older mesmerists to denote\nsomewhat heterogeneous phenomena. It was applied in the first place\nto a supposed faculty by which the subject was enabled to ascertain\nfacts not within human knowledge,[132] and in the second place to a\npower of discerning facts within the knowledge of some living mind.\nOf \"clairvoyance\" in the first sense there is not at present so much\nevidence as need cause hesitation in appropriating the name for other\nuses; and it is obvious that if such a faculty could be shown to exist,\na discussion of it would find no place in a work which treats only\nof the affection of one human mind by another. But we have abundant\nevidence of clairvoyance in the second sense, that is, of a form of\ntelepathy in which the transmitted idea seems to reach the mind of\nthe percipient no longer as the meagre result of a serious crisis,\nor of a direct and often prolonged effort of attention on the part\nof the agent, but spontaneously, with great fulness of detail, and\noften with remarkable ease and rapidity, as the outcome of a special\nreceptivity on the part of the percipient. Such clairvoyance--and the\nword must be understood to include the impressions of other senses than\nsight--occurs in its most striking form with hypnotised percipients;\nand in the present chapter I propose to deal with results obtained in\nhypnotism and analogous states, reserving for the following chapter\ninstances of what appears to be the same faculty occurring in the\nnormal state.[133]\n\n\nMRS. PIPER.\n\nThe phenomena of clairvoyance, as thus defined, have been observed with\ngreat care in the case of an American lady, Mrs. Piper. Mrs. Piper had\nbeen known for some years in the United States as a clairvoyante and\nspirit medium, and her trance utterances had been carefully studied by\nProfessor James and Dr. Hodgson. In the winter of 1888-89 she spent\ntwo months and a half in this country, at the invitation of certain\nmembers of the S.P.R. She came to England as a complete stranger, and\nwas met on her landing at Liverpool by Professor Lodge, and during the\nwhole period she stayed either in the houses of Professor Sidgwick\nor Mr. Myers at Cambridge, in Professor Lodge's house at Liverpool,\nor in rooms in London selected by Dr. Leaf. Neither at Cambridge nor\nLiverpool were there any opportunities of her acquiring knowledge of\nthe histories and circumstances of the persons who visited her for\nexperiments, other than those afforded during the actual progress\nof the experiment, or by inquiries of servants and children, the\nexamination of books and photograph albums, or from the newspapers and\nprivate correspondence. Practically she was under close and almost\ncontinuous surveillance during the whole period, and, independently\nof the special precautions taken to guard against the acquisition of\nknowledge by any of the means above indicated (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.\npp. 438-440, 446-447, etc.), it is important to note that the sitters\nwere in almost every instance introduced to Mrs. Piper under an assumed\nname; that some of them, and those not the least successful, were\npersons in no way connected with the S.P.R., whose admission was due to\ncircumstances more or less accidental; and that on several occasions\nshe stated facts which were not within the conscious knowledge of any\nperson present, and which could not conceivably have been discovered by\nany process of private inquiry.[134]\n\nThe actual method of experiment was as follows: Mrs. Piper would sit\nin a room partially darkened, holding the hands of the sitter, whilst\nsome other person (generally Mr. Myers, Dr. Leaf, Professor Lodge, or\na shorthand writer) would be present to take notes. Mrs. Piper would\npresently go off into a trance, attended at its outset by slight\nconvulsive movements resembling those of an epileptic attack, and would\nafter a brief interval assume the voice, gestures, and phraseology\nof a man. In this guise she gave herself out as one \"Dr. Phinuit,\" a\nmedical man who had studied medicine in Paris in the first quarter of\nthe present century. In the impersonation of this character Mrs. Piper\nused occasionally broken English, pronounced some words, proper names\nespecially, with a French accent, and was admittedly sometimes very\nsuccessful in diagnosing and prescribing for the complaints of her\nsitters and their friends. \"Dr. Phinuit\" would then pour out a more or\nless coherent flood of conversation, questions, and remarks about the\nrelatives and friends of those present, their past history and personal\naffairs generally, some of which was apparently mere padding, some\nobviously chance shots, or \"fishing\" for further information; whilst,\nin the midst of all the irrelevancy and incoherence, there would\noccasionally be clear, detailed statements on intimate matters of which\nit is inconceivable that Mrs. Piper could have attained any knowledge\nby normal means; just as, to quote the apt metaphor of Professor Lodge,\nin listening at a telephone \"you hear the dim and meaningless fragments\nof a city's gossip, till back again comes the voice obviously addressed\nto you, and speaking with firmness and decision.\" In regard to the\ntrance itself, it has no doubt close analogy with the hypnotic trance,\nthough Mrs. Piper is not readily amenable to hypnotism by ordinary\nmeans, and when hypnotised her condition is described by Professor\nJames as very different from that of the \"medium trance.\" (_Proc._,\nvol. vi. p. 653; viii. p. 56.) In the latter state Mrs. Piper is,\noccasionally at least, an\u00e6sthetic in certain senses, and analgesic in\nvarious parts of the body (viii. pp. 4-6), and her eyes are closed,\nwith the eyeballs turned upwards.\n\nThere is no reason to suppose that the simulacrum of \"Dr. Phinuit\"\nis anything else than an impersonation assumed by Mrs. Piper's\nsubconsciousness. Such impersonations are very common amongst \"spirit\nmediums\" everywhere, and in all forms of spontaneously induced\ntrance.[135] Nor is \"Dr. Phinuit\" the only form assumed by Mrs. Piper's\nsecondary consciousness. It frequently happened in the trance that \"Dr.\nPhinuit\" gave place to an impersonation, often recognised as life-like\nand characteristic, of some deceased relative of the sitter's, as in\nthe case of \"Uncle Jerry,\" mentioned below.[136] Probably in many\ncases the basis of these representations was supplied by unguarded\nremarks of the sitters themselves, or by skilful guesses on the part\nof \"Phinuit,\" sometimes possibly eked out by telepathic drafts on the\nsitters' memories. As regards Mrs. Piper's conscious share in the\nmatter, the persons who have observed her most closely, both in this\ncountry and in America, agree in believing that she is a woman of\ntransparent simplicity, and with a marked absence of inquisitiveness or\neven ordinary interest in matters outside her domestic concerns, and\nthat she is incapable, morally and intellectually, of carrying on a\nprolonged and systematic deception, and must by all impartial persons\nbe fully acquitted of responsibility for \"Dr. Phinuit's\" proceedings.\nAs is almost invariably the case with entranced persons, in the normal\nstate she appears to know nothing of what goes on in the trance, and to\nshare none of the information supernormally acquired by her secondary\nconsciousness. As to whether \"Dr. Phinuit\" is equally ignorant of\nMrs. Piper's thoughts and of knowledge acquired normally by her, it\nis impossible to speak with equal confidence. There can be little\ndoubt either that he is, or that he wishes, for the sake of effect,\nto produce the impression that he is. But, as is not infrequently\nthe case, the second personality is markedly inferior in its moral\ncharacter to the normal consciousness. Its ruling motive in this case\nappears to be a prodigious vanity, which drives \"Dr. Phinuit,\" when\ntelepathy fails, into shuffling, equivocation, and all manner of\ncontemptible devices for eliciting information, and passing it off as\nsupernormally acquired. Like the Strong Man of the music-halls, to make\ngood his bragging he is forced continually to eke out what is genuinely\nabnormal by artifices at once disingenuous and transparent.[137]\n\nThe following is a summary of the proceedings at two of the more\nsuccessful sittings. Mrs. Piper was at the time staying in Liverpool,\nwith Professor Lodge, who introduced to her on the morning of December\n23rd, 1888, under the pseudonym of Dr. Jones,[138] a medical man\npractising in the city. Notes were taken throughout by Professor\nLodge, who was himself ignorant of nearly all the details given. The\nconversation was practically a monologue, as Dr. C. himself remained\nalmost entirely silent, assenting, \"with a grunt, to wrong quite\nas much as to right statements.\" It will be observed that here, as\nthroughout, \"Dr. Phinuit\" appears to gain his information in an\nauditory form.\n\n\nNo. 96.\n\n _Sitting No._ 42. _Monday morning, December_ 23rd.\n\n Present: Dr. C. (introduced as Dr. Jones) and O. J. L.\n\n [The following is an abstract of the correct, or subsequently\n corrected or otherwise noteworthy, statements.]\n\n \"You have a little lame girl, lame in the thigh, aged thirteen;\n either second or third. She's a little daisy. I do like her. Dark\n eyes, the gentlest of the lot; good deal of talent for music.\n She will be a brilliant woman; don't forget it. She has more\n sympathy, more mind, more--quite a little daisy. She's got a mark,\n a curious little mark, when you look closely, over eye, a scar\n through forehead over left eye. The boy's erratic; a little thing,\n but a little devil. Pretty good when you know him. He'll make an\n architect likely. Let him go to school. His mother's too nervous.\n It will do him good. [This was a subject in dispute.] You have a\n boy and two girls and a baby; four in the body. It's the little\n lame one I care for. There are two mothers connected with you, one\n named Mary. Your aunt passed out with cancer. You have indigestion,\n and take hot water for it. You have had a bad experience. You\n nearly slipped out once on the water.\" [Dangerous yacht accident\n last summer. Above statements are correct except the lameness. See\n next sitting.]\n\n\n_Sitting No._ 43. _Monday evening, December_ 23_rd_.\n\nPresent: Dr. and Mrs. C. and O. J. L. [Statements correct when not\notherwise noted.]\n\n \"How's little Daisy? She will get over her cold. But there's\n something the matter with her head. There's somebody round you\n lame and somebody hard of hearing. That little girl has got music\n in her. This lady is fidgety. There are four of you, four going\n to stop with you, one gone out of the body. One got irons on his\n foot. Mrs. Allen, in her surroundings, is the one with iron on\n leg. [Allen was maiden name of mother of lame one.] There's about\n 400 of your family. There's Kate; you call her Kitty. She's the one\n that's kind of a crank. Trustworthy, but cranky. She will fly off\n and get married, she will. Thinks she knows everything, she does.\n [This is the nurse-girl, Kitty, about whom they seem to have a joke\n that she is a walking compendium of information.] (An envelope with\n letters written inside, N--H--P--O--Q, was here handed in, and\n Phinuit wrote down B--J--R--O--I--S, not in the best of tempers.)\n A second cousin of your mother's drinks. The little dark-eyed one\n is Daisy. I like her. She can't hear very well. The lame one is a\n sister's child. [A cousin's child, the one _n\u00e9e_ Allen, really.]\n The one that's deaf in her head is the one that's got the music\n in her. That's Daisy, and she's going to have the paints I told\n you of. [Fond of painting.] She's growing up to be a beautiful\n woman. She ought to have a paper ear. [An artificial drum had been\n contemplated.] You have an Aunt Eliza. There are three Maries, Mary\n the mother, Mary the mother, Mary the mother. [Grandmother, aunt,\n and granddaughter.] Three brothers and two sisters your lady has.\n Three in the body. There were eleven in your family, two passed out\n small. [Only know of nine.] Fred is going to pass out suddenly. He\n married a cousin. He writes. He has shining things. _Lorgnettes._\n He is away. He's got a catchy trouble with heart and kidneys, and\n will pass out suddenly.\" [Not the least likely.]\n\n NOTES.--The most striking part of this sitting is the prominence\n given to Dr. C.'s favourite little daughter, Daisy, a child very\n intelligent and of a very sweet disposition, but quite deaf;\n although her training enables her to go to school and receive\n ordinary lessons with other children. At the first sitting she is\n supposed erroneously to be lame, but at the second sitting this\n is corrected and explained, and all said about her is practically\n correct, including the cold she then had. Mrs. Piper had had no\n opportunity whatever of knowing or hearing of the C. children by\n ordinary social means. We barely know them ourselves. Phinuit\n grasped the child's name gradually, using it at first as a mere\n description. I did not know it myself.\n\n The following is a summary of the false assertions:--\n\n\n ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS.\n\n _At Sitting_ 42:--\n\n \"Your lady's Fanny; well, there is a Fanny. [No.] Fred has light\n hair, brownish moustache, prominent nose. [No.] Your thesis was\n some special thing. I should say about lungs.\" [No.]\n\n _At Sitting_ 43:--\n\n \"Your mother's name was Elizabeth. [No.] Her father's lame. [No.]\n Of your children there's Eddie and Willie and Fannie or Annie and\n a sister that faints, and Willie and Katie (no, Katie don't count)\n [being the nurse], and Harry and the little dark-eyed one, Daisy.\n [All wrong except Daisy.] One passed out with sore throat. [No.]\n The boy looks about 8. [No, 4.] Your wife's father had something\n wrong with leg; one named William. [No.] Your grandmother had a\n sister who married a Howe--Henry Howe. [Unknown.] There's a Thomson\n connected with you [no], and if you look you will find a Howe too.\n Your brother the captain [correct], with a lovely wife, who has\n brown hair [correct], has had trouble in head [no], and has two\n girls and a boy.\" [No, three girls.]\n\nIn this case it will be seen that no details were given which could not\nhave been derived from the conscious knowledge of the sitter. Apart\nfrom the fact that the agent made no effort to impress his thought, it\nresembles a case of ordinary telepathy. Of much the same character are\nthe following details, quoted from Professor James's account of his\ninterviews with Mrs. Piper (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 658, 659):--\n\n\nNo. 97.--From Professor W. JAMES.\n\n \"The most convincing things said about my own immediate household\n were either very intimate or very trivial. Unfortunately the former\n things cannot well be published. Of the trivial things, I have\n forgotten the greater number, but the following, _rar\u00e6 nantes_, may\n serve as samples of their class: She said that we had lost recently\n a rug, and I a waistcoat. [She wrongly accused a person of stealing\n the rug, which was afterwards found in the house.] She told of my\n killing a grey-and-white cat, with ether, and described how it had\n 'spun round and round' before dying. She told how my New York aunt\n had written a letter to my wife, warning her against all mediums,\n and then went off on a most amusing criticism, full of _traits\n vifs_, of the excellent woman's character. [Of course no one but\n my wife and I knew the existence of the letter in question.] She\n was strong on the events in our nursery, and gave striking advice\n during our first visit to her about the way to deal with certain\n 'tantrums' of our second child, 'little Billy-boy,' as she called\n him, reproducing his nursery name. She told how the crib creaked\n at night, how a certain rocking-chair creaked mysteriously, how my\n wife had heard footsteps on the stairs, etc., etc. Insignificant as\n these things sound when read, the accumulation of a large number\n of them has an irresistible effect. And I repeat again what I\n said before, that taking everything that I know of Mrs. P. into\n account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I\n am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her\n trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state,\n and that the definitive philosophy of her trances is yet to be\n found. The limitations of her trance-information, its discontinuity\n and fitfulness, and its apparent inability to develop beyond a\n certain point, although they end by rousing one's moral and human\n impatience with the phenomenon, yet are, from a scientific point\n of view, amongst its most interesting peculiarities, since where\n there are limits there are conditions, and the discovery of these\n is always the beginning of an explanation.\n\n \"This is all that I can tell you of Mrs. Piper. I wish it were more\n 'scientific.' But, _valeat quantum!_ it is the best I can do.\"\n\nBut there are many cases (Professor Lodge enumerates forty-one\ninstances, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 649, 650) in which details were\nfaithfully given by \"Phinuit,\" which had either been forgotten by the\nsitters, or could not at any time have been within their knowledge.\nThe instances clearly falling under the last head are perhaps too\nfew to justify any inference being founded on them, although in view\nof some of the cases to be quoted later, telepathy from persons at a\ndistance from the percipient seems a not impossible explanation. The\nfollowing case, given by Professor Lodge, which at first sight seems\nto involve some such hypothesis, may perhaps be explained by the\ntelepathic filching from his mind of the memories of incidents heard\nin his boyhood and long forgotten. It is right to say that Professor\nLodge has no recollection of ever having heard of these incidents, and\nregards this explanation (or indeed any other which has been suggested)\nas extremely improbable. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 458-460.)\n\n\nNo. 98.--From PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.\n\n \"It happens that an uncle of mine in London, now quite an old man,\n and one of a surviving three out of a very large family, had a twin\n brother who died some twenty or more years ago. I interested him\n generally in the subject, and wrote to ask if he would lend me some\n relic of this brother. By morning post on a certain day I received\n a curious old gold watch, which this brother had worn and been\n fond of; and that same morning, no one in the house having seen it\n or knowing anything about it, I handed it to Mrs. Piper when in a\n state of trance.\n\n \"I was told almost immediately that it had belonged to one of my\n uncles--one that had been mentioned before as having died from the\n effects of a fall--one that had been very fond of Uncle Robert,\n the name of the survivor--that the watch was now in possession of\n this same Uncle Robert, with whom he was anxious to communicate.\n After some difficulty and many wrong attempts Dr. Phinuit caught\n the name, Jerry, short for Jeremiah, and said emphatically, as if\n a third person was speaking, 'This is my watch, and Robert is my\n brother, and I am here. Uncle Jerry, my watch.' All this at the\n first sitting on the very morning the watch had arrived by post,\n no one but myself and a shorthand clerk who happened to have been\n introduced for the first time at this sitting by me, and whose\n antecedents are well known to me, being present.\n\n \"Having thus ostensibly got into communication through some means\n or other with what purported to be a deceased relative, whom I had\n indeed known slightly in his later years of blindness, but of whose\n early life I knew nothing, I pointed out to him that to make Uncle\n Robert aware of his presence it would be well to recall trivial\n details of their boyhood, all of which I would faithfully report.\n\n \"He quite caught the idea, and proceeded during several successive\n sittings ostensibly to instruct Dr. Phinuit to mention a number of\n little things such as would enable his brother to recognise him.\n\n \"References to his blindness, illness, and main facts of his life\n were comparatively useless from my point of view; but these details\n of boyhood, two-thirds of a century ago, were utterly and entirely\n out of my ken. My father was one of the younger members of the\n family, and only knew these brothers as men.\n\n \"'Uncle Jerry' recalled episodes such as swimming the creek when\n they were boys together, and running some risk of getting drowned;\n killing a cat in Smith's field; the possession of a small rifle,\n and of a long peculiar skin, like a snake-skin, which he thought\n was now in the possession of Uncle Robert.\n\n \"All these facts have been more or less completely verified. But\n the interesting thing is that his twin brother, from whom I got\n the watch, and with whom I was thus in a sort of communication,\n could not remember them all. He recollected something about\n swimming the creek, though he himself had merely looked on. He had\n a distinct recollection of having had the snake-skin, and of the\n box in which it was kept, though he does not know where it is now.\n But he altogether denied killing the cat, and could not recall\n Smith's field.\n\n \"His memory, however, is decidedly failing him, and he was good\n enough to write to another brother, Frank, living in Cornwall,\n an old sea captain, and ask if he had any better remembrance of\n certain facts--of course not giving any inexplicable reasons for\n asking. The result of this inquiry was triumphantly to vindicate\n the existence of Smith's field as a place near their home, where\n they used to play, in Barking, Essex; and the killing of a cat by\n another brother was also recollected; while of the swimming of the\n creek, near a mill-race, full details were given, Frank and Jerry\n being the heroes of that foolhardy episode.\n\n \"Some of the other facts given I have not yet been able to get\n verified. Perhaps there are as many unverified as verified. And\n some things appear, so far as I can make out, to be false. One\n little thing I could verify myself, and it is good, inasmuch as no\n one is likely to have had any recollection, even if they had any\n knowledge, of it. Phinuit told me to take the watch out of its case\n (it was the old-fashioned turnip variety) and examine it in a good\n light afterwards, and I should see some nicks near the handle which\n Jerry said he had cut into it with his knife.\n\n \"Some faint nicks are there. I had never had the watch out of its\n case before; being, indeed, careful neither to finger it myself nor\n to let any one else finger it.\n\n \"I never let Mrs. Piper in her waking state see the watch till\n quite towards the end of the time, when I purposely left it lying\n on my desk while she came out of the trance. Before long she\n noticed it, with natural curiosity, evidently becoming conscious of\n its existence then for the first time.\"[139]\n\nThere are many other cases of clairvoyance on record of the same type\nas Mrs. Piper's, but none which have been studied by so many observers\nwith equal care, and through so prolonged a period. In the more usual\nform of trance clairvoyance, however, the percipient's impressions are\nof a visual character. He describes scenes which he appears to himself\nto _see_. In the pages of the _Zoist_ and elsewhere vision of the kind\nis commonly called \"travelling clairvoyance,\" it having generally been\nsuggested to the hypnotised subject that he was actually present at\nthe scene which he was desired to describe. It is possible that this\nsuggestion, almost universally given, may have had some influence in\ndetermining the pictorial form which the telepathic impressions assume\nin such cases, as it has certainly led the percipient himself and the\nbystanders in many cases to believe in an extra-corporeal visitation of\nthe scenes described. Often no details are given which were not within\nthe knowledge, if not consciously present to the thoughts, of one of\nthe bystanders. Such, for instance, is the case quoted by Dr. Backman,\nof Kalmar, in his paper on clairvoyance (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp.\n205, 206; viii. 405-407), in which the Director-General of Pilotage for\nSweden, M. Ankarkrona, records how, when absent from home, he received\nfrom a maid-servant hypnotised by Baron Von Rosen an extremely detailed\ndescription of the interior of his own house and its inmates. Hardly a\ndetail was incorrect, but no single detail was given which could not\nhave been extracted from M. Ankarkrona's mind. To such a case there is\nno difficulty in applying the telepathic explanation.\n\n\nNo. 99.--From A. W. DOBBIE.\n\nIn the case to be next quoted, however, the information given by the\nhypnotised subject transcends the conscious knowledge, at all events,\nof those present. The account comes from Mr. A. W. Dobbie, of Adelaide,\nSouth Australia, who has for some years studied the phenomena of\nhypnotism on a number of subjects, and has observed some striking\nmanifestations of telepathy and clairvoyance. I quote from a letter\nwritten to me in July 1886, containing a copy of his notes made at the\ntime of the experiment, \"the moment the words were uttered.\" The Hon.\nDr. Campbell, M.L.C., who had lost a gold sleeve-link, brought its\nfellow on the 28th May 1886 to Mr. Dobbie, who placed it in the hand of\none of his subjects. Then\n\n \"Miss Martha began by first accurately describing Dr. Campbell's\n features, then spoke of a little fair-haired boy who had a stud,\n or sleeve-link, in his hand, also of a lady calling him 'Neil';\n then said that this little boy had taken the link into a place\n like a nursery where there were some toys, especially a large toy\n elephant, and that he had dropped the link into this elephant\n through a hole which had been torn or knocked in the breast;\n also that he had taken it out again, and gave two or three other\n interesting particulars. We were reluctantly compelled to postpone\n further investigation until two or three evenings afterwards.\n\n \"On the next occasion (in the interval, however, the missing\n sleeve-link had been found, but left untouched), I again placed\n the link in her hand and the previous particulars were at once\n reproduced; but as she seemed to be getting on very slowly, it\n occurred to Dr. Campbell to suggest placing his hand on that of\n the clairvoyant, so I placed him _en rapport_ and allowed him to\n do so, he simply touching the back of her hand with the points of\n his fingers. As she still seemed to have great difficulty (she is\n always much slower than her sister) in proceeding, it suddenly\n occurred to me that it would be an interesting experiment to place\n Miss Eliza Dixon _en rapport_ with Miss Martha, so I simply joined\n their disengaged hands, and Miss Eliza immediately commenced as\n follows, viz.:--\n\n \"'I'm in a house, upstairs, I was in a bathroom, then I went into\n another room nearly opposite, there is a large mirror just inside\n the door on the left hand, there is a double-sized dressing-table\n with drawers down each side of it, the sleeve-link is in the corner\n of the drawer nearest the door. When they found it they left it\n there. I know why they left it there, it was because they wanted\n to see if we would find it. I can see a nice easy-chair there, it\n is an old one, I would like it when I am put to sleep, because it\n is nice and low. The bed has curtains, they are a sort of brownish\n net and have a fringe of darker brown. The wall paper is of a light\n blue colour. There is a cane lounge there and a pretty Japanese\n screen behind it, the screen folds up. There is a portrait of an\n old gentleman over the mantelpiece, he is dead, I knew him when\n he was alive, his name is the same as the gentleman who acts as\n Governor when the Governor is absent from the colony,[140] I will\n tell you his name directly--it is the Rev. Mr. Way. It was a little\n boy who put the sleeve-link in that drawer, he is very fair, his\n hair is almost white, he is a pretty little boy, he has blue eyes\n and is about three years old. The link had been left on that table,\n the little boy was in the nursery, and he went into the bedroom\n after the gentleman had left. I can see who the gentleman is, it is\n Dr. Campbell. Doesn't that little boy look a young Turk, the link\n is quite a handful for his little hand, he is running about with it\n very pleased; but he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. (A.)\n\n [Dr. Campbell was not present from this point.]\n\n \"'Now I can hear some one calling up the stairs, a lady is calling\n two names, Colin is one and Neil is the other, the other boy is\n about five years old and is darker than the other. The eldest,\n Colin, is going downstairs now, he is gone into what looks like a\n dining-room, the lady says, \"Where is Neil?\" \"Upstairs, ma.\" \"Go\n and tell him to come down at once.\" The little fair-haired boy\n had put the link down; but when he heard his brother coming up,\n he picked it up again. Colin says--\"Neil, you are to come down at\n once.\" \"I won't,\" says Neil. \"You're a goose,\" replies Colin, and\n he turned and went down without Neil. What a young monkey! now\n he has gone into the nursery and put the link into a large toy\n elephant, he put it through a hole in front, which is broken. He\n has gone downstairs now, I suppose he thinks it is safe there.\n\n \"'Now that gentleman has come into the room again and he wants that\n link; he is looking all about for it, he thinks it might be knocked\n down: the lady is there now too, and they are both looking for it.\n The lady says, \"Are you sure you put it there?\" The gentleman says,\n \"Yes.\"\n\n \"'Now it seems like next day, the servant is turning the carpet up\n and looking all about for it; but can't find it.\n\n \"'The gentleman is asking that young Turk if he has seen it, he\n knows that he is fond of pretty things. The little boy says, \"No.\"\n He seems to think it is fine fun to serve his father like that.\n\n \"'Now it seems to be another day and the little boy is in the\n nursery again, he has taken the link out of the elephant, now he\n has dropped it into that drawer, that is all I have to tell you\n about it, I told you the rest before.'\"\n\nDr. Campbell, after reading through the above account, writes:--\n\n \"ADELAIDE, _July_ 9_th_, 1886.\n\n \"At the point (A) the s\u00e9ance was discontinued till the next\n sitting, when I was absent. The conversation reported as passing\n between the children is correct. The description of the room is\n accurate in every point. The portrait is that of the late Rev.\n James Way. The description of the children and their names are\n true. The fact that the link was discovered in the drawer, in the\n interval between one sitting and the final one, and that the link\n was left there, pending the discovery of it by the clairvoyant,\n is also correct, as this was my suggestion to Mrs. Campbell when\n she showed it to me in the corner of the drawer. In fact, every\n circumstance reported is absolutely correct. I know, further, that\n neither of the clairvoyants has ever been inside of my door. My\n children are utterly unknown to them, either in appearance or by\n name. I may say also that they had no knowledge of my intention to\n place the link in their possession, or even of my presence at the\n s\u00e9ance, as they were both on each occasion in the mesmeric sleep\n when I arrived.\"\n\nIn a later letter, dated December 16th, 1887, Dr. Campbell writes:--\n\n \"With respect to the large toy elephant, I certainly knew of its\n existence, but was not thinking of it at the time the clairvoyant\n was speaking. I did not know even by suspicion that the elephant\n was so mutilated as to have a large opening in its chest, and on\n coming home had to examine the toy to see whether the statement was\n correct. I need hardly say that it was absolutely correct.\"\n\n Mr. Dobbie tells us that \"neither he nor his clairvoyants had\n any opportunity, directly or indirectly, of knowing any of the\n particulars brought out by the clairvoyant.\" He afterwards saw the\n room described, and says \"the description is simply perfect in\n every particular.\"\n\nThis narrative presents us, at any rate, with a case of\nthought-transference of a very remarkable kind, an accurate and\ndetailed description being given of a room wholly unknown to the\nclairvoyantes. But it is doubtful whether even here more was stated\nby the percipients than could have been extracted from the minds of\nthose present. The statement as to the child placing the sleeve-link\nin the toy elephant could not, unfortunately, be verified, and the\nconversation described was natural enough under the circumstances,\nand may have been the result of a happy conjecture. It is unfortunate\nthat a detailed description of the room was not given until the\nsecond sitting, since that lessens the improbability, in any case\nconsiderable, that some information as to the details given might have\nreached the ears of the clairvoyantes.[141] The most remarkable feature\nin the case is the statement, subsequently verified, as to the hole\nin the front of the elephant. We must suppose either that this detail\nwas derived from the mind of the child, or that Dr. Campbell had once\nobserved the hole but had forgotten its existence at the time of the\nexperiment. Mr. Dobbie gives other instances of clairvoyance, by one of\nwhich the hypothesis of thought-transference from a distant and unknown\nperson is strongly suggested. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 63, etc.)\n\n\nNo. 100.--From DR. WILTSE.\n\nWe next quote two cases out of several recorded by Dr. A. S. Wiltse,\nof Skiddy, Kansas (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 72 _et seq._). The\npercipient was Fannie G., a servant of about fifteen years, who\nwas frequently hypnotised by Dr. Wiltse in the summer of 1882, and\ndeveloped clairvoyant powers of a very remarkable kind. Dr. Wiltse\nunfortunately took no notes at the time of the experiments, but he\nappears to be an accurate reporter, and it will be seen that his\naccount of the incidents quoted is confirmed in each case by other\nobservers. The first experiment was recorded with others in 1886, in a\npaper read before the Owosso Academy of Medicine; the second was not\napparently written down until the account was sent to us in 1890:--\n\n \"Miss Florence F., now Mrs. R., a neighbour, was invited to attend\n one evening with tests which she was to arrange during the day. She\n came and told the subject to go to her kitchen and tell her what\n she saw. It was about twenty rods to Miss F.'s kitchen. Subject\n was led to suppose she had gone to the kitchen, and being asked\n what she saw, readily answered: 'The table sits in the centre of\n the room, and upon it is a box covered with a cloth.' 'What is\n in the box, Fannie?' I asked. 'Oh, I daren't look in the box!\n Miss Florence might be mad.' 'Miss Florence is willing you should\n look; raise the cloth, Fannie, and tell me what is there.' She\n immediately answered, 'There are seven loaves of bread and sixteen\n biscuits in it.' (Correct.)\n\n \"I set this down as telepathy because Miss Florence F. was in the\n room, and undoubtedly the facts were prominently in her mind,\n having been purposely so arranged by her for a test; but what\n follows is not so plainly telepathy.\n\n \"Miss Florence asked Fannie to tell her what was in her stable. She\n answered, 'Two black horses, one grey horse, and one red horse'\n (meaning a bay horse). Miss Florence: 'That is wrong, Fannie; there\n are only my black horses in the stable.' Ten or fifteen minutes\n later, a brother of Miss Florence came to the house and told Miss\n Florence that there were travellers at the house, and upon inquiry\n we learned that the grey and 'red' horse belonged to them, and that\n they had been in the stable half-an-hour when Fannie's clairvoyant\n eye scanned it.\"\n\nMrs. Roberts, the Miss Florence F. of the narrative, writes to Dr.\nWiltse:--\n\n \"CARDIFF, TENN., _January_ 13_th_, 1891.\n\n \"Your letter was received late last night, and I hasten to reply.\n Your statement[142] is correct as far as it goes. But if you\n remember we asked, or rather you asked Fannie, to go into our\n store-room and see what was in there, and she said a hind quarter\n of beef, which was true, we had got it late that evening. You also\n asked her to go in the kitchen and see how many loaves of bread she\n could find, which she told, and on counting them after returning\n home, she was correct. It was in the winter of '81 or '82, I think,\n either December '81, or in the January or February of '82, I cannot\n remember the month; I know it was cold weather. If you remember\n when old Julian Scott was drowned, it was about that time, for\n if I remember right you were trying that same night to get her to\n find his body. I think, as well as I remember, that she located\n his saddle, and a few days after it was found in a place that she\n described, but she could not find the body.\n\n \"MRS. FLORENCE F. ROBERTS.\"\n\nIn the second of the incidents above described, and in the account\nwhich follows, the percipient's statements included facts which were\nnot within the knowledge of any of those present, and we are forced to\nthe conclusion that the percipient in some way derived her knowledge\nfrom persons at a distance. The case presents a curious experimental\nparallel to the dream (No. 60) recorded in Chapter VIII., and to case\nNo. 107 below. In the present instance, however, the persons whom we\nmay perhaps call the agents, though unconscious of their agency in the\nmatter, do not appear to have been personally unknown to the percipient.\n\n\nNo. 101.--From DR. WILTSE.\n\n \"Mr. Howard lived six miles from me. He had just built a large\n frame house; our subject had never seen the house, although, I\n presume, she may have heard it talked of. Mr. Howard had not been\n home for some days, and asked that Fannie should go there and see\n if all were well. She exclaimed at the size of the house, but\n railed at the ugliness of the front fence, saying she would not\n have 'such an old torn-down' fence in front of so nice a house.\n 'Yes,' said Howard, laughing, 'my wife has been worrying the life\n out of me about the fence and the front steps.' 'Oh,' interrupted\n Fannie, 'the steps are nice and new!' 'She is off there,' said\n Howard, 'the steps are worse than the fence.' 'Don't you see,'\n exclaimed Fannie, impatiently, 'how new and nice the steps are?\n Humph!' (And she seemed absolutely disgusted, judging by the tone.)\n 'I think they are real nice.'\n\n \"Changing the subject, Howard asked her how many windows were in\n his house. Almost instantly she gave a number (I think it was\n twenty-six). Howard thought it was too many, but upon carefully\n counting, found it exact.\n\n \"From my house he went directly home, and, to his great surprise,\n found that during his absence his wife had employed a carpenter\n who had built new front steps, and they had been completed a day\n or two before Fannie had scanned the premises for him with her\n invisible telescope.\n\n \"Mr. Howard's son, a youth, had gone into an adjoining county\n and was not expected back for some days. Fannie was acquainted\n with the young man (Andrew). Mr. Howard, having business back at\n the station, was with us again the next night. His faith in our\n 'oracle' had assumed larger proportions, and he suggested a visit\n home by means of Fannie's wonderful faculty. She described the\n rooms excellently, even to a bouquet on one of the tables, and said\n that several young people were there. Asked who they were, she\n replied that she did not know any of them except Andrew. 'But,' I\n said, 'Andrew is not at home.' Fannie: 'Why, don't you see him?'\n Q. 'Sure, Fannie?' F. 'Oh, don't I know Andrew? Right there, he\n is.' Mr. Howard returned home the next morning, where he found that\n Andrew had returned late the day before, and that several young\n people in the neighbourhood had passed the evening with him.\"\n\nThe following are copies of questions addressed to Mr. Howard, and his\nreplies to them:--\n\n \"'Did she describe your new doorsteps to you before you knew they\n were built?' 'Yes.'\n\n \"_Question._--'Did she describe your house and tell you Andrew was\n there when you thought he was away, and, if so, was he actually at\n home as she stated?'\n\n \"_Answer._--'Yes.'\n\n \"_Question._--'From what you saw, were you satisfied that Fannie\n had, when mesmerised, powers of imparting knowledge unknown to\n others about her?'\n\n \"_Answer._--'Yes.'\n\n \"WILLIAM HOWARD,\n Kismet, Tenn., Morgan Co.\"\n\n \"We testify to these questions, asked William Howard, to be facts.\n We were present at the same time Mr. Howard was when Miss G. was\n mesmerised by Dr. A. S. Wiltse. We further state that when any of\n us would prick the doctor with a pin, she would flinch with the\n same part of her body. Miss G. was not in the habit of the use of\n tobacco. The doctor was in a different room, with a wall between\n them. When he would smoke, she grew nauseated and seemed to taste\n the same as he did.\n\n \"W. T. HOWARD AND LIZZIE HOWARD.\"\n\n\nNo. 102.--From MR. WILLIAM BOYD.\n\nA remarkable case has been recorded, from contemporary knowledge, by\nMr. William Boyd, of Peterhead, N.B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 49\n_et seq._). The events occurred as far back as 1850, but a full account\nof them was contributed by Mr. Boyd to the _Aberdeen Herald_ for May\n8th and 18th of that year, from which it appears that the statements\nmade by the percipient were written down and communicated to Mr. Boyd\nand others before their correspondence with the facts was known. The\nincident attracted much notice at the time, from its connection with\nthe whaling fleet, the chief topic of local interest. The following is\nan extract from the original notes made by Mr. Reid, the hypnotiser,\npublished in the _Aberdeen Herald_, May 18th, 1850:--\n\n \"On the evening of April 22nd I put John Park, tailor, aged\n twenty-two, into a state of clairvoyance, in presence of twelve\n respectable inhabitants of this town. (Here follows a description\n of certain statements regarding the fate of Franklin's expedition\n and the ships _Erebus_ and _Terror_, which in the light of\n information subsequently received proved to have been inaccurate.)\n He (the clairvoyant) then visited Old Greenland, as was desired,\n and having gone on board the _Hamilton Ross_, a whale-ship\n belonging to this port, saw David Cardno, second mate, getting\n his hand bandaged up by the doctor in the cabin, having got it\n injured while sealing. He was then told by the captain that they\n had upwards of 100 tons of oil. I again, on the evening of the\n 23rd, put him into a clairvoyant state. (Here follow some further\n particulars regarding Sir John Franklin's expedition, which also\n are proved to have been inaccurate.) I again directed him to Old\n Greenland, and he again visited the _Hamilton Ross_, and found\n Captain Gray, of the _Eclipse_, conversing with the captain about\n the seal fishing being up.\n\n \"(Signed) WILLIAM REID.\"\n\nIt appears from the _Herald_ of May 8th that the _Hamilton Ross_ did\ncome to port first out of eleven ships, that she brought 159 tons of\noil, that Cardno had injured his hand, and arrived with his arm in a\nsling, and that on the 23rd April the captain of the _Hamilton Ross_\nwas conversing with the captain of the _Eclipse_. Mr. Boyd points out,\nhowever, that Cardno had some years before lost the tip of one finger,\nso that the clairvoyant's statement of the accident may have been\nsimply a reminiscence. It is worth noting that here, as generally in\nvisions of the kind, the false was mingled with the true, and that the\npercipient appears quite unable to distinguish between pictures which\nare obviously the work of his own imagination, and those which are\napparently due to inspiration from without.\n\nThe next case is also remote in date, but we have received the evidence\nof several persons still living who were conversant with the facts at\nthe time of their occurrence, and the account given below is taken from\ncontemporary notes. \"Jane\" was the wife of a pit-man in County Durham,\nwho for many years, from 1845 onwards, was hypnotised for the sake of\nher health by Mrs. T. Myers, of Twinstead Rectory, Mrs. Fraser, her\nsister, and other members of the same family. In the hypnotic sleep\nshe appears to have been sensible to telepathic influences of the\nsame kind as those described at the beginning of Chapter III. But she\nalso gave remarkable demonstrations of \"travelling clairvoyance,\" and\nfrequently described correctly the interior of houses she had never\nseen. Occasionally she went beyond this, and stated facts not within\nthe knowledge of those present, and opposed to their preconceptions. A\ngood instance is the following, taken from notes made in the summer of\n1853:--\n\n No. 103.--From DR. F.[143]\n\n \"Before commencing the sitting, I fixed to take her to a house,\n without communicating my intentions to any of the parties present.\n In the morning of the day I stated to a patient of my own, Mr.\n Eglinton, at present residing in the village of Tynemouth, that I\n intended to visit him. He stated that he would be present between\n 8 and 10 P.M. in a particular room, so that there might be no\n difficulty in finding him. He was just recovering from a very\n severe illness, and was so weak that he could scarcely walk. He was\n exceedingly thin from the effects of his complaint.\n\n \"After the usual state had been obtained, I said, 'We are standing\n beside a railway station, now we pass along a road, and in front of\n us see a house with a laburnum tree in front of it.' She directly\n replied, 'Is it the red house with a brass knocker?' I said, 'No,\n it has an iron knocker.' I have since looked, however, and find\n that the door has an old-fashioned brass handle in the shape of a\n knocker. She then asked, 'Shall we go up the steps? Shall we go\n along this passage, and up these stairs? Is this a window on the\n stair-head?' I said, 'You are quite right, and now I want you to\n look into the room upon the left-hand side.' She replied, 'Oh, yes,\n in the bedroom. There is no one in this room; there is a bed in\n it, but there is no person in it.' I was not aware that a bedroom\n was in the place I mentioned, but upon inquiry next day I found\n she was correct. I told her she must look into the next room, and\n she would see a sofa. She answered, 'But there is here a little\n gallery. Now I am in the room, and see a lady with black hair lying\n upon the sofa.' I attempted to puzzle her about the colour of her\n hair, and feeling sure it was Mr. Eglinton who was lying there,\n I sharply cross-questioned her, but still she persisted in her\n story. The questioning, however, seemed to distract her mind, and\n she commenced talking about a lady at Whickham, until I at last\n recalled her to the room at Tynemouth, by asking whether there\n was not a gentleman in the room. 'No,' she said; 'we can see no\n gentleman there.'\n\n \"After a little she described the door opening, and asked, with a\n tone of great surprise, 'Is that a gentleman?' I replied, 'Yes; is\n he thin or fat?' 'Very fat,' she answered; 'but has he a cork leg?'\n I assured her that he had no cork leg, and tried to puzzle her\n again about him. She, however, assured me that he was very fat and\n had a great corporation, and asked me whether I did not think such\n a fat man must eat and drink a great deal to get such a corporation\n as that. She also described him as sitting by the table with papers\n beside him, and a glass of brandy and water. 'Is it not wine?' I\n asked. 'No,' she said, 'it's brandy.' 'Is it not whisky or rum?'\n 'No, it is brandy,' was the answer; 'and now,' she continued, 'the\n lady is going to get her supper, but the fat gentleman does not\n take any.' I requested her to tell me the colour of his hair, but\n she only answered that the lady's hair was dark. I then inquired\n if he had any brains in his head,[144] but she seemed altogether\n puzzled about him, and said she could not see any. I then asked her\n if she could see his name upon any of the letters lying about. She\n replied, 'Yes'; and upon my saying that the name began with E, she\n spelt each letter of the name 'Eglinton.'\n\n \"I was so convinced that I had at last detected her in a complete\n mistake that I arose, and declined proceeding further in the\n matter, stating that, although her description of the house and the\n name of the person were correct, in everything connected with the\n gentleman she had guessed the opposite from the truth.\n\n \"On the following morning Mr. E. asked me the result of the\n experiment, and after having related it to him, he gave me the\n following account:--He had found himself unable to sit up to\n so late an hour, but wishful fairly to test the powers of the\n clairvoyante, he had ordered his clothes to be stuffed into the\n form of a figure, and to make the contrast more striking to his\n natural appearance, had an extra pillow pushed into the clothes so\n as to form a 'corporation.' The figure had been placed near the\n table, in a sitting position, and a glass of brandy and water and\n the newspapers placed beside it. The name, he further added, was\n spelt correctly, though up to that time I had been in the habit of\n writing it 'Eglington,' instead of as spelt by the clairvoyante,\n 'Eglinton.'\"\n\nIn this case it will be seen that the only person from whom knowledge\nof the facts given could have been derived was personally unknown to\nthe percipient, the only apparent link of connection being their common\nacquaintance with Dr. F.\n\nIn the last case to be mentioned there are again some indications of\nthought-transference from the mind of a person at a distance. On April\n8th, 1890, Dr. Backman, at Kalmar, received a letter from Dr. Kjellman,\nat Stockholm, asking that on the following day Dr. Backman should\nrequest one of his subjects, Alma Radberg, to \"find\" Dr. von B. (known\nto Alma), and describe the apartment (Dr. Kjellman's own) in which he\nwould be sitting, adding that something would be hung on the chandelier\nfor her to describe. The percipient in the trance gave a description\nof the room, and when asked to look at the chandelier she said there\nwas no chandelier, something more like a lamp, and described something\nlong and narrow, of white metal, hanging from it, with some red stuff\nround it. When awake she said that what she saw was probably a pair\nof scissors for cutting paper, or a paper-knife. Dr. Backman sent his\nnotes to Dr. Kjellman, who replied, showing that the description of\nthe room, though in some respects accurate (_e.g._, she mentioned a\nlong stuffed easy-chair, a glass bookcase, three doors in the lobby,\netc.), was in other features incorrect, and should on the whole be\nregarded as inconclusive. \"But,\" he adds, \"her statement that the\nobject was hanging in a lamp, not a chandelier, was right. It is both\na lamp and a chandelier, and the lamp was drawn down a long way under\nthe chandelier,\" and that the object hanging there was \"a large pair of\npaper scissors, fixed by an india-rubber otoscope, and with a tea-rose\nand some forget-me-nots in one of the handles of the scissors.\" It will\nthus be seen that on the one point to which her attention had been\nspecially directed, the hypnotic's description was strikingly accurate;\nand the articles described were hardly within the range of conjecture.\n\nDr. Backman has made other experiments with the same subject, in which\nhe obtained further indications of clairvoyance of this kind. (_Proc.\nS.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 207, etc.)\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 132: For instance, Gregory and others record that the\nclairvoyant subjects of a certain Major Buckley were able to read\nthe mottoes enclosed in nuts (the equivalent of the modern Christmas\ncrackers) purchased at random from a confectioner's shop, and still\nunopened. The recent evidence of the kind is quite inconsiderable, and\nis perhaps hardly sufficient to allow of the existence of a faculty of\nindependent clairvoyance being treated as an open question. Experiments\nwith Mrs. Piper in this direction have yielded negative results, and\nProfessor Richet's trials with Madame B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp.\n77 and 149) are neither sufficiently numerous nor sufficiently striking\nto justify any conclusions being drawn from them. Some curious results\nhave, however, been obtained by M. J. Ch. Roux (_Annales des Sciences\nPsychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 198 _et seq._), and somewhat similar results\nhave been obtained in this country by two Associates of the S.P.R. But\nit is possible that all these instances may be susceptible of another\nexplanation. See, however, Mr. Myers' article on \"Sensory Automatism,\"\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 436 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 133: The definition of clairvoyance given in the text differs\nsomewhat from that adopted by Mrs. Sidgwick (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.\np. 30)--viz., \"A faculty of acquiring supernormally, but not by reading\nthe minds of persons present, a knowledge of facts such as we normally\nacquire by the use of our senses.\" Whether such a faculty exists or\nnot, it is certain that the phenomena which suggest it occur under the\nsame conditions and inextricably mingled with others which can, with\nsome plausibility, be explained as due to thought-transference from the\nconscious or unconscious memory of persons actually present. And as the\ntwo sets of phenomena are found together in fact, it seemed best as a\nmatter of practical convenience that they should not be separated in\ndiscussion. Moreover, the suggested application of the word finds ample\njustification in popular usage.]\n\n[Footnote 134: It should be added that during the progress of similar\ninvestigations in the United States of America, Dr. Hodgson employed\nprivate detectives to shadow Mr. and Mrs. Piper for some weeks, and\nthat nothing was discovered to intimate that any steps were taken by\neither, whether by personal inquiry or by correspondence, to ascertain\nfacts relating to the history of actual or possible sitters. Mr. Piper\ndid not accompany his wife to this country.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Independently of the fact that \"Dr. Phinuit\" is\nas obviously untrustworthy as Mrs. Piper in her natural state is\napparently the reverse, the inquiries which have been made have\nentirely failed to corroborate the accounts, in themselves not always\nconcordant, which \"Dr. Phinuit\" has given of his birth, his education,\nand other circumstances in his \"earth-life.\" His knowledge of his\nnative language is confined to a few simple phrases and a slight\naccent, frequently found useful in disguising a bad shot at a proper\nname; and the careful investigations conducted by Dr. Hodgson into Mrs.\nPiper's antecedents as a \"medium\" have made it almost certain that \"Dr.\nPhinuit\" is an invention, borrowed from the person through whose agency\nMrs. Piper first became entranced, and who purported himself to be\ncontrolled by a French doctor named Albert Finnett (pronounced Finn\u00e9).\nIt should be added that \"Dr. Phinuit\" possesses apparently no knowledge\nof the medical names of drugs, nor any more intimate acquaintance with\ntheir properties than could be gathered from a manual of domestic\nmedicine. (Vol. viii. pp. 47, 50, 51, etc.)]\n\n[Footnote 136: At the present time (May 1894) \"Dr. Phinuit\" has, I\nunderstand, almost entirely ceased to \"control\" Mrs. Piper; his place\nbeing taken by the _soi-disant_ spirit of a young American, recently\ndeceased, who has given remarkable proofs of his identity.]\n\n[Footnote 137: I am glad to be able to append the following testimonial\nto Phinuit's good qualities. An investigator who has had unusual\nfacilities for observing both Dr. Phinuit and Mrs. Piper, after reading\nthe account given in the text, writes to me: \"I suppose the account\nof Phinuit is true as far as it goes, but all the same.... I suppose\nbecause he is more sympathetic, I am rather fond of Phinuit.\"]\n\n[Footnote 138: At the evening sitting a servant unfortunately\nintroduced the sitters by their real names, but the circumstance will\nhardly, I think, be held materially to affect the evidence.]\n\n[Footnote 139: It is impossible by means of a few short extracts\nto give a fair idea either of the strength of the evidence for\ntelepathy afforded by the phenomena observed with Mrs. Piper, or of\nthe variety and complexity of the problems there presented. Readers\nwho are interested in the subject are referred to the record of the\nobservations made by the S.P.R., occupying nearly 400 closely-printed\noctavo pages. (_Proc._, vol. vi. pp. 436-660; vol. viii. pp. 1-167.)\nFurther observations have been made during the year 1893 in the United\nStates by Dr. Hodgson and others, the records of which have not yet\nbeen published.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Chief Justice Way is the gentleman who acts as Deputy\nfor his Excellency when absent from the colony.--A. W. D.]\n\n[Footnote 141: It is hardly necessary to say that such an\ninterpretation in no way reflects upon the good faith of the hypnotics.\nHints derived from conversation overheard unconsciously might be quite\nsufficient.]\n\n[Footnote 142: The statement sent to Mrs. Roberts was substantially a\ncopy of the last nine lines only of the preceding account. No reference\nwas made to the visit to the kitchen.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Dr. F., who is still living, is disinclined to have his\nname published, as he does not wish to be troubled with correspondence\non the subject.]\n\n[Footnote 144: On a previous occasion she had described a skull in a\nsurgery as a head, but \"not a live head, and with no brains in it.\"]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nON CLAIRVOYANCE IN THE NORMAL STATE.\n\n\nThere is probably no sharp line to be drawn between the cases just\ndescribed and those to be dealt with in the first part of the present\nchapter. Both present the common feature that the percipient receives\na clear and detailed telepathic impression of an incident or scene in\nthe experience of some other person, and in both the condition of that\nimpression is manifestly not an effort of attention or an exceptional\nstate on the part of the person whose experience is thus represented,\nbut a specially stimulated receptivity on the part of the percipient.\nBut in some cases the conditions of this special receptivity are\nfound in trance, whilst in others the percipient is apparently in the\nnormal state. This would seem indeed to constitute only a superficial\ndifference, for in the majority of cases hitherto observed the waking\nclairvoyance does not occur spontaneously, but requires special\npreparation for its induction, and sometimes the percipient appears to\npass into a state resembling the earlier stages of a hypnotic trance.\nThus Mr. Keulemans, the well-known scientific draughtsman, who has had\nmany experiences of telepathic clairvoyance,[145] has noticed in the\ncourse of his work, which consists largely of making drawings of birds\nfor lithographic reproduction, that, in his own words,\n\n \"Whenever strong impressions had got hold of my mind they had a\n tendency to develop themselves into a vivid mind-picture as soon as\n my eye and attention were concentrated upon the eye in the drawing;\n and that whenever I began darkening the iris, leaving the light\n speck the most prominent part, I would slowly pass off into a kind\n of dream-state. The mere act of drawing the eye is not enough to\n bring me into this state, or I should experience such a state at\n least once a day, which I do not. But if a strong mental impression\n takes hold of me I begin drawing an eye.... The drawing will then\n convey to me the news, either in the form of a vague, imperfect\n representation of the person indicated in the impression, or by a\n correct hallucinatory picture of the event as it actually occurred,\n both as regards the person and the surroundings. Sometimes I cannot\n get at the vision at once; other thoughts and scenes interfere.\n But when I begin to feel drowsy I know I shall have it right in\n a second; and here I lose normal consciousness. That there is an\n actual loss of consciousness I know from the fact that on one\n occasion my wife had been in the room talking to me, and not\n receiving a reply thought that something was wrong with me and\n shook my shoulder. The shake brought me back to my waking state.\"\n (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 517.)\n\nBut this would seem to be an extreme case, as under ordinary\ncircumstances there is no apparent loss of consciousness; and the\nessential condition appears to be freedom from interruption and\npreoccupation. But the percipient generally finds it helpful, if not\nabsolutely necessary, to employ a crystal, or some other object, for\nthe full development of the impression. The exact part played by the\ncrystal, glass of water, shell, or other object, in facilitating the\nhallucination, it is not easy to determine. In some cases, no doubt, it\nacts by furnishing a _point de rep\u00e8re_, or nucleus of actual sensation,\nround which the hallucination may develop. It is probable also that the\nmere act of fixing the eyes on one particular point may, by shutting\nout other sources of sensation, help to bring about the state of\nquietude necessary for the experiments; and yet again it is likely that\nthe intrinsic virtue of the act, whatever that may be, is enhanced by\nthe self-suggestion that it will prove beneficial; if indeed its virtue\nmay not in some cases be altogether due to that cause. It should be\nremembered in this connection that fixation of the eye on a small\nbright object is one of the readiest means of inducing hypnosis.[146]\n\n\n_Induced Clairvoyance._\n\n\nNo. 104.--From MISS X.\n\nMiss X., some of whose experiments have already been quoted, has been\namongst the most constant and successful of crystal seers. The bulk of\nher visions, as she has pointed out (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 505),\nconsist either of mere after-images, recrudescent memories of things\nseen and heard, or of fancy pictures built out of a rearrangement of\nexisting materials. But occasionally there occur visions of events\nthen taking place, or representations of the past experience of some\nfriend. Space will not permit of illustrations being given of the\nfirst two classes, though the first especially has some bearing on\nour researches. The following account of what appears to have been a\ntelepathic vision is included by Mr. Myers in a paper on the subliminal\nconsciousness (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 491). D. is the friend\nmentioned in Chapter V., p. 122.\n\n \"On August 10th of this year [1892] D. went with her family to\n spend the autumn at a country house which they had taken furnished,\n and which neither of us had ever seen. I was also away from home,\n the distance between us being at least 200 miles.\n\n \"On the morning of the 12th I received a pencil note from her,\n evidently written with difficulty, saying that she had been very\n fiercely attacked by a savage dog, from which she and our own\n little terrier had defended themselves and each other as best they\n could, receiving a score or so of wounds between them before they\n could summon any one to their assistance. She gave me no details,\n assuming that, as often happens between us, I should have received\n intimation of her danger before the news could reach me by ordinary\n methods.\n\n \"D. was extremely disappointed on hearing that I had known nothing.\n I had not consulted the crystal on the day of the accident, and\n had received no intimation. Begging her to tell me nothing further\n as to the scene of her adventure, I sought for it in the crystal\n on Sunday, 14th, and noted the following details:--The attacking\n dog was a large black retriever, and our terrier held him by the\n throat while D. beat at him in the rear. I saw also the details of\n D.'s dress. But all this I knew or could guess. What I could not\n know was that the terrier's collar lay upon the ground, that the\n struggle took place upon a lawn beyond which lay earth--a garden\n bed probably--overshadowed by an aucuba bush.\n\n \"On September 9th I had an opportunity of repeating all this to Mr.\n Myers, and on the 10th I joined D. at their country house. The rest\n of the story I give in her own words:--\n\n From D.\n\n \"'As we were somewhat disappointed that no intimation of the\n accident which had occurred to me had reached Miss X., she\n determined to try to call up a mental picture of the scene where it\n had occurred, and if possible to verify it when visiting us later\n on.\n\n \"'On the night of her arrival at C----, we were not able to go over\n the whole of the grounds alone, and it was therefore not until the\n following morning that we went together for the special purpose of\n fixing on the exact spot. Miss X. was in front, as I feared some\n unconscious sign of recognition on my part might spoil the effect\n of her choice. The garden is a very large one, and we wandered for\n some time without fixing on a spot, the sole clue given by Miss X.\n being that she \"could not get the right place, it wanted a _light_\n bush.\" I pointed out several, silver maples, etc., in various\n directions, but none would do, and she finally walked down to the\n place where the accident had occurred, close to a large aucuba\n (the _only_ one, I believe, in the shrubbery), and said, \"This must\n be it; it has the path and the grass and the bush, as it should,\n but I expected it to be much farther from the house.\"\n\n \"'I may add that I was not myself aware of this bush, but as I was\n studying them all at the time we were attacked by the dog, and as\n this one is close to the spot where I was knocked down, it seems\n possible that it was the last I noticed, and it may therefore have\n influenced me more than I knew.'\"\n\nMr. Myers adds:--\n\n \"I understand that there are a good many acres of ground round the\n house in question, and that the dog's attack was made within fifty\n yards of the house--plainly an unlikely place for a struggle so\n long protracted without the arrival of help.\"\n\nAs the crystal picture was described to Mr. Myers before its\nverification, there was no room for the reading back of details from\nthe actual scene.\n\n\nNo. 105.--From MISS X.\n\nMiss X. has also succeeded on several occasions in obtaining telepathic\ninformation by holding a shell to her ear. Of one such case she writes\n(_ibid._, p. 494):--\n\n \"On Saturday, June 11th, Mr. G. A. Smith spent some time with us\n attempting some thought-transference experiments, which were fairly\n successful, and interested me greatly. Mr. Smith left the house\n soon after seven. After dinner, I took up the shell which had\n played some part--not very successfully--in our experiments. What\n occurred is best given in the following extracts:--\n\n \"'[_June_ 11_th_, 1892] _Saturday Evening_, 8.30. [X. to G. A. S.]\n\n \"'Why--when the shell was repeating to me just now what you said\n about clambering over rocks at Ramsgate--did it stop suddenly to\n ask, still in your voice, \"Are you a vegetarian then?\"... Perhaps\n you dined at [your next appointment], and declined animal food? Do\n tell me whether you are responsible for this irrelevance.'\n\n \"'_June_ 13_th_, _Monday_. [G. A. S. to X.]\n\n \"'... Without doubt the shell spoke the truth.... As you know,\n I left you soon after seven. After walking fifteen minutes I\n suddenly met Mr. M.... I was thinking about points in connection\n with the experiments we had been engaged in, and am afraid I did\n not follow his remarks very closely ... but he made some allusion\n to little dishes at a vegetarian restaurant somewhere, and\n immediately feeling an interest in the question whether he was a\n champion of the vegetarian cause, I interrupted him with _\"Are you\n a vegetarian then?\"_ I believe these are the exact words I used. He\n will be sure to remember this, and must be questioned.'\n\n \"'_June_ 23_rd_. [G. A. S. to X.]\n\n \"'I have to-day walked over the course which I took on June 11th,\n from [Miss X.'s house] to the spot where I met Mr. M. It took just\n eleven minutes. If I left you at 7.15, it was probably about 7.30,\n or a very few minutes later, that I put the query to Mr. M.'\"\n\n Mr. M. was away from home, and though at once applied to for\n corroboration, did not send a written statement till June 22nd,\n when he writes to Mr. Smith (after failing to recall the exact\n particulars of the previous conversation):--\n\n \"The main fact remains that you asked me, to the best of my\n belief--bearing on my strong praise of the cooking at the Oxford\n Street Caf\u00e9--whether 'I was a vegetarian.' That is the core of the\n whole matter, and that is _sound_.\"\n\nFrom Mr. Smith's statement it would appear that the voice in the\nshell reproduced words actually spoken about three-quarters of an\nhour before. That is, as is very generally the case, the clairvoyante\nperceived, not the events actually happening at the moment, but events\nalready passed and chronicled in the memories of those who took part\nin them. This fact, which seems to have been commonly overlooked\nby the earlier writers on the subject, is in itself a very strong\nargument for the telepathic explanation of clairvoyance. Knowledge of a\ncontemporaneous scene might be conceived as due to independent vision\non the part of the percipient; knowledge of what is already past can\nmost readily be explained as derived from other minds.[147]\n\n\nNo. 106.--From DR. BACKMAN.\n\nThis explanation is very clearly indicated in the following case,\nquoted from the paper already referred to (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.\np. 216). Dr. Backman, after describing how occasionally he asked his\nsubject, while awake, to look in the crystal, writes:--\n\n \"I told the clairvoyant, Miss Olsen, to see in the crystal what\n Miss ----, who was present, had been doing the night before. After\n a few moments she said that she saw a meadow in the crystal, and\n in it a certain number (giving the number correctly) of ladies and\n gentlemen, who were dancing and drinking champagne. This seemed to\n her very improbable, because it was then November, a season that\n is not chosen in this country [Sweden] for picnics. She described\n minutely several other things which were not written down, but were\n quite correct, according to what Miss ---- said later on.\"\n\nIn a letter dated December 19th, 1890, Dr. Backman adds:--\n\n \"Several persons were present. No notes were taken, but the story\n made so much sensation that it has not been forgotten. Miss ----\n supplemented the account to-day by reminding me that on looking\n into the crystal Miss Olsen first gave a perfect description of a\n lady with whom Miss ---- had talked on meeting her in the street\n the day before; she described her face, her dress, etc., very\n accurately, and said besides that she had two gold rings on the\n fourth finger of her left hand (a sign of marriage). After that\n Miss Olsen suddenly began to laugh and said: 'Miss ---- is in a\n merry company--they are dancing--the corks of the champagne bottles\n are jumping,' etc. Miss ---- cannot remember that any wrong detail\n was given by Miss Olsen, except that she thinks the number of\n persons present was not correctly given.\"\n\nWith Dr. Backman's permission we wrote to Miss ---- asking for her\nconfirmation of these incidents, and she replied as follows, on March\n8th, 1891:--\n\n \"I am very willing to give you a description of what I saw and\n heard at Dr. Backman's the day he has mentioned in his letter to\n you.\n\n \"When I came to him, he made a hypnotic experiment with Miss Olsen,\n who should endeavour to find some papers lying somewhere in Dr.\n Backman's apartment, and, to my great surprise, she succeeded in\n finding them. After her being awakened, Dr. Backman gave her a\n large glass button and asked her to look in it and see if she could\n find out what I had done the day before. She succeeded even in this\n to an astonishing degree.\"\n\n\nNo. 107.--From SIR JOSEPH BARNBY.\n\nIn the next case, however, the vision appears to have been as nearly\nas possible contemporaneous with the event. Miss A. is a lady who has\nhad many telepathic experiments of a striking kind. She is extremely\nshort-sighted and a bad visualist, but her crystal visions she\ndescribes as being clear and well defined, as if she were looking\non a real scene through strong glasses. The following account of an\nincident in Miss A.'s experience is given by Sir Joseph Barnby, who\nwas a witness before the verification. His account has been revised\nthroughout by Lady Radnor, who has interpolated an explanatory note.\nSir Joseph writes, in November 1892:--\n\n \"I was invited by Lord and Lady Radnor to the wedding of their\n daughter, Lady Wilma Bouverie, which took place August 15th, 1889.\n\n \"I was met at Salisbury by Lord and Lady Radnor and driven to\n Longford Castle. In the course of the drive, Lady Radnor said\n to me: 'We have a young lady staying with us in whom, I think,\n you will be much interested. She possesses the faculty of seeing\n visions, and is otherwise closely connected with the spiritual\n world. Only last night she was looking in her crystal and described\n a room which she saw therein, as a kind of London dining-room.\n [The room described was not in London but at L., and Miss A.\n particularly remarked that the floor was in large squares of black\n and white marble--as it is in the big hall at L., where family\n prayers are said.--H. M. RADNOR.] With a little laugh, she added,\n 'And the family are evidently at prayers, the servants are kneeling\n at the chairs round the room and the prayers are being read by a\n tall and distinguished-looking gentleman with a very handsome, long\n grey beard.' With another little laugh, she continued: 'A lady\n just behind him rises from her knees and speaks to him. He puts\n her aside with a wave of the hand, and continues his reading.'\n The young lady here gave a careful description of the lady who had\n risen from her knees.'\n\n \"Lady Radnor then said: 'From the description given, I cannot help\n thinking that the two principal personages described are Lord and\n Lady L., but I shall ask Lord L. this evening, as they are coming\n by a later train, and I should like you to be present when the\n answer is given.'\n\n \"The same evening, after dinner, I was talking to Lord L. when Lady\n Radnor came up to him and said: 'I want to ask you a question. I am\n afraid you will think it a very silly one, but in any case I hope\n you will not ask me why I have put the question?' To this Lord L.\n courteously assented. She then said: 'Were you at home last night?'\n He replied, 'Yes.' She said: 'Were you having family prayers at\n such a time last evening?' With a slight look of surprise he\n replied, 'Yes, we were.' She then said: 'During the course of the\n prayers did Lady L. rise from her knees and speak to you, and did\n you put her aside with a wave of the hand?' Much astonished, Lord\n L. answered: 'Yes, that was so, but may I inquire why you have\n asked this question?' To which Lady Radnor answered: 'You promised\n you wouldn't ask me that!'\"\n\nIn commenting on the account, Mr. Myers adds:--\n\n \"This incident has been independently recounted to me both by Lady\n Radnor and by Miss A. herself. Another small point not given by Sir\n J. Barnby is that Miss A. did not at first understand that family\n prayers were going on, but exclaimed: 'Here are a number of people\n coming into the room. Why, they're smelling their chairs!' This\n scene may have been exactly contemporaneous.\" (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol.\n viii. pp. 502, 503.)\n\n\n_Spontaneous Clairvoyance._\n\nThis incident was unquestionably very odd, but its evidential value is\nnot lessened by that fact. Instances of a similar detailed perception\nof events at a distance are occasionally found to occur spontaneously.\nTwo or three cases coming under this category have indeed already been\nquoted in Chapters VII. and VIII. The type, however, is interesting and\nimportant, and it is perhaps worth while citing a few more illustrative\ncases. It should be noted, however, that whereas in the cases of\ninduced clairvoyance so far considered there is little evidence of any\nactive contribution on the part of other persons to the percipient's\nimpression, in the majority of the spontaneous instances the central\nfigure in the vision was undergoing, or had just emerged from, some\nunusual experience, and his condition appears to have contributed\nto bring about the result. In the case which follows the vision\nrepresented a dying man. It is noteworthy that, as in other cases\nalready given (_e.g._, No. 46), the percipient's impression presented\na substantially accurate picture of the scene of the drama, but of a\nscene which preceded its telepathic representation by some hours. It\nseems probable, therefore, that the vision was merely the reflection\nof the thoughts of one of the bystanders. And, indeed, in any case it\nwould be difficult to attribute the impression to the mind of the dying\nman, who could scarcely be supposed to have a mental picture of himself\nin the act of falling overboard. In the present instance it does not\nappear that the percipient was personally acquainted with any of the\nwitnesses of the scene, amongst whom, on this interpretation, the agent\nmust be sought, and in this respect the case presents a parallel to\nMiss A.'s vision.\n\n\nNo. 108.--From MRS. PAQUET.\n\nThe case comes to us through the American Branch of the S.P.R. The\nevidence has been prepared by Mr. A. B. Wood, who received an account\nof the incident from Mrs. Paquet at a personal interview. Mr. Wood\nwrites on April 29th, 1890:--[148]\n\n \"On October 24th, 1889, Edmund Dunn, brother of Mrs. Agnes Paquet,\n was serving as fireman on the tug _Wolf_, a small steamer engaged\n in towing vessels in Chicago Harbour. At about 3 o'clock A.M.,\n the tug fastened to a vessel, inside the piers, to tow her up the\n river. While adjusting the tow-line Mr. Dunn fell or was thrown\n overboard by the tow-line, and drowned.\"\n\n _Mrs. Paquet's Statement._\n\n \"I arose about the usual hour on the morning of the accident,\n probably about six o'clock. I had slept well throughout the night,\n had no dreams or sudden awakenings. I awoke feeling gloomy and\n depressed, which feeling I could not shake off. After breakfast my\n husband went to his work, and, at the proper time, the children\n were gotten ready and sent to school, leaving me alone in the\n house. Soon after this I decided to steep and drink some tea,\n hoping it would relieve me of the gloomy feelings aforementioned. I\n went into the pantry, took down the tea canister, and as I turned\n around my brother Edmund--or his exact image--stood before me\n and only a few feet away. The apparition stood with back towards\n me, or, rather, partially so, and was in the act of falling\n forward--away from me--seemingly impelled by two ropes or a loop\n of rope drawing against his legs. The vision lasted but a moment,\n disappearing over a low railing or bulwark, but was very distinct.\n I dropped the tea, clasped my hands to my face, and exclaimed, 'My\n God! Ed. is drowned.'\n\n \"At about 10.30 A.M. my husband received a telegram from Chicago,\n announcing the drowning of my brother. When he arrived home he said\n to me, 'Ed. is sick in hospital at Chicago; I have just received\n a telegram,' to which I replied, 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go\n overboard.' I then gave him a minute description of what I had\n seen. I stated that my brother, as I saw him, was bareheaded, had\n on a heavy, blue sailor's shirt, no coat, and that he went over\n the rail or bulwark. I noticed that his pants' legs were rolled\n up enough to show the white lining inside. I also described the\n appearance of the boat at the point where my brother went overboard.\n\n \"I am not nervous, and neither before nor since have I had any\n experience in the least degree similar to that above related.\n\n \"My brother was not subject to fainting or vertigo.\n\n \"AGNES PAQUET.\"\n\n\n _Mr. Paquet's Statement._\n\n \"At about 10.30 o'clock A.M., October 24th, 1889, I received\n a telegram from Chicago, announcing the drowning of my\n brother-in-law, Edmund Dunn, at 3 o'clock that morning. I went\n directly home, and, wishing to break the force of the sad news I\n had to convey to my wife, I said to her: 'Ed. is sick in hospital\n at Chicago; I have just received a telegram.' To which she replied:\n 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go overboard.' She then described to\n me the appearance and dress of her brother as described in her\n statement; also the appearance of the boat, etc.\n\n \"I started at once for Chicago, and when I arrived there I found\n the appearance of that part of the vessel described by my wife\n to be exactly as she had described it, though she had never seen\n the vessel; and the crew verified my wife's description of her\n brother's dress, etc., except that they thought that he had his\n hat on at the time of the accident. They said that Mr. Dunn had\n purchased a pair of pants a few days before the accident occurred,\n and as they were a trifle long before, wrinkling at the knees, he\n had worn them rolled up, showing the white lining as seen by my\n wife.\"\n\nVisions of this kind are of rare occurrence with waking percipients.\nThe preoccupations of the daytime are probably in themselves sufficient\nto prevent the emergence of telepathic impressions under ordinary\ncircumstances. But in the present instance it will be observed that\nthe vision occurred in an interval of comparative rest after a period\nof active occupation. The feeling of gloom and depression mentioned\nby Mrs. Paquet may have marked the period of incubation, so to speak,\nof a latent impression of calamity. But a comparison of the case with\nthose which follow suggests that this feeling of depression may have\nbeen not the effect, but the necessary condition of the transmission of\nthe agent's thought, and that a slight degree of fatigue or ill-health\nmay under certain circumstances facilitate the emergence of impressions\nof this kind. It is, at all events, noteworthy that in two of the\nthree cases quoted the percipient was suffering from unusual fatigue\nor depression, and in the third was recovering from a long illness. In\nthe next two cases the percipient's experience may have been actually\nsynchronous with the events perceived.\n\n\nNo. 109.--From MR. F. A. MARKS.\n\nThe accounts, from which extracts are given below, were published in\nthe _Oneida Circular_ (U.S.A.) for January 19th, 1874. The percipient,\nMr. F. A. Marks, writes:--\n\n W. C., _January_ 14_th_, 1874.\n\n \"You wish the simple facts of my dream. They are these:--One\n afternoon in October [1873], being tired, I lay down to rest. I\n soon fell asleep; at least I have no reason for thinking that I did\n not sleep. I was not on the bed more than a few minutes. During\n this time I dreamed of being near a large body of water. I knew\n it to be the Oneida Lake. The wind was blowing violently, and the\n waves ran exceedingly high. While standing near the lake I felt\n under a strong disposition to sleep. My eyes were heavy, they would\n close themselves. It was with an exertion that I kept them open.\n I was like a man under nightmare; struggling to rouse myself, yet\n only partially successful. Darkness was settling over me. Suddenly,\n when the wind was blowing a gale and the waves seemed rolling one\n over the other, a small sail-boat broke upon my sight, driven\n wildly before the storm. For the moment it seemed as if it would\n be lost. It appeared to be at the mercy of the waves, for they\n rose high above its sides and almost concealed it at times. It was\n manned by two persons--one in the after part; the other _trying to\n pull down the sail!_ Their situation was critical. At this moment a\n feeling of horror shot through me as I recognised in the man whose\n full length I saw standing near the mast and struggling with the\n sail my brother Charles! The man in the stern I did not recognise.\n In the time of the greatest peril, something--I can scarcely tell\n what; I dare not call it an apparition--gave me the impression that\n good beings were interested and watchful over the voyagers.\n\n \"The shock I received on seeing my brother did not allow me\n to sleep long. On awaking I was troubled, and thought I would\n immediately write to Charles, entreating him to be careful.\n Afterwards, thinking it merely a dream, I turned my attention from\n writing, but I mentioned to Frank Smith that I had a troubled dream\n about Charles. After this experience, perhaps three or four days, a\n letter was received from Mrs. Mallory giving an account of Charles'\n condition when he returned to the Joppa station.\n\n \"This letter recalled the dream; and the coincidence of time and\n circumstances made a deep impression on me, though I was unable\n then, and am now, to accurately identify the time of my vision with\n the time of actual peril described in Mrs. Mallory's letter. (The\n letter, however, came so soon as to make it certain that the peril\n and the vision were nearly, if not exactly, _simultaneous_.)\"\n\nMr. C. R. Marks explains that on a beautiful day in October he and a\nfriend sailed eighteen miles down the lake in a small open boat. They\nstarted for the return voyage on the day following, at 2.45 P.M., in\nthreatening weather. They had gone but a short distance when a violent\nstorm came on, and they were in a position of considerable peril:--\n\n \"To add to our apprehensions it began raining, and the wind instead\n of slacking was evidently increasing. We had gone about two miles\n when I was startled by a cry from Arthur to 'look out for the\n sail!' as it was shifting to the other side. I lay down to let the\n sail pass over me, and got on to the other side of the boat to\n counteract the effect of the sail. This is told in a few words,\n but the actual event seemed to take a long time. When down in the\n boat I heard and felt the swash of the waves coming in, and for a\n moment I had the impression that Arthur was already in the water\n and that it would soon be my turn. But on looking round I saw he\n was still in his place, and also that we had shipped considerable\n water. The next thing was to take in sail, and that quickly. I let\n go the halyards, but the sail would not come down, as it was held\n by a miserable toggle at the top. In the excitement of the moment\n I jumped upon the seat at the imminent risk of capsizing the boat,\n and pulled down the sail as far as it would go, which left it\n about six feet high. This was still dangerous, as the slack of the\n sail was distended, looking like a huge bag. This was remedied by\n cutting away the rings in the lower part of the sail and winding up\n the lower yard. After this, with considerable baling, we got along\n tolerably well.\"\n\nAppended is an extract from a letter written by Mr. B. Bristol,\nwith whom Mr. F. A. Marks was working at the time of the vision,\ncorroborating the accounts given above:--\n\n \"I was living in Wallingford at that time, raising small fruit. My\n principal helper was a young man named Frederic Marks, a graduate\n of Yale Scientific School. Frederic had a brother named Charles,\n who was living then in Central New York, near Oneida Lake. One\n rainy afternoon Frederic went upstairs to his room and lay down on\n a lounge. An hour or so after he came back and said he had just\n seen his brother Charles in vision, he thought, as he was not\n conscious of having been asleep. Charles was in a small sail-boat,\n and a companion with him, who sat in the stern steering. There\n seemed to be a wild storm prevailing, for the sea ran high. Charles\n stood in the bow grasping the mast with one arm, with the other\n he had hold of the boom, which appeared to have broken loose. His\n dangerous position so frightened Frederic that he awoke, or the\n vision departed.\"\n\nIn the next case the coincidence was not of itself a striking one, nor,\nas the account was not sent to the American S.P.R. until six years\nafter the event, is the evidence as good as in the last narrative.\nBut as an incident in itself trivial has remained in the memories of\nthe other persons concerned, as well as in that of the percipient, it\nmay be presumed to have made some impression at the time. The case is\nquoted from the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 464-467).\n\n\nNo. 110.--From MRS. L. Z.\n\n \"_June_ 6_th_, 1887.\n\n \"About the end of March 1881, after recovering from severe illness,\n while I was yet confined to my bed, I had the following experience.\n I was staying at the time at 172 Benefit Street, Providence, R.I.\n\n \"I had been asleep and suddenly became, as it were, half awake,\n being conscious of some of the objects in the room. I then heard\n a voice as if from the room adjoining, and made an effort to see\n the speaker, but I found myself unable to move. Then appeared,\n as though in a mist, an ordinary sofa, and behind it the vague\n outline of a woman's figure. I did not recognise the figure, but\n I recognised the voice which I heard; it was the voice of my\n hostess, Mrs. B., who was at that time not in the house. She was\n saying, 'I am ill and all worn out. Mrs. Z. has been so nervous,\n and in such a peculiar mental state, that it has quite affected my\n health' (or words to that effect), 'but I wouldn't for the world\n have her know it.' I then made a stronger effort to distinguish\n the figure, and woke completely to find myself in my room with my\n nurse. I inquired of the nurse who was in the other room, which was\n used as a sleeping-room by my child and her nurse. She said that\n no one was there; but I was so convinced that the voice had come\n from there that I insisted upon her going and looking. She went,\n but found no one there, and the door into the hall was latched. I\n then looked at the clock, which was opposite my bed. It was about 5\n P.M. In the evening, about 8 P.M., Mrs. B. came up to see me, and\n I asked her where she had been that afternoon at 5 o'clock. She\n said that she had been at Mrs. G.'s (about two miles off). I said,\n 'You were talking about me.' She said, 'Yes, I was,' looking very\n much surprised. I repeated to her what I had seemed to hear her\n say, word for word. She was much astonished, and was very curious\n as to what else I had heard or seen. I told her that it was all\n very vague, except the appearance of the sofa, which I described\n in detail as being covered with a peculiar striped linen cloth,\n green stripes about two inches wide, alternating with pale-drab\n stripes, somewhat wider, which appeared to be the natural colour of\n the unbleached linen. She said that she had spoken the words which\n I had heard, and that she was at the time reclining on a sofa, but\n she said that the sofa was covered with green velvet.\n\n \"Next day Mrs. G. paid me a visit, and after hearing my story she\n exclaimed, 'You're right. The sofa had at the time the covering\n which you describe; it had just been put on. There is green velvet\n under the covering. I suppose Mrs. B. didn't notice the cover.'\"\n\nMrs. B. writes:--\n\n \"In the year 1881, while living in Providence, on Benefit Street,\n No. 272, Mrs. Z. was with me, and during the winter of 1880 and\n the spring of 1881 she was in a peculiar mental state, and on\n two occasions read my thoughts and heard my voice. I remember\n distinctly on one occasion, when I returned from a visit to a\n friend, Mrs. Z. repeated the conversation that had passed between\n my friend and myself, and spoke of my lying on a lounge that had\n a striped covering. I said, 'No, it was a green plush,' but found\n afterwards she was right, as the summer covering had been put on.\n\n \"ELIZABETH L. B.\n\n \"BROOKLYN, N.Y., _June_ 1887.\"\n\nMrs. G. writes from Providence, July 12th, 1887:--\n\n \"When I received your note I could not at all recall the\n circumstances of the vision you referred to, but afterwards Mrs.\n B. refreshed my memory upon the subject, and I distinctly recalled\n it. It was as Mrs. Z. related it to you. At the time it occurred, I\n remember, I thought it quite marvellous.\n\n \"Sickness had prevented my writing you these few lines before.\n\n \"C. B. Y. G.\"\n\nEven if the conversation was correctly reported, it is probably not\nbeyond the range of conjecture by a morbidly sensitive invalid;\nbut the details given of the appearance of the sofa cover seem to\nindicate a telepathic faculty, like Dr. Phinuit's, of drawing on the\nagent's unconscious perceptions. Mrs. L. Z. gives also an account of\na voluntarily induced clairvoyant dream, in connection with the same\nfriend, which occurred about this time, and this account also Mrs. B.\nis able to corroborate. The whole case is interesting as serving to\nindicate that some conditions of disease may be favourable to this\nform of telepathy, and as being the only case which I am able to quote\nof spontaneous clairvoyance in which the impressions transferred were\nof quite trivial incidents. Mrs. Z. appears to have been in a state\nbetween sleeping and waking.\n\nThe next case occurred in a dream at night. The dream, it will be\nnoted, caused the percipient to awake.\n\n\nNo. 111.--From MRS. FREESE.\n\n \"GRANITE LODGE, CHISELHURST,\n _March_ 1884.\n\n \"In September 1881 I had another curious dream, so vivid that I\n seemed to _see_ it.\n\n \"My two boys of eighteen and sixteen were staying in the Black\n Forest, under the care of a Dr. Fresenius. I must say here that I\n always supposed the boys would go everywhere together, and I never\n should have supposed that in that lonely country, so new to them,\n they would be out after dark. My husband and I were staying at St.\n Leonards, and one Saturday night I woke at about 12 o'clock (rather\n before, as I heard it strike) having just seen vividly a dark night\n on a mountain, and my eldest boy lying on his back at the bottom of\n some steep place, his eyes wide open, and saying, 'Good-bye, mother\n and father, I shall never see you again.' I woke with a feeling of\n anxiety, and the next morning when I told it to my husband, though\n we both agreed it was absurd to be anxious, yet he would write and\n tell the boys we hoped they would never go out alone after dark. To\n my surprise my eldest boy, to whom I wrote the dream, wrote back\n expressing his great astonishment, for on that Saturday night he\n was coming home over the mountains, past 11 o'clock; it was pitch\n dark, and he slipped and fell down some 12 feet or so, and landed\n on his back, looking up to the sky. However, he was not much hurt,\n and soon picked himself up and got home all right. He did not say\n what thoughts passed through his mind as he fell.\"\n\nIn answer to inquiries, Mrs. Freese adds:--\n\n \"_Before_ my son wrote about his fall in the Black Forest, I\n related my dream to my husband, and as he seemed a little moved\n by it, I wrote an account of it to my boy, saying his father did\n not wish them to be out after dark alone. I had not told my boy\n _when_ it was, deeming that immaterial, but when in his letter,\n received days after, he said, 'Was it Saturday night, because then\n so-and-so?' I remembered what I should not otherwise have noted,\n that it was Saturday night; for on the Sunday morning my husband,\n being much worried about some business matter, elected to spend the\n morning with me in the fields instead of going to church, and as\n much to divert his mind as anything I related to him my dream of\n the night before.\"\n\nMrs. Freese sent us the letter from her son, which contained the\nfollowing passage:--\n\n \"With regard to your dream: did you dream it on September 3rd? if\n so it was on that night, coming home rather late, that I fell down\n a precipice of 8 feet, or perhaps more, in the dark, and might have\n broken my neck, but didn't. However, I don't think you will find\n me walking about after dark more than I can help, as the roads are\n very dark, and the fogs in the village awful.\n\n \"FRED. E. FREESE.\"\n\n [September 3rd, 1881, was a Saturday.]\n\nMr. Freese wrote on March 7th, 1884, to confirm his wife's account of\nthe dream.\n\nAn account by Dr. Gibotteau, given in the _Annales des Sciences\nPsychiques_, Nov.-Dec. 1892, deserves consideration in this connection.\nIt is the record of a series of unusually successful experiments in the\ntransfer of visual images. But the success obtained was apparently due\nto a condition of spontaneous clairvoyant perceptivity on the part of\nthe subject. The percipient, who was throughout in a state not clearly\ndistinguishable from that of normal wakefulness, was a head-nurse\nat the hospital to which Dr. Gibotteau was attached. The occurrence\ntook place in 1888. Madame R. has now remarried and Dr. Gibotteau has\nlost sight of her, so that her testimony cannot be obtained, and\nunfortunately Dr. Gibotteau appears not to have committed the incident\nto writing until 1892. The account therefore represents merely the\ngeneral impression left after the lapse of some years upon the memory\nof a trained observer by a very unusual and striking experience.\nBriefly, Dr. Gibotteau reports that he succeeded in inducing in\nMadame R., by the mere silent will, an immense number of striking\nhallucinatory, or rather semi-hallucinatory mental pictures. The ideas\nthus transferred included transformations and imaginary movements of\nobjects actually present in the room; the appearance of human figures\nand animals, a serpent, a rabbit, a dog, horses, a bear rampant; and\nthe disappearance of Dr. Gibotteau himself, leaving behind him an empty\narm-chair. The s\u00e9ance lasted for nearly three hours, with very few\nfailures of any kind, and left the narrator much exhausted.[149]\n\nThe experience, as described, it will be seen, was of an almost\nunprecedented kind. It is by no means clear that under a natural\nclassification either this or others of the somewhat heterogeneous\nphenomena described in the present and preceding chapters would be\ngrouped under the same genus, or that any of them are rightly called\ntelepathic. They are provisionally ascribed to telepathy, in the sense\nalready explained (p. 326, Chapter XIV.), because if we accept the\nfacts at all, that appears to be the cheapest solution. The writer is\nnot committed to telepathy as the true explanation; he has adopted\nit provisionally, as an alternative to some hypothetical faculty of\ndirect intuition beyond the range of sense. If to any reader who\naccepts the writer's estimate of the alleged facts as beyond chance\nor misrepresentation, the hypothesis of telepathy appears in such\ncases to be strained, it may be replied that when the choice of\nexplanation seems to lie between telepathy and some faculty even more\ndubious and more remote from ordinary analogies, it is right that\nthe hypothesis of telepathy should be strained--if necessary, to the\nbreaking-point--before we invoke a stage-deity to cut the knot.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 145: Several instances of Mr. Keulemans' telepathic\nexperiences are given in _Phantasms of the Living_ (cases 21, 38, 56,\n184).]\n\n[Footnote 146: It should perhaps be said that there is nothing in the\nexperience of the many persons who have so far tried crystal gazing,\nat the instance of the S.P.R., to indicate risk of injury to health.\nIt is no doubt not advisable for an invalid, or for any one suffering\nfrom headache, or undue fatigue, to try the experiment. Indeed, the\nexperience of Mrs. Verrall and others is that success under such\nconditions is unattainable. But with ordinary care to avoid straining\nthe eyes, no evil effect, it is thought, need be apprehended; and\nthere is probably no form of experiment which at the cost of so\nlittle trouble may be expected to yield results of so great interest\nand value. There is of course no magic in the crystal; a glass\npaper-weight, a mirror, or a glass of water will serve the purpose\nequally well. Records of experiments will be welcomed by Mr. F. W. H.\nMyers, from whose suggestive article many of the illustrations quoted\nin the text are taken. (See _Proc._, vol. viii., p. 436, etc.)]\n\n[Footnote 147: Of course in this case there is an alternative\nexplanation--viz., that Miss X. received the impression at the time\nthe words were spoken, and that the shell merely developed it for her\nconscious self.]\n\n[Footnote 148: _S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 33, 34.]\n\n[Footnote 149: A translation of Dr. Gibotteau's account is given by Mr.\nMyers, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 468, 469.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS.\n\n\nConsideration more or less adequate has now been given to the various\nphenomena in which there is proof apparent of the action of telepathy.\nThe experimental evidence has shown that a simple sensation or idea may\nbe transferred from one mind to another, and that this transference\nmay take place alike in the normal state and in the hypnotic trance.\nIt has been shown also that the transferred idea may be reproduced in\nthe percipient's organism under various disguises; at one time, for\ninstance, it may cause vague distress or terror, or a blind impulse\nto action; under other circumstances it may inspire definite and\ncomplicated movements, as those involved in writing. Again, it may\ninduce sleep or even more deep-seated organic effects, such as hysteria\nor local an\u00e6sthesia. Once more, it may be embellished with imagery\npresumably furnished by the percipient's own mind, and may appear as\na dream or hallucination representing the distant agent. And these\nvarious results may be obtained either by deliberate experiment; as the\nresult of some crisis affecting another mind; or, lastly, as following\non some peculiar state of receptivity established, under conditions not\nyet clearly ascertained, in the percipient's mind.\n\nBut it would not be reasonable to infer that the few hundreds or\nthousands of examples collected during the last twelve years by a\nfew groups of investigators exhaust the possibilities or indicate\nthe limits of telepathic action. By those, at least, who accept\nthe demonstration of telepathy as a real agency it will hardly be\nanticipated that its action should be confined to the comparatively\nfew cases which present a coincidence sufficiently striking to be\nquoted as ostensive instances. That the distribution, indeed, of\ntelepathic sensitiveness at the present time should be sporadic--as\nthe distribution of a musical ear or the power of visualisation is\nsporadic--may appear not improbable. But we should be prepared to\nfind instances of its presumptive operation which fall below the\nlevel of demonstration, and might with almost equal plausibility be\nreferred to some other cause. And such instances we do certainly\nfind, in simultaneous dreams and in vague presentiments, and in\ninnumerable coincidences of thought and expression in ordinary life.\nAnd the suggestion that the same power may serve as an auxiliary to\nmore completely systematised modes of expression, though incapable of\nproof, may yet be thought worthy of consideration. It is conceivable,\nfor instance, that it may aid the intercourse of a mother with her\ninfant child, that the influence of the orator may be due not only\nto the spoken word, and that even in our daily conversation thoughts\nmay pass by this means which find no outward expression. The personal\ninfluence of the operator in hypnotism may perhaps be regarded as a\nproof presumptive of telepathy. When all the phenomena of \"mesmerism\"\nwere attributed, by the few who believed in them, to the passage of\na fluid from the mesmerist to his patient, it was easy to credit the\nsuccessful operator with as large an endowment of available fluid as\nthe facts might seem to require. But from those who assert that the\nresults are not merely explicable, but are in practice to be explained,\nas due to suggestion alone, no entirely satisfactory explanation has\never been forthcoming of the observed differences between one operator\nand another. It is difficult to believe that Li\u00e9beault, Bernheim,\nSchrenck-Notzing, Van Eeden, Lloyd Tuckey, Bramwell, etc., have\nsucceeded where so many others have failed, merely through the exercise\nof greater patience, or the possession of an established reputation,\nwhich after all is based on the successes which it is now invoked\nto explain.[150] And the fact that a large proportion of well-known\nhypnotists have acted as agents in successful telepathic experiments\nof an unusual kind is a further argument in the same direction. There\nare, moreover, some more dubious beliefs, for the most part discredited\nby educated persons, yet persisting with a singular vitality, which\nreceive in telepathy a simple and perhaps sufficient explanation. It\nhas already been shown that some of the marvels of Dr. Dee and the\nSpecularii have been paralleled by recent visions in \"the crystal,\"\nrevealing events then passing at a distance unknown to the seer; and\nthat the nucleus of fact in some legends of ghosts and haunted houses\nis probably to be sought in a telepathic hallucination. And many of the\nalleged wonders of witchcraft and of ancient magic in general, when\ndisentangled from the accretions formed round them by popular myth\nand superstition, present a marked resemblance to some of the facts\nrecorded in this book. It is obvious, for instance, that the same power\nwhich inhibited Mr. Beard's utterance (p. 83) could have prevented\nthe witch's victim from repeating the Lord's Prayer. And Mr. Godfrey\n(p. 228), in the sixteenth century, might have found that to appear\nin two places at once would be perilously strong evidence of unlawful\npowers.[151]\n\nBut there are two special kinds of marvels, whose occurrence has been\nwidely vouched for within quite recent times by men of proved ability\nand trained in the experimental methods of the modern laboratory,\nwhich deserve to be considered in this connection--the influence of\nmetals and magnets on the human organism, and the physical phenomena of\nSpiritualism. Baron von Reichenbach in the last generation published\nthe results of numerous observations on various sensitives, who alleged\nthat they could see flame-like emanations from crystals, from the poles\nof a magnet, from the bodies of the sick, and from newly-made graves,\nand that they experienced various sensations from contact with magnets\nand metals. On the evidence of Reichenbach's prolonged and laborious\nresearches the existence of this supposed magnetic sense obtained a\ncertain degree of credence. Accordingly the S.P.R., shortly after its\nfoundation in 1882, conducted a series of control experiments on a\nnumber of persons with a powerful electro-magnet, which was alternately\nmagnetised and demagnetised by a commutator in an adjoining room. Of\nforty-five persons tested three professed to see luminous appearances\non the poles of the magnet; and on two or three occasions they were\nable to indicate with surprising accuracy throughout a whole evening\nthe exact moment at which the current was switched on or off--the\nlight, as they alleged, appearing or disappearing simultaneously. But\nthese isolated successes were not repeated, and the very conditions\nof the experiment implied that it was known to some of those present\nwhether or not the magnet was charged. Now it is obvious that unless\nspecial precautions are taken to guard against the telepathic[152]\ncommunication of this knowledge all experiments of the kind must be\ninconclusive; and other investigators have failed to detect any trace\nof the so-called magnetic sense.[153]\n\nWithin the last few years this supposed sensitiveness has appeared\nin another form. M. Babinski of the Salpetri\u00e8re claims to have shown\nthat certain ailments--such, for example, as hemiplegia and hysterical\nmutism--can be transferred by the influence of a magnet from one side\nof the body to another, or from one patient to another. MM. Binet and\nF\u00e9r\u00e9[154] find that unilateral hallucinations can be shifted by the\nsame influence from one side of the body to the other, and that in\ngeneral memories and sensations--real or imaginary--can be modified\nand destroyed by the magnet. And MM. Bourru, Burot, Luys, and others\nhave published whole treatises dealing with the alleged influence\nof various drugs and metals on certain patients. A few drops of\nlaurel-water enclosed in a flask and brought near to the patient, will,\naccording to these writers, induce ecstasy; ipecacuanha will cause\nvomiting; alcohol intoxication, and so on; each drug, though securely\nstoppered and sealed, giving rise to the appropriate physical symptoms\nin the patient. However, MM. Bernheim,[155] Delboeuf,[156] and Jules\nVoisin[157] showed some time since, and Mr. Ernest Hart[158] has lately\nrepeated the demonstration, that the same results can be made to\nfollow if the patient is led to believe that an inert piece of wood is\na magnet, or that an empty flask contains a powerful drug. It may be\nfairly assumed therefore that when special precautions are not shown to\nhave been taken--and there is little evidence that such precautions\nwere as a rule taken--suggestion by word or look would be sufficient\nto account for the phenomena observed. But it is obvious that negative\nexperiments of this kind are not in themselves conclusive; and it is\ndifficult to believe that all the results recorded by investigators\nof such experience as Babinski, F\u00e9r\u00e9, and others could have been due\nsimply to carelessness on their part, or hypnotic cunning on the part\nof the subject. Indeed, in commenting on the counter experiments\nmade by M. Jules Voisin, MM. Bourru and Burot expressly state that\nif the results obtained by them are to be attributed to suggestion,\nas he proposes, it is \"_une suggestion sans parole, sans geste,\nsans pens\u00e9e m\u00eame_.\"[159] But a suggestion without word, gesture, or\nconscious thought is an accurate description of one form of telepathic\nsuggestion; and if such suggestion has indeed been at work we have an\nexplanation of the otherwise inexplicable reliance placed by these\nFrench investigators upon experiments so much controverted, and their\nfaith in an interpretation so little supported by scientific analogy.\n\nThat in general the so-called physical phenomena of Spiritualism are\ndue to self-deception and exaggeration on the one hand, and to fraud on\nthe other, is a proposition which to most readers, it is likely, will\nseem to need little demonstration. And there are of course many cases,\nsuch as the recent experiments with Eusapia Palladino[160] at Milan,\nwhere, though competent observers--Richet, Schiaparelli, Lombroso,\nBrofferio--have seen things beyond their power to explain, yet the\nline between what was possible to fraudulent ingenuity and what was\nnot possible cannot be drawn with sufficient sharpness to warrant the\ninvocation of any new agency. But there are other records which cannot\nbe so summarily dismissed. Thus Mr. Crookes, F.R.S.,[161] has described\nthe movements of a balance, specially constructed for the purpose of\nthe experiments, in the presence of himself and other observers, under\nconditions which seemed to render it impossible for the effects to\nhave been produced by the muscular force of any of those present. Lord\nLindsay has testified to having seen Home's stature elongated to the\nextent of 11 inches, and heavy tables and other articles of furniture\nrise in the air without visible support, and to having himself, at\nHome's instance, handled, and seen others handle, red-hot coals with\nimpunity. Other witnesses of repute have testified to the appearance\nof strange luminous bodies, the raining down of liquid scent, the\nproduction of inexplicable musical sounds and other phenomena equally\nmarvellous.[162]\n\nNow it is difficult to believe that Mr. Crookes and those with\nhim could in their normal senses have imagined movements of a\nself-registering balance which never really took place, or have failed\nto detect actual movements on Home's part; or that Home could have\nseemed to Lord Lindsay and others to add some fraction of a cubit to\nhis stature or to float unsupported in the air, when he was really\nonly stretching cramped muscles, or supporting himself on a captive\nballoon, or by unseen wires; or that when he was seen to carry hot\ncoals about the room, and to place them, still glowing, upon the bare\nhead of Mr. S. C. Hall, he relied upon the observers overlooking\nsuch inconspicuous objects as a pair of tongs and an asbestos\nskull-cap--alternatives which must have been at least as obvious\nat the time to the observers who, by recording these things, have\nimperilled their reputation for scientific acumen, and even for common\nsense, as now to their irresponsible critics. But it is certainly not\nless difficult to believe, on such grounds as these, in the discovery\nof a new physical force--or rather new forces; for the energy which\ncould move a balance cannot properly be assumed to be identical with\nthe energy which could increase Home's stature, or restrain the action\nof fire; or, as elsewhere recorded, bring delicate flowers uninjured\nthrough closed doors. But fortunately we are not compelled to choose\nbetween the alternatives of such almost incredible stupidity and a\nmultiplicity of new modes of energy. It has been plausibly suggested\nthat the observers in such cases are the subjects of a collective\nhallucination. It is true that we have no precise analogy to support\nsuch a hypothesis. The hallucinations of hypnotism can be imposed upon\nseveral subjects simultaneously by dint of repeated verbal suggestions.\nBut here there were none of the recognised preliminaries to the\nhypnotic trance: in many of the recorded cases the observers did not\nknow what to expect, and it is clear that verbal suggestion was not\nessential to the results; while there is no trace of that break in the\ncontinuity of consciousness which elsewhere marks the passage from the\nhypnotic to the normal state. Moreover, in some of the best-attested\ncases it was the presumed operator, and not the witnesses, who was\nentranced. Assuredly if the phenomena described were due to hypnotic\nhallucination, it was hallucination without any of the characteristic\nfeatures of hypnotism. But if we assume--as in the absence of any\nevidence to the contrary we are entitled, if not bound, to assume--that\nthe observers were in their normal state, we can find no nearer\nparallel to this supposed hallucination than the collective telepathic\nhallucinations of which examples have been given in Chapter XII.[163]\n\nIt is true that the parallel is by no means exact. The hypothesis\nrequires us to suppose not merely that investigators of spiritualistic\nphenomena are liable to see, by hallucination, things which are not\nthere, but also that they are occasionally withheld, by hallucination,\nfrom seeing actual movements and objects. For Mr. Crookes' automatic\nbalance recorded a real movement; flowers and other objects have\nactually been brought into locked rooms; furniture has been\ndemonstrably displaced, or has even moved before the eyes of the\ninvestigators, and been found at the conclusion of the experiment in\nits new position; an actual blister was raised on Lord Lindsay's skin\nby the touch of a live coal which Home held in a hand apparently bare.\nNow if these results were due to the action of known forces, muscular\nand other, it seems clear that some of the medium's movements and\nappliances escaped observation. We have, however, no record, so far as\nI know, of collective negative hallucination telepathically caused. But\nit may be pointed out that whilst it is only in unusual circumstances\nthat a hallucination of the kind could attract sufficient attention to\nbe recorded, negative hallucinations can be imposed without difficulty\non a hypnotic subject. So that their telepathic origination in the\ncircumstances suggested presents no greater _\u00e0 priori_ difficulty than\nthat of positive hallucinations. There are, however, other differences\nbetween the collective hallucinations recorded in Chapter XII. and\nthose which the hypothesis requires. For the former were for the most\npart vague and transitory, and were rarely shared by more than two\npersons; whilst the hypothetical hallucinations of the spiritualistic\ns\u00e9ance are persistent, and may affect several persons simultaneously\nand to an equal extent. It may be suggested, however, that the\ndifferent conditions in the latter case--the common expectancy, the\nattunement of the minds of all present to a common mood, the absence of\nexternal solicitation to the senses--may be sufficient to account for\nthe differing characteristics of the phenomena observed.\n\nIt may be objected that the problem does not require the intervention\nof such a _Deus ex machina_ as collective hallucination; that fraud\nand malobservation are adequate to account for all the facts reported.\nI confess that I am unable so lightly to set aside the deliberate\ntestimony of men of proved scientific distinction, whose word is still\nregarded as authoritative in observations not less delicate, and for\nresults to the layman hardly less dubious. But I do not suggest that\nthe phenomena, however interpreted, are likely to add anything to the\nproof of telepathy. I would merely urge that, as until the possibility\nof thought-transference in its various forms has been patiently and\nrigorously excluded, odylic flames and magnetic influences must remain\nunproven, so, in dealing with that residuum of evidence for the\nphysical phenomena called spiritualistic which appears inexplicable by\nfraud and malobservation, the possibility of collective hallucination\ntelepathically caused should be kept in view.[164]\n\nIt should be observed that the treatment of telepathy by those\nresponsible for the word involves as little of theory as Newton's\nconception of gravitation. What Newton did was to find the simplest\ngeneral expression for the observed facts by saying that the heavenly\nbodies acted upon each other with a certain measurable force. He\ndid not attempt to explain the mode of this action. And whilst\nsucceeding astronomers have for the most part been content to follow\nNewton's example, the science has, nevertheless, advanced in a\nsteady and continuous progression. So the conception of telepathy\nsimply colligates the observed facts of spontaneous and experimental\nthought-transference, as instances of the action of one mind upon\nanother. The nature of the action the theory does not discuss; it\nmerely defines it negatively, as being outside the normal sensory\nchannels. In accordance with this view, Mr. Gurney, and the English\ninvestigators generally, have consistently employed psychical terms in\ntheir discussion of the subject: they have spoken of the transmission\nof ideas, not neuroses, and of the affection of mind by mind, rather\nthan of brain by brain.[165] This treatment involves no prejudgment\nof the question. Whatever may be the nature of the cause, we know the\neffects at present only in their psychical aspect, and in default of\na physical theory, as psychical it seemed convenient to discuss them.\nThis mode of speech is of course as legitimate as the popular usage\nwhich permits us, when the sun's rays strike upon our retina, to ignore\nthe intervening physical processes, and to express only the psychical\nresult, \"I see the sun.\" But Mr. Gurney and his colleagues were further\ninfluenced in adopting and maintaining this usage by a conviction\nthat the advancement of the subject has not hitherto been dependent\nupon the discovery of physical correlates for the observed psychical\naction, and that the energy which would be diverted to the search for\nexplanations, could be more fruitfully employed on the still imperfect\ndemonstration that there is something to be explained.\n\nBut it is obvious that this attitude of reserve cannot be maintained\nindefinitely. Since Mr. Gurney wrote the sum-total of observations\nand experiments has steadily increased, and there is hardly any\nlonger room for doubt that we have something here which no physical\nprocesses at present known can adequately account for. It is not\npossible to observe facts without speculating on the underlying law:\nit is the law indicated by the facts, more than the facts themselves,\nwhich is of permanent interest to the human mind. Nor indeed can any\nfruitful observation be long maintained, which is not accompanied,\nguided, and stimulated by theoretical speculation. Professor Lodge has\ncalled upon us, in this matter, to \"press the doctrine of ultimate\nintelligibility;\"[166] and in so saying he has at once given articulate\nexpression to an impulse from whose blind urgency no student of nature\ncan escape, and has formulated what is after all the _differentia_ of\nthe scientific mind. The average man accepts things as they are; the\nman of science presses the doctrine of ultimate intelligibility.\n\nBut however legitimate at the present stage of the inquiry theoretical\nspeculation might seem, such speculation has for the most part been\nconspicuously wanting in the treatment of the subject by those best\nqualified to deal with it. At any rate the attitude of most continental\ninvestigators, like that of their English colleagues, has been a\npurely positive one. They have contented themselves with describing\nin psychical terms the psychical phenomena which they have observed.\nThere are, indeed, some competent inquirers at the present time who\nincline to attribute thought-transference to the direct action of\nmind upon mind, or to some process yet more transcendent, just as in\nthe last generation there were some who thought they were able to\ndiscern, in such instances as came under their notice, proof of the\nagency of disembodied spirits. And Von Hartmann, boldly accepting the\nfacts wholesale, ascribes them to a communication between finite minds\neffected through the inter-mediation of the Absolute.[167] But until\nwe have exhausted the resources of the world which we know, we should\nperhaps conclude, with Mistress Quickly, that there is no need to\ntrouble ourselves with any such thoughts yet.\n\nAny attempt at a physical explanation is, of course, beset with\nmany difficulties. To begin with, there is no sense-organ for\nour presumed new mode of sensation; nor at the present stage of\nphysiological knowledge is there likelihood that we can annex any\nas yet unappropriated organ to register telepathic stimuli, as the\nsemicircular canals are supposed to register the movements of the body\nin space. In lacking an elaborate machinery specially adapted for\nreceiving its messages and concentrating them on the peripheral end\nof the nerves, telepathy would thus seem to be on a par with radiant\nenergy affecting the general surface of the body. But the sensations of\nheat and cold are without quality or difference, other than difference\nof degree; whereas telepathic messages, as we have seen, purport often\nto be as detailed and precise as those conveyed by the same radiant\nenergy falling on the organs of vision.\n\nAs regards the mode of transmission, we find first the theory of a\nfluid, which owes its origin to Mesmer, and was in vogue at a time when\nfluids were still fashionable in scientific circles. Dr. Bar\u00e9ty[168]\nhas recently revived this theory in a new form. He alleges that\nthere is a nerve-energy (_force neurique rayonnante_) which radiates\nfrom the eyes, the fingers, and the breath of the operator, and is\ncapable of producing various effects upon hypnotised subjects. He\nfinds that a knitting-needle acts as a conductor for this force, and\nwater as a non-conductor; that the nerve-rays can be focussed by a\nmagnifying-glass, refracted by a prism, and reflected from a mirror\nor other plane surface at an angle equal to the angle of incidence.\nDr. Bar\u00e9ty has omitted to state whether in the latter case the rays\nare polarised, nor has he shown whether the force varies inversely to\nthe square of the distance. But the consideration of these remarkable\nresults need hardly detain us long, since they can all readily be\nexplained by suggestion, verbal or telepathic.\n\nIf we leave fluids and radiant nerve-energy on one side, we\nfind practically only one mode suggested for the telepathic\ntransference--viz., that the physical changes which are the\naccompaniments of thought or sensation in the agent are transmitted\nfrom the brain as undulations in the intervening medium, and thus\nexcite corresponding changes in some other brain, without any\nother portion of the organism being necessarily implicated in the\ntransmission. This hypothesis has found its most philosophical champion\nin Dr. Ochorowicz, who has devoted several chapters of his book, _De\nla Suggestion mentale_, to the discussion of the various theories on\nthe subject. He begins by recalling the reciprocal convertibility of\nall physical forces with which we are acquainted, and especially draws\nattention to what he calls the law of reversibility, a law which he\nillustrates by a description of the photophone. The photophone is an\ninstrument in which a mirror is made to vibrate to the human voice.\nThe mirror reflects a ray of light, which, vibrating in its turn,\nfalls upon a plate of selenium, modifying its electric conductivity.\nThe intermittent current so produced is transmitted through a\ntelephone, and the original articulate sound is reproduced. Now in\nhypnotised subjects--and M. Ochorowicz does not in this connection\ntreat of thought-transference between persons in the normal state--the\nequilibrium of the nervous system, he sees reason to believe, is\nprofoundly affected. The nerve-energy liberated in this state, he\npoints out, \"cannot pass beyond\" the subject's brain \"without being\ntransformed. Nevertheless, like any other force, it cannot remain\nisolated; like any other force it escapes, but in disguise. Orthodox\nscience allows it only one way out, the motor nerves. These are the\nholes in the dark lantern through which the rays of light escape....\nThought remains in the brain, just as the chemical energy of the\ngalvanic battery remains in the cells, but each is represented outside\nby its correlative energy, which in the case of the battery is called\nthe electric current, but for which in the other we have as yet no\nname. In any case there is some correlative energy--for the currents\nof the motor nerves do not and cannot constitute the only dynamic\nequivalent of cerebral energy--to represent all the complex movements\nof the cerebral mechanism.\"[169]\n\nConsidered purely in its physiological aspect, such a theory appears\nto present no special difficulty; or rather, to put the matter more\nexactly, our ignorance of the ultimate nature of nerve-processes is\nso nearly complete as to permit us to theorise _in vacuo_, with\nlittle risk of encountering any insuperable obstacle. It is true that\nProfessor G. Stanley Hall,[170] in commenting on such physical theories\nof telepathy, maintains that they contravene well-established physical\nlaws:--\"The law of 'isolated conductivity,' formulated fully by\nJohannes M\u00fcller, which Helmholtz compares in importance to the law of\ngravity, first brought order into the field of neurology by insisting\nthat impressions never jump from one fibre to another.... Is it likely\nthat a neural state should jump from one brain to another, through a\ngreat interval, when intense stimuli on one nerve cannot affect another\nin the closest contact with it?\" But it is clear that the \"law\" in\nquestion is merely a generalisation from observed facts, and from\nfacts, moreover, not of the same order as those now under discussion.\nFor the question here is not of the affection of another nerve-fibre\nin the same organism, but of a nerve-centre in another organism. And\nwhilst it must have seemed _\u00e0 priori_ probable that between nerves\nbelonging to the same system induction would not take place, because\nthe alternative could hardly fail to be injurious to the organism,\nand that the susceptibility to such induction, if originally present,\nwould have been eliminated in the course of evolution, it is at least\ntheoretically conceivable that between different organisms induction\nmight have persisted as innocuous, or even have been developed as\npositively beneficial.\n\nIn current theories it is assumed that there are changes in\nbrain-substance correlated with psychical events, and that these\nchanges, in their ultimate analysis, are of the nature of vibrations.\nThat these vibrations should be capable of in some way propagating\nthemselves through the surrounding medium would seem therefore a\nnatural corollary. The real objections to such physical theories appear\nto be of a more general kind--viz., the improbability that any such\ncapacity of nervous induction should have remained unobserved until\nnow; and the difficulty of supposing vibrations so minute to be capable\nof producing effects at so great a distance, and to have a selective\ncapacity so finely adjusted that out of all the thousands of persons\nwithin the radius, say, of such a brain-wave as that set a-going by\nMr. Cleave (p. 234), only one set of brain-molecules should be stirred\nto sympathetic vibration. The first difficulty in its psychical aspect\nhas already been touched upon at the commencement of this chapter, and\nneed not here be further considered. The second is more serious. It\nis difficult to find an exact parallel for the transmission across a\nconsiderable intervening space of energy at once so minute in quantity\nand so highly specialised. Mr. W. H. Preece has indeed shown that\na current can be induced in a closed circuit at a distance of some\nthree miles or more, and Professor Lodge has reminded us (_loc. cit._)\nthat \"all magnets are sympathetically connected, so that, if suitably\nsuspended, a vibration from one disturbs others, even though they be\ndistant ninety-two million miles.\" But the forces engaged are in the\none case on a commercial, in the other on a cosmic scale. Yet the\ndifficulty is not, perhaps, insuperable. The amount of energy which\nhas been proved capable, at the distance of half a mile, of inducing\nsleep in a French peasant woman may be readily conceived as not more\nattenuated than those \"sweet influences\" which are yet potent enough to\nsummon up before us the vision of the Pleiades or the glowing nebula of\nOrion. Nor need the difficulty of selection trouble us much; for, after\nall, one of the chief characteristics of organic life in general is the\npower--a power ever more differentiated in the higher organisms--of\nreacting only to selected stimuli. In short, it is too soon to say that\nany physical communication between living beings of the kind suggested\nis inconceivable. We shall be justified in affirming or denying its\npossibility on the day when we have guessed the secret of our own\nexistence, and are able to explain how some fraction of a millegramme\nof albumen can contain not merely the promise of life, but the germ\nof a particular and individual organism, which shall reveal its own\npedigree and contain in itself an epitome of life on our planet.\n\nUntil, therefore, we know more of the nature of the cerebral changes\nwhich are presumed to be the physical concomitants of thought,\nwe are at most entitled to suggest that some kind of vibrations,\npropagated somehow through a conjectural medium from an unspecified\nnerve-centre, may possibly explain the transference of thought. Our\nmain justification at the present time for discussing theories which\naim at some solution is that they may indicate the lines on which\nexperiment and observation may be usefully directed. Thus, it is not\nknown how far the results depend on the state of health of the parties\nto the experiments, on their occupations and state of consciousness at\nthe time; whether blood-relationship or familiar intimacy between agent\nand percipient is conducive to success; or whether the transmission\nis in any way affected by the introduction of more than one agent.\nAnd though some progress has been made in tracing the development\nof the transmitted idea after it has reached the percipient's mind,\nobservations on the relation of the agent's impression to that of\nthe percipient are at present few and isolated. The difficulties of\nsystematic experiment in this direction are considerable, as will be\napparent to any one who carefully studies the reports of the Brighton\nexperiments (pp. 65-80); but it would seem that further investigation\nmight be expected to throw light upon such questions as whether the\npercipient's original impression is necessarily of the same kind as the\nagent's; whether in the case of visual impressions lateral inversion\nor complementary colours can be detected, and so on.\n\nOnce more, but little has been learnt of the purely mechanical\nconditions under which the transmission is effected. There are indeed\nindications that contact facilitates the transference;[171] but from\nthe difficulty of discriminating, when contact is permitted, between\nthought-transference and muscle-reading, even thus much can hardly be\naffirmed with certainty. On the analogy of the known physical forces\nit is of course to be anticipated that the difficulty of effecting\ntelepathic communication would increase very rapidly with the distance.\nYet even here experimental verification is difficult to obtain. It\nis obvious, indeed, in our experiments, that an increased interval\nbetween agent and percipient, especially if a wall or floor is made\nto intervene, has affected the results prejudicially. But it is by no\nmeans clear, as already said, how far the observed effects are to be\nattributed, not to the physical obstacle of the intervening space,\nbut to the psychical effect produced thereby on the parties to the\nexperiment.\n\nThere is, however, a difference, already referred to, in the\ncharacteristics of the ideas transferred at close quarters, and those\ntransferred at a distance, which is so marked and so general as to\ncall for some explanation of this kind. In the experiments conducted\nin the same room or house, and in most of the spontaneous cases at\nclose quarters, the idea transferred corresponds to a mental image\nconsciously present to the mind of the agent. But the cases, whether\nexperimental or spontaneous, of such detailed transference at a\ndistance of more than a mile or two are very few--too few to justify\nany valid generalisation. For in most cases of thought-transference at\na distance the idea transferred is one not consciously present to the\nagent's mind at all--the idea of his own personality.\n\nTo some critics indeed (see _Mind_, 1887, p. 280) this difficulty has\nseemed so serious as to suggest doubts of the propriety of referring\nthe two sets of results to a common category; and Von Hartmann,\nwhilst claiming, as already said, connection through the Absolute as\nthe explanation of the results obtained at a distance, is content to\npostulate some kind of nervous induction in the case of experiments at\nclose quarters. But if we examine the facts more closely we find, as\nhas already been shown in some of the trials conducted by MM Gibert and\nPierre Janet in inducing sleep at a distance, and in a few other cases\n(_e.g._, Nos. 40, 53, 58), that the idea of the personality of the\nagent may be transferred to the percipient, together with the specific\nidea present to the agent's mind. Moreover, in the recorded cases of\nthought-transference at close quarters, with hardly any exception, the\npresence of the agent was known to the percipient, and no evidence\nfor the telepathic transmission of the idea of him can therefore be\nfurnished. But since the idea of self is probably always present as\npart of the permanent substratum of consciousness, and since we have\nactual evidence that in some cases that idea may be communicated to the\npercipient, together with the idea consciously willed by the agent,\nit seems permissible to conclude that it may form an element in every\ncase of transference. And if this be admitted, not merely will the\ndifficulty referred to disappear, but some progress will have been made\ntowards obtaining experimental verification of the physical effects\nof distance on telepathic transmission. For it would seem to follow\nthat the telepathic energy, which at close quarters is able to effect\nthe transference even of the trivial and momentary contents of the\nagent's mind, is competent when acting at a distance to convey only\nthose continuous and more massive vibrations which may be presumed to\ncorrespond to his conception of his own personality. That the agent\nis not consciously \"thinking of himself\" need not prevent us from\naccepting this view. Nor would a like unconsciousness on the part of\nthe percipient be a serious objection. For, as we have already seen\n(Nos. 24, 25, 27, etc.), ideas can be transferred from the subconscious\nto the subconscious; and indeed there is some ground for thinking that,\noutside of direct experiment, the intervention of the conscious mind\nin the telepathic transmission of thought is exceptional. Even in some\nof the most striking experimental cases it has been shown that either\nagent or percipient, or both, were asleep or entranced at the time.\n(See Chapter X., p. 239.)\n\nThis close connection of the activity of thought-transference with\nthe subliminal consciousness, the consciousness which appears in\nhypnosis, and occasionally in dream-life and in spontaneous trance and\nautomatism, may perhaps offer a clue to the origin of the faculty.\nFor the future place of telepathy in the history of the race concerns\nus even more nearly than the mode of its operation; and we are led\ntherefore to ask whether the faculty as we know it is but the germ\nof a more splendid capacity, or the last vestige of a power grown\nstunted through disuse. By those who view the matter simply as a topic\nof natural history the latter alternative will be preferred. The\npossible utility of telepathy as a supplement to gesture, etc., at a\ntime when speech and writing were not yet evolved, is too obvious for\ncomment. Whilst, on the other hand, such a faculty can with difficulty\nbe conceived as originating by any physical process of evolution in\nour modern civilisation. But more direct evidence of the place of\ntelepathy in our development is not wanting. For there are indications\nthat the consciousness which lies below the threshold, with which the\nactivity of telepathy is constantly associated, may be regarded as\nrepresenting an earlier stage in the consciousness of the individual,\nand even it may be an earlier stage in the history of the race. The\nreadiest means of summoning into temporary activity this subterranean\nconsciousness is in the hypnotic trance. Now the consciousness\ndisplayed by the hypnotised subject includes, as a rule, the whole of\nthe normal consciousness, and also extends beyond it. That is, the\nhypnotised subject is aware not only of what goes on in the trance but\nalso of his normal life: when awaked the events of the trance have\npassed from his memory and are not revived until the next period of\ntrance. Our work-a-day consciousness would appear to be, in fact, a\nselection from a much larger field of potential consciousness. Or, to\nput it in another way, the pressure on the narrow limits of our working\nconsciousness is so great that ideas and sensations are continually\nbeing crowded out and forced down below the threshold. The subliminal\nconsciousness thus becomes the receptacle of lapsed memories and\nsensations; and up to a certain point in the history of each individual\nthese lapsed ideas can be temporarily revived. Long forgotten memories\nof childhood, for instance, can be resuscitated in the hypnotic trance,\nand ideas which have demonstrably never penetrated into consciousness\nat all can be brought to light by crystal-vision, planchette-writing,\nor other automatic processes.\n\nAgain, one of the most marked characteristics of the subliminal\nconsciousness, whether in dream, hypnosis, spontaneous trance, or in\ncrystal vision and other automatism, is its power of visualisation--a\npower which, as Mr. Galton has shown, and our daily experience\nproves, tends to become aborted in later life. And beyond these\nindications of memories lost and imagery crowded out in the lifetime\nof the individual, we come across traces of faculties which have long\nceased to obey the guidance or minister to the needs of civilised\nman--the psychological lumber of many generations ago. Such at least,\nit may be suggested, is a possible interpretation of the control\nfrequently exercised by the hypnotic over the processes of digestion\nand circulation and the functions of the organic life generally. And\nthe more doubtful observations, which seem to indicate the possession\nby the subconscious life of a sense of the passage of time and of a\nmuscular sense superior to that of the waking state, may be held to\npoint in the same direction.\n\nFrom such facts and such analogies as these it may be argued that\ntelepathy is perchance the relic of a once-serviceable faculty, which\neked out the primitive alphabet of gesture, and helped to bind our\nancestors of the cave or the tree in as yet inarticulate community, Dr.\nJules H\u00e9ricourt,[172] indeed, goes further, and suggests that we find\nhere traces of the primeval unspecialised sensitiveness which preceded\nthe development of a nervous system--a heritage shared with the am\u0153ba\nand the sea-anemone.\n\nOn the other hand, it may be urged that our present knowledge, either\nof telepathy itself or of the subconscious activities with which it is\nsought to link it, cannot by any means be held sufficient to support\nsuch an inference as to the probable origin of the faculty; and\nfurther, that the absence of mundane analogies, and the difficulties\nattending any such explanation yet suggested, forbid us to assume that\nthe facts are capable of expression in physical terms.\n\nIt is further urged that whilst the dependence of telepathy on any\nmaterial conditions is not obvious, it is constantly associated not\nonly in popular belief, but in testimony from trustworthy sources,\nwith phenomena which seem to point to supernormal faculties, such\nas clairvoyance, retrocognition, and prevision, themselves hardly\nsusceptible of a physical explanation. This view has found its ablest\nexponent in Mr. F. W. H. Myers.[173]\n\nAnd though Mr. Myers would himself readily admit that the evidence for\nthese alleged supernormal faculties is not on a par with the evidence\nfor telepathy, yet he maintains that such as it is it cannot be\nsummarily dismissed. No doubt if it should appear with fuller knowledge\nthat there are sufficient grounds for believing in faculties which give\nto man knowledge, not derivable from living minds, of the distant,\nthe far past, and the future, it would be more reasonable to regard\ntelepathy as a member of the group of such supernormal faculties,\noperating in ways wholly apart from the familiar sense activities, and\nnot amenable, like these, to terrestrial laws.\n\nSuch considerations may at any rate be held to justify a suspension\nof judgment. We are not yet, it may be said, called upon to decide\nwhether telepathy is a vestigial or a rudimentary faculty; whether\nits manifestations are governed by forces correlative with heat and\nelectricity, or whether we are justified in discerning in them the\noperation of some vaster cosmic agencies. But there is another aspect\nof the question. The first stage of our inquiry is not yet complete.\nIt would be futile for us to debate what manner of new agency we\npropose to believe in until it is generally admitted by competent\npersons that the facts are not to be attributed to such recognised,\nif insufficiently familiar, causes as illusion, misrepresentation,\nand the subconscious quickening of normal faculties. More and varied\nexperiments are wanted, more and more accurate records of spontaneous\nphenomena; and at the present stage there should be no lack of either\none or other. Most scientific inquiries demand of the investigator long\nyears of special study and preparation, and an elaborate mechanical\nequipment. But experiments in thought-transference can be conducted by\nany one with sufficient leisure and patience to observe the requisite\nprecautions; whilst telepathic visions need for their recording no\nother qualifications than accuracy and good faith. In fact Science,\nwhose boast it was once\n\n \"Aerias tentasse domos animoque rotundum\n Percurrisse polum,\"\n\nhas now come down from those airy realms and turned its attention\nto the things of earth, and especially to the study of our human\nenvironment and the growth of human intelligence. And in this its\nlatest phase Science has, of necessity, followed the tendency of the\nage and become democratic. Every parent can become a fellow-worker\nwith Darwin in the laboratory of the infant mind; in investigating the\nfaculties and idiosyncrasies of man, even the lines imprinted on his\nfinger-tips and his shifts to remember the multiplication-table, there\nis not less need of the accumulated small contributions of the many\nthan of the life-long labours of the expert. And in this newest field\nof scientific research there can be no doubt that results of permanent\nvalue await the worker who is content to walk upon the solid earth,\nand to turn his eyes from the mirage which has dazzled many of his\npredecessors.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 150: The fact that most, if not all, the medical men quoted\nwould themselves reject the explanation hinted at in the text, and\nwould regard their own success as due rather to skill and patience than\nto any specific endowment, should, of course, have due weight, but\ncannot be regarded as decisive.]\n\n[Footnote 151: See also the account given by Dr. Gibotteau in the\n_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_ of the power possessed by _Berthe_\n(see _ante_, p. 139) of causing people to stumble or lose their sense\nof direction. Mr. Andrew Lang has recently drawn attention to the\nremarkable resemblances between accounts of medieval magic, etc.,\nand modern telepathic phenomena (see, _e.g._, his article in _Cont.\nReview_, Sept. 1893).]\n\n[Footnote 152: It is possible that we need not go so far as telepathy\nfor an explanation. Slight indications unconsciously apprehended\nmay have furnished the necessary clue in all cases, as they almost\ncertainly did in some.]\n\n[Footnote 153: See _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. i. p. 230, vol. ii. p. 56;\n_Phil. Mag._, April 1883; _Proc. Amer. S.P.R._, p. 116.]\n\n[Footnote 154: _Animal Magnetism_ (International Science Series), pp.\n264 _et seq._ Cf. Ottolenghi and Lombroso, in _Rev. Phil._, Oct. 1889,\non polarisation of hallucinations by magnets.]\n\n[Footnote 155: _Rev. de l'Hypnotisme_, Dec. 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 156: _Ibid._, June 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 157: _Rev. des Sciences Hypnotiques_, 1887-88, p. 111.]\n\n[Footnote 158: _Brit. Med. Journal_, Jan. 1893.]\n\n[Footnote 159: _Rev. des Sciences Hypnotiques_, 1887-88, p. 151. See\nalso _Force Psychique et Suggestion Mentale_, by Dr. Claude Perronnet,\npp. 21-26, who shows clearly how thought-transference may vitiate many\nhypnotic experiments.]\n\n[Footnote 160: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, Jan.-Feb. 1893;\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 218.]\n\n[Footnote 161: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 98.]\n\n[Footnote 162: See, for instance, the _Report on Spiritualism of the\nLondon Dialectical Society_; Experiences of Mr. Stainton Moses in\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 245; and article, \"Spiritualism,\" in the\n_Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, and in _Chambers'\nEncyclop\u00e6dia_, by Alfred Russel Wallace, F.R.S.]\n\n[Footnote 163: It need hardly be said that the oft-quoted story of\nthe European who came late and unobserved to the performance of an\nIndian Fakir, and from a distant tree saw him cutting up a pumpkin when\nthe crowd saw him cutting up a child, is merely _ben trovato_. Nor,\nindeed, until we have contemporaneous accounts of these performances\nfrom carefully trained observers is there need of any such hypothesis\nto explain the feats of Indian jugglery. See Mr. Hodgson's article in\n_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 354.]\n\n[Footnote 164: The explanation suggested in the text for the physical\nphenomena of Spiritualism is worked out in some detail by Von\nHartmann, the philosopher of the unconscious, in a little treatise on\n_Spiritism_, which has been translated into English by \"C.C.M.,\" 1885.\nBut Von Hartmann believes that some of the phenomena are produced by a\nhypothetical nerve-force under the direction of the somnambulic self of\nthe medium--a prodigality of hypotheses which in the circumstances is\nsurely superfluous.]\n\n[Footnote 165: See _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 110-113.]\n\n[Footnote 166: Presidential Address to the Section of Mathematics and\nPhysics of the British Association, August 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 167: \"If all individuals of higher or lower order are rooted\nin the Absolute, retrogressively in this they have a second connection\namong themselves, and there is requisite only a restoration of the\n_rapport_ or telephonic junction (_Telephonanschluss_) between two\nindividuals in the Absolute, by an intense interest of the will,\nto bring about the unconscious interchange between them without\nsense-mediation.\" (_Spiritism_, by Ed. von Hartmann, trans. C.C.M., p.\n75.)]\n\n[Footnote 168: _Des Propri\u00e9t\u00e9s physiques d'une force particuli\u00e8re du\ncorps humain_, 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 169: _De la Suggestion mentale_, Paris, 1887, pp. 511, 512.]\n\n[Footnote 170: _American Journal of Psychology_, vol. i., No. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 171: See, for instance, Professor Lodge's paper in _Proc.\nS.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 374.]\n\n[Footnote 172: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i. p. 317.]\n\n[Footnote 173: See his articles on the \"Subliminal Consciousness,\"\netc., _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 298; vol. viii. p. 333, pp. 436 _et\nseq._]\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n Aksakof A., cases recorded by, 184, 266\n\n American Society for Psychical Research, founding of, 4;\n experiments by, 15, 27\n\n An\u00e6sthesia telepathically produced, 101-104\n\n Anxiety as cause of hallucination, 216, 223\n\n Auditory hallucinations, 25, 218, 247-251, 274-276\n\n Automatic writing, 91-96, 183\n\n Azam, Dr., experiments by, 59\n\n\n Babinski, 375\n\n Backman, Dr., experiments by, 338, 349, 357\n\n Barber, Mrs., case recorded by, 168\n\n Bar\u00e9ty, Dr., 384\n\n Barnby, Sir Joseph, case recorded by, 358\n\n Barrett, Professor, 19, 72;\n experiments by, 84\n\n Beard, S. H., 83\n\n Bergson, case of cornea-reading, 12\n\n Bernheim, Professor, 3, 212, 375\n\n Bidder, the Misses, case recorded by, 190\n\n Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, experiments by, 209, 375\n\n Bonjean, 11\n\n Booth, Miss Mabel Gore, case recorded by, 263\n\n Borderland hallucinations, 193, 217, 257, 292\n\n Bourru and Burot, 375\n\n Boyd, W., case recorded by, 346\n\n Boyle, R. V., case recorded by, 196\n\n Brown, Mrs., experiments by, 27\n\n Bruce, Archdeacon, case recorded by, 182\n\n Busk, Miss, case recorded by, 205\n\n Buttemer, R. H., experiments by, 95\n\n\n Caldecott, Miss L., case recorded by, 255\n\n Campbell, Captain, case recorded by, 198\n\n Campbell, Miss, and Miss Despard, experiments by, 127\n\n Carat, Dr., case recorded by, 257\n\n Cards, power of distinguishing by touch, 13\n\n Cary, C. H., case recorded by, 274\n\n Casual hallucinations, 208, 215-225\n\n Census of hallucinations, 215\n\n Chance coincidence, 27, 143, 146, 186-188, 220-225\n\n Clairvoyance, 2, 19, 204, 393;\n definition of, 326;\n travelling, 295, 338-350\n\n Clairvoyant, dream, 204, 363, 367\n\n Clark, Miss C., case recorded by, 247\n\n Clothes of apparitions, 152, 200, 230, 244, 246\n\n Codes, fraudulent, 10, 11, 25\n Collective agency, 21, 23, 30, 37, 43, 64, 74\n\n Collective hallucinations, 378-380;\n evidential defects, 153, 268-272;\n explanation of, 272-274\n\n Collective illusion, 268\n\n Colour, transference of, 32, 34, 35, 64\n\n Commands, execution of telepathic, 87, 90, 110-113, 121\n\n Commands, telepathic disobeyed, 89, 90\n\n Community of sensation, 18\n\n Contact in thought-transference experiments, 14, 19, 30, 34, 389\n\n Contagious hallucinations, 273, 308, 316\n\n Cornea-reading, 11, 12, 35\n\n Crookes, William, 377\n\n Crystal as means of inducing hallucination, 352\n\n Crystal vision, 2, 75, 353, 357-359, 373\n\n Cumberland, Stuart, 14\n\n\n Dariex, Dr., 89, 118\n\n Dates, unconsciously falsified, 153\n\n Death, dreams of, 188;\n hallucinations coinciding with, 147, 220-225\n\n Deferred recognition, 247, 254\n\n Deferred telepathic impression, 65, 79, 264\n\n Delb\u0153uf, Professor, 212, 375\n\n Dessoir, Max, experiments by, 38\n\n Dempster, Miss Hawkins, case recorded by, 302\n\n De Vesci, Lady, case recorded by, 181\n\n \"Dick,\" case of pseudo-clairvoyance, 13\n\n Direction, hallucination in sense of, 139, 141\n\n Distance, effect of on experiments, 74, 105, 132, 139, 389-391\n\n Dobbie, A. W., experiments by, 338\n\n Documentary evidence, 157-159, 187\n\n Double impression, transference of, 37\n\n Dreams, analogy with hallucinations, 186, 189, 197, 207-208\n\n Dreams, clairvoyant, 204, 363, 367\n\n Dream evidence, 185-189\n\n Dufay, Dr., experiments by, 116\n\n Dupr\u00e9, Dr., case recorded by, 172\n\n Dusart, Dr., 118\n\n\n Edgeworth, Prof., calculations of probabilities, 27\n\n Elliotson, Dr., experiments by, 19\n\n Emotion, transference of, 141, 173-180\n\n Errors of inference, 148;\n of memory, 152, 220-222;\n of narration, 149;\n of observation, 147\n\n Esdaile, Dr., 19\n\n Evans, Rev. C. L., case recorded by, 299\n\n Experiments in physical sciences, 6-9\n\n\n Falkinburg, S. S., case recorded by, 283\n\n Fatigue, influence on clairvoyance, 353, 362, 367\n\n F\u00e9r\u00e9 (and Binet), experiments by, 209, 375\n\n Fraud, 10, 11\n\n Freese, Mrs., case recorded by, 367\n\n Frost, Rev. Matthew, case recorded by, 265\n\n Fryer, Rev. A. T., case recorded by, 295\n\n\n Ghosts, 2, 150, 153, 226, 272\n\n Gibert, Dr., experiments by, 88, 108\n\n Gibotteau, Dr., experiments by, 80, 139, 368\n\n Godfrey, Rev. Clarence, experiments by, 228\n\n Goodall, Edward, case recorded by, 202\n\n Goodrick, Rev. A. T. S., case recorded by, 279\n\n Gower, Leveson, case recorded by, 175\n\n Gradual development of impressions, 76-78, 176, 255\n\n Gregory, Prof., 19\n\n Greiffenberg, Mrs., case recorded by, 277\n\n Greves, Dr. Hyla, 23\n\n Grimaldi and Fronda, experiments by, 56\n\n Gurney, Edmund, 20, 91, 102, 155, 188, 215, 381;\n experiments by, 20, 27, 33, 57, 60, 101, 213\n\n Guthrie, Malcolm, experiments by, 20, 23, 33\n\n\n Hall, Prof. Stanley, 386\n\n Hallucinations, \"borderland,\" 193, 217, 257, 292;\n casual, 208, 215-225;\n census of, 215;\n centrally initiated, 214;\n contagious, 273, 308, 316;\n grotesque, 273, 277, 278;\n heteroplastic, 233, 246, 304-315;\n hypnotic, 208-211, 270, 378;\n of memory, 154-155, 187, 271;\n post-hypnotic, 211-214;\n pseudo, 68;\n rudimentary, 126, 217, 251, 278, 279;\n telepathic, experimentally induced, 68, 132, 134, 140, 141, 226-246\n\n Hamilton, E. W., case recorded by, 200\n\n Harrison, Mrs., case recorded by, 194\n\n Hart, Ernest, 375\n\n Hartmann, Edward, 383, 390\n\n Haunted houses, 315-325, 373\n\n Hay, Sir John Drummond, case recorded by, 251\n\n Haynes, Gideon, case recorded by, 170\n\n Hennique, Leon, experiments by, 129\n\n Herbert, Auberon, 81\n\n Herdman, Prof., 23\n\n H\u00e9ricourt, Dr., 118;\n Dr. Jules, 393\n\n Heteroplastic hallucinations, 233, 246, 304-315\n\n Hicks, Dr., 23\n\n Hodgson, Dr. R., 13, 155, 379;\n case recorded by, 304\n\n Hudson, W. H., 13\n\n Hurly, Miss Berta, case recorded by, 258\n\n Husbands, John, case recorded by, 309\n\n Hyper\u00e6sthesia, 11, 59, 70\n\n Hypnotic state favourable to thought-transference, 18, 58, 91, 393\n\n Hypnotism, 3, 18, 58, 59, 372\n\n\n Inference, errors of, 148\n\n Illusion, collective, 268;\n telepathic, 64, 65, 169\n\n Impersonal agency, 179\n\n Impersonations in trance, 329-331\n\n\n Janet, Professor Pierre, 88, 91, 209, 390;\n experiments by, 108\n\n James, Professor W., cases recorded by, 174, 334\n\n Johnson, Miss, experiments by, 70, 75\n\n Jones, Sir Lawrence, case recorded by, 293\n\n Jupp, Rev. C. H., case recorded by, 290\n\n\n Kapnist, Countess Eugenie, case recorded by, 252\n\n Keulemans, J. G., self-induced trance, 351\n\n Kirk, Joseph, experiments by, 131-139, 244\n\n Knott, Mrs., case recorded by, 316\n\n Krebs, F. H., case recorded by, 174\n\n\n Lang, Andrew, 373\n\n Latency of telepathic impression, 65, 264\n\n Latour, Dr. Tolosa, experiments by, 119\n\n Li\u00e9beault, Dr., case recorded by, 184;\n experiments by, 63, 212\n\n Li\u00e9geois, Professor, experiments by, 63, 212\n\n Lip-reading, 11, 70\n\n Local association of some apparitions, 314\n\n Lodge, Professor Oliver, 382, 387, 389;\n experiments by, 33, 35, 332, 336\n\n Luminosity accompanying telepathic hallucinations, 255, 257, 286\n\n Luys, Dr., 375\n\n\n Mabire, Etienne, and Anton Schmoll, experiments by, 42\n\n \"Magnetic sense,\" 374\n\n Magnets, alleged influence of, 375\n\n Marks, F. A., case recorded by, 362\n\n Maughan, Miss Edith, experiments by, 238\n\n McAlpine, Mrs., case recorded by, 260\n\n Memory, errors of, 152, 220-222;\n hallucination of, 154, 155, 187, 271\n\n Mesmer, 384\n\n Mesmerism (_See_ Hypnotism)\n\n Metals, alleged influence of, 375\n\n Milman, Mrs., case recorded by, 280\n\n Misinterpretation of telepathic message, 302\n\n Muscle-reading, 14, 30\n\n Music, transference of, at a distance, 122\n\n Myers, Dr. A. T., 71, 109\n\n Myers, F. W. H., 20, 325, 328, 393;\n cases recorded by, 183, 236, 311, 353;\n experiments by, 21, 49, 109-113, 210\n\n\n Narration, errors of, 149\n\n \"Nervous induction,\" 102, 386, 390\n\n Newbold, Miss Annie, case recorded by, 275\n\n Newnham, Rev. P. H., experiments by, 92\n\n Number-habit, 16\n\n\n Observation, errors of, 147\n\n Ochorowicz, Dr., 384;\n experiments by, 28, 88\n\n\n P----, J. H., experiments by, 89, 120\n\n Pain, experimental transference of, 23, 34, 60;\n spontaneous transference of, 162, 192\n\n Paquet, Mrs., case recorded by, 360\n\n Pickering, Prof., on number-habit, 16\n\n Piper, Mrs., phenomena observed with, 327\n\n _Point de rep\u00e8re_, 183, 210, 214, 217, 352\n\n Post-hypnotic hallucinations, 211-214\n\n Precautions necessary in experiments, 10-17\n\n Presumptive action of telepathy, 372, 373\n\n Pseudo-hallucinations, 68\n\n Pseudo-presentiments, 154, 187\n\n Pseudo-telepathy, 10, 11, 13\n\n\n Real person mistaken for ghost, 148\n\n Reciprocal impressions, 298-302\n\n Reddell, Frances, case recorded by, 306\n\n Reichenbach's phenomena, 374\n\n Richet, Prof., 113, 166;\n cases recorded by, 113, 166, 171, 295, 311;\n experiments by, 26, 57, 98, 116, 376\n\n Roux, J. C., experiments by, 124\n\n Royce, Prof., cases recorded by, 192, 195;\n on pseudo-presentiment, 154\n\n\n Sauvaire, Dr., hyper\u00e6sthesia described by, 13\n\n Schmoll, Anton, and Etienne Mabire, experiments by, 42\n\n Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Von, experiments by, 54, 239\n\n Secondary consciousness, moral inferiority of, 95, 96, 331\n\n Second-hand evidence of little value, 150, 152, 156, 288;\n useful as standard of comparison, 156, 160, 298, 304\n\n Severn, Arthur, case recorded by, 162\n\n \"Shell-hearing,\" 355\n\n Sidgwick, Mrs. H., experiments by, 65, 70, 75, 102;\n Professor, 4, 20, 65, 70, 215\n\n Sister Martha, case recorded by, 292\n\n Sleep, produced telepathically, 107-119, 135, 139\n\n Sloman, Rev. A., case recorded by, 167\n\n Smell, transference of, 164\n\n Smith, G. A., 60, 65, 71, 75, 83, 101, 211, 355\n\n Smith, H., case recorded by, 219\n\n Society for Psychical Research, 4, 10, 83, 215, 374\n\n Society for Psychical Research, American, founding of, 4;\n experiments by, 15, 27\n\n Sounds, transference of, experimental, 24, 122;\n spontaneous, 168, 247-251, 274-276\n\n Sparks, H. P., experiments by, 234\n\n Spiritualism, 3, 19, 376-380\n\n Stewart, Professor Balfour, 20\n\n Subconscious action of telepathy, 58, 91, 139, 239, 254, 391\n\n Subliminal consciousness, 95, 254, 392\n\n Sully, Professor, 215\n\n\n Table-tilting, 73, 96, 99\n\n Tamburini, Prof., case recorded by, 175\n\n Taste, experiments with sense of, 20, 34, 58\n\n Telepathy, definition, 6;\n frequently subconscious, 58, 91, 139, 239, 254, 391;\n a generalisation not a theory, 381;\n origin of faculty, 391-393;\n suggested explanation of, 382-388\n\n Terror, experimentally induced, 141\n\n Thaw, Dr. Blair, experiments by, 31, 81, 86\n\n Thought-forms, 15\n\n Thought-transference, definition, 6;\n first observations, 18\n\n Townshend, C. H., 19\n\n Tudor, William, case recorded by, 249\n\n Tunes, transference of, 25\n\n\n Venturi, Prof., case recorded by, 181\n\n Verrall, Mrs., 13, 210\n\n\n Wesermann, H. M., experiments by, 231\n\n Will, influence of, 82, 85, 108\n\n Willing-game, 15, 19\n\n Wiltse, Dr., experiments by, 242, 342, 344\n\n Witchcraft, 3, 373\n\n\n X., Miss, experiments by, 122, 210, 353;\n cases recorded by, 164, 166\n\n\nTHE WALTER SCOTT PRESS, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.\n\n\n\n\n_New Books and New Editions._\n\n\nCONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES.\n\nCrown 8vo, Cloth, Price 6s. Illustrated.\n\nMAN AND WOMAN:\n\nA STUDY OF HUMAN SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS.\n\nBy HAVELOCK ELLIS,\n\nAuthor of \"The Criminal,\" \"The Nationalisation of Health,\" etc.\n\n\nCrown 8vo, Cloth, Price 3s. 6d. With Illustrations.\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF MODERN CAPITALISM:\n\nA STUDY OF MACHINE PRODUCTION.\n\nBY JOHN A. HOBSON, M.A.\n\n\n THIRD EDITION. Twentieth Thousand. Crown 8vo, Cloth, 6s.\n\nESTHER WATERS: A NOVEL.\n\nBY GEORGE MOORE.\n\n\"Strong, vivid, sober, yet undaunted in its realism, full to the brim\nof observation of life and character, _Esther Waters_ is not only\nimmeasurably superior to anything the author has ever written before,\nbut it is one of the most remarkable works that has appeared in print\nthis year, and one which does credit not only to the author, but the\ncountry in which it has been written.\"--_The World._\n\n\nCrown 8vo, Half Antique, Paper Boards, 2s. 6d.\n\nTHE THEATRICAL WORLD FOR 1893.\n\nBY WILLIAM ARCHER.\n\n\"That the literary drama dealing with social problems made great\nadvance during 1893 is universally admitted, but if proof were wanted\nnothing could be more conclusive than Mr. Archer's series of thoughtful\nand pointed articles.\"--_Daily Chronicle._\n\n\nSECOND EDITION. Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 6s.\n\nMODERN PAINTING.\n\nBY GEORGE MOORE.\n\n\"Of the very few books on art that painters and critics should on no\naccount leave unread this is surely one.\"--_The Studio._\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.\n\n\n\n\nDRAMATIC ESSAYS.\n\nEDITED BY\n\nWILLIAM ARCHER AND ROBERT W. LOWE.\n\n_Three Volumes_, _Crown_ 8_vo_, _Cloth_, _Price_ 3/6 _each_.\n\nDramatic Criticism, as we now understand it--the systematic\nappraisement from day to day and week to week of contemporary plays and\nacting--began in England about the beginning of the present century.\nUntil very near the end of the eighteenth century, \"the critics\" gave\ndirect utterance to their judgments in the theatre itself, or in the\ncoffee-houses, only occasionally straying into print in letters to the\nnews-sheets, or in lampoons or panegyrics in prose or verse, published\nin pamphlet form. Modern criticism began with modern journalism; but\nsome of its earliest utterances were of far more than ephemeral value.\nDuring the earlier half of the present century several of the leading\nessayists of the day--men of the first literary eminence--concerned\nthemselves largely with the theatre. Under the title of\n\n\n\"DRAMATIC ESSAYS\"\n\nwill be issued, in three volumes, such of their theatrical criticisms\nas seem to be of abiding interest.\n\n_THE FIRST SERIES_ will contain selections from the criticisms of\nLEIGH HUNT, both those published in 1807 (long out of print), and the\nadmirable articles contributed more than twenty years later to _The\nTatler_, and never republished.\n\n_THE SECOND SERIES_ will contain selections from the criticisms of\nWILLIAM HAZLITT. Hazlitt's Essays on Kean and his contemporaries have\nlong been inaccessible, save to collectors.\n\n_THE THIRD SERIES_ will contain hitherto uncollected criticisms by\nJOHN FORSTER, GEORGE HENRY LEWES, and others, with selections from the\nwritings of WILLIAM ROBSON (The Old Playgoer).\n\nThe Essays will be concisely but adequately annotated, and each volume\nwill contain an Introduction by WILLIAM ARCHER, and an Engraved\nPortrait Frontispiece.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF HUMOUR\n\n_Cloth Elegant_, _Large Crown_ 8_vo_, _Price_ 3/6 _per vol_.\n\n\n_VOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED._\n\n THE HUMOUR OF FRANCE. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,\n by Elizabeth Lee. With numerous Illustrations by Paul Fr\u00e9nzeny.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF GERMANY. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,\n by Hans M\u00fcller-Casenov. With numerous Illustrations by C. E. Brock.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF ITALY. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by\n A. Werner. With 50 Illustrations and a Frontispiece by Arturo Faldi.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF AMERICA. Selected with a copious Biographical Index\n of American Humorists, by James Barr.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF HOLLAND. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,\n by A. Werner. With numerous Illustrations by Dudley Hardy.\n\n_VOLUMES IN PREPARATION._\n\n THE HUMOUR OF IRELAND. Selected by D. J. O'Donoghue. With numerous\n Illustrations by Oliver Paque. [_Ready Sept._ 1894.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF SPAIN. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,\n by S. Taylor. With numerous Illustrations by H. R. Millar. [_Ready\n Oct._ 1894.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF RUSSIA. Translated, with Notes, by E. L. Boole, and\n an Introduction by Stepniak. With 50 Illustrations by Paul Fr\u00e9nzeny.\n\n THE HUMOUR OF JAPAN. Translated, with an Introduction, by A. M.\n With Illustrations by George Bigot (from Drawings made in Japan).\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS OF FAIRY TALES.\n\n_Crown_ 8_vo_, _Cloth Elegant_, _Price_ 3/6 _per Vol_.\n\nENGLISH FAIRY AND OTHER FOLK TALES.\n\nSelected and Edited, with an Introduction,\n\nBY EDWIN SIDNEY HARTLAND.\n\n_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ CHARLES E. BROCK.\n\n\nSCOTTISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES.\n\nSelected and Edited, with an Introduction,\n\nBY SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS, BART.\n\n_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ JAMES TORRANCE.\n\n\nIRISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES.\n\nSelected and Edited, with an Introduction,\n\nBY W. B. YEATS.\n\n_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ JAMES TORRANCE.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.\n\n\n\n\nCrown 8vo, about 350 pp. each, Cloth Cover, 2s. 6d. per vol.\nHalf-polished Morocco, gilt top, 5s.\n\nCOUNT TOLSTO\u00cf'S WORKS.\n\n\nThe following Volumes are already issued--\n\n A RUSSIAN PROPRIETOR.\n\n THE COSSACKS.\n\n IVAN ILYITCH, AND OTHER STORIES.\n\n MY RELIGION.\n\n LIFE.\n\n MY CONFESSION.\n\n CHILDHOOD, BOYHOOD, YOUTH.\n\n THE PHYSIOLOGY OF WAR.\n\n ANNA KAR\u00c9NINA. 3s. 6d.\n\n WHAT TO DO?\n\n WAR AND PEACE. (4 VOLS.)\n\n THE LONG EXILE, AND OTHER STORIES FOR CHILDREN.\n\n SEVASTOPOL.\n\n THE KREUTZER SONATA, AND FAMILY HAPPINESS.\n\n THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. 2s. 6d.\n\n Uniform with the above.\n\n IMPRESSIONS OF RUSSIA.\n\n BY DR. GEORG BRANDES.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nMR. GEORGE MOORE'S NEW NOVEL.\n\nCloth, Crown 8vo, Price 6s.\n\n\nESTHER WATERS: A Novel.\n\nBY GEORGE MOORE.\n\n\"Strong, vivid, sober, yet undaunted in its realism, full to the brim\nof observation of life and character, _Esther Waters_ is not only\nimmeasurably superior to anything the author has ever written before,\nbut it is one of the most remarkable works that has appeared in print\nthis year, and one which does credit not only to the author, but the\ncountry in which it has been written.\"--_The World._\n\n\"As we live the book through again in memory, we feel more and more\nconfident that Mr. Moore has once for all vindicated his position\namong the half-dozen living novelists of whom the historian of English\nliterature will have to take account.\"--_Daily Chronicle._\n\n\"It may be as well to set down, beyond possibility of misapprehension,\nmy belief that in _Esther Waters_ we have the most artistic, the most\ncomplete, and the most inevitable work of fiction that has been written\nin England for at least two years.\"--A. T. Q. C. in _The Speaker_.\n\n\"Hardly since the time of Defoe have the habits and manners of the\n'masses' been delineated as they are delineated here.... _Esther\nWaters_ is the best story that he (Mr. Moore) has written, and one on\nwhich he may be heartily congratulated.\"--_Globe._\n\n\"Matthew Arnold, reviewing one of Tolsto\u00ef's novels, remarked that the\nRussian novelist seemed to write because the thing happened so, and for\nno other reason. That is precisely the merit of Mr. Moore's book.... It\nseems inevitable.\"--_Westminster Gazette._\n\n\nOTHER NOVELS BY GEORGE MOORE.\n\nCrown 8vo, Cloth, 3s. 6d. each.\n\n=A DRAMA IN MUSLIN.= Seventh Edition.\n\n=A MODERN LOVER.= New Edition.\n\n=A MUMMER'S WIFE.= Twentieth Edition.\n\n=VAIN FORTUNE.= 6s. With Illustrations by Maurice Greiffenhagen. A few\nLarge-Paper Copies at One Guinea.\n\nSecond Edition, Crown 8vo, Cloth, 6s.\n\n=MODERN PAINTING.= By George Moore.\n\n\"Of the very few books on art that painters and critics should on no\naccount leave unread this is surely one.\"--_Studio._\n\n\"His book is one of the best books about pictures that have come into\nour hands for some years.\"--_St. James's Gazette._\n\n\"A more original, a better informed, a more suggestive, and, let us\nadd, a more amusing work on the art of to-day, we have never read than\nthis volume.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SCOTT LIBRARY.\n\nCloth, Uncut Edges, Gilt Top. Price 1s. 6d. per Volume.\n\n\nVOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED--\n\n 1 MALORY'S ROMANCE OF KING ARTHUR AND THE\n Quest of the Holy Grail. Edited by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 2 THOREAU'S WALDEN. WITH INTRODUCTORY NOTE\n by Will H. Dircks.\n\n 3 THOREAU'S \"WEEK.\" WITH PREFATORY NOTE BY\n Will H. Dircks.\n\n 4 THOREAU'S ESSAYS. EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION,\n by Will H. Dircks.\n\n 5 CONFESSIONS OF AN ENGLISH OPIUM-EATER, ETC.\n By Thomas De Quincey. With Introductory Note by William Sharp.\n\n 6 LANDOR'S IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS. SELECTED,\n with Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.\n\n 7 PLUTARCH'S LIVES (LANGHORNE). WITH INTRODUCTORY\n Note by B. J. Snell, M.A.\n\n 8 BROWNE'S RELIGIO MEDICI, ETC. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by J. Addington Symonds.\n\n 9 SHELLEY'S ESSAYS AND LETTERS. EDITED, WITH\n Introductory Note, by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 10 SWIFT'S PROSE WRITINGS. CHOSEN AND ARRANGED,\n with Introduction, by Walter Lewin.\n\n 11 MY STUDY WINDOWS. BY JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL.\n With Introduction by R. Garnett, LL.D.\n\n 12 LOWELL'S ESSAYS ON THE ENGLISH POETS. WITH\n a new Introduction by Mr. Lowell.\n\n 13 THE BIGLOW PAPERS. BY JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL.\n With a Prefatory Note by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 14 GREAT ENGLISH PAINTERS. SELECTED FROM\n Cunningham's _Lives_. Edited by William Sharp.\n\n 15 BYRON'S LETTERS AND JOURNALS. SELECTED,\n with Introduction, by Mathilde Blind.\n\n 16 LEIGH HUNT'S ESSAYS. WITH INTRODUCTION AND\n Notes by Arthur Symons.\n\n 17 LONGFELLOW'S \"HYPERION,\" \"KAVANAH,\" AND\n \"The Trouveres.\" With Introduction by W. Tirebuck.\n\n 18 GREAT MUSICAL COMPOSERS. BY G. F. FERRIS.\n Edited, with Introduction, by Mrs. William Sharp.\n\n 19 THE MEDITATIONS OF MARCUS AURELIUS. EDITED\n by Alice Zimmern.\n\n 20 THE TEACHING OF EPICTETUS. TRANSLATED FROM\n the Greek, with Introduction and Notes, by T. W. Rolleston.\n\n 21 SELECTIONS FROM SENECA. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by Walter Clode.\n\n 22 SPECIMEN DAYS IN AMERICA. BY WALT WHITMAN.\n Revised by the Author, with fresh Preface.\n\n 23 DEMOCRATIC VISTAS, AND OTHER PAPERS. BY\n Walt Whitman. (Published by arrangement with the Author.)\n\n 24 WHITE'S NATURAL HISTORY OF SELBORNE. WITH\n a Preface by Richard Jefferies.\n\n 25 DEFOE'S CAPTAIN SINGLETON. EDITED, WITH\n Introduction, by H. Halliday Sparling.\n\n 26 MAZZINI'S ESSAYS: LITERARY, POLITICAL, AND\n Religious. With Introduction by William Clarke.\n\n 27 PROSE WRITINGS OF HEINE. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by Havelock Ellis.\n\n 28 REYNOLDS'S DISCOURSES. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by Helen Zimmern.\n\n 29 PAPERS OF STEELE AND ADDISON. EDITED BY\n Walter Lewin.\n\n 30 BURNS'S LETTERS. SELECTED AND ARRANGED,\n with Introduction, by J. Logie Robertson, M.A.\n\n 31 VOLSUNGA SAGA. WILLIAM MORRIS. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by H. H. Sparling.\n\n 32 SARTOR RESARTUS. BY THOMAS CARLYLE. WITH\n Introduction by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 33 SELECT WRITINGS OF EMERSON. WITH INTRODUCTION\n by Percival Chubb.\n\n 34 AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF LORD HERBERT. EDITED,\n with an Introduction, by Will H. Dircks.\n\n 35 ENGLISH PROSE, FROM MAUNDEVILLE TO\n Thackeray. Chosen and Edited by Arthur Galton.\n\n 36 THE PILLARS OF SOCIETY, AND OTHER PLAYS. BY\n Henrik Ibsen. Edited, with an Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.\n\n 37 IRISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES. EDITED AND\n Selected by W. B. Yeats.\n\n 38 ESSAYS OF DR. JOHNSON, WITH BIOGRAPHICAL\n Introduction and Notes by Stuart J. Reid.\n\n 39 ESSAYS OF WILLIAM HAZLITT. SELECTED AND\n Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Frank Carr.\n\n 40 LANDOR'S PENTAMERON, AND OTHER IMAGINARY\n Conversations. Edited, with a Preface, by H. Ellis.\n\n 41 POE'S TALES AND ESSAYS. EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTION,\n by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 42 VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. BY OLIVER GOLDSMITH.\n Edited, with Preface, by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 43 POLITICAL ORATIONS, FROM WENTWORTH TO\n Macaulay. Edited, with Introduction, by William Clarke.\n\n 44 THE AUTOCRAT OF THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY\n Oliver Wendell Holmes.\n\n 45 THE POET AT THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY OLIVER\n Wendell Holmes.\n\n 46 THE PROFESSOR AT THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY\n Oliver Wendell Holmes.\n\n 47 LORD CHESTERFIELD'S LETTERS TO HIS SON.\n Selected, with Introduction, by Charles Sayle.\n\n 48 STORIES FROM CARLETON. SELECTED, WITH INTRODUCTION,\n by W. Yeats.\n\n 49 JANE EYRE. BY CHARLOTTE BRONT\u00cb. EDITED BY\n Clement K. Shorter.\n\n 50 ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND. EDITED BY LOTHROP\n Withington, with a Preface by Dr. Furnivall.\n\n 51 THE PROSE WRITINGS OF THOMAS DAVIS. EDITED\n by T. W. Rolleston.\n\n 52 SPENCE'S ANECDOTES. A SELECTION. EDITED,\n with an Introduction and Notes, by John Underhill.\n\n 53 MORE'S UTOPIA, AND LIFE OF EDWARD V. EDITED,\n with an Introduction, by Maurice Adams.\n\n 54 SADI'S GULISTAN, OR FLOWER GARDEN. TRANSLATED,\n with an Essay, by James Ross.\n\n 55 ENGLISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES. EDITED BY\n E. Sidney Hartland.\n\n 56 NORTHERN STUDIES. BY EDMUND GOSSE. WITH\n a Note by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 57 EARLY REVIEWS OF GREAT WRITERS. EDITED BY\n E. Stevenson.\n\n 58 ARISTOTLE'S ETHICS. WITH GEORGE HENRY\n Lewes's Essay on Aristotle prefixed.\n\n 59 LANDOR'S PERICLES AND ASPASIA. EDITED, WITH\n an Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.\n\n 60 ANNALS OF TACITUS. THOMAS GORDON'S TRANSLATION.\n Edited, with an Introduction, by Arthur Galton.\n\n 61 ESSAYS OF ELIA. BY CHARLES LAMB. EDITED,\n with an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 62 BALZAC'S SHORTER STORIES. TRANSLATED BY\n William Wilson and the Count Stenbock.\n\n 63 COMEDIES OF DE MUSSET. EDITED, WITH AN\n Introductory Note, by S. L. Gwynn.\n\n 64 CORAL REEFS. BY CHARLES DARWIN. EDITED,\n with an Introduction, by Dr. J. W. Williams.\n\n 65 SHERIDAN'S PLAYS. EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION,\n by Rudolf Dircks.\n\n 66 OUR VILLAGE. BY MISS MITFORD. EDITED, WITH\n an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 67 MASTER HUMPHREY'S CLOCK, AND OTHER STORIES.\n By Charles Dickens. With Introduction by Frank T. Marzials.\n\n 68 TALES FROM WONDERLAND. BY RUDOLPH\n Baumbach. Translated by Helen B. Dole.\n\n 69 ESSAYS AND PAPERS BY DOUGLAS JERROLD. EDITED\n by Walter Jerrold.\n\n 70 VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN. BY\n Mary Wollstonecraft. Introduction by Mrs. E Robins Pennell.\n\n 71 \"THE ATHENIAN ORACLE.\" A SELECTION. EDITED\n by John Underhill, with Prefatory Note by Walter Besant.\n\n 72 ESSAYS OF SAINT-BEUVE. TRANSLATED AND\n Edited, with an Introduction, by Elizabeth Lee.\n\n 73 SELECTIONS FROM PLATO. FROM THE TRANSLATION\n of Sydenham and Taylor. Edited by T. W. Rolleston.\n\n 74 HEINE'S ITALIAN TRAVEL SKETCHES, ETC. TRANSLATED\n by Elizabeth A. Sharp. With an Introduction from the French of\n Theophile Gautier.\n\n 75 SCHILLER'S MAID OF ORLEANS. TRANSLATED,\n with an Introduction, by Major-General Patrick Maxwell.\n\n 76 SELECTIONS FROM SYDNEY SMITH. EDITED, WITH\n an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 77 THE NEW SPIRIT. BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.\n\n 78 THE BOOK OF MARVELLOUS ADVENTURES. FROM\n the \"Morte d'Arthur.\" Edited by Ernest Rhys. [This, together with\n No. 1, forms the complete \"Morte d'Arthur.\"]\n\n 79 ESSAYS AND APHORISMS. BY SIR ARTHUR HELPS.\n With an Introduction by E. A. Helps.\n\n 80 ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE. SELECTED, WITH A\n Prefatory Note, by Percival Chubb.\n\n 81 THE LUCK OF BARRY LYNDON. BY W. M.\n Thackeray. Edited by F. T. Marzials.\n\n 82 SCHILLER'S WILLIAM TELL. TRANSLATED, WITH\n an Introduction, by Major-General Patrick Maxwell.\n\n 83 CARLYLE'S ESSAYS ON GERMAN LITERATURE.\n With an Introduction by Ernest Rhys.\n\n 84 PLAYS AND DRAMATIC ESSAYS OF CHARLES LAMB.\n Edited, with an Introduction, by Rudolf Dircks.\n\n 85 THE PROSE OF WORDSWORTH. SELECTED AND\n Edited, with an Introduction, by Professor William Knight.\n\n 86 ESSAYS, DIALOGUES, AND THOUGHTS OF COUNT\n Giacomo Leopardi. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by\n Major-General Patrick Maxwell.\n\n 87 THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL A RUSSIAN COMEDY.\n By Nikolai V. Gogol. Translated from the original, with an Introduction\n and Notes, by Arthur A. Sykes.\n\n 88 ESSAYS AND APOTHEGMS OF FRANCIS, LORD BACON:\n Edited, with an Introduction, by John Buchan.\n\n 89 PROSE OF MILTON: SELECTED AND EDITED, WITH\n an Introduction, by Richard Garnett, LL.D.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nGREAT WRITERS.\n\nA NEW SERIES OF CRITICAL BIOGRAPHIES.\n\nEdited by ERIC ROBERTSON and FRANK T. MARZIALS.\n\nA Complete Bibliography to each Volume, by J. P. ANDERSON, British\nMuseum, London.\n\nCloth, Uncut Edges, Gilt Top. Price 1/6.\n\n\nVOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED--\n\n LIFE OF LONGFELLOW. By PROF. ERIC S. ROBERTSON.\n \"A most readable little work.\"--_Liverpool Mercury._\n\n LIFE OF COLERIDGE. By HALL CAINE.\n \"Brief and vigorous, written throughout with spirit and great literary\n skill.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n LIFE OF DICKENS. By FRANK T. MARZIALS.\n \"Notwithstanding the mass of matter that has been printed relating\n to Dickens and his works ... we should, until we came across this\n volume, have been at a loss to recommend any popular life of\n England's most popular novelist as being really satisfactory. The\n difficulty is removed by Mr. Marzials's little book.\"--_Athen\u00e6um._\n\n LIFE OF DANTE GABRIEL ROSSETTI. By J. KNIGHT.\n \"Mr. Knight's picture of the great poet and painter is the fullest\n and best yet presented to the public.\"--_The Graphic._\n\n LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON. By COLONEL F. GRANT.\n \"Colonel Grant has performed his task with diligence, sound judgment,\n good taste, and accuracy.\"--_Illustrated London News._\n\n LIFE OF DARWIN. By G. T. BETTANY.\n \"Mr. G. T. Bettany's _Life of Darwin_ is a sound and conscientious\n work.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n LIFE OF CHARLOTTE BRONT\u00cb. By A. BIRRELL.\n \"Those who know much of Charlotte Bront\u00eb will learn more, and\n those who know nothing about her will find all that is best worth\n learning in Mr. Birrell's pleasant book.\"--_St. James' Gazette._\n\n LIFE OF THOMAS CARLYLE. By R. GARNETT, LL.D.\n \"This is an admirable book. Nothing could be more felicitous and\n fairer than the way in which he takes us through Carlyle's life and\n works.\"--_Pall Mall Gazette._\n\n LIFE OF ADAM SMITH. By R. B. HALDANE, M.P.\n \"Written with a perspicuity seldom exemplified when dealing with\n economic science.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n LIFE OF KEATS. By W. M. ROSSETTI.\n \"Valuable for the ample information which it contains.\"--_Cambridge\n Independent._\n\n LIFE OF SHELLEY. By WILLIAM SHARP.\n \"The criticisms ... entitle this capital monograph to be ranked with\n the best biographies of Shelley.\"--_Westminster Review._\n\n LIFE OF SMOLLETT. By DAVID HANNAY.\n \"A capable record of a writer who still remains one of the great\n masters of the English novel.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n LIFE OF GOLDSMITH. By AUSTIN DOBSON.\n \"The story of his literary and social life in London, with all its\n humorous and pathetic vicissitudes, is here retold, as none could\n tell it better.\"--_Daily News._\n\n LIFE OF SCOTT. By PROFESSOR YONGE.\n \"This is a most enjoyable book.\"--_Aberdeen Free Press._\n\n LIFE OF BURNS. By PROFESSOR BLACKIE.\n \"The editor certainly made a hit when he persuaded Blackie to write\n about Burns.\"--_Pall Mall Gazette._\n\n LIFE OF VICTOR HUGO. By FRANK T. MARZIALS.\n \"Mr. Marzials's volume presents to us, in a more handy form than any\n English or even French handbook gives, the summary of what is known\n about the life of the great poet.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n LIFE OF EMERSON. By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D.\n \"No record of Emerson's life could be more desirable.\"--_Saturday\n Review._\n\n LIFE OF GOETHE. By JAMES SIME.\n \"Mr. James Sime's competence as a biographer of Goethe is beyond\n question.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n LIFE OF CONGREVE. By EDMUND GOSSE.\n \"Mr. Gosse has written an admirable biography.\"--_Academy._\n\n LIFE OF BUNYAN. By CANON VENABLES.\n \"A most intelligent, appreciative, and valuable memoir.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n LIFE OF CRABBE. By T. E. KEBBEL.\n \"No English poet since Shakespeare has observed certain aspects of\n nature and of human life more closely.\"--_Athen\u00e6um._\n\n LIFE OF HEINE. By WILLIAM SHARP.\n \"An admirable monograph ... more fully written up to the level\n of recent knowledge and criticism than any other English\n work.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n LIFE OF MILL. By W. L. COURTNEY.\n \"A most sympathetic and discriminating memoir.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n LIFE OF SCHILLER. By HENRY W. NEVINSON.\n \"Presents the poet's life in a neatly rounded picture.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n LIFE OF CAPTAIN MARRYAT. By DAVID HANNAY.\n \"We have nothing but praise for the manner in which Mr. Hannay has\n done justice to him.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n LIFE OF LESSING. By T. W. ROLLESTON.\n \"One of the best books of the series.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n LIFE OF MILTON. By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D.\n \"Has never been more charmingly or adequately told.\"--_Scottish\n Leader._\n\n LIFE OF BALZAC. By FREDERICK WEDMORE.\n \"Mr. Wedmore's monograph on the greatest of French writers of\n fiction, whose greatness is to be measured by comparison with his\n successors, is a piece of careful and critical composition, neat\n and nice in style.\"--_Daily News._\n\n LIFE OF GEORGE ELIOT. By OSCAR BROWNING.\n \"A book of the character of Mr. Browning's, to stand midway between\n the bulky work of Mr. Cross and the very slight sketch of Miss\n Blind, was much to be desired, and Mr. Browning has done his work\n with vivacity, and not without skill.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n LIFE OF JANE AUSTEN. By GOLDWIN SMITH.\n \"Mr. Goldwin Smith has added another to the not inconsiderable roll\n of eminent men who have found their delight in Miss Austen.... His\n little book upon her, just published by Walter Scott, is certainly\n a fascinating book to those who already know her and love her well;\n and we have little doubt that it will prove also a fascinating book\n to those who have still to make her acquaintance.\"--_Spectator._\n\n LIFE OF BROWNING. By WILLIAM SHARP.\n \"This little volume is a model of excellent English, and in every\n respect it seems to us what a biography should be.\"--_Public\n Opinion._\n\n LIFE OF BYRON By HON. RODEN NOEL.\n \"The Hon. Roden Noel's volume on Byron is decidedly one of the\n most readable in the excellent 'Great Writers' series.\"--_Scottish\n Leader._\n\n LIFE OF HAWTHORNE. By MONCURE CONWAY.\n \"It is a delightful _causerie_--pleasant, genial talk about a most\n interesting man. Easy and conversational as the tone is throughout,\n no important fact is omitted, no valueless fact is recalled; and\n it is entirely exempt from platitude and conventionality.\"--_The\n Speaker._\n\n LIFE OF SCHOPENHAUER. By PROFESSOR WALLACE.\n \"We can speak very highly of this little book of Mr. Wallace's. It\n is, perhaps, excessively lenient in dealing with the man, and it\n cannot be said to be at all ferociously critical in dealing with\n the philosophy.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n LIFE OF SHERIDAN. By LLOYD SANDERS.\n \"To say that Mr. Lloyd Sanders, in this little volume, has produced\n the best existing memoir of Sheridan, is really to award much\n fainter praise than the work deserves.\"--_Manchester Examiner._\n\n LIFE OF THACKERAY. By HERMAN MERIVALE and F. T. MARZIALS.\n \"The monograph just published is well worth reading, ... and the\n book, with its excellent bibliography, is one which neither the\n student nor the general reader can well afford to miss.\"--_Pall\n Mall Gazette._\n\n LIFE OF CERVANTES. By H. E. WATTS.\n \"We can commend this book as a worthy addition to the useful series\n to which it belongs.\"--_London Daily Chronicle._\n\n LIFE OF VOLTAIRE. By FRANCIS ESPINASSE.\n George Saintsbury, in _The Illustrated London News_, says:--\"In\n this little volume the wayfaring man who has no time to devour\n libraries will find most things that it concerns him to know about\n Voltaire's actual life and work put very clearly, sufficiently, and\n accurately for the most part.\"\n\n LIFE OF LEIGH HUNT. By COSMO MONKHOUSE.\n \"Mr. Monkhouse has brought together and skilfully set in order much\n widely scattered material ... candid as well as sympathetic.\"--_The\n Athen\u00e6um._\n\n LIFE OF WHITTIER. By W. J. LINTON.\n \"Well written, and well worthy to stand with preceding volumes in\n the useful 'Great Writers' series.\"--_Black and White._\n\n * * * * *\n\nLIBRARY EDITION OF \"GREAT WRITERS,\" _Demy_ 8vo, 2s. 6d.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.\n\n\n\n\nSELECTED THREE-VOL. SETS\n\nIN NEW BROCADE BINDING.\n\n6s. per Set, in Shell Case to match. May also be had bound in Roan,\nwith Roan Case to match, 9s. per Set.\n\n\n_THE FOLLOWING SETS CAN BE OBTAINED_--\n\n\nPOEMS OF\n\n WORDSWORTH\n KEATS\n SHELLEY\n\n LONGFELLOW\n WHITTIER\n EMERSON\n\n HOGG\n ALLAN RAMSAY\n SCOTTISH MINOR POETS\n\n SHAKESPEARE\n BEN JONSON\n MARLOWE\n\n SONNETS OF THIS CENTURY\n SONNETS OF EUROPE\n AMERICAN SONNETS\n\n HEINE\n GOETHE\n HUGO\n\n COLERIDGE\n SOUTHEY\n COWPER\n\n BORDER BALLADS\n JACOBITE SONGS\n OSSIAN\n\n CAVALIER POETS\n LOVE LYRICS\n HERRICK\n\n CHRISTIAN YEAR\n IMITATION OF CHRIST\n HERBERT\n\n AMERICAN HUMOROUS VERSE\n ENGLISH HUMOROUS VERSE\n BALLADES AND\n RONDEAUS\n\n EARLY ENGLISH POETRY\n CHAUCER\n SPENSER\n\n HORACE\n GREEK ANTHOLOGY\n LANDOR\n\n GOLDSMITH\n MOORE\n IRISH MINSTRELSY\n\n WOMEN POETS\n CHILDREN OF POETS\n SEA MUSIC\n\n PRAED\n HUNT AND HOOD\n DOBELL\n\n MEREDITH\n MARSTON\n LOVE LETTERS\n\n BURNS'S SONGS\n BURNS'S POEMS\n LIFE OF BURNS BY BLACKIE\n\n SCOTT'S MARMION, &c.\n SCOTT'S LADY OF LAKE &c.\n LIFE OF SCOTT\n BY PROF. YONGE\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.\n\n\n\n\nSELECTED THREE-VOL. SETS\n\nIN NEW BROCADE BINDING.\n\n6_s. PER SET, IN SHELL CASE TO MATCH._\n\nAlso Bound in Roan, in Shell Case, Price 9s. per Set.\n\n\n _O. W. Holmes Set_--\n Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table.\n Professor at the Breakfast-Table.\n Poet at the Breakfast-Table.\n\n _Landor Set_--\n Landor's Imaginary Conversations.\n Pentameron.\n Pericles and Aspasia.\n\n _Three English Essayists_--\n Essays of Elia.\n Essays of Leigh Hunt.\n Essays of William Hazlitt.\n\n _Three Classical Moralists_--\n Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.\n Teaching of Epictetus.\n Morals of Seneca.\n\n _Walden Set_--\n Thoreau's Walden.\n Thoreau's Week.\n Thoreau's Selections.\n\n _Famous Letters Set_--\n Letters of Byron.\n Letters of Chesterfield.\n Letters of Burns.\n\n _Lowell Set_--\n My Study Windows.\n The English Poets.\n The Biglow Papers.\n\n _Heine Set_--\n Life of Heine.\n Heine's Prose.\n Heine's Travel-Sketches.\n\n _Three Essayists_--\n Essays of Mazzini.\n Essays of Sainte-Beuve.\n Essays of Montaigne.\n\n _Schiller Set_--\n Life of Schiller.\n Maid of Orleans.\n William Tell.\n\n _Carlyle Set_--\n Life of Carlyle.\n Sartor Resartus.\n Carlyle's German Essays.\n\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.\n\n\n\n\nIBSEN'S PROSE DRAMAS.\n\nEDITED BY WILLIAM ARCHER.\n\nComplete in Five Vols. Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 3/6 each.\n\nSet of Five Vols., in Case, 17/6; in Half Morocco, in Case, 32/6.\n\n\n_\"We seem at last to be shown men and women as they are; and at first\nit is more than we can endure. ... All Ibsen's characters speak and act\nas if they were hypnotised, and under their creator's imperious demand\nto reveal themselves. There never was such a mirror held up to nature\nbefore: it is too terrible.... Yet we must return to Ibsen, with his\nremorseless surgery, his remorseless electric-light, until we, too,\nhave grown strong and learned to face the naked--if necessary, the\nflayed and bleeding--reality.\"_--SPEAKER (London).\n\n VOL. I. \"A DOLL'S HOUSE,\" \"THE LEAGUE OF YOUTH,\" and \"THE PILLARS\n OF SOCIETY.\" With Portrait of the Author, and Biographical\n Introduction by WILLIAM ARCHER.\n\n VOL. II. \"GHOSTS,\" \"AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE,\" and \"THE WILD DUCK.\"\n With an Introductory Note.\n\n VOL. III. \"LADY INGER OF \u00d6STR\u00c5T,\" \"THE VIKINGS AT HELGELAND,\" \"THE\n PRETENDERS.\" With an Introductory Note and Portrait of Ibsen.\n\n VOL. IV. \"EMPEROR AND GALILEAN.\" With an Introductory Note by\n WILLIAM ARCHER.\n\n VOL. V. \"ROSMERSHOLM,\" \"THE LADY FROM THE SEA,\" \"HEDDA GABLER.\"\n Translated by WILLIAM ARCHER. With an Introductory Note.\n\nThe sequence of the plays _in each volume_ is chronological; the\ncomplete set of volumes comprising the dramas thus presents them in\nchronological order.\n\n\"The art of prose translation does not perhaps enjoy a very high\nliterary status in England, but we have no hesitation in numbering\nthe present version of Ibsen, so far as it has gone (Vols. I.\nand II.), among the very best achievements, in that kind, of our\ngeneration.\"--_Academy._\n\n\"We have seldom, if ever, met with a translation so absolutely\nidiomatic.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n\nLONDON: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 WARWICK LANE.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CANTERBURY POETS.\n\nEDITED BY WILLIAM SHARP. IN 1/- MONTHLY VOLUMES.\n\n Cloth, Red Edges -- 1s. Red Roan, Gilt Edges, 2s. 6d.\n Cloth, Uncut Edges -- 1s. Pad. Morocco, Gilt Edges, 5s.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =THE CHRISTIAN YEAR= By the Rev. John Keble.\n =COLERIDGE= Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =LONGFELLOW= Edited by Eva Hope.\n =CAMPBELL= Edited by John Hogben.\n =SHELLEY= Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =WORDSWORTH= Edited by A. J. Symington.\n =BLAKE= Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =WHITTIER= Edited by Eva Hope.\n =POE= Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =CHATTERTON= Edited by John Richmond.\n =BURNS=. Poems Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =BURNS=. Songs Edited by Joseph Skipsey.\n =MARLOWE= Edited by Percy E. Pinkerton.\n =KEATS= Edited by John Hogben.\n =HERBERT= Edited by Ernest Rhys.\n =HUGO= Translated by Dean Carrington.\n =COWPER= Edited by Eva Hope.\n =SHAKESPEARE'S POEMS, Etc.= Edited by William Sharp.\n =EMERSON= Edited by Walter Lewin.\n =SONNETS OF THIS CENTURY= Edited by William Sharp.\n =WHITMAN= Edited by Ernest Rhys.\n =SCOTT=. Marmion, etc. Edited by William Sharp.\n =SCOTT=. Lady of the Lake, etc. Edited by William Sharp.\n =PRAED= Edited by Frederick Cooper.\n =HOGG= Edited by his Daughter, Mrs. Garden.\n =GOLDSMITH= Edited by William Tirebuck.\n =LOVE LETTERS. Etc.= By Eric Mackay.\n =SPENSER= Edited by Hon. Roden Noel.\n =CHILDREN OF THE POETS= Edited by Eric S. Robertson.\n =JONSON= Edited by J. Addington Symonds.\n =BYRON (2 Vols.)= Edited by Mathilde Blind.\n =THE SONNETS OF EUROPE= Edited by S. Waddington.\n =RAMSAY= Edited by J. Logie Robertson.\n =DOBELL= Edited by Mrs. Dobell.\n =DAYS OF THE YEAR= With Introduction by William Sharp.\n =POPE= Edited by John Hogben.\n =HEINE= Edited by Mrs. Kroeker.\n =BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER= Edited by John S. Fletcher.\n =BOWLES, LAMB, &c.= Edited by William Tirebuck.\n =EARLY ENGLISH POETRY= Edited by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon.\n =SEA MUSIC= Edited by Mrs Sharp.\n =HERRICK= Edited by Ernest Rhys.\n =BALLADES AND RONDEAUS= Edited by J. Gleeson White.\n =IRISH MINSTRELSY= Edited by H. Halliday Sparling.\n =MILTON'S PARADISE LOST= Edited by J. Bradshaw, M.A., LL.D.\n =JACOBITE BALLADS= Edited by G. S. Macquoid.\n =AUSTRALIAN BALLADS= Edited by D. B. W. Sladen, B.A.\n =MOORE= Edited by John Dorrian.\n =BORDER BALLADS= Edited by Graham R. Tomson.\n =SONG-TIDE= By Philip Bourke Marston.\n =ODES OF HORACE= Translations by Sir Stephen de Vere, Bt.\n =OSSIAN= Edited by George Eyre-Todd.\n =ELFIN MUSIC= Edited by Arthur Edward Waite.\n =SOUTHEY= Edited by Sidney R. Thompson.\n =CHAUCER= Edited by Frederick No\u00ebl Paton.\n =POEMS OF WILD LIFE= Edited by Charles G. D. Roberts, M.A.\n =PARADISE REGAINED= Edited by J. Bradshaw, M.A., LL.D.\n =CRABBE= Edited by E. Lamplough.\n =DORA GREENWELL= Edited by William Dorling.\n =FAUST= Edited by Elizabeth Craigmyle.\n =AMERICAN SONNETS= Edited by William Sharp.\n =LANDOR'S POEMS= Edited by Ernest Radford.\n =GREEK ANTHOLOGY= Edited by Graham R. Tomson.\n =HUNT AND HOOD= Edited by J. Harwood Panting.\n =HUMOROUS POEMS= Edited by Ralph H. Caine.\n =LYTTON'S PLAYS= Edited by R. Farquharson Sharp.\n =GREAT ODES= Edited by William Sharp.\n =MEREDITH'S POEMS= Edited by M. Betham-Edwards.\n =PAINTER-POETS= Edited by Kineton Parkes.\n =WOMEN POETS= Edited by Mrs. Sharp.\n =LOVE LYRICS= Edited by Percy Hulburd.\n =AMERICAN HUMOROUS VERSE= Edited by James Barr.\n =MINOR SCOTCH LYRICS= Edited by Sir George Douglas.\n =CAVALIER LYRISTS= Edited by Will H. Dircks.\n =GERMAN BALLADS= Edited by Elizabeth Craigmyle.\n =SONGS OF BERANGER= Translated by William Toynbee.\n =HON. RODEN NOEL'S POEMS= With an Introduction by\n R. Buchanan.\n =SONGS OF FREEDOM= Selected, with an Introduction,\n by H. S. Salt.\n =CANADIAN POEMS AND LAYS= Edited by W. D. Lighthall, M.A.\n =CONTEMPORARY SCOTTISH VERSE= Edited by Sir Geo. Douglas.\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane\n\n\n\n\nNEW EDITION IN NEW BINDING.\n\nIn the new edition there are added about forty reproductions in\nfac-simile of autographs of distinguished singers and instrumentalists,\nincluding Sarasate, Joachim, Sir Charles Hall\u00e9, Paderewsky,\nStavenhagen, Henschel, Trebelli, Miss Macintyre, Jean G\u00e9rardy, etc.\n\n\n_Quarto, cloth elegant, gilt edges, emblematic design on cover_, 6_s_.\n_May also be had in a variety of Fancy Bindings._\n\nTHE\n\nMUSIC OF THE POETS:\n\nA MUSICIANS' BIRTHDAY BOOK.\n\nEDITED BY ELEONORE D'ESTERRE KEELING.\n\nThis is a unique Birthday Book. Against each date are given the names\nof musicians whose birthday it is, together with a verse-quotation\nappropriate to the character of their different compositions\nor performances. A special feature of the book consists in the\nreproduction in fac-simile of autographs, and autographic music, of\nliving composers. Three sonnets by Mr. Theodore Watts, on the \"Fausts\"\nof Berlioz, Schumann, and Gounod, have been written specially for this\nvolume. It is illustrated with designs of various musical instruments,\netc.; autographs of Rubenstein, Dvor\u00e2k, Greig, Mackenzie, Villiers\nStanford, etc., etc.\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane\n\n\n\n\nThe Contemporary Science Series.\n\n\nI. THE EVOLUTION OF SEX. By Professor PATRICK GEDDES and J. ARTHUR\nTHOMSON. With 90 Illustrations. Second Edition.\n\n\"The authors have brought to the task--as indeed their names\nguarantee--a wealth of knowledge, a lucid and attractive method of\ntreatment, and a rich vein of picturesque language.\"--_Nature._\n\n\nII. ELECTRICITY IN MODERN LIFE. By G. W. DE TUNZELMANN. With 88\nIllustrations.\n\n\"A clearly-written and connected sketch of what is known about\nelectricity and magnetism, the more prominent modern applications, and\nthe principles on which they are based.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\nIII. THE ORIGIN OF THE ARYANS. By DR. ISAAC TAYLOR. Illustrated. Second\nEdition.\n\n\"Canon Taylor is probably the most encyclop\u00e6dic all-round scholar now\nliving. His new volume on the Origin of the Aryans is a first-rate\nexample of the excellent account to which he can turn his exceptionally\nwide and varied information.... Masterly and exhaustive.\"--_Pall Mall\nGazette._\n\n\nIV. PHYSIOGNOMY AND EXPRESSION. By P. MANTEGAZZA. Illustrated.\n\n\"Professor Mantegazza is a writer full of life and spirit, and\nthe natural attractiveness of his subject is not destroyed by his\nscientific handling of it.\"--_Literary World_ (Boston).\n\n\nV. EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. By J. B. SUTTON, F.R.C.S. With 135\nIllustrations.\n\n\"The book is as interesting as a novel, without sacrifice of\naccuracy or system, and is calculated to give an appreciation of\nthe fundamentals of pathology to the lay reader, while forming\na useful collection of illustrations of disease for medical\nreference.\"--_Journal of Mental Science._\n\n\nVI. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY. By G. L. GOMME. Illustrated.\n\n\"The fruit of some years of investigation on a subject which has of\nlate attracted much attention, and is of much importance, inasmuch as\nit lies at the basis of our society.\"--_Antiquary._\n\n\nVII. THE CRIMINAL. By HAVELOCK ELLIS. Illustrated.\n\n\"An ably written, an instructive, and a most entertaining book.\"--_Law\nQuarterly Review._\n\n\nVIII. SANITY AND INSANITY. By DR. CHARLES MERCIER. Illustrated.\n\n\"Taken as a whole, it is the brightest book on the physical side of\nmental science published in our time.\"--_Pall Mall Gazette._\n\n\nIX. HYPNOTISM. By DR. ALBERT MOLL. Second Edition.\n\n\"Marks a step of some importance in the study of some difficult\nphysiological and psychological problems which have not yet received\nmuch attention in the scientific world of England.\"--_Nature._\n\n\nX. MANUAL TRAINING. By DR. C. M. WOODWARD, Director of the Manual\nTraining School, St. Louis. Illustrated.\n\n\"There is no greater authority on the subject than Professor\nWoodward.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n\nXI. THE SCIENCE OF FAIRY TALES. By E. SIDNEY HARTLAND.\n\n\"Mr. Hartland's book will win the sympathy of all earnest students,\nboth by the knowledge it displays, and by a thorough love and\nappreciation of his subject, which is evident throughout.\"--_Spectator._\n\n\nXII. PRIMITIVE FOLK. By ELIE RECLUS.\n\n\"For an introduction to the study of the questions of property,\nmarriage, government, religion,--in a word, to the evolution of\nsociety,--this little volume will be found most convenient.\"--_Scottish\nLeader._\n\n\nXIII. THE EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. By Professor LETOURNEAU.\n\n\"Among the distinguished French students of sociology, Professor\nLetourneau has long stood in the first rank. He approaches the great\nstudy of man free from bias and shy of generalisations. To collect,\nscrutinise, and appraise facts is his chief business.\"--_Science._\n\n\nXIV. BACTERIA AND THEIR PRODUCTS. By Dr. G. SIMS WOODHEAD. Illustrated.\n\n\"An excellent summary of the present state of knowledge of the\nsubject.\"--_Lancet._\n\n\nXV. EDUCATION AND HEREDITY. By J. M. GUYAU.\n\n\"It is at once a treatise on sociology, ethics, and r\u00e6dagogics. It\nis doubtful whether among all the ardent evolutionists who have had\ntheir say on the moral and the educational question any one has\ncarried forward the new doctrine so boldly to its extreme logical\nconsequence.\"--Professor SULLY in _Mind_.\n\n\nXVI. THE MAN OF GENIUS. By Professor LOMBROSO. Illustrated.\n\n\"By far the most comprehensive and fascinating collection of facts\nand generalisations concerning genius which has yet been brought\ntogether.\"--_Journal of Mental Science._\n\n\nXVII. THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE. By KARL PEARSON, M.A., Gresham Professor\nof Geometry. Illustrated.\n\n\"The problems discussed with great ability and lucidity, and often in a\nmost suggestive manner, by Prof. Pearson, are such as should interest\n_all_ students of natural science.\"--_Natural Science._\n\n\nXVIII. PROPERTY: ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT. By Professor LETOURNEAU.\n\n\"M. Letourneau has read a great deal, and he seems to us to have\nselected and interpreted his facts with considerable judgment and\nlearning.\"--_Westminster Review._\n\n\nXIX. VOLCANOES: PAST AND PRESENT. By EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.\nWith 45 Illustrations.\n\n\"A very readable account of the phenomena of volcanoes and\nearthquakes.\"--_Nature._\n\n\nXX. PUBLIC HEALTH. By Dr. J. F. J. SYKES. With numerous Illustrations.\n\n\"Takes up essential points in evolution, environment, prophylaxis, and\nsanitation bearing upon the preservation of public health.\"--_Lancet._\n\n\nXXI. MODERN METEOROLOGY. By FRANK WALDO, Ph.D., etc. With 112\nIllustrations.\n\n\"The present volume is the best on the subject for general use that we\nhave seen.\"--_Daily Telegraph._\n\n\nXXII. THE GERM-PLASM: A THEORY OF HEREDITY. By Dr. A. WEISMANN.\nIllustrated.\n\n\"There has been no work published since Darwin's own books which has\nbrought to light so many new facts.\"--_British Medical Journal._\n\n\nXXIII. INDUSTRIES OF ANIMALS. By F. HOUSSAY. Illustrated.\n\n\"His accuracy is undoubted, yet his facts out-marvel all romance. These\nfacts are here made use of as materials wherewith to form the mighty\nfabric of evolution.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n\nXXIV. MAN AND WOMAN: A STUDY OF HUMAN SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS. By\nHAVELOCK ELLIS. With Illustrations.\n\n\"There is no work approaching his [Mr. Ellis's] in exhaustiveness,\naccuracy, and fairness of judgment.\"\n\n\nXXV. THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN CAPITALISM. A STUDY OF MACHINE PRODUCTION.\nBy JOHN A. HOBSON, M. A. With Diagrams.\n\n\nXXVI. APPARITIONS AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE: OR, THE COMMUNICATION OF\nSENSATIONS, IDEAS, AND EMOTIONS OTHERWISE THAN BY THE KNOWN SENSES. By\nFRANK PODMORE. Illustrated.\n\nLondon: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane\n\n * * * * *\n\n +--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n | Transcriber Notes: |\n | |\n | P. 235 'it order' changed to 'in order'. |\n | Add: Contemporary science series. 'couutry' changed to 'country'. |\n | Added contact information at the end of the adds. |\n | Fixed up various punctuation. |\n | Tags that surround text: _Natural Science._ indicate italics, and: |\n | Tags that surround text: =SONGS OF BERANGER= indicate bold text. |\n +--------------------------------------------------------------------+","title":"Apparitions and thought-transference: an examination of the evidence for telepathy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":148012}